Paper on GM affect on the environment

[Twinbird24]

Hey, I wrote a paper briefly describing the affects of genetically modified crop (GMC) on the environment. I've attached the paper. If anyone is interested they can download it and read it over and then let me know what they think about it (i.e. does it need any corrections?). Thanks.

paper_GMC.doc

[davidivad]

well, not that you needed it but i wanted to see a cover page and working table of contents.

on a positive side you covered both sides of the argument.

one thing i do not like to see is a sentence that starts with "this." remember there is always another way to write the sentence.

you had plenty of references so that is cool.

the oldest reference was from 2000 so that's good.

i see a few little things here and there.

you made a word.

you quoted without parenthesis.

in all, it was a great paper to read as it informed me well.

thank god i am not a teacher

[chadn737]

1) Some grammatical issues to be dealt with. For example, there is a huge run-on sentence in the first paragraph.

 

2) You cite Seralini et al. (2012) to support an early assertion. You should be aware that this study was highly flawed and retracted based on both technical flaws and ethical violations. I would against citing it, especially since its no longer published.

[John Cuthber]

Paper on GM affect effect on the environment

[davidivad]

1) Some grammatical issues to be dealt with. For example, there is a huge run-on sentence in the first paragraph.

 

2) You cite Seralini et al. (2012) to support an early assertion. You should be aware that this study was highly flawed and retracted based on both technical flaws and ethical violations. I would against citing it, especially since its no longer published.

with this writing format there seems to be the issue of "the big sentence."

my guess is that our paper has the requirement of fitting the paper into one sentence- my guess is that this is practice.

 

i think that the main goal here is structure over anything else. i did not get the impression that this was a thesis.

it was a good job.... just for argument's sake and to keep the thread alive.

[Twinbird24]

Thanks everyone for the feedback, I greatly appreciate it.

 

well, not that you needed it but i wanted to see a cover page and working table of contents.

on a positive side you covered both sides of the argument.

one thing i do not like to see is a sentence that starts with "this." remember there is always another way to write the sentence.

you had plenty of references so that is cool.

the oldest reference was from 2000 so that's good.

i see a few little things here and there.

you made a word.

you quoted without parenthesis.

in all, it was a great paper to read as it informed me well.

thank god i am not a teacher

We were told specifically not to have a cover page, table of contents, or any kind of prologue - just to start with the introduction and go from there, otherwise it's a good suggestion. I'm in the process of looking for sentences that start with "this" and perhaps fixing it. While I re-read my paper, hopefully I'll be able to find the part I quoted without parenthesis and the word I made up ;p

 

1) Some grammatical issues to be dealt with. For example, there is a huge run-on sentence in the first paragraph.

 

2) You cite Seralini et al. (2012) to support an early assertion. You should be aware that this study was highly flawed and retracted based on both technical flaws and ethical violations. I would against citing it, especially since its no longer published.

I've fixed the run on sentence, thank you for pointing that out. I realized that the paper was retracted form the journal, however, I've decided to keep it only in my introduction because of the bold statements it makes about the negative effects of GMC. So essentially it's just a hook to keep the reader interested in reader the rest of the paper.

 

Paper on GM affect effect on the environment

Oops ;p

 

with this writing format there seems to be the issue of "the big sentence."

my guess is that our paper has the requirement of fitting the paper into one sentence- my guess is that this is practice.

 

i think that the main goal here is structure over anything else. i did not get the impression that this was a thesis.

it was a good job.... just for argument's sake and to keep the thread alive.

It's not a thesis/ dissertation, just an undergrad paper.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Twinbird24

[mudassar1]

One of the tactics of the GMO (genetically modified organisms, usually crops–some people use the term GM instead) refusers is that “there’s no proof that GMO’s are safe.” Typically, in a debate, the side making the assertion (those that say GMO’s are unsafe) are responsible for the evidence that supports their contention

[overtone]

 

 

2) You cite Seralini et al. (2012) to support an early assertion. You should be aware that this study was highly flawed and retracted based on both technical flaws and ethical violations.

That is false, and slanderous.

 

Seralini's paper was withdrawn for unspecified reasons, under enormous political pressure from agribusiness concerns who were facing onerous regulations in European markets. No specific ethical violations or serious technical flaws were described then or have been presented since by anyone - the major technical issue was the number of rats in each study group (ten) being too small to support any conclusions about tumor formation, a health problem mentioned in the discussion section of the paper but not as a "conclusion".

