Originally shared by Government GangStalking and Electronic HarassmentHELLO VIEWERS
On April 29, 2016 I posted an article of a study that had determined that GMOs are not safe. I am giving you the direct link here for your immediate convenience. Yesterday, on April 30, 2016, a viewer commented that the study I posted was not credible and hence neither were the results of this study. In support of his claims that GMOs were safe he submitted to me the following comment and links to articles indicating multiple studies that resulted in findings that GMOs were safe. See his comment and links below. I accepted the debate because I found his comment legitimate and also because, based on his informative comment, more researched was warranted in order to post a more accurate information.
HIS FIRST COMMENT IS COPIED BELOW:
David Westebbe
This collection lists the discredited Seralini study, and the article pictures one of Seralini's rats.
In other words, the article is knowingly lying to you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY REPLY TO HIS COMMENT IS COPIED BELOW:
+David Westebbe THANKS I WILL RESEARCH THE MATTER FOR ALTERNATIVE STUDIES. IF YOU KNOW OF ANY PLEASE SUBMIT. THANK YOU
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIS REPLY TO MY REPLY IS COPIED BELOW:
David Westebbe
Yesterday 10:56 AM
Here's an article that discusses a meta-study of over 1700 GMO research papers.
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/The article says:
"The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded."
There's lots of other articles discussing the meta-study.
Here's the study itself:
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdfHere's a search string for other articles about the study:
https://www.google.com/search?q=an+overview+of+the+last+10+years+of+genetically+engineered+crop+safety+research&rlz=1CASMAE_enUS576US576&oq=An+overview+of+the+last+10+years+of+genetically+engineered+crop+safety+research&aqs=chrome.0.0.2812j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------- MY REPLY TO HIS REPLY IS COPIED BELOW:
+David Westebbe THANK YOU VERY MUCH I KNOW HOW TO RESEARCH THESE AND I WILL POST MY RESULTS. I WILL ALSO LET YOU KNOW MY RESULTS DIRECTLY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BY THE END OF THE DAY I HAD FINISHED MY RESEARCH AND I REPLIED TO HIM WITH A LENGTHY, WELL RESEARCHED AND FACTUALLY SUPPORTED COMMENT WHOSE CONTENT AND RESULTS I AM POSTING BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT THEM BECAUSE THE CONTENT OF THE POST WAS CHALLENGED BY CONTRARY EVIDENCE AND CLAIMS .
AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE CONTENT OF MY COMMENT, GMOs ARE NOT SAFE AND THE STUDIES WHICH DECLARED GMOs SAFE LACKED MERIT, CONCEALED TOXIC FACTS AND WERE DONE AND/OR FUNDED BY INDUSTRY ENTITIES.
DAVID WESTEBE HAS NOT REPLIED BACK. I AM GUESSING HE IS TILL REVIEWING MY COMMENT OR HE IS RESEARCHING TO DEBUNK IT, WHICH IS A FARE METHOD IN A DEBATE
FEEL FREE TO JUMP INTO THIS DEBATE
MY COMMENT IS COPIED BELOW:
+David Westebbe Hello David
I am done
Thanks again for the opportunity to debate this controversial issue which, due to the controversy attached, it warranted a debate prior to posting accurate claims.
I love debates because, through them, the truth often comes out.
As a result of my brief but adequate research into the matters that you brought forth, I will maintain my position against the safety of GMOs not because your claims against my posted article lack merit but because:
PART A-“There are no epidemiological studies investigating potential effects of GM food consumption on human health.” (Angelika Hilbeck et al, “No Scientific consensus on GMO safety,” Environmental Services Europe; January 24, 2015)
PART B-The same biotech companies who have been found guilty of hiding toxic effects of their chemical products are in charge of determining whether their GM foods are safe, such that industry-funded GMO safety studies were conducted in a deceptive and superficial manner whose results and findings cannot be trusted nor relied upon.
