I find myself constantly talking about GMO's to non-biologists

[chadn737]

That 40% included the landscape, and was used as the minimum for resistance prediction because the landscape at issue was already at greater than 50% refuge almost throughout.

 

Not that that makes any difference. Monsanto would never have been allowed to plant that stuff if their official prediction of resistance time in the real world deployment was four years - so it wasn't. It was 111 years, minimum.

 

 

 

You mean the actual deployment Monsanto in fact implemented created resistance almost immediately? Why yes - and that was predicted by the critics, as I posted way back there, based on Darwinian theory and experience with related situations and the known behaviors of agribusiness.

 

That was one reason they were trying to get it stopped.

 

So the hippies and organic food nuts and all the rest of the derided crowd were - again - correct,

 

and after several years of listening to self-anointerd experts assure us that Monsanto was establishing adequate refuges when they weren't, and listening to GMO proponents assure us that these corporations like Monsanto had the most to lose by resistance development and so we could count on them to prevent it, and listening to random whackjobs take over the media to tell us that Bt cotton and corn and so forth were just like regular breeding of crops,

 

we are now seeing, right in front of our eyes, GMO proponents claim this mess was the expected result all along, we should blame the government if we don't like it, and it has nothing to do with whether GMOs are safe.

 

You do realize that these models were part of a submitted study to the EPA in 2004, right?

 

Do you recall when Bt cotton was first released? Let me remind you and everyone, it was in 1996. This prediction is 8 years after the fact and specifically relates to Monsanto's 2nd generation Bollgard II lines which carry two different Cry proteins with two different modes of action.

 

These were not the predictions and models made for the 1st generation lines of which there is detectable resistance. Those predictions were made back in the 1990s when Bt cotton was first being tested. I already linked you to one paper in an earlier post.

 

If we are going to talk about the predictions and development of resistance, then the predictions have to match the technology/lines under discussion. You are trying to apply a 2004 paper on a 2nd generation technology to the confirmed resistance to first generation lines developed in the 1990s. That is incorrect.

[vampares]

GMO crops are produced by a guy who sprays herbicide on seed fields and the survivors are considered GMO. This is no joke.

 

I personally dislike even associating with the GMO concept. Especially if the forebrain of the operation does not have clear and concise methodology. In this instance, forebraein completely removed, I don't like herbicides. So there.

[John Cuthber]

Just a quick reminder.

There were plants which carried genes that rendered them immune to glyphosate, before glyphosate was ever synthesised.

 

 

Spraying the weed-killer will have promoted the spread of that ability.

With selection pressure like that, the emergence of resistance was inevitable.

 

GMO only had an indirect effect on this.

 

With or without GM technology we would have monocultures and glyphosate resistance.

 

Incidentally, the "victim" of resistance to glyphosate is the people who make it- largely Monsanto.

If all the weeds were immune they wouldn't be able to sell the stuff. The farmers can always find another weedkiller.

Monsanto knew this and therefore put measures in place to reduce the likelihood (or, more realistically defer the start ) of glyphosate resistance.

[vampares]

Is that like running up behind people straight arm and and pushing them off bridges teaches them to fly?

[chadn737]

GMO crops are produced by a guy who sprays herbicide on seed fields and the survivors are considered GMO. This is no joke.

 

I personally dislike even associating with the GMO concept. Especially if the forebrain of the operation does not have clear and concise methodology. In this instance, forebraein completely removed, I don't like herbicides. So there.

 

Is that like running up behind people straight arm and and pushing them off bridges teaches them to fly?

 

You are merely espousing personal preference, not valid scientific arguments. I really have nothing to say to that except if you don't like it, don't eat it. There is more expensive, more environmentally damaging "organic" options to everything.

Edited March 23, 2014 by chadn737

[overtone]

Do you recall when Bt cotton was first released? Let me remind you and everyone, it was in 1996. This prediction is 8 years after the fact and specifically relates to Monsanto's 2nd generation Bollgard II lines which carry two different Cry proteins with two different modes of action.

Monsanto's prediction of 111 years was made for both single line Bt cotton backed up with pyrethrin in late stages of moth generation each year, and the double line backed up by nothing - since it didn't need it, according to Monsanto, to prevent resistance.

 

Monsanto was seeking an extension of registration for the single line, as well as registration for the dual.

 

It was based on 40% refuge, which is 20% less than the 50% provided by almost all the landscape at the time - according to Monsanto. So it was based on farmers providing no refugia at all over most of the target landscape of initial deployment. The EPA response linked above questioned that - but accepted Monsanto's answer, obviously, because the stuff was approved, the registration extended.

 

The fact that the stuff was already out there and already showing signs of generating resistance to Bt - as all the hippies and organic food nuts had pointed out was the likely result from day one - highlights the lack of integrity of Monsanto.

 

 

Spraying the weed-killer will have promoted the spread of that ability.