 

The liver and kidney problems reported, for example, were statistically significant, and have not been contradicted by any research before or since. So were the overall reductions in lifespan.

 

Seralini's study, despite being withdrawn as "inconclusive" (not a normal reason for withdrawal of a published paper, and in contradiction to the formal standards of the publication), remains the best done study yet published of the long term health effects of feeding one particular GMO to lab rats. It is the only study to run long enough to pick up the harms it recorded, used the largest relative control group of any study of that matter to date, autopsied for all health effects rather than limiting recorded observations in advance to a couple of preselected disorders, and reported all of its data.

 

The proprietary studies of the health effects of feeding this particular GMO, often cited without objection by GMO proponents, did and still do none of that. They run for a few months at most (90 days was the standard study of that particular aspect of that particular GMO when Seralini published), their control groups are comparatively smaller, they preselect the disorders they set up to collect data on, and often ( the Monsanto study that Seralini's contradicted did this) report data from only some of the study rats or some of the observations performed. (Monsanto started their 90 day feeding study of that GMO with 20 rats in each study group, but reported data from10).

 

 

 

One of the tactics of the GMO { - } refusers is that “there’s no proof that GMO’s are safe.”

That is false.

 

The actual contention is that GMOs obviously carry widely varied and very serious risks both known and unknown (lists and arguments abound, many quite simple and obvious) and these risks are not being monitored or addressed or guarded against or prudently managed

 

- or even acknowledged, in many cases -

 

by the people benefitting from the current irresponsible commercial promulgation of them.

 

 

 

Typically, in a debate, the side making the assertion (those that say GMO’s are unsafe) are responsible for the evidence that supports their contention

Don't be silly. People who want to convert all of North American agriculture to their innovative and little known genetic manipulations over a ten year span bear any burden of "proof" - you can't, just for starters, put anything you want to in someone's food until they have done the research to figure out what it is and proven it's done them harm. That's ridiculous.

 

The nature of "risk" and "hazard" and so forth is that the bad thing hasn't happened yet, or perhaps is happening but has been overlooked (there are many examples of that in highly profitable commercial deployment of unstudied stuff, where there is a lot of money in carefully not knowing what you are doing: trans fats, CFCs, leaded gas, fabric treatments, cigarette additives, etc etc etc) There is plenty of evidence, and it has been supplied at length and in detail by the GMO wary, that deployment of GMOs carries many hazards. That studies no one has done have not found evidence of damages that haven't happened yet is meaningless.

[John Cuthber]

Given this review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

I'd say that it's neither false nor slanderous to say the report was withdrawn and deeply flawed.

Publishing such a paper is morally bankrupt too.

 

Whatever pressures were brought to bear on this, the fact remains that there were too few animals (and the wrong sort) to have a statistically significant measurement of the effect.

[overtone]

Given this review

http://en.wikipedia....éralini_affair

I'd say that it's neither false nor slanderous to say the report was withdrawn and deeply flawed.

 

But it is both false and slanderous to say this:

 

You should be aware that this study was highly flawed and retracted based on both technical flaws and ethical violations.

 

Read the review you linked again, more carefully -

 

notice that the entire body of objections to the contents of the study focuses on the lack of stat significance regarding tumors and cancer, which were not the major findings, and ignores for some reason the data-supported health effects that were the major reported findings;

 

notice that the only ethical objection is to the objectionably sensationalist style of presentation of the initial publication, the hyped pictures of horrible tumors and such - nothing is specified as deceptive or unethical about the protocol, data recording, data reporting, or analysis.

 

Notice (read down) that a couple of the louder critics of Seralini's study there were, unlike Seralini, found by oversight panels and in court to have in fact committed ethical violations. That pattern has become standard - it's the promulgators and deployers of GMOs, not the critics, who have been committing actual ethical violations these past couple of decades. And that is true even if you accept, against all reason, that things like a 90 day rat feeding study that showed no obvious immediate toxicity in the two or three ways that were checked is enough to indicate safety in the conversion of a continent's food supply.