PART C-the so called studies that declared the safety of the GMOs lack merit. Below the dotted line, I have included a list of articles which discredit, in an undisputed and factual manner. the articles you submitted to me in support of the GMO safety related studies and claims therefrom. A brief synopsis is included in some of those links for your immediate convenience. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the article you submitted to me has as its final revision date June 24, 2013, hence, it wrote about studies that took place before said date. Similarly, the 2013 date is also shown in your other article at:
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/ (With 2000+ global studies affirming safety, GM foods among most analyzed subjects in science), October 8, 2013
=================================
1-
http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/sample-page/2-science-regulation/136-2/Myth: The Nicolia review compiles 1700+ studies showing that GMOs are safe
Truth: The review suffers from important omissions, fails to show GMOs are safe, and provides evidence of risk for some GMOs
Myth at a glance
A review by Nicolia and colleagues is widely cited to argue that over 1700 studies show GM foods and crops are safe. However, the studies cited in the Nicolia review and supplementary materials, taken as a whole, do not show that GMOs are safe.
The majority of the articles in the list of 1700 are irrelevant or tangential to assessing the safety of commercialized GM foods and crops for human and animal health and the environment.
The list includes some studies that are relevant to GMO safety and show actual or potential hazards of the GMO to health or the environment. The Nicolia review authors ignore or dismiss these findings without sound scientific justification. They also ignore evidence contradicting key assumptions upon which regulators have based their conclusions that GMOs are safe.
Nicolia and colleagues omit important studies that demonstrate hazards related to GMOs and ignore major controversies over the interpretation of scientific findings on GMOs.
The authors use unscientific justifications for ignoring or dismissing important papers, including their arbitrary decision to include only studies published in the ten years since 2002.
Assembling large but questionable lists of studies supposedly providing evidence of the safety of GMOs has become common practice by GMO proponents. In the long term it will have a corrosive effect on public trust in science.
=================================
2-
https://ban-gmos-now.com/2016/01/18/cbs-gmo-report-disservice-to-americans/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/digging-for-seeds-of-truth-in-gmo-debate/I am compelled to point out that some people say that after changing their diet by eliminating GMO foods, health issues that they have suffered from for years have disappeared. These are quickly dismissed as merely anecdotal tales without any merit at all by pro-GMO supporters. But those same supporters of GMOs use this pseudoscientific method to claim that GMOs are safe. We see that in this video.
How does one determine if a GMO food is safe or not? Usually an assessment would require at least an epidemiological study; however, “There are no epidemiological studies investigating potential effects of GM food consumption on human health.” (Angelika Hilbeck et al, “No Scientific consensus on GMO safety,” Environmental Services Europe; January 24, 2015)
=================================
3-
http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-education/health-risks/ IMP VVV WHO FUNDED THE PRO GMO STUDIES
http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-education/health-risks/Today, the same biotech companies who have been found guilty of hiding toxic effects of their chemical products are in charge of determining whether their GM foods are safe. Industry-funded GMO safety studies are too superficial to find most of the potential dangers, and their voluntary consultations with the FDA are widely criticized as a meaningless façade.[3]
[3] See Part 2, Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2007
DOWNLOAD ARTICLE FROM HERE
http://www.ryerson.ca/foodsecurity/foodfortalk/archive/fftjan07.pdf =================================
4-
http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/03/04/jane-goodall-steven-druker-expose-us-government-fraud-gmos/#.VyTZPNUrKM8Expose US Government Fraud over GMOs
Posted on Mar 4 2015 - 11:41am by Sustainable Pulse
In an acclaimed new book being launched Wednesday in London, American public interest attorney Steven Druker reveals how the US government and leading scientific institutions have systematically misrepresented the facts about GMOs and the scientific research that casts doubt on their safety.
=================================
5-
http://lawatthemargins.com/bioethics-scientific-research-and-the-gmo-debate/Drucker proceeds to illustrate how there is no definitive research on the safety of GMO foods. He quotes David Schubert to counter the assertion that is often made that GMO foods have been proven to be safe.
Schubert writes: “As a medical research scientist who published a comprehensive, peer-reviewed critique of genetically modified food safety testing, I can state confidently that it is false to say such foods and the toxic chemicals they require are extensively tested and proved safe. No producer-independent safety testing, long-term or multigenerational rodent studies or epidemiological studies have been done to support the hypothesis that these foods are safe.”
Instead of making accurate statements on the safety of GMO foods, and demanding integrity and ethics in research, the Scientific American and other professional scientific organizations seem to be advocating for GMO crops. Even pernicious, when independent scientists try to present their studies that question the safety of GMO foods, they are seriously maligned publicly such as was French scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini.