With selection pressure like that, the emergence of resistance was inevitable.

 

GMO only had an indirect effect on this.

Newly emergent resistance can be dealt with, if one is spot spraying - the analogy with antibiotics is all but perfect: it will emerge inevitably over enough time and use, but slowly, transiently, locally, reversibly.

 

What GMOs are causing, directly, is the rapid development and semi-permanent establishment of often generalized resistance in the landscape.

 

 

Incidentally, the "victim" of resistance to glyphosate is the people who make it- largely Monsanto.

And this is what the "scientific" people are saying when they are "talking to non-biologists".

 

Monsanto's executive class has made a ton of money, for keepsies apparently, while all the rest of us are deprived of one of the best categories of agricultural biocides there is at our cost and without compensation, and many are committed to ongoing relationships with Monsanto or one of the other half dozen profit centers at whatever price they find that damaged and manipulated "market" will bear.

 

Once again we see the need for "talking to non-biologists" to involve some better "listening to non-biologists" - or even "listening to some better biologists".

Edited March 23, 2014 by overtone

[chadn737]

Monsanto's prediction of 111 years was made for both single line Bt cotton backed up with pyrethrin in late stages of moth generation each year, and the double line backed up by nothing - since it didn't need it, according to Monsanto, to prevent resistance.

 

Monsanto was seeking an extension of registration for the single line, as well as registration for the dual.

 

It was based on 40% refuge, which is 20% less than the 50% provided by almost all the landscape at the time - according to Monsanto. So it was based on farmers providing no refugia at all over most of the target landscape of initial deployment. The EPA response linked above questioned that - but accepted Monsanto's answer, obviously, because the stuff was approved, the registration extended.

 

The fact that the stuff was already out there and already showing signs of generating resistance to Bt - as all the hippies and organic food nuts had pointed out was the likely result from day one - highlights the lack of integrity of Monsanto.

 

Ironically, the only reason why pyrethroids are an option now for treating TBW and CBW is because of Bt cotton. Resistance to these developed in the 80s and early 90s, leading to nearly complete uselessness in 1995. With the introduction of Bt cotton in 1996, their use declined rapidly, removing selective pressure. Since then, they have again become effective as the resistant insects are less fit in the absence of strong pyrethroid use. So we should not assume that resistance is a one way street.

 

The key factor here is the assumption of pyrethroid use. As pointed out in the EPA review, if unsprayed, this decreases to 8 years with 40% effective refuge for Bollgard, not Bollgard II. As of 2004, Bollgard had already been in use for 8 years. Confirmed resistance for first generation Bts were known in 2004. The final EPA review evaluated cases of resistance and again reaffirmed the results assuming pyrethroids were used correctly in Bollgard.

 

Whether or not pyrethroids have been applied properly as recommended is a key factor. Its not so simplistic as claiming that these are the models and you really are misrepresenting the situation. As I stated in my last post, this is a 2004 model and not the original model used in modeling resistance for the original approval of Bt.

 

As I have stated elsewhere, health is not affected by Bt resistance. You are not harmed by it. Of course, you have already contradicted yourself by claiming it unsafe and then stating it safe.

 

Of all the arguments against GMOs: health risks, environmental risks, reduced genetic diversity, the only one that has any real support are claims of resistance...the least of all evils. The impact is on the farmers who use the technology. The only way to avoid resistance is not to use it period, which makes it just as ineffective as when it is abused. Resistance is a concern only from the perspective of pest management. No means of managing pests is full-proof. Pests do develop resistance to natural genetic variation as well. Weeds even adapt to cultivation and tillage. The way to address this is not to oppose the technology, but to continue to develop new methods and take a multi-pronged approach. Nature is always evolving and this idea that we can avoid resistance at all is a child's dream. I'm the son of a farmer, the grandson of a farmer, the great-grandson of a farmer, and the nephew of a farmer. I've seen all aspects of this played out on the farm itself and I've seen more benefits, both economically to farmers and too the environment to say that we should not use the technologies available. The effects of reduced tillage due to roundup, reduced pesticides due to Bt have saved top soil through no-till and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. How to trade off those benefits against the inevitable risk of resistance to any technology?

 

Newly emergent resistance can be dealt with, if one is spot spraying - the analogy with antibiotics is all but perfect: it will emerge inevitably over enough time and use, but slowly, transiently, locally, reversibly.

What GMOs are causing, directly, is the rapid development and semi-permanent establishment of often generalized resistance in the landscape.

 

And this is what the "scientific" people are saying when they are "talking to non-biologists".

Monsanto's executive class has made a ton of money, for keepsies apparently, while all the rest of us are deprived of one of the best categories of agricultural biocides there is at our cost and without compensation, and many are committed to ongoing relationships with Monsanto or one of the other half dozen profit centers at whatever price they find that damaged and manipulated "market" will bear.

