Govt to study genetically modified crops, despite opposition

[xylophone]

Even if you are for or against GMOs/Monsanto/Glyphosate this is an interesting read and the reference to GM L-tryptophan and its effects is an eye opener.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/06/02/monsanto-challenge.aspx?e_cid=20150602Z3_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20150602Z3&et_cid=DM76284&et_rid=976239659

[attrayant]

I'm familiar with Druker's shtick from reading about his L-tryptophan tirade (and resulting fundamental error which is not really germane to this topic).

The FDA issues guidelines and policies based on the scientific consensus. Typically there will be a number of scientists participating in a research project. Understandably, it's possible that there might be some disagreement between them along the way. So if nine researchers come to a conclusion and one raises some sort of objection (it might only be a procedural objection - the FDA is supposed to look at it and evaluate the merits), there is still a broad consensus to be reported. It could go something like this:

9/10 researchers: We find that A is correlated with B, given C, assuming D and under conditions E, F and G.

1/10 researchers: Okay, but I don't think we've conclusively nailed-down condition F

This study will still get published because there is an overwhelming consensus. Of course Mercola and Natural News pick up on this and say that, by reporting the consensus, the FDA "covered up" the minority dissenter.

There's an interesting parallel story from many years ago. Those of you who know what Trident Chewing Gum is probably remember their commercial tag line: "Four of of five dentists recommend Trident for their patients who chew gum." What did the fifth dentist recommend, sugared gum?! No, the fifth dentist usually recommended no gum at all. But Trident, being a chewing gum company, wasn't too anxious to trumpet this finding. They reported the general consensus of 4/5 dentists and that was that. Were they "covering up" some dark secret? Hardly. It's the same with scientific research. If you have access to the studies, the findings are there (even the dissenters, which is how Mr. Lawyer probably got hold of them).

I found this particularly juvenile:

The deadline for Monsanto to reply is July 20, and it'll be interesting to see what, if anything, transpires from this challenge. In his letter to Fraley, Druker writes:

"If by July 20th [Monsanto] have not been able to refute the essential factual accuracy of Altered Genes, Twisted Truth according to the terms set forth above, the world will have a right to assume that it is as sound as the experts who reviewed it have affirmed and to conclude that GE foods are unacceptably risky and must be banned."

In other words, if you don't respond in a month, I win! That sounds like he's preemptively assuming the FDA will find his rantings without merit and not want to waste the resources needed to respond. It's a typical internet argument: people love to claim victory when nobody has responded to their lunatic ravings, when in reality the simple reality is that nobody considers the ravings worthy of a response.

Edited June 2, 2015 by attrayant

[xylophone]

Pleased that you mentioned the FDA because their own files show them to be "in disarray" and that "most of their scientific staff" were against them being found "safe".........seems to be more than "one or two"?

According to the FDA's own regulations, in order to qualify as generally recognized as safe, an additive or supplement must have solid, technical evidence of safety that has been generally known and accepted within the scientific community. That ordinarily means that evidence should have been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so its solidity can be certified. There has to be an overwhelming consensus that the product is safe, and that consensus has to be based on solid technical evidence.

"The FDA's own files show that in the case of genetically engineered foods, neither of those conditions applied. In fact, their files show just the opposite. There was certainly a major dispute about the safety of these foods even within the FDA. Most of their scientific staff said you can't presume they're safe. That right there is a scientific fact. It's a material fact. Also, there was that letter from the FDA's own biotechnology coordinator, admitting that there was no scientific consensus."

“AND in that letter sent to a Canadian Health Official by the FDA, it stated that FDA scientists had overwhelmingly concluded that GE foods present a different array of risks than their conventionally produced counterparts; that none of them can be presumed safe; and that they need to be demonstrated safe through rigorous testing, which also happens to be the law”.

In fact, on January 24, a statement signed by 300 scientists, researchers, physicians and scholars was published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe,1 asserting that there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs.

Moreover, the paper, titled "No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety," states that the claim of scientific consensus on GMO safety is in actuality "an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated." The paper also notes that such a claim "is misleading and misrepresents or outright ignores the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of scientific opinions among scientists on this issue."

Seems big money and influence talks!

Edited June 3, 2015 by xylophone

[xylophone]

The tide is slowly turning……….

1). Cancer deaths have doubled in Argentina’s GMO agri belt.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsantos-glyphosate-pesticide-cancer-deaths-have-doubled-in-argentinas-gmo-agriculture/5414791

2). 30,000 Doctors In Argentina Demand That Glyphosate Be Banned.