 

In other words, my post #8 above recommending Seralini's study as the best done so far of that aspect of the risks of that particular GMO, is completely supported by your link there - in every detail. There is no reason not to cite Seralini's paper until it's been superseded - flaws and all, it's the best study available on the dietary efffects of that particular GMO.

 

 

Publishing such a paper is morally bankrupt too.

If that is morally bankrupt, what must your opinion be of people who approve GMOs for mass marketing in people's food based on 90 day limited autopsy and proprietary data feeding studies? What must you think of studies done without thorough autopsy and submitted to regulators missing withheld data, designed and limited and data-edited by hired researchers working for the same financial interests that stand to gain from one kind of result?

 

 

 

Whatever pressures were brought to bear on this, the fact remains that there were too few animals (and the wrong sort) to have a statistically significant measurement of the effect.

There was no "the effect" - there were several effects.

 

The only "effect" even mentioned (albeit sensationally and with propaganda pictures) that was not statistically supported was the tumor and cancer growth, because of the tendency of that type of lab rat to get cancer as it ages. The several other harms, the ones that were reported as conclusions of the study (the tumors were not), were statistically significant, as there were enough animals and they were of the right sort exactly - a standard lab rat variety used by most of the researchers in the field. Seralini was indeed sensationalizing and showboating with his tumor pictures - but that does not answer the findings of the study, its data or its conclusions.

 

They remain as unrefuted evidence that one should be careful about feeding that particular complex of engineered genetics to human beings, pending much more thorough investigation than seems to be the style among the profit-making agribusiness firms promoting their latest manipulations. And no paper on GMO risks should omit them.

Edited April 28, 2014 by overtone

[CharonY]

You are reading the paper wrong. I will get into the retraction part later, as that is contentious. However the overall data is inconclusive on basically all counts. Cancer is one aspect, but small sample size is an issue that goes for everything. The result was that the study design would not allow for finding any differences (including mortality as well as kidney issues). Among the many flaws was the aspect that the control rats they used had an usually high mortality rate, which makes them unsuitable for long-term studies.

 

OECD guidelines state that for two-year experiments 50% survival is the minimum after 104 weeks (and at least 50 animals per sex group, which also was not the case). This would be the case with many rat lines, but the one they used only had 30% survival rate of male rats and less than 50% for females after that time. That alone invalidates any finding of long-term effects. Other more suitable rat lines would exhibit well above 70% survival rate. In addition, there are odd statistical test designs (though quite possibly down to insufficient statistical knowledge rather than intent). Other researchers have redone tests on the same data and found no significance in the other indicators (such as mortality, kidney failure, maybe also hormone levels, but am unsure about that).

 

While one may always suspect the hand of some lobby in these kind of public incidents, strong data is usually an excellent defense in the scientific community. However, if the data is weak to begin with there will be little support and, rightfully, a lot of criticism.

 

Now with regards to retraction. Technically it is a flawed study, though often this is insufficient to force a retraction. Theoretically it should not have passed peer-review or possibly only presented with proper statistical analysis stating that the data is inconclusive and that more research is needed. In fact, the latter would have resulted in much less contention and one could even propose that there may be an effect if more are tested. Alas, the authors decided to go the high-risk, high-reward route. But obvious overselling is rarely taken kindly in the scientific community. Especially because it makes other researchers vulnerable to people like lobbyists and pundits.

 

The retraction part does cause ripples in the tox community. While many researchers would disregard the study as valid, few would outright push for retraction because of flawed interpretation. By this standard quite a few more papers should have been retracted. I guess it is an unfortunate mix of PR gone wrong and possibly the wrong editorial decision due to that.

[overtone]

Other researchers have redone tests on the same data and found no significance in the other indicators (such as mortality, kidney failure, maybe also hormone levels, but am unsure about that)

Could you link to that? I have been unable to find any decent reanalysis of the raw data except Elsevier's itself, which IIRC only found the cancer data "inconclusive" solidly, and (depending on the stat treatment) the overall mortality in one of the sexes (can't recall which one) - the kidney and the liver/blood stuff stood.

 

Which made the choice of Monsanto's rats a good one - but not if their fragility actually did invalidate the study group size -> in advance <-, which would be a different take than I've heard.

 

 

 

This would be the case with many rat lines, but the one they used only had 30% survival rate of male rats and less than 50% for females after that time. That alone invalidates any finding of long-term effects.

Not any finding.