Once again we see the need for "talking to non-biologists" to involve some better "listening to non-biologists" - or even "listening to some better biologists".

 

 

Monsanto invented Glyphosate. Farmers wouldn't have it period if not for Monsanto.

 

So if I understand you correctly, you believe farmers should be compensated for overusing Monsanto's own product, without which they wouldn't have the option?

 

And Monsanto is actually very concerned about resistance. They have long been working on a second generation of herbicide resistant soybeans to increase the effectiveness. This is part of their RR2 products and a few other technologies that are not yet on the market.

As a side note, this was an amusing article about conspiracy theorists and organic food.

Edited March 24, 2014 by chadn737

[For Prose]

Overtone, you seem to largely ignore Chad's accusations of using emotive force, as well as clear use of informal fallacies. You should address this, as it is very difficult to read what you post.

 

Chad, can you tell me more about your claim that organic food is more environmentally damaging?

[chadn737]

Chad, can you tell me more about your claim that organic food is more environmentally damaging?

 

Organic food relies heavily on tillage to control weeds. Tillage is the number one factor driving soil erosion and nutrient runoff. Its also very energy intensive, requiring more trips across the field and more fuel consumption due to the power required. The use of herbicides like Roundup are the primary factor that have driven the increase in No-till farming the last ~20 years. So from this alone you have reduced fuel consumption, reduced CO2 emissions, reduced soil erosion, reduced nutrient runoff.

 

Secondly, organic crops typically yield half as much, with considerable variation depending on the crop, as non-organic. In order to provide the same output in production, you would have to double or more the number of acres under tillage. This would mean pulling land out of conservation reserve, natural habitat, and utilizing land at higher risk and lower quality, leading to further damage.

 

Organic production is really a luxury. I actually refuse to buy organic food unless its not an option. I don't blame organic farmers. Back when I was an undergraduate in Agronomy and considering going back and farming, I studied organic farming intensely because the premiums were so much higher and at the time conventionally produced corn and soybean prices were horrible. I was also driven by the claims of sustainability, which continue to be of important concern to me. However, I increasingly became disillusioned of its claims of sustainability and environmental benefits. Its still very profitable for many farmers, but I recognize now that the perception of actual health or environmental benefits are all marketing ploys.

Edited March 24, 2014 by chadn737

[chadn737]

Another long term study. This one a two generational study of rats fed Bt rice. No differences observed.

Edited March 25, 2014 by chadn737

[vampares]

That study doesn't state the duration of the diet, if the rats were raised on the diet or if the rats had other food to eat as well during the study. You have posted what is potentially career suicide if I cannot find the instrument of this interesting paper.

 

I'm just saying this, you know rats don't normally eat rice at all.

 

anyways

 

The GMO may have differences of substance due to the lack of certain genetic characteristics. The (anomalous) lack of a trait is more common than is the presence of, say, multiple copies of a gene.

Edited March 25, 2014 by vampares

[overtone]

Another long term study. This one a two generational study of rats fed Bt rice. No differences observed.

A better illustration of the bizarre cluelessness of the typical GMO promulgator would be hard to invent.

 

1) The study was not "long term" - it did not run for even one entire lifetime of any of the rat groups involved. ( In the case of something fed to people, rats probably don't live long enough for an actual "long term" study. )

 

2) The report date of that minimal, baby step Chinese study was November last year, and the study claims to be filling a gap, presenting new research, concerning Bt rice intended for human consumption - more than four years after China itself first approved Bt rice for human consumption, and began its initial rollout of commercial Bt rice production.

 

That, as I pointed out earlier with an also-misrepresented "long term" (less than nine month) glyphosate hog feeding study published in 2012 , is not just evidence but something close to proof of my claim that safety studies on these GMOs are not being done.

 

3) The study was considerably less rigorous than, say, the Seralini glyphosate study GMO proponents forced into still unexplained retraction. It involves fewer rats, a shorter time, less complete investigation, and much less complete publication of methods and results. GMO promulgators apparently do not notice such things, with this study or any other yielding similar claims by the authors.

 

4) The article did in fact mention several "differences", contrary to the link claim. The authors mention them, but do not tell us what they were - on the grounds that in the author's view they were not important. Note that the small number of rats involved and the short time allowed for problem development can magnify as well as undercut the significance of slight aberrations - from this article, even without its misrepresentation as "no differences observed", we do not know why or how the authors decided on the insignificance of the differences observed, or what they were.

 

5) One visible reason for the failure to report thoroughly the results, was the narrow focus of the study - reproductive system consequences. It was not, in other words, a general safety study even in rats. But it's the cutting edge of publication on the topic, years after approved deployment of the GMO.

