The biggest issue is that GM plants suck up (Roundup) Glyphosate (the evil) at a much higher level than non-GM plants. And that's what creates disease.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1fcnk2/according_to_monsanto_gmo_foods_are_flawless/ca8zeak

That MIT wacko's claims, the vimeo and paper, have been thoroughly debunked over and over, but keeps getting reposted to Reddit in a new format.

In reality, the amount of RoundUp chemicals in the resulting crops have been thoroughly tested over and over for 20 years by many many studies. They fall within the tolerable FDA trace amounts comparable to other herbicides, many of which are much more toxic.

Non-GM plants die when exposed to RoundUp, because that's the point of using it. GM crops are immune to it, and although the thought of the plants sucking of this very very horrid and toxic chemical is scary, all assertions that they do this are utter bullshit, as of date.

Edit:

Your MIT researcher is a computer scientist studying linguistics...

As I said, very very thoroughly debunked over and over again!!! A few examples:

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1d429c/heavy_use_of_herbicide_roundup_linked_to_health/c9mu8j7

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1f3dij/gmod_plants_suck_up_roundup_which_is_strongly/ca6mr46

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1d8xj4/has_anybody_else_seen_this_published_41813/c9o23xa

[deleted]

People don't realize history repeats itself. No one remembers big tobacco companies tried to debunk studies and claim cigarettes were safe.

pesticide herbicide

He improperly handled the toxic herbicide. Just because it is very toxic and has strict handling rules, which in this case weren't labeled properly, doesn't mean this is present in dangerous amounts to the consumer product. I'm worried and skeptical about this too, but these crops have been studied quite a bit for 20 years by many different parties. 20 years isn't great for this kind of new ground, but its a good start. Present amounts of trace herbicides in the final crops is easy to test and the EPA (who admittedly is in a position of constant Monsanto reach-around) measures these levels as acceptable, safe, and comparable to other herbicides.

thats why they dont want you to know what is in your food. labels are bad.. people might actually care about what's in their food. at least they are immune from being sued into oblivion thanks to our Gov..

"wacko", "debunked".. oh Lord, as you say!

What about citing one of those key studies instead?

Citations added. Thoroughly debunked.

I asked you for one of the many studies of Roundup research you wrote about. You made no reference.

The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report 1 states: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.” The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/media/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

As skeptical as I am, those are hard to deny facts.

The debunking of Seniff's paper had more than just her credentials at question, including her citations. Calling it "empty name-calling" is pretty deceptive.

Such statements have no scientific value. They can not be controlled or argued over in any sense. "EU says", "WHO says", "researchers says".. this is just political speech.

If that's what you go by, you can just plug your brain to the TV to get the daily dose of truth. Else, reference some actual research.

Again you suggest about Seniff there are specific scientific criticism. Do you have ANY such reference, which specify what of her exact claims they disagree with, and why?

If you don't believe the American Association for the Advancement of Science, who are you going to believe?

If you aren't going to believe 130 research projects involving 500 independent research groups over 25 years, who are you going to believe?

This is summary of the collective knowledge of many times more than individual 130 research projects and a summary of those conclusions by The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and other respected organizations.

If you don't believe summaries from the above reliable sources, then read all the 25 years worth of hundreds and hundreds of studies yourself. I for one do not care that much.

The Seniff was rejected as unfounded by the r/science Reddit community citing many reasons. That is enough for me. If you want to keep pushing it, why don't you go over to r/science and tell them why they are wrong.

The reference for the EU statement you linked is a 268-page report, in which the word glyphosate is mentioned one (1) time. That should tell you something about what a fine selection of studies this is.

Again you can not cite a single specific critisism to Seniff's research. What's so hard if there are so many of them?

And then you suggest Reddit votes on a couple of posts shall indicate something? Now we're down to crumbles.

The AAAS was focusing on GM crops, not glyphosate in this particular source.

Why should I repeat specific criticisms that I already posted links to? So you can straw man ones I pick? Read the list of criticisms, debunk them all or drop it.

I made no reference to the votes, only to the large and very compelling list of criticisms.

"The AAAS was focusing on GM crops, not glyphosate in this particular source."