However, Séralini notes that much of the criticism came from industry scientists.
In the absence of publicly-funded independent scientific research, consumers in the GMO debate find themselves in the crossfires of scientists claiming both the dangers and benefits of GMO food crops. I started this piece stating that ultimately the GMO debate is not about pro-science versus anti-science. Rather, it is about corporate influenced scientific research or scientific research grounded in the public good. In this internal battle for the conscience, ethics and integrity of science, scientists ignore Einstein’s ethical caution that technologies, including genetic engineering, should be developed with scientific certainty that people’s health and safety will not be impacted. In the GMO debate, while the fate of people, their health, and environment are at stake, so are the ethics, credibility and integrity of scientific research.
=================================
6-
http://usrtk.org/the-fda-does-not-test-whether-gmos-are-safe/Yet, even though the FDA has acknowledged the flaws in its own premise of “substantial equivalence,” the underlying policy lives on – now without any justification at all.
So, the FDA states that it is “confident” about the safety of GMOs currently in the marketplace. But it does not itself conduct safety testing on GMOs. It does not sponsor independent safety testing. It does not require independent safety testing. It does not require long-term safety testing, to uncover ill effects that have delayed onset. It does not have access to the full data and content of all industry safety testing. And it does not require post-market epidemiological testing. Without such testing, and full access to industry data, the FDA cannot credibly decree, declare or certify that GMOs are safe.
=================================
7-
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insight/pro-gmo-database-monsanto-most-common-funder-gmo-researchPro-GMO Database: Monsanto is the Most Common Funder of GMO Research
Pro-GMO advocacy group Biofortified announced that the group’s much-hyped GENERA database of GMO research is now available for public review in a trial version.
Update, 10/1/14: Because of an internal miscommunication, this blog was very briefly posted with the wrong headline that mistakenly stated that the GENERA database was funded by Monsanto instead of saying studies in the database were funded by Monsanto. After the author noted the problem, the blog was corrected within hours of its original posting in mid-September. We regret the error
09.16.14
By Tim Schwab
The pro-GMO advocacy group Biofortified announced in late August that the group’s much-hyped GENERA database of GMO research is now available for public review in a trial version. Though the database contains only a fraction of the GMO research available (400 of 1200 studies, according to Biofortified), this hasn’t stopped the group from drawing sweeping conclusions about what the science says.
The partisan group has always incorrectly stated that the scientific literature shows that GMOs are safe. But with the release of GENERA, the group now boasts that “half of GMO research is independent,” and notes that this finding “should turn the heads of people who thought it was skewed to private, U.S.-based laboratories.”
My head is turning—at the partisan spin that Biofortified continually employs.
First, Biofortified draws its funding conclusion not on its analysis of all GMO research, but only the 400 studies currently available in the GENERA database.
Second, 83 of the 400 studies do not disclose a funding source, meaning there is a major gap in funding data. Biofortified doesn’t say much about this, predictably, so allow me. The fact that authors are not disclosing all sources of funding (and conflicts of interest) presents an obvious avenue for biased research to enter the scientific discourse. If Biofortified is committed to independent science, it should be strenuously calling for full disclosure, not sweeping these findings under the rug.
Third, Biofortified’s deeply flawed funding analysis doesn’t accurately or comprehensively reflect industry influence.
For example, Biofortified doesn’t consider the impact of industry authorship on independence. If the pro-GMO Gates Foundation funds a study that is authored by a Monsanto scientist, should we really call that study “independent?” Biofortified apparently thinks so.
Biofortified has also mislabeled funders as being independent when they are not.
The Monsanto-funded American Society of Nutrition, which co-funded a journal article with Monsanto, is labeled by Biofortified as an “independent” group. Incredibly, if you search for all studies funded by “independent” non-governmental organizations, you find that Monsanto co-funded 10 percent of these 30 studies, calling into question the “independence” of these NGOs.
Did I mention that Monsanto is the most common funder in the database? That’s what the data analysis tool in GENERA shows. Monsanto funded 46 of the journal articles in the database (probably a larger number if you count all Monsanto subsidiaries), which is more than 10 percent of the studies. It is likely that the USDA is actually the largest funder of studies in GENERA, but Biofortified’s coding makes it difficult to tell.