 

 

 

Theoretically it should not have passed peer-review or possibly only presented with proper statistical analysis stating that the data is inconclusive and that more research is needed. In fact, the latter would have resulted in much less contention and one could even propose that there may be an effect if more are tested.

Which is of course the point - the best study available, still unrefuted, indicates the continued presence of serious risk.

 

When the best study of a given hazard available indicates harm but is "inconclusive" at the 95% confidence level due to low power, safety is not indicated and risk remains - the risk, in Bayesian fact, somewhat higher than before: right?

Edited April 28, 2014 by overtone

[CharonY]

I will post the link if I can find it. If you have access to the journal of the original paper, it is one of the many follow-ups (as letter to the editor). At least one of them used a revised statistical method and did not find any significant differences. At the very least it was run for the mortality (both sexes). I am now uncertain whether the kidney data and blood data was also discussed there.

I have made a note that the statistical method for the biochem data is iffy.

 

In short, they used a partial least square regression method, which, as used does not provide statistical inference per se. However they used a resampling method to generate confidence intervals. It is at this points where things go weird. They compare each of the treatments with the control and generate confidence intervals within each of them for each metabolite. This raises the issue of multiple hypothesis testing, which was not addressed.

 

For the the other parameters, they did not even conducted statistical analyses (and as another potential warning sign it should be noted that the changes were not concentration dependent, if there was, the data would have been more interesting).

 

I am not sure what you mean with Monsanto rats. Sprague-Dawley is a pretty old line from the 70s or so, for which sponteneous tumor formation was described early on; I believe something well in excess of 60-70% (I want to say 80, but am not sure) were described to spontaneously develop tumors (Kimmerle, sometime 70s-80s) when living to an age of 2 years. From the get-go this was a poor choice for anything but short-term studies (say one year). The alternative would have been to start with much more rats or using a less disease prone line (potentially Han:Wistar).

 

That being said, rat models are probably generally not great for long-term studies (note that this is a general comment, not specific to the mentioned study). As a general rule of thumb they do live well to around 16-18 months. Starting from that time point, their mortality starts to rise steadily. The life expectancy is about 2-3 years for rats (and the Sprague Dawley are on the lower end of the spectrum), meaning that a long-term study would sample senescent populations.

It would be akin to trying to figure out toxicity on 80-90 year old humans. Trying to figure out exposure effects is extremely hard under ideal conditions (as the sample population is already dying from unrelated causes) and basically impossible with small start population.

 

To make it clear, the data of the study does not support its conclusions. I understand that they probably did not want to repeat the whole experiment and wanted to throw something out, but the analysis had to be more meticulous and the claims much more muted (or at least done appropriately).

 

 

Not any finding.

You are correct in principle, if the effect size is large enough, even a small population may provide some insights. This, however, was not the case in this study.

 

 

 

Which is of course the point - the best study available, still unrefuted, indicates the continued presence of serious risk.

Actually no, The study claims it, but the provided data does not show it. I am pretty sure that they were competent enough to do some straightforward statistical analyses to strengthen their claim, if their data had allowed it.

[overtone]

 

 

I am not sure what you mean with Monsanto rats.

The rats used by Monsanto in their proprietary 90 day feeding study,

 

twenty per group, of which Monsanto chose ten to submit evaluation data on , and then reported for these selected ten some of the results on a half dozen preselected potential harms (withholding the rest of the data and other observations, if any);

 

the study on which the certification of medical safety for human consumption of that GMO was based.

 

 

 

That being said, rat models are probably generally not great for long-term studies (note that this is a general comment, not specific to the mentioned study).

That's an observation I made quite a while ago, a couple of times, in related threads. If I recall correctly, people demanded that I supply peer reviewed studies showing harm from "GMOs" rather than making such unscientific arguments against the adequacy of the studies being performed, and the second or third time was deleted by forum moderation.

 

 

 

To make it clear, the data of the study does not support its conclusions- - -

- - - -

 

" Which is of course the point - the best study available, still unrefuted, indicates the continued presence of serious risk."

Actually no, The study claims it, but the provided data does not show it.

Actually yes, it does. What the study fails to "show" is harm. (That is, it fails to show harm if its conclusions concerning kidney and liver effects are in fact statistically invalid, which is still up in the air as far as I can discover).