 

6) One reason for the inadequacy of the study as evidence of "safety" for GMOs in general is that particular focus; that it addresses the wrong crop in the wrong way - the estrogen mimickry that creates reproductive system worries in people is not the biggest medical worry with Bt cereal grains, rat studies are not good enough for that kind of medical worry (or many other medical worries involving Bt crops), and "safety" of Bt GMOs is not well addressed by focusing on direct medical harm anyway (this kind of study is more to the point: http://www.biofortified.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/BT-and-spiders.pdf Bt varietals are among the safest for human ingestion of all pesticide types ) So the whole thing seems to be set up as a bit of a red herring.

 

Seeing red herrings ballyhooed by GMO promulgators leads to less, not more, confidence in the safety of GMOs. Either these people do not know what they are doing, or they are engaged in deliberate deception in pursuit of their agenda whatever it may be - and they are the ones in control of the developments and deployments.

 

And all this is simple, right in front of anyone clicking on the link.

Edited March 26, 2014 by overtone

[iNow]

That study doesn't state the duration of the diet, if the rats were raised on the diet or if the rats had other food to eat as well during the study.

Well, actually... Yes, it does. You might consider reading more than just the press release.

 

The GMO may have differences of substance due to the lack of certain genetic characteristics.

Such as? Be specific, now (if you can). Edited March 26, 2014 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

"I'm just saying this, you know rats don't normally eat rice at all."

Rats don't eat rice?

Tell that to the farmers.

[Essay]

 

The GMO may have differences of substance due to the lack of certain genetic characteristics. The (anomalous) lack of a trait is more common than is the presence of, say, multiple copies of a gene.

 

Such as? Be specific, now (if you can).

 

When most of the studies on GMOs were done, science hadn't figured out certain things yet. Now, or soon enough, things may look different.

 

Look into microRNAs

 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11104-013-1907-6#

Plants have evolved a series of mechanisms to adapt to unsuitable growth conditions where nutrient levels are too low or too high. microRNAs (miRNAs), a class of small RNAs, are known to mediate post-transcriptional regulation by transcript cleavage or translational inhibition. Besides regulating plant growth and development, miRNAs are well documented to regulate plant adaptation to adverse environmental conditions including nutrient stresses. Insufficient availability or extreme high levels of the nutrients significantly affect plant growth and development.

 

 

...and then, from a search: microrna role in human health

Scholarly articles for microrna role in human health

… microRNAs with possible roles in murine and human … - ‎Sempere - Cited by 994

Circulating microRNAs as stable blood-based markers … - ‎Mitchell - Cited by 2230

MicroRNA responses to cellular stress - ‎Marsit - Cited by 242

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Search Results

MicroRNAs in Common Human Diseases - ScienceDirect

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1672022912000538‎

by Y Li - ‎2012 - ‎Cited by 6 - ‎Related articles

Herein, we overview the progress of miRNA research related to human diseases, ... that this tiny RNA molecule may have a big role to play in humans as well [6]. ..... and miRNA drugs have made great strides towards improving public health.

The Role of MicroRNAs in Human Diseases

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...‎

National Center for Biotechnology Information

by AM Ardekani - ‎2010 - ‎Cited by 3 - ‎Related articles

The presence of noncoding RNAs and its role in many human diseases ..... (miR-203, miR- 146a, miR-21, and miR-125b) in cells that present in healthy and ...

 

 

"...that this tiny RNA molecule may have a big role to play in humans as well."

I first ran across this information in The Journal of Lipid Research, where they talked about the microRNAs from various rice strains affecting the HDL/LDL ratios in people.

I ran across this at a time when I was learning about how very differently the plants will apportion their resources, depending upon the nutrient deficiencies or excesses, and how soil carbon is also strongly affected by this. My interest is soil carbon, but it made me think about how much the human diet has changed over our recent evolutionary history. A recent Scientific American article speaks to how strongly our immune systems (and hence longevity) have been influenced by changing diets.

I tried to find my original link, but could only find:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3420088/

"It is also important to highlight that the finding of an exogenous plant microRNA, miR168a, that could bind to the human/mouse low-density lipoprotein receptor adapter protein 1 (LDLRAP1) mRNA, inhibits LDLRAP1 expression in liver and consequently decrease LDL clearance."

https://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=47573

Journal of Lipid Research

Thematic series on microRNAs

The May 2013 issue of the Journal of Lipid Research contains a new thematic series, “Functional regulation of lipid homeostasis by microRNA,”

 

 

Our new, energy-intensive and industrial-scale, agricultural systems are changing the biochemical profiles of plants, as well as soils, quite dramatically. Some unintended consequences have already been identified (regarding changes to soils); so in terms of human health, some unintended consequences may also be recognized soon enough. [But the soil affects more people and biodiversity, over a much longer timespan, so that should be the main concern, right?]

 

~

[Ringer]

A better illustration of the bizarre cluelessness of the typical GMO promulgator would be hard to invent.