It is worth mentioning that when Biofortified says half of all GMO research is “independent,” most of that is funded by government agencies, many of which are active GMO supporters or promoters, like the USDA. Or consider the “independent” UK-government-funded Biotechnology and Biological Research Council, which officially supports GMOs, invests in GMO research, and regularly collaborates with biotech companies like Monsanto. It’s also “independent.”
We knew at the outset that GENERA wasn’t likely to be a useful tool to anyone except the biotech industry and its supporters. It is a partisan effort built on a mountain of biases, and, predictably, it is being used (poorly) to distort the public discourse on GMOs in the very same way that it distorts the science.
If you are curious about what the scientific literature really says about GMOs, check out the work of hundreds of international scientists, whose findings openly challenge the partisans at Biofortified by proclaiming that not only is there no consensus on the safety of GMOs, there is actually some cause for concern.
And if you want to learn more about the flaws in industry’s claims about the supposed “scientific consensus” about the safety of GMOs, check out our new issue brief.
Or, you can blindly trust Biofortified to “read the studies so you don’t have to.”
Update, 10/1/14: Because of an internal miscommunication, this blog was very briefly posted with the wrong headline that mistakenly stated that the GENERA database was funded by Monsanto instead of saying studies in the database were funded by Monsanto. After the author noted the problem, the blog was corrected within hours of its original posting in mid-September. We regret the error.
=================================
8-
http://smallplanet.org/content/review-studies-where-authors-conflicts-interest-gmo-industry-conclude-gmos-safeReview of studies where authors with conflicts of interest with GMO industry conclude GMOs safe
Fast Fact Content:
- See more at:
http://smallplanet.org/content/review-studies-where-authors-conflicts-interest-gmo-industry-conclude-gmos-safe#sthash.2dyf8mBz.dpuf"A review of 94 published studies on health risks and nutritional value of GM crops found that they were much more likely to reach favourable conclusions when the authors were affiliated with the GM industry than when the authors had no industry affiliation.
=================================
9-
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/commercial.htmlHow commercial interests influence peer reviewed articles on GM health and safety
This careful paper by Johan Diels and colleagues is highly relevant to the debate on GM health and safety issues. Over and again, our own regulators (including EFSA, FSA and ACNFP) claim that they can only take seriously "peer-reviewed" studies relating the effects of GM crops and foods in the food chain -- and the underpinning assumption is that all of these studies are 100% reliable simply because they have been peer-reviewed.
We all know that that is nonsense, since scientific papers can be manipulated, or use carefully selected data sets, or even be fraudulent, without deep defects necessarily being picked up by referees and journal editors. Indeed, the corruption is not necessarily restricted to the authors of papers. Editors can easily kill or approve papers by carefully choosing their referees to achieve a desired effect; and corruption can run far deeper than that, as we saw with the famous case of Nature Biotechnology and Irina Ermakova a few years ago.
In the past, Jack Heinemann, Judy Carman and others have flagged up the bias inherent in the GM journal publishing scene, and it's not a bad thing that this has come up again now -- and to remind ourselves that even if an article claims that a particular GM product is safe to eat, it ain't necessarily so........
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VCB-51S6FY9-1/2/08d7c6d3dab66367125cf64e3140e87c NOTE: Research published in a leading scientific journal concludes that commercial interests help shape the findings of peer reviewed articles on the health risks of genetically modified plants.
The study shows:
*a strong association between author affiliation to the GM industry (Professional Conflict of Interest)and study outcome
*at least one of the authors was connected to industry in almost half the GM health and nutrition studies analysed
*where there was such a conflict of interest, 100% of the studies (41 out of 41) made a favourable GM safety finding
*conflicts of interest are much less likely to be declared where authors affiliate to the GM industry
*more than half (52%) of the 94 analyzed articles did not declare funding source
*proportionally more articles with undeclared funding ended up with conclusions favorable to industry
*in 83% of the cases where funding was actually declared, none of the authors was directly affiliated with industry
*studies funded by industry or involving scientists employed by industry are almost certain to produce conclusions in favor of product commercialization
----------------------------------Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products.