 

The study does show a continued presence - an increase, actually - of the probability of harm: the risk. Bayes Theorem is still valid here, even at levels of probability below what is necessary for a scientific "show".

 

So it does support my observation that we see continued indication of risk here - in the absence of superseding studies, and they are absent, the fact that the statistical significance fails the level demanded by good science does not negate the visible implication of those results.

 

The best study available, thrown into a Bayesian grinder, increases the probability of harmful health effects from a diet of GMOs. As long as we do not make the mistake of presenting such inadequate studies as scientific demonstration or "showing" of harms -

 

and nobody has done that, right? I know I have refused to do that several times, and I am quite sure my refusal has been noticed -

 

the ordinary conclusions of reason remain.

[CharonY]

I really wonder how you are able to read this into the study (and putting Bayes into everything does not necessary make it more palatable or in this case. any sense). You are now trying to read into the study things that even the authors did not do.

Assuming I take their data at face value and make a direct risk assessment it would tell me that when it comes to pituitary abnormalities it is better to have a diet consisting of 33% GMO (8) than no GMO (9) or 11% GMO (23).

Likewise, high GMO+roundup or only roundup is as good as control for the kidneys. But if you drop the roundup the risk doubles. It just does not make any sense.

 

I should add, though in vain I suppose, that data has to be treated dispassionately. You start with a sound experimental design, do the appropriate analyses and draw only the conclusions that the data allows you to. If it does not happen to have enough oomph to get published one should not massage it with statistical tricks or omissions.

 

Likewise, as reader one should not hype a publication beyond what it delivers to make a political point. That in the overall scheme of things severely hurts science. If your claim is that we really should need better data to assess long-term effects, you will see no argument from me. If your claim is that the existing data somehow obscurely hints at something then you are reading tea leaves.

 

Edit: messed up a number

Edited May 1, 2014 by CharonY

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

This thread has gotten very off topic. Please get back to it and for the last time, overtone, stop derailing threads with what can at best be called speculations or the next time we suspend you, it will be permanent.

[chadn737]

I really wonder how you are able to read this into the study (and putting Bayes into everything does not necessary make it more palatable or in this case. any sense). You are now trying to read into the study things that even the authors did not do.

Assuming I take their data at face value and make a direct risk assessment it would tell me that when it comes to pituitary abnormalities it is better to have a diet consisting of 33% GMO (8) than no GMO (8) or 11% GMO (23).

Likewise, high GMO+roundup or only roundup is as good as control for the kidneys. But if you drop the roundup the risk doubles. It just does not make any sense.

 

Exactly. I've pointed out the many flaws of this study to overtone before and it seems he has forgotten them. Its rather amazing that rats fed higher doses of direct roundup in their water actually lived longer! That is completely contradictory to basic toxicology, which states that "the dose makes the poison". As for the number of animals....the minimal number of animals used in a study depends on the type of study. Studies of carcinogenicity require larger number of animals than normal toxicology studies. The line of rat in such studies also makes a huge difference, particularly when using lines that are known to have an incidence of tumors of 80% under control conditions. All the scientific flaws, which are numerous in this study have been exposed. One cannot draw any valid scientific conclusion from such a flawed study.

 

Then there are the ethical violations of keeping tumor filled rats alive longer than what ethical standards ask in order to generate sensationalist photos. There is also a very real conflict of interest at work here. The paper was held under embargo while hyping up the press and released in timing with the publication of Seralini's book and production of a movie.

 

How people can continue to defend Seralini or his work in light of the facts is beyond me.

Edited May 1, 2014 by chadn737

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

overtone,

 

Do not continue to derail this thread. How much clearer can we make this for you? I have split your post into the trash.

 

For the record, I have not reprimanded or removed chadn737's post directly after my last modnote, as it was posted within several of mine and looked to simply be a case of cross posting rather than ignoring the note completely as overtone seems so intent on doing.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

A second post has been split to the trash as well.

 

The topic of this thread is feedback on the OP. Debating the details of the merits of a cited paper is off-topic, as is trying to argue against a mod note in the thread

[Twinbird24]

It's been quite an interesting debate to say the least

 

An update about the paper: it was submitted several weeks ago, my grade for it has not been disclosed so unfortunately I cannot share it with you, but my estimate is around a 70%. Thanks for all the feedback everyone gave.