 

1) The study was not "long term" - it did not run for even one entire lifetime of any of the rat groups involved. ( In the case of something fed to people, rats probably don't live long enough for an actual "long term" study. )

The study was on generational effects on reproduction, so lifetime exposure isn't an issue (reproductive capacity lowers with age anyway so it would have given too many false positives)

 

3) The study was considerably less rigorous than, say, the Seralini glyphosate study GMO proponents forced into still unexplained retraction. It involves fewer rats, a shorter time, less complete investigation, and much less complete publication of methods and results. GMO promulgators apparently do not notice such things, with this study or any other yielding similar claims by the authors.

 

The retraction was not unexplained. Rigorous =/= more in absolute numbers. They had more rats per group, fewer comparisons, and times more in line with that type of rat. All of these mean that statistical noise is minimized.

 

4) The article did in fact mention several "differences", contrary to the link claim. The authors mention them, but do not tell us what they were - on the grounds that in the author's view they were not important. Note that the small number of rats involved and the short time allowed for problem development can magnify as well as undercut the significance of slight aberrations - from this article, even without its misrepresentation as "no differences observed", we do not know why or how the authors decided on the insignificance of the differences observed, or what they were.

"Differences were not considered biologically meaningful and were not indicators of harmful effects."

 

5) One visible reason for the failure to report thoroughly the results, was the narrow focus of the study - reproductive system consequences. It was not, in other words, a general safety study even in rats. But it's the cutting edge of publication on the topic, years after approved deployment of the GMO.

Methodologically a general health study looking for any difference will find something, probably multiple times. No matter what you study, what controls, or what methods you use. Because there are so many ways for negative health effects to occur comparing everything is statistically useless. There would be so much noise in the data that there would be no way to see if there was a real effect.

 

6) One reason for the inadequacy of the study as evidence of "safety" for GMOs in general is that particular focus; that it addresses the wrong crop in the wrong way - the estrogen mimickry that creates reproductive system worries in people is not the biggest medical worry with Bt cereal grains, rat studies are not good enough for that kind of medical worry (or many other medical worries involving Bt crops), and "safety" of Bt GMOs is not well addressed by focusing on direct medical harm anyway (this kind of study is more to the point: http://www.biofortified.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/BT-and-spiders.pdf Bt varietals are among the safest for human ingestion of all pesticide types ) So the whole thing seems to be set up as a bit of a red herring.

 

Seeing red herrings ballyhooed by GMO promulgators leads to less, not more, confidence in the safety of GMOs. Either these people do not know what they are doing, or they are engaged in deliberate deception in pursuit of their agenda whatever it may be - and they are the ones in control of the developments and deployments.

 

And all this is simple, right in front of anyone clicking on the link.

But you're just using special pleading for GMO testing. You have not made any valid claim that GMOs should be considered more dangerous than anything else we use or eat.

[iNow]

But you're just using special pleading for GMO testing. You have not made any valid claim that GMOs should be considered more dangerous than anything else we use or eat.

QFT

When most of the studies on GMOs were done, science hadn't figured out certain things yet. Now, or soon enough, things may look different.

Yes, things always COULD look different in the future, I don't disagree. The problem is we're talking about what we know in the present and how things look today. The way things look today, claims of harm are IMO unwarranted.

 

Also, vampares (who has a history here of sketchy claims and denial of science) suggested GMOs lack certain genetic characteristics. I asked him to be specific instead of making such a broad and all encompassing assertion seemingly only to sow doubt and poison wells.

[Essay]

"Claims of harm" from agriculture in general, to the environment, are documented; and GMO cropping practices may be exacerbating the problems, despite their intention to "save" soil carbon and reduce erosion.

 

"Claims of harm" to people are not documented, but did you see the new information I posted? Had you heard about that before?

We are just barely beginning to understand our own genomes and epigenetics; or that HDLs are about our immune system, rather than our circulatory system.

I'd think investigation, at least, and perhaps caution is not "unwarrented."

===

 

Personally, I don't much care how we screw up our health with technology and/or GMOs, because in a few generations that can all be worked out. That is presuming however, that we still have a relatively stable and well-functioning civilization in which to pursue some better health perspectives. If we screw up the soil, as GMOs are encouraging us to do even more extensively, then that future with enough stability looks much less likely.

~

 

p.s. ...from: The American Society for Microbiology

How Microbes Can Help Feed the World, 2013

 

"Historically, traditional plant breeding and genetic engineering, irrigation, and chemical treatments like fertilizers and pesticides have all been used to enhance crop productivity....

Optimizing the microbial communities of plants offers an entirely new approach to enhancing productivity. Indeed, such an approach is the opposite of past management strategies...."

Edited March 26, 2014 by Essay

[chadn737]

A better illustration of the bizarre cluelessness of the typical GMO promulgator would be hard to invent.

