Thai farmers protest against bill on GMO farming

[jdlancaster]

Can't agree? Can't agree on what? What are you talking about? How does anything your saying support the use or non use of gmos in thailand? I can't agree or disagree with you. .. why can't you state your views in a few simple statements. ... ? Nobody knowa your views because you won't state them... you purposely obfuscate everything you say...

[attrayant]

Since you are eager to get started, let's adress your denial of the issues I listed (that you do not accept are issues raised on both sides of the debate and for which you make the unequivical claim at # 183 "they are not equal to debate . They've been settled" )

This is a curious claim because the accademic litterature is filled with thousands of papers and open discussion on the impact of GMO on the issues I listed.

As a scientist you will have access to research databases, I suggest science direct as an example. Papers discussing these issues are recorded in their catalogue.

Other TVF members may not have access to academic libraries but can confirm the presence of the issues I listed by simple internet searches.

The issues I listed are present in the accademic and public discourse of GMO.

And why would they not be, the positive claims for GMO are remarkable, we can expect they would have (like all step changes in technology) have far reaching and wide impact across societies, economies, comunities. nations and global markets.

GMO is a powerful technology it has powerful affects.

But to my question on these issues you declined acceptance despite the evidence they are smongst the issues raised on both sides of the debate.

A curious denial for a scientist.

I've never seem somebody write so many words yet still manage to say absolutely nothing. This post adds nothing to the debate, and serves only to make the discussion personal. So you can now add "ad hominem" to the list of fallacies in your toolbox.

[jdlancaster]

The amazing thing about this thread... is I wasn't progmo beforehand. .. my research is mostly about nematode bacterial associations (add in a little malaria stuff during my army reserve time)... I assumed there would be some dangers to gmos... but this thread made me look at the papers and all the good things theyre used for... the ngos trying to help the poor.. companies giving up rights to their patents in the developing world... and the amount of research done showing the safety of gmos... I didn't know the dangers of hybrids before... or the amount of deaths from vitamin A deficiency. ... I tried to find problems...

And of course I knew about the damage antivaxxers do... but now I know how dangerous antigmo groups are too...

[Blossom3]

I'm protected for GMOs while I sit here taking a drag of my cigarette and drinking my beer, as I down a double bacon cheeseburger. I don't have to think of the costs my conspiracy theories have on the poor... I have the money to buy any food I want... man the evils of US multinational conspiracies, GMOs, vaccines... me and my first world problems.

[GuestHouse]

I don't regard establishing the wide range of impacts arising from GMO as adding nothing.

But I do understand those who wish to frame the debate on GMO to within narrow confines might wish to argue as such.

[jdlancaster]

You didn't establish anything... you did the opposite... you avoided establishing anything at any cost....the only attempt to frame anything was you.... you have been allowed to give any argument. .. but you have failed to make any claim and support it by evidence. .. it is amazing... you have managed in almost 30 threads to not say anything... to add anything... the logical fallacies from you...

[GuestHouse]

You didn't establish anything... you did the opposite... you avoided establishing anything at any cost....the only attempt to frame anything was you.... you have been allowed to give any argument. .. but you have failed to make any claim and support it by evidence. .. it is amazing... you have managed in almost 30 threads to not say anything... to add anything... the logical fallacies from you...

Appart from I've told you what we have established at #207

[GuestHouse]

Now going back to these issues that exist in the academic, public and political debate on GMO, that you wish to deny exist in the debate.

------

Food safety, Bio Diversity, Economic, Nutritional, Food security, Access to seeds, Social, Equality of access, Global markets, Local markets, Ethics of owning a gene, small scale and subsistence farming, traditional crop products, GMO contamination to other strains of same species, liability and of course risk.

------

They are demonstably not simply matters of science, but cover politics, social acceptance, social inclusion/exclusion, economics and ethics.

In short they a wide range of impacts on societies that must be adressed by society, and while scientific evidence (for or against) plays a part in the social discourse to acheive a social concensus, science alone is not the answer to obtaining acceptance of this or any other technology.

Why then do those in favour of GMO so often insist that the decision on GMO should only be made on scientific grounds?