Diels, J., M. Cunha, et al. (2011). Food Policy 36: 197–203
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VCB-51S6FY9-1/2/08d7c6d3dab66367125cf64e3140e87c Abstract
Since the first commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops in 1994, the rapidly expanding market of genetically modified seeds has given rise to a multibillion dollar industry. This fast growth, fueled by high expectations towards this new commercial technology and shareholder trust in the involved industry, has provided strong incentives for further research and development of new genetically modified plant varieties. Considering, however, the high financial stakes involved, concerns are raised over the influence that conflicts of interest may place upon articles published in peer-reviewed journals that report on health risks or nutritional value of genetically modified food products.
In a study involving 94 articles selected through objective criteria, it was found that the existence of either financial or professional conflict of interest was associated to study outcomes that cast genetically modified products in a favorable light (p = 0.005). While financial conflict of interest alone did not correlate with research results (p = 0.631), a strong association was found between author affiliation to industry (professional conflict of interest) and study outcome (p < 0.001). We discuss these results by comparing them to similar studies on conflicts of interest in other areas, such as biomedical sciences, and hypothesize on dynamics that may help explain such connections.
Conclusion
The presence of COI in scientific research does not imply actual behavior of study authors. But it does present a risk that the study outcome may be improperly influenced. This study has focused on how commercial interests may interfere with outcomes of risk and nutrition analysis studies of products derived from GM plants. This is a choice justified by the high financial stakes involved in the development of such products and the increasing weight of private funding in research in recent years. Through statistical analysis of a selected population of studies in the described area, it could be shown that a combined analysis of COIs through professional affiliations or direct research funding are likely to influence the final outcome of such studies in the commercial interest of the involved industry. Our results partially confirm those observed in biomedical sciences, tobacco, alcohol and nutrition research.
Various hypothesis could be identified that may explain the observed association between study outcome and presence of financial COI: publication restrictions imposed by industry funders; contractual agreements of authors with industry; industry bias favoring friendly research; and researchers that are sensitive to the financial interests of their industrial sponsors or employers. Apart from the observed relations, it was considered that types of funding other than industry, such as governments and NGOs may also condition investigation. Additionally, values held by scientists may influence research outcomes as well.
Our data reinforce the need to that all affiliations whether financial or professional should be openly declared in scientific publications. In situations where health risk assessments or nutritional evaluation studies of GM products serve to inform decision makers, procedures could be developed to minimize the risk of decisions being taken based on study outcomes that have been influenced by conflicts of interest. This may best be achieved by giving preference towards peer-reviewed studies where no COI can be observed.
===============================
10-
http://naturalsociety.com/81-gm-crops-approved-scientific-safety-studies/Report: 81% of GM Crops Approved Without Adequate Safety Studies thanks to biotech-government ties
Read more:
http://naturalsociety.com/81-gm-crops-approved-scientific-safety-studies/#ixzz47KWgACGo Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook
by Christina Sarich
Posted on November 21, 2014
What’s a recipe for environmental mayhem and the destruction of human health? The approval of genetically modified organisms by governments worldwide without any scientific safety studies. A new study published by the risk-assessment journal Environment International states that of the GM crops approved for planting and marketing globally, 81% were not studied for possible health and environmental safety risks.
Nevertheless, the biotech industry keeps touting GMO ‘benefits’ like a narcissistic madman on steroids. This chest beating continues – despite a complete lack of published, peer-reviewed research supporting the safety of genetically modified organisms.
The researchers of the risk-assessment study looked at GM crops engineered either for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) or engineered to produce pesticides in their tissues due to the expression of cry1Ab or cry3Bb1 genes. Of all the bioengineering tricks up Monsanto and Syngenta’s sleeves, these are the most commonly used in commercial GM crops.
A whopping 47 GM crop varieties meet these conditions and have been given approval by agencies like the USDA, the FDA, and other regulatory bodies around the world. When the researchers did a search for peer-reviewed studies on these crops prior to their approval so that they could tell if the agencies were relying on published vs. secret, industry-led studies, their findings were indeed telling.
The approval of these crops was based entirely on industry-biased data. Only 18 peer-reviewed studies could be found which assessed the safety of any of the 47 GM crops that have been given a rubber stamp, and only 9 of the 47 crop varieties were studied. This means that the remaining 38 GMO varieties were approved with zero credible scientific evidence of their safety.