 

1) The study was not "long term" - it did not run for even one entire lifetime of any of the rat groups involved. ( In the case of something fed to people, rats probably don't live long enough for an actual "long term" study. )

 

First off, it should be noted that I linked you to a report on the study, not the actual study itself. Many details are not available in that report. The full study can be found here.

 

Secondly, it was a multigenerational study. Offspring of the first generation fed Bt rice were raised through reproductive age and allowed to have children, who were themselves analyzed. Looking at very old ages, past reproductive abilities is irrelevant. The multigenerational and reproductive aspects is what this study addresses. Because it carries across multiple generations, it does address long term aspects, as these are offspring of rats raised on GMOs who were themselves offspring of rats raised on GMOs.

 

 

2) The report date of that minimal, baby step Chinese study was November last year, and the study claims to be filling a gap, presenting new research, concerning Bt rice intended for human consumption - more than four years after China itself first approved Bt rice for human consumption, and began its initial rollout of commercial Bt rice production.

That, as I pointed out earlier with an also-misrepresented "long term" (less than nine month) glyphosate hog feeding study published in 2012 , is not just evidence but something close to proof of my claim that safety studies on these GMOs are not being done

 

1) In 2009 China issued a safety production certification for Bt rice, however, this does not mean that it was approved for commercial production or human consumption. This was after 5 years of study.

 

2) Bt crops have been extensively studied since the start. Safety assessments of Bt rice were conducted as early as 2007, 2 years before biosafety approval in China. It should be noted, that many safety studies are submitted to the monitoring government organizations and not published or published after submission for government testing. This study was conducted by the Chinese governing bodies.

 

3) I have posted in this thread multiple long term studies, some well before 2012, in multiple species. It is note worthy that you completely ignore those studies and repeat your assertions. This is nothing more than argument from repetition.

 

Let me repost some of these studies, since you obviously missed them, assuming you just didn't ignore them:

There have been multiple such studies, some lasting up to two years and others across multiple generations. For instance there was two year study on feeding Bt corn to lactating Dairy Cows. There was three year study in mice that spread across three generations....from conception to death. Consider the study done in quail that spanned 10 generations.

 

3) The study was considerably less rigorous than, say, the Seralini glyphosate study GMO proponents forced into still unexplained retraction. It involves fewer rats, a shorter time, less complete investigation, and much less complete publication of methods and results. GMO promulgators apparently do not notice such things, with this study or any other yielding similar claims by the authors.

 

 

Again you simply repeat your assertions despite evidence presented to the contrary. Are you familiar with the fallacy known as argument from repetition?

 

Earlier I gave you multiple reasons for why the Seralini study was fraudulent and retracted. I even pointed you to the editor-in-chief's own statement on the matter. You have just completely ignored this and repeated yourself contrary to the facts laid out. Since obviously you ignored them earlier, let me lay out the reasons for the retraction again:

 

"The biggest problem was that the rats he used. He used the Sprague-Dawley rat line, which is known to have a very high rate of tumor development compared to other rat lines. Under normal circumstances, up to ~80% of individuals will develop tumors. In other words, Seralini deliberately picked a rat line that he knew would develop tumors. It was guaranteed no matter what he fed them. He never mentioned the amount of food fed, which the incidence of mammary tumors in this line is also linked to the amount of food fed. If Seralini overfed GMO corn compared to non-GMO corn, the incidence would increase simply due to the amount of food, not the food itself.

The study didn't use enough control rats and it used a 90 day experimental design on 2 year study. It used unusual statistical methods, that alone is a sign of potential fraud. It is possible in many instance of any experiment to generate statistically significant results if you just pick the right test/model. So when you see somebody pick non-conventional methods, it often is a sign that they didn't find the result they wanted by standard approaches and so went fishing. The recommended number of rats for a carcinogenicity study is 50 in a group, Seralini used 10. Ironically, rats fed glyphosate directly actually lived longer at higher dosages than the control. Then there is the ethical part of it. Seralini did not euthanize the rats after they developed tumors, as is required by ethical standards, but instead let the tumors grow to enormous size so that he could take sensationalist photographs."

 

So take your pick. These were the reasons the paper was retracted. Bad design, ethical violations, abnormal statistics, important details left out, and a line of rats deliberately picked to develop tumors.

 

Secondly, you can't compare the studies. Seralini was conducting a carcinogenicity study, the Chinese paper was not. The recommended number of individuals changes with the type of study. Furthermore, the Chinese paper has 45 rats per group. Seralini had 10. Seralini had more rats total because he had more groups to test more factors. However, statistical power is not determined by total number alone. The more factors and test groups you have, the more complicated the statistical analysis becomes. Your statistical power does not increase if you do not increase the number of individuals in a group. In this case, the Chinese actually had far greater statistical power with their 45 rats per group than Seralini did in his 10 rats per group. Not only that, they had the same number of rats in controls and test groups. Seralini did not. This is by far a well designed study, compared to the fraudulent mess of Seralini.