Why the insistance to negate concerns across the wide spectrum of issues if the concerns are not related to the narrow focus of science on GMO?

This whole thread is replete with examples of the argument that anything other than science should be ignored.

This has two primary impacts: It negates the voice of those not in the science community - the general public, consumers, small scale farmers, people who perhaps for their own ethical reasons do not wish to use or consume GMO.

And secondly it confines the debate to only that which those claiming a scientific basis wish it to be restricted to.

This discusion has many examples of both these results/behavious.

And then there is the problem, which if it did not exist we would not be having this discussion.

Science had not convinced society that we must accept GMO (otherwise why the protest).

The pro GMO movement are not engaging society and winning concensus (otherwise why the protests)

Science has not solved the social challenges of GMO.

The pro GMO lobby need a new line of argument.

If they did not GMO eould have alrwady won universal acceptance - it has not.

[attrayant]

Appart from I've told you what we have established at #207

Which is insubstantial minutiae when compared to the potential scope of the subject at hand. Post #207:

I'm presenting my argument. I've started by, with your help, demonstrating your denial and dismissal of issues relating to GMO by both sides of the debate. So we have established a couple of facts.

1.The issues I mentioned do exist in bothe sides of the discourse on GMO.

2. You deny and dismiss these issues.

Before you "present" your argument any further, can you tell us what it actually is? Just follow standard debate structure for a basic argument:

Lay out your argument by providing a premise (one or more propositions along with statements of proof) and conclusion, so that readers can assess whether or not your statements actually support said conclusion.

[tomacht8]

The GMO giants work with lobbying, influence opinion, arguing scientifically only with excerpts, employ blog writers on mass,

Try to get as much patents on plants.

Hopefully Thailand throws out these GMO loan sharks.

What is wrong with GMOs... How are they dangerous? What threat do they pose? How many people get sick a year from them? Which GMOs do it? How?

I will help you (to push up this threat, brings clicks and money)

What threat do they pose?

Countless numbers of threats.

99% are not explored in their interactions and long-term consequences.

In biological chains, economy, legislation, health and other subsystems.

Genetically it is possible to rebuild the tomato.

Let us take that a GMO company receives the patent on square tomatos.

Very useful, saves packaging material and saves fuel in logistics.

Environmentally friendly!

But in the long term the effect is unclear.

People who eat this GMO square tomatos regularly over time,

getting dumber, working as a blogwriter for the GMOs or getting red pimples on the ass.

To provide evidence for an lawsuit - action for damages, that the trigger was precisely this square tomato, is probably impossible.

That is the business model.

Countless number of threats? Please list ten.

What evidence do you have to support your claims? How do you know hybrid tomatoes don't do the same? How do you know organic tomatoes don't do the same? How do we know? What's the evidence? How do you know their business model? What about after the patent runs out? Monsanto's soybean roundup ready patent has expired... and the Open Source Seed Initiative... free GMOs... can't be possible?

1. Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood

2. DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them

3. New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans

4. Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors

5. Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors

6. Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects

7. Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s

8. Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans

9. Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs

10. GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety.

So, if anybody ever tells you that GMOs are completely safe for consumption, it’s not true.

We just don’t know enough about them to make such a definitive statement.

A lot of evidence actually points to the contrary.

That's just a small sample of possible dangers.

Unfortunately geneticists do not consider the ecological, economic, (patent) legal and sociological dangers.

Sources:

(1) https://www.uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf

(2) http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069805

(3) http://rt.com/usa/gmo-gluten-sensitivity-trigger-343/

(4) http://responsibletechnology.org/media/images/content/Press_Release_Gluten_11_25.pdf

(5) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

(6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

(7) http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/Roundup-and-birth-defects/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5.pdf

(8) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749

(9) http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

(10) http://omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-residues-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.pdf

(11) http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

(12)http://static.aboca.com/www.aboca.com/files/attach/news/risk_assessment_of_genetically_modified_crops_for_nutrition.pdf

(13) Reese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev. 2004;21:299–324

(14) Schubert D. A different perspective on GM food. Nat Biotechnol. 2002;20:969–969.