Well isn't that convenient not to focus on the main herbicide chemical when reviewing GMO research.

And then why do you cite that as a counter-evidence to Seniff's work on glyphosate, which was clearly specified in my first post?

And about your other links. There are NO list of compelling criticisms. I couldn't find even one scientific counter-argument. The compelling arguments are instead in support of Seniff. As I take the liberty to re-quote from your references, research that supports Seniff's theories:

About cancer and leaky gut: 1) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120221212345.htm

About virtually every autoimmune disease known to man and leaky gut: 2) http://www.nature.com/nrgastro/journal/v2/n9/full/ncpgasthep0259.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1856434/?tool=pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730948/

About leaky gut and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: 3) http://www.jad-journal.com/article/S0165-0327%2806%2900355-7/abstract

About leaky gut and Fibromyalgia 4) http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11916-996-0009-z?LI=true

About leaky gut and Depression: 5) http://www.jad-journal.com/article/S0165-0327%2812%2900137-1/abstract

About leaky gut and autism: 6) http://ebm.rsmjournals.com/content/228/6/639.short http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2005.tb01904.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

About leaky gut and annorexia: 7) http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:YQhxl5f3B6QJ:scholar.google.com/+leaky+gut+anorexia&hl=en&as_sdt=0,44

About altered flora (precursor to leaky gut) and anxiety: 8) http://www.pnas.org/content/108/7/3047.short

About leaky gut and Parkisons: 9) http://cjns.metapress.com/content/b2144503u5j0573x/

credit cpkdoc: http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1f3dij/gmod_plants_suck_up_roundup_which_is_strongly/ca7v1an

The EPA disagrees for whatever that is worth. You need only to goto Wikipedia to find that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)#Human

why do you cite that as a counter-evidence to Seniff's work on glyphosate

I was pointing out that there are tons of studies that have been done on GM crops over the last 20+ years.

You link a lot to leaky gut issues, but you haven't tied it to GM crops/glyphosate.

Look, I don't think GM crops and glyphosate are safe, but there is no compelling evidence, yet, to make a good argument. So far there is a compelling body of evidence showing things are safe. You can thank the political love boat with Monsanto for slowing the release of anything negative that is credible. 20 years isn't a long time with such political quick sand. The counter argument to that, is other countries are worried about this and are enabling constructive research. Time will bring assurity or maybe absurdity.

"but you haven't tied it to GM crops/glyphosate"

This is exactly what Seniff is doing.

Glyphosate has only been used extensively in agriculture for about 15 years. No wonder the adverse effects have not been properly established yet.

WHO's review of Glyphosate in 1994 cited 201 (out of 360) references as "unpublished reports". The science used to approve it can hence not even be studied or evaluated.

Research for product approval is funded/controlled by the manufacturer, and obviously that has a focus on toxicology at the very minimum of requirements. True research of toxicological pathology can only be done by independent parties subject to open peer review processes.

Normal citizens don't need or care to wait for the science field to agree. Americans are the sickest and fattest among developed nations on the planet. In the rest of the world we all know this, and you're used as the prime example of what NOT to do.

btw; Obama Appoints Monsanto VP To Food Safety Czar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EiShnvdPxH8

I agree there is plenty room for concern and the heated politics around it work hard to kill real research. I don't have the knowledge to properly gauge the reliability of Seniff's reports, so I am forced to rely on the r/science's feeling that it was more than highly suspect and ignore it.

The EPA has made its decisions in a positive favor, although we all know what kind of reach-around position the EPA is in. They call it low toxicity and all. So if one was to go with only official stances, they'd call it Vitamin-RoundUp. We all know there is serious room for concern, starting with the formation of these official stances. One quote does strike me as disturbing and concerning, but seems to imply that there are set enforcement methods for residual glyphosate in the end product food:

Studies with a variety of plants indicate that uptake of glyphosate or AMPA from soil is limited. The material which is taken up is readily translocated throughout the plant and into its fruit. In animals, most glyphosate is eliminated in urine and feces. Enforcement methods are available to detect residues of glyphosate and AMPA in or on plant commodities, in water and in animal commodities.