 

4) The article did in fact mention several "differences", contrary to the link claim. The authors mention them, but do not tell us what they were - on the grounds that in the author's view they were not important. Note that the small number of rats involved and the short time allowed for problem development can magnify as well as undercut the significance of slight aberrations - from this article, even without its misrepresentation as "no differences observed", we do not know why or how the authors decided on the insignificance of the differences observed, or what they were.

 

 

Thats because I linked you to a news article originally and not the original paper. However, I am glad you brought this up. Lets look at what differences were found.

 

1) AST levels lower in F2s fed transgenics. This is actually a good thing since AST levels are an indication of liver damage.

 

2) TP levels were higher in F2 males in comparison to the AIN93G control, but not in comparison to MingHui63. MingHui63 is the non-transgenic parent of the TT51 Bt line. In other words, the differences, if real, were due to variety and not the transgene.

 

3) These differences were within normal ranges for Wistar rats.

 

"Mean AST was lower ((p < 0.05) in F2 male and female rats consuming the transgenic TT51 rice diet compared with the control diet. AST mostly exists in the liver cell, when liver cells or some tissue have been damaged; it can increase AST concentration in the blood. Therefore, AST is a sensitive index for reflection of the liver cell damage. But the AST decreasing in the transgenic rice group was not considered adverse effect.

Mean TP values were higher (p < 0.05) in F2 male rats consuming the transgenic TT51 rice diet group compared with the control group. But there were no significant differences in Mean TP values in F2 male rats consuming the transgenic TT51 rice diet group compared with the MingHui63 rice diet group.

Further, these values were within the historical data range in this lab of Wistar rats (AST, 75.7–118.9 U/L in males, 58.2–129.9 U/L in females; TP, 48.5–74.7 g/L in males). Similar findings have been reported in other studies and were also not considered as an indication of adverse effects (He et al., 2008, Kilic and Akay, 2008 and Zhou et al., 2011)."

5) One visible reason for the failure to report thoroughly the results, was the narrow focus of the study - reproductive system consequences. It was not, in other words, a general safety study even in rats. But it's the cutting edge of publication on the topic, years after approved deployment of the GMO.

 

You really should have taken the time to look up the original study rather than imagine you can know everything about it from a news report.

1) The study tested a vast range of health indicators, not just reproduction. Everything from serum chemistry, hematology, body weight, histopathology, sex serum, survival, etc.

2) It was not "years after the deployment". See my explanation of what a safety production certificate actually means.

6) One reason for the inadequacy of the study as evidence of "safety" for GMOs in general is that particular focus; that it addresses the wrong crop in the wrong way - the estrogen mimickry that creates reproductive system worries in people is not the biggest medical worry with Bt cereal grains, rat studies are not good enough for that kind of medical worry (or many other medical worries involving Bt crops), and "safety" of Bt GMOs is not well addressed by focusing on direct medical harm anyway (this kind of study is more to the point: http://www.biofortif...and-spiders.pdf Bt varietals are among the safest for human ingestion of all pesticide types ) So the whole thing seems to be set up as a bit of a red herring.

 

"addresses the wrong crop in the wrong way"? That makes no sense. This was a crop proposed for human consumption, so how exactly is it the wrong crop? Its being tested for numerous indicators of health across multiple generations...how is that the wrong way? I have no idea what you are going on about with "estrogen mimickry" because that is not really a concern with Bt. There is nothing similar between estrogen and Cry proteins. Rats are used to study health effects for humans at all levels, including drugs. The study you link to has nothing to do with human health, but environmental effects....you seem to be taking a shotgun approach here, throwing multiple irrelevant and nonsensical issues at a discussion of health. Talk about your red herrings.

Secondly, you claim Bt is safe, yet complain about the supposed and false lack of long-term studies. Make up your mind.

Seeing red herrings ballyhooed by GMO promulgators leads to less, not more, confidence in the safety of GMOs. Either these people do not know what they are doing, or they are engaged in deliberate deception in pursuit of their agenda whatever it may be - and they are the ones in control of the developments and deployments.

And all this is simple, right in front of anyone clicking on the link.

 

 

This group conducted a very well designed study specific to the questions asked. You seem to support the fraudulent Seralini study, but then falsely accuse well conducted studies like this one of deception.

 

When most of the studies on GMOs were done, science hadn't figured out certain things yet. Now, or soon enough, things may look different.

 

Look into microRNAs

 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11104-013-1907-6#

 

...and then, from a search: microrna role in human health

Scholarly articles for microrna role in human health

… microRNAs with possible roles in murine and human … - ‎Sempere - Cited by 994

Circulating microRNAs as stable blood-based markers … - ‎Mitchell - Cited by 2230

MicroRNA responses to cellular stress - ‎Marsit - Cited by 242

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Search Results

 

"...that this tiny RNA molecule may have a big role to play in humans as well."