(15) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19146501

Edited December 15, 2015 by tomacht8

[attrayant]

I was expecting a Gish Gallop from you sooner or later, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You've given so many points in need of response, I've had to break the reply up into three posts because this forum limits the number of quote tags per reply.

This whole thread is replete with examples of the argument that anything other than science should be ignored.

Not ignored, but weighed in context. Ignorant opinions based on fear (which is a huge percentage of the anti-argument) deserve to be ignored. Giving to attention to silly fears serves only to legitimize them.

This has two primary impacts: It negates the voice of those not in the science community - the general public, consumers, small scale farmers, people who perhaps for their own ethical reasons do not wish to use or consume GMO.

I'm not sure why you listed consumers separately from the general public. The former is s subset of the latter. What are the ethical objections to GM technology? Are you interested in debating them or just wanted to pad your list of faux-issues?

But the problem there is that the general public is ignorant of the facts and highly susceptible to persuasive anti-marketing. Did you see the DNA labeling survey I mentioned earlier? That is a demand from a totally ignorant and uninformed position, that 80% of the respondents supported. Hell no I don't want those people in charge of deciding how my food gets labeled. Just like the general public shouldn't have any say in how NASA designs a space probe, even though that design may be 100% financed by tax dollars. Leave those decisions to the rocket scientists. The general public lacks the expertise to make informed decisions. It's as simple as that.

And then there is the problem, which if it did not exist we would not be having this discussion.

What does "the problem" refer to?

But it really doesn't matter. A lot of fake problems have been made up (my example of GM corn "contaminating" organic corn from earlier in the thread), and even though they don't really exist, uninformed people are still having discussions about them. Making up fake "problems" is so common now that the term "manufacterversy" has been coined to describe an artificial "problem" that has been fabricated to support or oppose a particular argument.

[continued in next post]

Edited December 15, 2015 by attrayant

[attrayant]

Science had not convinced society that we must accept GMO (otherwise why the protest).

I won't argue this. We need more/better science communicators. But this is a tangent, not related to the central issue of GMO safety.

The pro GMO movement are not engaging society and winning concensus (otherwise why the protests)

This is the same as the previous comment. But in answer to "why the protests", I have already provided in post #132 (which I know you read because you responded to it). Here's what I said:

Fear is usually the prime mover, especially for something highly technical like genetics. We all eat, so that makes it personal. It doesn't help that there are charlatans like Vani Hari, Mercola and Vandana Shiva taking advantage of public ignorance, using scare tactics (Frankenfood anyone?) and making ridiculous appeals to the naturalistic fallacy. Hari and Mercola have storefronts full of organic and "all natural" products, so they also have a large financial interest at stake. Some corporations (I'm gonna take the cheap shot and say "Big Organic") obviously dislike the technology because it threatens their profits.

[continued in next post]

[attrayant]

Now back to what you said:

Science has not solved the social challenges of GMO.

Can't really respond to this because you haven't given me anything to work with. Could you give a few examples of the social challenges that you think science should be working to solve with respect to GM tech?

The pro GMO lobby need a new line of argument.

Opinion. In my opinion, we should keep opinions out of arguments.

If they did not GMO eould have alrwady won universal acceptance - it has not.

Opening clause is missing a subject - if they did not what? And why does technology need to "win" universal acceptance? Here are some other technological innovations that also don't have universal acceptance:

Vaccines

General Relativity

Evolution

Germ theory of disease

And so on.

Maybe it would help streamline the debate if, instead of listing a dozen or more nebulous "talking points" that are only somewhat related to the central topic, you could present your main objection - your deal breaker - your barn burner - with respect to GM technology. That would help sharpen the focus and establish a clear outcome.

[GuestHouse]

You miss understand me Attrayant,

It is not a matter of the veracity of claims (on eitherside of the debate), rather the demontrable fact that what is a socio-political discussion will not be won by scientific argument alone and that insisting only on scientific evidence excludes the wider voices that need to be heared.

I hope you accept that argument in the spirit it is made. The need for a wide and inclusive debate to resolve a wide and inclusive issue.

[attrayant]

You miss understand me Attrayant,

It is not a matter of the veracity of claims[...]

Okay, maybe that's not the discussion YOU personally want to have, but that's the one that should be had. Reason: a whole lot of claims of dubious veracity are being made and it's negatively impacting a potentially life-saving technology.