U.S. EPA ReRegistration Decision Fact Sheet for Glyphosate (EPA-738-F-93-011) 1993

You call Seniff's work debunked when none of the posts you reference quotes even a single sentence from her research papers?

It's nothing but empty name-calling.

Here are her credentials:

Stephanie Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. She received the B.S. degree in Biophysics in 1968, the M.S. and E.E. degrees in Electrical Engineering in 1980, and the Ph.D degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1985, all from MIT. For over three decades, her research interests have always been at the intersection of biology and computation – developing a computational model for the human auditory system, understanding human language so as to develop algorithms and systems for human computer interactions, as well as applying natural language processing (NLP) techniques to gene predictions. She has published over 170 refereed articles on these subjects, and has been invited to give keynote speeches at several international conferences. She has also supervised numerous Master's and PhD theses at MIT. In 2012, Dr. Seneff was elected Fellow of the International Speech and Communication Association (ISCA).

In recent years, Dr. Seneff has focused her research interests back towards biology. She is concentrating mainly on the relationship between nutrition and health. Since 2011, she has written 10 papers (7 as first author) in various medical and health-related journals on topics such as modern day diseases (e.g., Alzheimer, autism, cardiovascular diseases), analysis and search of databases of drug side effects using NLP techniques, and the impact of nutritional deficiencies and environmental toxins on human health.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/

Lengthly information aside, you'll never convince me that eating GM crops can be a good thing. Lets just assume that Nature/God has nothing to do with keeping us healthy, and we know better. I mean it worked for lead paint 20+ years....

One thing I was wondering, did you take in to account the increase in crop production in those times too?

Not disagreeing with you, just curious if that variable was factored in.

That is what I suspected, still a large increase.

No one in my family history has ever used an herbicide in their garden. It seems to me that using a hoe is just as effective and cost efficient. I mean, one can hoe the weeds out in the same amount of time it takes to spray them, and roundup is expensive as shit.

Your families garden is completely irrelevant. Farmers use GMOs among other things to increase yields on a much bigger scale. And they are effective for this.

Farmers using GMO's will turn out to be a bad idea if everyone boycotts them.

Okay. That doesn't change the fact that they are effective at increasing farmers yields.

The yields will just rot if no one buys them.

most GMOs dont have increased yields in the long run. in the long run organic, polyculture has more yields and is better for the environment than GMO or monoculture(grains).

Just came here to watch the Social media wing of Monsanto at work.

Have they never fought the borg.. they always adapt to what you are using and if you use a lot they will become immune to it.

Marijuana growers know this as a fact. Also another reason to buy organic if at all possible. Eagle 20 for powdery mildew is just as evil as Avid or Floramite or Forbid for spider mites but use them wrong/too much and you will create super mites that no longer care what poison you spray on them..

RoundUp is extremely effective, they don't need to spray more. They spray less. It is less toxic than many previous herbicides, and they don't need to use multiple kinds. It binds to the dirt or some shit so that its dangerously toxic to the environment impact is seriously reduced compared to others.

More herbicides are being used because farmers are pushing more crops in less-ideal environments. Also tilling and non herbicide techniques are costly, so effective herbicides finally make manual techniques less effective and too costly.

[deleted]

No more than other herbicides. Check the wiki, it gives some numbers and durations that these toxicities linger. The EPA (who admittedly is in a position of constant Monsanto reach-around) measured acceptable "safe" amounts of trace on the final product comparable to other herbicides. Maybe later findings will spur some worry, but currently, the many tests and studies are giving a green light.

Roundup brings us paradise!

Nothing beats a great fantasy.

The law of unintended consequences always apply. The political heat around negative GM findings also mean substantial negative findings may take decades to hit the light. It is easy to bask in the positive potential, but red flags are everywhere.

solution: dont use herbicides. herbicide use generally makes the environment worse, while organic farming helps the environment. in the long run organic polyculture has the highest yields

No more than other herbicides. Check the wiki, it gives some numbers and durations that these toxicities linger. The EPA (who admittedly is in a position of constant Monsanto reach-around) measured acceptable "safe" amounts of trace on the final product comparable to other herbicides. Maybe later findings will spur some worry, but currently, the many tests and studies are giving a green light.