“If the millions of regular people who have asked Monsanto to stop selling their toxic chemicals is not enough, more than 30,000 doctors and health professionals are asking that glyphosate be banned”.

The doctors are part of FESPROSA, Argentina’s Union of medical professionals. Citing the World Health Organization’s recent declaration that the glyphosate chemicals used in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Round Up (formulated to use on Round Up Ready crops) are “likely carcinogenic,” they add an additional disclaimer:

Glyphosate is also associated with:

• Spontaneous abortions
• Birth defects
• Skin disease
• Respiratory illness
• Neurological disease

3). AND…”Our trade union, the Federation of Health Professionals of Argentina (FESPROSA), which represents more than 30,000 doctors and health professionals in our country, includes the Social Health Collective of Andrés Carrasco. Andrés Carrasco was a researcher at [Argentine government research institute] CONICET, who died a year ago, and showed the damage caused by glyphosate to embryos. For disseminating his research, he was attacked by the industry and the authorities at CONICET. Today, WHO vindicates him.”

4). Glyphosate found in urine, blood and breast milk......... http://naturalsociety.com/3-studies-proving-toxic-glyphosate-found-urine-blood-even-breast-milk/

5). The evidence for glyphosate herbicides toxicity has accumulated worldwide to such an extent that a number of countries are already banning its use. Denmark took the lead to ban the herbicide back in 2003 [2] The Dutch Parliament banned it in April 2014 for non-commercial use [3], to take effect by the end of 2015; France is set to follow. Brazil, one of the largest growers of glyphosate-tolerant genetically modified (GM) crops has now filed a law suit by Federal Prosecutors to ban glyphosate along with 8 other dangerous pesticides [4]. El Salvador imposed a complete ban in February 2013, linking glyphosate herbicides to an epidemic of chronic kidney disease that has struck the region [5]. Sri Lanka’s scientists have provided evidence for glyphosate accumulation in the body especially in the presence of hard water. Its ability to capture and retain arsenic and nephrotoxic metals enables it to act as a carrier to deliver the toxins to the kidney.

As if this was not enough to cast some doubt on Monsanto and its products and associated products, then there are a few other facts to consider: –

· One of the earlier stated reasons for its "raison d’etre" was to be able to increase food production because the world needed it. However as has already been stated by the United Nations and the WHO, there is enough food to go round, so that has been proven a lie.

· It was also suggested by them that the use of herbicides and insecticides would decrease, whereas the opposite has happened with huge increases in some instances, this because some weeds have become resistant to glyphosate and other types of herbicides are needed to combat this.

· Poor farmers were supposed to benefit, however the cost of the Monsanto seeds has risen dramatically (as has the cost of extra herbicide needed) as has already been pointed out in another post.

· The dramatic increase in production has also not materialised with farmers using non-GMO and non-Monsanto related products doing just as well, if not better in some cases.

Despite all of the mounting evidence, there are the people who support Monsanto and what it is trying to do, so it is worth remembering that in light of all of the above and so much more being written about this subject, that this company has had no problem in the past with regards to making money at the cost of people's health, and it has been fined millions of dollars for doing just this, when all along it knew exactly what was going on… yes, poisoning people for money and found guilty in a court of law for doing it.

“Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group says that based on the Monsanto documents made public, the company “knew the truth from the very beginning. They lied about it. They hid the truth from their neighbours.”

One Monsanto memo explains their justification: “We can't afford to lose one dollar of business.” Eventually the company was found guilty of conduct “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society”

And still people believe the Monsanto hype……….even if they have been found guilty of, “conduct “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society”…………would you trust a company of that description?

Edited June 3, 2015 by xylophone

[xylophone]

If "Occupystephanie ♥" said it, it must be true!

And the evidence is mounting..........

“Researcher finds internal Monsanto documents revealing they knew over 30 years ago that glyphosate caused adenomas and carcinomas in the rats that they’ve studied”.

Most disconcerting is the fact that these very same findings were published in a paper by Dr. Gilles-Éric Séralini, which was later retracted (some say through pressure from Monsanto) yet published again in the journal, Environmental Sciences Europe.

See link for the full story.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/07/05/glyphosate-cancer.aspx?e_cid=20150705Z3_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20150705Z3&et_cid=DM78987&et_rid=1017891939