[tomacht8]

The GMO giants work with lobbying, influence opinion, arguing scientifically only with excerpts, employ blog writers on mass,

Try to get as much patents on plants.

Hopefully Thailand throws out these GMO loan sharks.

What is wrong with GMOs... How are they dangerous? What threat do they pose? How many people get sick a year from them? Which GMOs do it? How?

I guess you don´t know, but:

Monsanto Going to Trial for Crimes Against Humanity

In the Hague, Netherlands, International Criminal Court

Monsanto, the US-based, transnational company responsible for introducing multiple genetically modified crops and numerous toxic chemicals into our environment – including saccharin, aspartame, polystyrene, DDT, dioxin, Agent Orange, petroleum based fertilizers, recombinant bovine growth hormones (rGBH), Round Up (glyphosate), Lasso, Bt toxic plants, and more.

The proceedings will take place on World Food Day, October 16, 2016.

[farmerjo]

Tomach48

Your not a farmer are you?

Do you know what chemicals are used on non gmo crops,i bet you could come up with at least 10 including glysophate.

[jdlancaster]

The GMO giants work with lobbying, influence opinion, arguing scientifically only with excerpts, employ blog writers on mass,

Try to get as much patents on plants.

Hopefully Thailand throws out these GMO loan sharks.

What is wrong with GMOs... How are they dangerous? What threat do they pose? How many people get sick a year from them? Which GMOs do it? How?

I guess you don´t know, but:

Monsanto Going to Trial for Crimes Against Humanity

In the Hague, Netherlands, International Criminal Court

Monsanto, the US-based, transnational company responsible for introducing multiple genetically modified crops and numerous toxic chemicals into our environment – including saccharin, aspartame, polystyrene, DDT, dioxin, Agent Orange, petroleum based fertilizers, recombinant bovine growth hormones (rGBH), Round Up (glyphosate), Lasso, Bt toxic plants, and more.

The proceedings will take place on World Food Day, October 16, 2016.

You have been tricked... that is not the International criminal court... it is just a group of people having a mock trial at the Hague... and you have mentioned what they introduced... but you haven;t mentioned the threats of GMOs... Bt toxic plants.. what are the problems? the other stuff isn't about GMOs... I saw a post a few back with references... I will check them out.. maybe legit

[GuestHouse]

You miss understand me Attrayant,

It is not a matter of the veracity of claims[...]

Okay, maybe that's not the discussion YOU personally want to have, but that's the one that should be had. Reason: a whole lot of claims of dubious veracity are being made and it's negatively impacting a potentially life-saving technology.

Again I drect you to the fact that science alone is not and will not win the argument.

Where you asked me earlier for examples of what issues science should address, my point is issues science cannot address.

By example the ethical concerns of individuals or grouos within society.

These can only be adressed by social discourse. If we exclude all considerations ecxept science we cannot have that social discourse.

[attrayant]

I guess you don´t know, but: Monsanto Going to Trial for Crimes Against Humanity In the Hague, Netherlands, International Criminal Court

Monsanto, the US-based, transnational company responsible for introducing multiple genetically modified crops and numerous toxic chemicals into our environment including saccharin, aspartame, polystyrene, DDT, dioxin, Agent Orange, petroleum based fertilizers, recombinant bovine growth hormones (rGBH), Round Up (glyphosate), Lasso, Bt toxic plants, and more.

You've been had - this is a huge joke. The organic consumer's lobby has rented out a storefront in a building on the same block as the Hague, and some of the tribunal "judges" are well-known biotech scientists and plant genetics experts such as washed-up 80's punk rocker Nina Hagen:

Sorry to give you nightmare fuel so close to bedtime.

No, Monsanto Is Not Going On Trial For Crimes Against Humanity

Thus far, no mainstream media has reported on the plan, because its not a real trial.

Nevertheless, the group organizing the tribunal is doing its best to paint the event as a legitimate trial. The tribunal, the groups website explains, will rely on the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights adopted at the UN in 2011, and assess potential criminal liability on the basis of the Rome Statue [sic] that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002.