This is an incontrovertible piece of evidence that Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, Bayer, Cargill, the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association, and others have completely swayed government opinion about GMO safety based on manufactured to appease ‘experts.’ Experts who are supposed to assess the possible toxicity of any food or beverage we consume. This means that GMOs got the green light without safety assessments by independent scientists. No government-appointed shills should be making decisions about our food supply with such little risk assessment conducted.
The new study does suffer from one major limitation, however, since it looked only for published studies involving feeding rats the GM crop in question and then monitoring them for health effects. There are obviously other ways to conduct safety tests, but these were not conducted either.
Furthermore, these companies did indeed test their own crops and hid the results from regulators, even when they knew their toxic GMO products could cause serious health risks. The biotech industry has called these tests a ‘commercial secret’ even when they knowingly promote GMOs while they causes harm. The pesticides and herbicides marketed to go hand-in-hand with GM crop sales are subject to the same ‘scrutiny’ as GMO crops themselves. A 2014 study in the journal BioScience found that the pesticide-approval process has been very similar.
“Risk assessment is compromised when relatively few studies are used to determine impacts, particularly if most of the data used in an assessment are produced by a pesticide’s manufacturer, which constitutes a conflict of interest. Although manufacturers who directly profit from chemical sales should continue to bear the costs of testing, this can be accomplished without [conflicts of interest] by an independent party with no potential for financial gain from the outcome and with no direct ties to the manufacturer.”
===============================
11-
http://www.scienceforthepublic.org/assets/154/STHV%20GMO%20ILLUSORY%20CONSENSUS.pdfAn Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment Sheldon Krimsky1 Abstract Prominent scientists and policymakers assert with confidence that there is no scientific controversy over the health effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—that genetically modified crops currently in commercial use and those yet to be commercialized are inherently safe for human consumption and do not have to be tested. Those who disagree are cast as ‘‘GMO deniers.’’
This article examines scientific reviews and papers on GMOs, compares the findings of professional societies, and discusses the treatment of scientists who have reported adverse effects in animal feeding experiments. This article concludes by exploring the role that politics and corporate interests have had in distorting an honest inquiry into the health effects of GMO crops.
Science, Technology, & Human Values 1-32 ª The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0162243915598381
My results have broad implications for the study of scientific and medical controversies, whether climate change, endocrine disruptors, statins, or mercury preservatives in vaccines. STS scholarship is best accomplished when it approaches a controversial issue systemically and includes a deep analysis of the primary science, a review of the function of professional societies, an analysis of the peer review process of journals, a study of the political climate and its impact on science and on federal regulatory agencies which set policy, the media’s role in shaping public understanding or misunderstanding, and the role that financial interests play in scientific risk analysis. All of these factors are brought into play in the GMO debate, about which I have argued that the putative consensus about the inherent safety of transgenic crops is premature
===============================
12-
http://www.mintpressnews.com/hundreds-of-scientists-warn-no-consensus-on-safety-of-genetically-modified-crops/206427/Hundreds Of Scientists Warn: No Consensus On Safety Of Genetically Modified Crops
Despite the oft-repeated message in the media that GMO foods are safe, researchers insist long-term studies are still needed.
By MintPress News Desk | June 10, 2015
===============================
13-
http://althealthworks.com/3695/a-new-database-of-gmo-studies-was-just-released-guess-how-many-have-financial-ties-to-big-biotech/A New Database of GMO Studies Was Just Released, Guess How Many Have Financial Ties to Big Biotech
by Nick Meyer | August 29, 2014
- See more at:
http://althealthworks.com/3695/a-new-database-of-gmo-studies-was-just-released-guess-how-many-have-financial-ties-to-big-biotech/#sthash.cM0xYsgh.dpuf Big Biotech corporations and their allies in the U.S. government are fond of boasting about how oft-tested genetically modified organisms are, but can most of this research really stand up to outside scrutiny?
According to journalist Claire Robinson who authored this breakdown of a new database of GMO studies, the answer is a resounding “no.”
The article goes as far as to say that the new “big list of studies” provided by the pro-GMO group Biology Fortified, Inc. (BFI) is “demonstrably false,” while also discussing the results of a review by John Diels and colleagues, who found a shocking pattern of outright bias affecting the health risks and nutritional assessments of GMOs.