I first ran across this information in The Journal of Lipid Research, where they talked about the microRNAs from various rice strains affecting the HDL/LDL ratios in people.

I ran across this at a time when I was learning about how very differently the plants will apportion their resources, depending upon the nutrient deficiencies or excesses, and how soil carbon is also strongly affected by this. My interest is soil carbon, but it made me think about how much the human diet has changed over our recent evolutionary history. A recent Scientific American article speaks to how strongly our immune systems (and hence longevity) have been influenced by changing diets.

I tried to find my original link, but could only find:

 

Our new, energy-intensive and industrial-scale, agricultural systems are changing the biochemical profiles of plants, as well as soils, quite dramatically. Some unintended consequences have already been identified (regarding changes to soils); so in terms of human health, some unintended consequences may also be recognized soon enough. [But the soil affects more people and biodiversity, over a much longer timespan, so that should be the main concern, right?]

 

~

 

1) microRNAs are found in nearly all, if not all Eukaryotes. Your body is full of them produced by microRNA coding genes in your own genome. They are an amazing finding, but its just another level of regulation. It should be noted, that Richard Jorgensen, a plant biologist, discovered the effect of RNA silencing long before Mellows and Fire and yet was jipped out of a Nobel since it was in plants and not animals.

 

2) That example comes from rice in general, not transgenics. If anything, this demonstrates how much more we know about the safety of transgenic foods than any other. People have been eating rice for thousands of years with no safety testing. Meanwhile, every transgenic is tested for safety at multiple levels. Not only that, we know exactly what is put in a GMO. I am also bothered that the review you referenced didn't properly cite the research paper that made that claim.

 

3) GMOs have the ability to help conserve soil. No-till did not take off until roundup ready and other herbicide resistant crops first became available. The result has been reduced CO2 emissions and reduced soil erosion.

But you're just using special pleading for GMO testing. You have not made any valid claim that GMOs should be considered more dangerous than anything else we use or eat.

 

EXACTLY!

"Claims of harm" from agriculture in general, to the environment, are documented; and GMO cropping practices may be exacerbating the problems, despite their intention to "save" soil carbon and reduce erosion.

 

"Claims of harm" to people are not documented, but did you see the new information I posted? Had you heard about that before?

We are just barely beginning to understand our own genomes and epigenetics; or that HDLs are about our immune system, rather than our circulatory system.

I'd think investigation, at least, and perhaps caution is not "unwarrented."

===

 

Personally, I don't much care how we screw up our health with technology and/or GMOs, because in a few generations that can all be worked out. That is presuming however, that we still have a relatively stable and well-functioning civilization in which to pursue some better health perspectives. If we screw up the soil, as GMOs are encouraging us to do even more extensively, then that future with enough stability looks much less likely.

~

 

p.s. ...from: The American Society for Microbiology

How Microbes Can Help Feed the World, 2013

 

"Historically, traditional plant breeding and genetic engineering, irrigation, and chemical treatments like fertilizers and pesticides have all been used to enhance crop productivity....

Optimizing the microbial communities of plants offers an entirely new approach to enhancing productivity. Indeed, such an approach is the opposite of past management strategies...."

 

1) The references to microRNAs and HDL/LDL has nothing to do with GMOs.

 

2) How are "GMO cropping practices exacerbating the problems". This is an unsupported claim, just like the claim that they reduce genetic diveristy.

 

3) GMOs have had documented positive impacts. For instance the increased utilization of No-till, reduced carbon emissions, etc.

 

4) How are GMOs encouraging us to screw up the soil? This is yet another unsupported claim. Your link doesn't support this claim.

Edited March 26, 2014 by chadn737

[Annier1953]

Well I'm sorry but I'm not a biologist but I have been following this fairly closely and I feel it has been more of a farm take over issue because the seeds flew into the non GMO and then it became one and that's where all the court litigation started and the big case was in Canada if memory serves me. Thank you.

[John Cuthber]

Also, vampares (who has a history here of sketchy claims and denial of science) suggested GMOs lack certain genetic characteristics. I asked him to be specific instead of making such a broad and all encompassing assertion seemingly only to sow doubt and poison wells.

I don't think that's nearly as comical as his assertion that rats don't eat rice.

I suspect that replies to both points will be, at best, slow.

[chadn737]

Well I'm sorry but I'm not a biologist but I have been following this fairly closely and I feel it has been more of a farm take over issue because the seeds flew into the non GMO and then it became one and that's where all the court litigation started and the big case was in Canada if memory serves me. Thank you.

 

That is false. Its an urban myth.

 

The Canadian case had nothing to do with cross-pollination. A farmer deliberately held back seed, for which he had signed a contract not to do, and planted that. The farmer broke his contract. There was nothing accidental about it.

Edited March 26, 2014 by chadn737