[snip]

Most of the tribunal leaders have one thing in common: they are part of organic movement special interests, and they all demonize creators of Genetically Modified Organisms. These crops created with modern molecular genetic engineering are better known as GMOs a scientifically arbitrary term, because the vast majority of foods we consume, even organic foods, have had their genomes altered in the field or in a lab with techniques ranging from well-known selective breeding to lesser-known wide cross hybridization, which unnaturally forces organisms of different species or genera to produce offspring.

The Rome Statue!

Edited December 15, 2015 by attrayant

[jdlancaster]

Addressing toamtchat8's articles

#1 the paper didn't actually implicate the presence of the protein as from GMOs, but could be from the cosmopolitan bateria Bacillus thuringiensis which is used in organic nonGMO farming. also the paper states detection levels below the sensitivity of the equipment which is shown in another paper (listed below) meaning the results can be a false positive. Also the levels detected aren't in line with the levels in bt corn... one would have to consume more than a pound of bt corn every day to reach these levels... unlikely as an average for every individual... meaning some people eat no corn and others must eat 2 lbs. a day and this is assuming none of the protein breaks down which is known to happen in the stomach... Then the testing method is not to be used on blood... it is referenced that the test is not validated for blood...

Expert Answer

By: David Tribe Ph.D., Senior Lecturer, Agriculture and Food Systems/Microbiology and Immunology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia on Friday, 3/07/2014 11:53 am

Dr. David Tribe, Senior Lecturer on Agriculture and Food Systems and Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia, addressed the study conducted by Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc in an article on the Biofortified Blog. The full article is posted below.Here are a few key points:

• “The authors of the study claim to have detected the Cry1Ab protein in the blood of pregnant and nonpregnant Canadian women, and in umbilical cord blood of fetuses.”
• "A number of methodological and interpretive limitations of this paper limit the relevance of the reported findings and conclusions about food safety.”
• “The authors do not provide any evidence that GM foods are the source of the [Cry1Ab] protein. No information was gathered on the diet of any individual in the study, so the assertion that the detection of Cry1Ab is linked to ingested GM food is, at best, speculative.”

A recent publication by Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc in the journal Reproductive Toxicology (“Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in eastern townships of Quebec, Canada”) claims to have detected traces of herbicides (used on herbicide-tolerant “genetically modified” plant varieties) or their major metabolite and the insecticidal protein Cry1Ab (produced by certain varieties called Bt-resistant insect pests) in the blood of Canadian women, pregnant or not pregnant, and in umbilical cords.

Th[e Kuntz] site will publish any credible information about the validity of these claims, and this article will be updated periodically.

A publication lacking credibility

Only claims of Aris and Leblanc on Cry1Ab are discussed here for the time being.

The Cry1Ab protein is produced by some Bt cotton and corn (e.g., MON810).

Aris and Leblanc claim they detected this protein in 93 percent of pregnant women and 69 percent of nonpregnant women tested and believe that this is linked to the consumption of foods derived from Bt varieties, which in Canada must mean corn, rather than cottonseed oil.

Surprisingly, the authors do not consider that the origin of Cry1Ab could be food from organic farming (which sprays Cry1Ab, or bacteria producing it, on fruit or vegetable crops) or from its use in gardening (CryA1b is part of available “natural insecticide” formulations).

If we examine the possibility of a Bt corn food origin for Cry1Ab, since these proteins do not bioaccumulate, it is necessary to consider recent consumption.

First question: Do 93 percent of pregnant women in Canada actually consume corn almost daily?

Second question: Are the values in blood reported by Aris and Leblanc consistent with the levels present in Bt corn kernels?

The answer is no. Here’s why:

The authors reported average values of 0.19 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) of blood from pregnant women. Knowing that, in corn MON810, for example, levels of Cry1Ab in the grain are between 190 and 390 ng/g fresh weight, assuming that 1 percent will pass into the blood (which is on the high side, taking into account losses during corn storage, cooking and gastric digestion and the intestinal barrier), this would require a woman of 60 kg to consume 120 g of corn (for the mean blood value of 0.19 ng/ml, assuming a plasma volume of 2.5 liters) and about 1.5 kg (for the maximum reported blood values of 2.28 ng/ml), which seems unrealistic—and even more if one takes into account all extracellular fluids (10 liters, which would imply an average consumption of 490 g of corn and 5.8 kg in order to reach the maximum value in blood).