- See more at:
http://althealthworks.com/3695/a-new-database-of-gmo-studies-was-just-released-guess-how-many-have-financial-ties-to-big-biotech/#sthash.cM0xYsgh.dpufNew Database Packed with Biased Pro-GMO Research
The new database of GMO studies, titled GENERA, was announced in a recent press release by BFI which implies that most GMO research is “government-funded and worldwide in scope.”
“These findings should turn the heads of people who thought it was skewed to private, U.S.-based laboratories,” the press release says.
But the subsequent headlines are being called a “misleading piece of spin” by Robinson, which noted the Diels study’s results from 2011 (before pointing out other more recent conflicts of interest occurring more recently):
Diels found that 47% of the studies had at least one author with a professional or financial affiliation to the GMO industry or an organization tied to it. The rest of the studies’ authors either had no such conflict of interest (39%) or gave insufficient information about funding sources to judge (14%).
According to Robinson, the “industry-linked studies were much more likely to find that the GMO was safe,” while those with no conflict of interest were more likely to reach less-than-favorable conclusions about the GMOs in question.
But the BFI doesn’t acknowledge this, instead touting their new database as an example of how “independently researched” GMOs supposedly have been.
Studies Show a Pattern of Harm from GMOs
While the industry standard for animal feeding studies are always capped at 90 days, several independent studies have shown harmful effects following this 90 day period, including the famous study by French researcher Gilles-Eric Séralini which showed large tumors and other serious internal health problems in rats.
The Séralini study was heavily criticized by pro-GMO interests immediately after publication, as the multi-billion dollar industry rushed to calm public fears and to protect its vast financial interests.
It was a classic example of how independent research is routinely attacked when it produces unfavorable conclusions on GMOs, and was eventually retracted from the journal it was originally published in, Food and Chemical Toxicology (but only after powerful pro-GMO interests rallied and organized against it).
Following the publication of the study in the journal, 11 of 13 letters to the editor actually had undisclosed financial relationships with Monsanto, including Paul Christou, the editor of Transgenic Research who is an investor on patents on GM technology, many of which Monsanto owns. At the journal itself, a new position for associate editor was actually created and filled by Richard E. Goodman, a professor from the University of Nebraska who previously worked for Monsanto.
The study was criticized for the type of rat that was used, but it was actually the same strain that Monsanto uses on its 90-day studies on GM foods and long-term studies of glyphosate, just utilized in a new type of study that went on for long than 90 days. This is just one instance of how double standards were used to “invalidate” the study’s findings.A few months later, FCT’s publisher Monsanto announced that Seralini’s paper had been retracted in yet another textbook example of how the industry attacks independent science.
After a long political bout with the GMO companies, vindication came to Séralini and his team after a rigorous peer review led to the study’s republication recently, this time in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe. A large percentage of GMO research is conducted by people with financial ties to Biotech, a GMWatch report says.
“Safety” Proclamations Ignore Red Flags on GMOs
Unfortunately, another key point the BFI’s database misses is just how glaring the lack of “official” 90-plus day studies are on GMOs.
As the Institute for Responsible Technology puts it:
Short studies could easily miss many serious effects of GMOs. It is well established that some pesticides and drugs, for example, can create effects that are passed on through generations, only showing up decades later. In the case of the drug DES (diethylstilbestrol), “induced female genital cancers among other problems in the second generation.” The authors urge regulators to require long-term multi-generational studies, to “provide evidence of carcinogenic, developmental, hormonal, neural, and reproductive potential dysfunctions, as it does for pesticides or drugs.”
And then there are the studies in the database with shocking conclusions that are not mentioned in the press release from the BFI.
One on GM potatoes found that rats had gut cell growth that resembled pre-cancerous conditions, and another found kidney and liver damage in rats fed GM Bt corn over three generations.
The BFI also mentions “unnamed systematic reviews” according to Robinson that claim GMOs are safe, but one particular review includes many serious defects including improper study classification, studies on fish and birds (which are not relevant to assessing human risks), including studies where animals were removed for unknown reasons that determined GMOs were “safe” and much more.