Third question (which follows logically the above-mentioned findings): Is the Cry1Ab detection method used by Aris and Leblanc reliable?

Note first that the test used, marketed by Agdia, is claimed to detect the protein Cry1Ab from 1 ng/ml (read the introduction to this article), while Aris and Leblanc claim to have detected average concentrations lower than the detection limit, e.g., 0.04 ng/ml in umbilical cords!

One can cite the publication by Lutz et al. (J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53 (5): 1453–6) showing that the ELISA test used by Aris and Leblanc is not sufficient to guarantee the identity of positive signals (to avoid misinterpretation, samples tested positive for Cry1Ab protein by ELISA should be reassessed by another technique).

Note that Aris and Leblanc did not discuss this issue, nor the results of Chowdhury et al. (J. Animal Sci. 2003, 81: 2546–51), which indicate that these ELISAs do not work for blood (from pigs).

Moreover, they do not cite the publication by Paul et al. (Analytica Chimica Acta 2008, 607: 106–13) that discusses the validity of the tests available on the market. (Provisional) answers to the questions that arise: in the absence of the validation of the detection of Cry1Ab, it is likely that the authors incorrectly conclude that any signal was indicative of the presence of the Cry1Ab protein, whereas they most likely correspond to false positives.

A possible validation, which, surprisingly, is lacking in the work of Aris and Leblanc, is the electrophoretic separation of plasma proteins and immunodetection of the protein Cry1Ab (“Western blot,” a common laboratory technique).

It therefore appears that this publication, in its present state, is of insufficient quality to be convincing. It has not undergone a proper review process according to the standards of a scientific journal, which would have required the validation of the results and their discussion in relation to available literature.

FSANZ response to study linking Cry1Ab protein in blood to GM foods. Accessed May 30, 2011.

There has been some media speculation about a recent paper published by Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc titled “Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in eastern townships of Quebec, Canada” (Reproductive Toxicology, 2011).

What is the paper about?

The paper deals with two herbicides, glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium, that are sprayed on both genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops, and an insecticidal protein, Cry1Ab, that is produced by the naturally occurring soil bacteriumBacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki (Btk). The gene encoding this protein has been used to genetically modify some crops so that they contain the protein and are thus protected against certain insect pests. The protein is also extensively used in organic and conventional farming as a direct-application pesticide.

The authors of the study claim to have detected the Cry1Ab protein in the blood of pregnant and nonpregnant Canadian women, and in umbilical cord blood of fetuses.

What are the concerns about the paper?

A number of methodological and interpretive limitations of this paper limit the relevance of the reported findings and conclusions about food safety. The key limitations include insensitivity of the assay method used and unsubstantiated and invalid assumptions regarding the source of the Cry1Ab protein in the diets of test subjects. Media speculation arising from this paper has also presented conclusions about the human-health relevance of this paper that are not supported by either the paper itself or the broader scientific literature. These issues are discussed in more detail below.

The assay method

The assay method (ELISA) used for Cry1Ab protein was not tested (validated) for its suitability to measure Cry1Ab in human blood. Other reports in the scientific literature have shown that the ELISA assay is not suitable for this purpose.

In mammals, the Cry1Ab protein is degraded in the stomach. If any fragments of the Cry1Ab protein were to pass through into the bloodstream, they would be present at levels much lower than could be quantified by the assay method used in the study.

The assumption that GM foods are the source of the Cry1Ab protein

The authors do not provide any evidence that GM foods are the source of the protein. No information was gathered on the diet of any individual in the study, so the assertion that the detection of Cry1Ab is linked to ingested GM food is, at best, speculative.

Several insecticidal formulations (e.g., Delfin, Dipel) contain a blend of crystallised proteins (including Cry1Ab and living Btk spores) that germinate into the bacterium that then produces the proteins. These formulations have been applied worldwide, including in Australia, for decades. They are applied to crops such as broccoli, cauliflower, celery, melons, potatoes, spinach, tomatoes, cucumbers, turnip, grapes, kiwifruit, citrus and avocados. They are used both commercially and by home gardeners and are permitted for use on organically certified crops.

In comparison, the consumption of food derived from GM corn containing the Cry1Ab protein (no other currently commercialised GM crop species contains this gene) is recent and relatively minor. The corn lines containing the Cry1Ab protein are used mostly for animal feed and for processing into refined products, such as corn syrup and cornstarch, which, because of processing, contain negligible levels of any protein. None of the GM corns produced so far is from the popcorn or sweet-corn lines and is therefore not consumed directly. Therefore, ingestion of Cry1Ab by humans via GM corn is not likely to be significant compared with conventional and organic produce sources.

Interpretation by the media that Cry1Ab protein is a human safety issue

There have been claims in the media that the paper proves that GM foods are not safe for human consumption.

However, the paper does not discuss the safety implications of finding Cry1Ab in the human body, and the authors make no mention of any abnormalities in either the subjects or, in the case of those who were pregnant at the time of the study, the subsequent process of birth or the health of the mothers and babies postpartum.

The Cry1Ab protein, whether ingested via Btk-sprayed conventional or organic crops or via GM corn products containing the protein, is safe for human consumption at the levels likely to be found in these sources.

For more information, see this report, prepared under the auspices of the World Health Organization. It is about Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), the organism used in the spray formulations, and from which various genes have been isolated for use in genetically modified crops. Chapter 7 deals with a whole range of exposures to the organism (and, hence, the proteins produced by it) and their effects in humans.

[jdlancaster]

#2 a great article but not relevant to GMOs.. its about DNA passing from the stomach to the blood... GMOs don't have any special genes you don't already eat... are you worried about turning into a cow from eating beef.... you eat bacillus thuringiensis all the time... if you eat golden rice which has a carrot gene for beta-carotene is it more dangerous that a carrot? the article states this comes from everywhere.. what you breathe, what you eat, what you drink... its not an issue with GMOs but with life in general... your stomach is full of bacteria you need to live... but we don't fear horizontal gene transfer... there is no evidence of danger in the article... and the article isn't about GMOs

[jdlancaster]

tomacht8... after going through 2 articles I noticed that what you called the articles and there actual names are not the same... for example #2 is called

Complete Genes May Pass from Food to Human Blood not DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them... you are misrepresenting the papers as something they are not...

I'm not sure the appropriate word... but it is tantamount to lieing... though I know it's not on purose.. it was most likely a copy and paste

[jdlancaster]

#3 and 4 are not scientific journal articles... they are articles from antigmo websites with no references to peer-reviewed journal articles. They are not references.

[jdlancaster]

#5 is a retracted article... if an article is retracted from a scientific journal it means there are SERIOUS issues with it... if not outright lies or fabricated data, the methodology has been debunked.

#6 is not about GMOs at all and irrelevant.. it is about pesticides... yes.. pesticides are bad and any reducing their use is good...

[jdlancaster]

#7 is about an insecticide and not GMOs, it is also from an antigmo website with no data or peer reviewed references... #8is a report on pesticides and not GMOs...

[jdlancaster]

#9 and 10 also about pesticides and not GMOs

[tomacht8]

PM orders shelving of GMO bill

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/878957-pm-orders-shelving-of-gmo-bill/

[jdlancaster]

PM orders shelving of GMO bill

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/878957-pm-orders-shelving-of-gmo-bill/

This is political and not a reflection of the technology... much as rice schemes or giving in to protesting taxi drivers.... but it is relevant given it may be related to the OP.

[jdlancaster]

#11 fails for a variety of reasons, mostly due to food choices and testing methods. They didn't actually measure inflamation and many other issues. I've attached this as to why it doesn't pass muster to avoid more long posts: http://parrottlab.uga.edu/ProfParrott/pigs2013.html

#12 An ok article even if it over reaches a bit... makes claims such as gmo food compared to non-gmo food showed microscopic differences comparable to eating different foods... no danger issues.. but an ok article... some issues with the article were published here (among other places): http://www.goldenrice.org/PDFs/Crop_conundrum_Dubock_Nutr_Rev_2009.pdf