Considering the biased nature of both the organization behind this database and the financial and ethical conflicts of the researchers themselves, can we really trust the version of the truth the BFI is attempting to sell to the general public? Unfortunately some publications like AgProfessional have begun publishing headlines that align with the false narrative of “independently verified safety” pushed by the BFI, but there’s still plenty of time to call the pro-GMO organization out on their quest to bend the truth.
For more information on the misleading nature of the BFI’s “database of GMO safety studies,” and their aim to mislead the general public, check out Robinson’s article from the website GMWatch by clicking on this link.
- See more at:
http://althealthworks.com/3695/a-new-database-of-gmo-studies-was-just-released-guess-how-many-have-financial-ties-to-big-biotech/#sthash.cM0xYsgh.dpuf ===============================
14-
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/92/art%253A10.1186%252Fs12302-014-0034-1.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1186%2Fs12302-014-0034-1&token2=exp=1462034862~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F92%2Fart%25253A10.1186%25252Fs12302-014-0034-1.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.1186%252Fs12302-014-0034-1*~hmac=3c0c9afabcdce2f1d2f3f023128d242d39e13feabf0beccf6287d6bb27796e92 Hilbeck et al. Environmental Sciences Europe (2015) 27:4 DOI 10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1
No scientific consensus on GMO safety Angelika Hilbeck1,2*, Rosa Binimelis1,3, Nicolas Defarge1,4,5, Ricarda Steinbrecher1,6, András Székács1,7, Fern Wickson1,3, Michael Antoniou8 , Philip L Bereano9 ,
Abstract
A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent claims of a consensus over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the following joint statement, the claimed consensus is shown to be an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often uncritically aired. For decades, the safety of GMOs has been a hotly controversial topic that has been much debated around the world.
Published results are contradictory, in part due to the range of different research methods employed, an inadequacy of available procedures, and differences in the analysis and interpretation of data.
Such a lack of consensus on safety is also evidenced by the agreement of policymakers from over 160 countries - in the UN’s Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius - to authorize careful case-by-case assessment of each GMO by national authorities to determine whether the particular construct satisfies the national criteria for ‘safe’. Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding independent of proprietary interests.
Research for the public good has been further constrained by property rights issues, and by denial of access to research material for researchers unwilling to sign contractual agreements with the developers, which confer unacceptable control over publication to the proprietary interests. The joint statement developed and signed by over 300 independent researchers, and reproduced and published below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of GMOs.
===============================
15-ADDITIONAL LINKS WITH SELF EXPLANATORY ANTI-GMO INFORMATION
http://gmwatch.org/news/archive/2014/15618-biology-fortified-misleads-the-public-on-gmo-safety (Biology Fortified, Inc. misleads the public on GMO safety-2014 articles)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/9/1430054/-From-Watchdogs-to-Lapdogs-How-the-Mainstream-Media-Misleads-Us-On-GMOshttp://www.naturalnews.com/037467_Whole_Foods_marketing_fraud_GMO.htmlhttp://www.projectcensored.org/7-independent-study-points-to-dangers-of-genetically-altered-foods/https://ban-gmos-now.com/2016/01/18/cbs-gmo-report-disservice-to-americans/http://responsibletechnology.org/references-part-1/http://responsibletechnology.org/irtnew/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/IRT-Sponsored-Article-Print-3-15-16-3.pdfhttp://www.wanttoknow.info/deception10pghttp://www.democracynow.org/2014/10/31/the_gmo_deception_sheldon_krimsky_on http://responsibletechnology.org/irtnew/docs/industry-studies-are-flawed.pdf (Industry Studies on GMOs Are Often Flawed by Design and Fail to Reveal Effects)
http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/reports/gm_safety_001.php (Perspective Matters: Bias and Conflict of Interest in Studies About Genetically Modified Organisms Posted: July 2014)
https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/five-ways-fda-has-failed-consumers-genetically-engineered-foods http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/ (2014)
I BELIEVE I MADE SOME GOOD CONCLUSIVE POINTS IN SUPPORT OF MY ANTI-GMO POSITION.
IF YOU CAN DEBUNK THESE PLEASE LET ME KNOW WITH A DETAILED RESEARCH OF YOUR OWN THAT WOULD BE VERY HARD TO DEBUNK. THIS ONE WAS TOO EASY FOR ME
NICE TO HAVE DEBATED AN ISSUE WITH YOU
Regards
Eleni
