Good to see genuine evidence of gaming on Reddit. We all know it from observation, but uncovering a shill is always a contribution to society.

And immediately the shills try to bury the truth. 4 downvotes in 30 minutes, 60 in 3 hours. That's 60 votes denying the validation clearly given by OP.

Added: given the positive responses people are putting up, it's clear many of you are enlightened on this matter. Keep up the good work and awaken others.

It isn't gaming. They're just relying on you to do two things:

1) Be lazy.
2) Be intimidated by "SCIENCE"

Seriously everyone: Go look at this study. This is the big one and it's the one all these pro-GMO people are dismissing out of hand as being bullshit.

It has been criticized by people paid by Monsanto, and their criticism is not even valid. You can go look at the data and the photos of the rats yourself. Don't believe this shit that you have to be a trained scientist to read a study. Take your time, discuss, post questions. Get your ass through that study and educate yourself.

The "scientific consensus" on this issue is bullshit. After digging into this I am actually much more worried and upset than I was before. This is big.

Well, another tactic used by shills is to make you waste you time in any way they can. If they repeatedly dispute provable truths in publications, they succeed in defusing your efforts.

Yeah I just hate this attitude of "I am right BECAUSE SCIENCE." Especially with GMOs. I think science has it's place (obviously) but too often it's corrupted because huge companies can fund research. Same thing with fracking. They just bought off whole universities to say it was safe and healthy and all-American good to go.

And the idiots taking this stance apparently don't even read the studies and think critically, they just say "Well you're arguing against SCIENCE and therefore you're a nutcase."

What's hidden in this attitude is the claim that the scientific method is synonymous with the scientific establishment. I'm down with the method, but I always, ALWAYS distrust the establishment. But sadly the people who conflate the two ideas come away feeling superior simply because they made a logical error.

"What's hidden in this attitude is the claim that the scientific method is synonymous with the scientific establishment."

Bravo.

The counterargument to this is that the scientific method is self correcting and that the scientific establishment will always land upon the truth in the end, and should thus be trusted. This is where Science becomes a religion.

The religion of science. Media scientists sell interpretations instead of inspiring people to practice and inquire for themselves.

Just made me think of an amazing book, which most readers here would enjoy: The Science Delusion: Rupert Sheldrake

His 'controversial' 18m TED talk about it from earlier this year http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE

TEDx. Important difference.

I have since learned the difference re submissions but not content, thank you

Cool. TEDx is not TED though.

That's....circular logic, as it's exactly what the person said. You are again equating the scientific method with the establishment. The method is the method - and operational, intangible utility. The establishment is a system subject to all the things human infest them selves with: politics, corruption, cronyism, fallacies, and all the rest. Those things CANNOT be denied. Worst about it being, they will not arrive at truth when it is not truth that is sought.

Oblig - http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/397254/science-damn-you

There is science, the practice, and "Science", the religion. Most people don't know science well enough to actually be able to even read a study and deduce for themselves anything from it. They have to take "Science" on faith. And they do.

It's like a shortcut to enlightenment where an idiot professes themselves extremely intelligent simply because they know nothing, completely missing the subtext being that all new knowledge only causes infinitely more questions to become possible. They believe themselves to be capable of thought while the most basic capacity for logical thought escapes them.

Everything they know is attributed to an external authority rendering the very concept of challenging one of their beliefs not only impossible (without believing they are educated or experienced enough to challenge a real "authority" on the subject) but the idea does not even occur to them.

I'm not sure if it was the education system or some other factor, but I have noticed that the majority of present adults have been taught to defer all authority to external sources. They must be trained in the procedure instead of understanding the concept allowing them to develop their own procedure. They are not responsible for their actions because someone else told them what to do. It is possible to go through ones entire life without ever being responsible for one's own actions. Without ever having to ask oneself a critical question. Obviously you are doing it right, an external authority told you how to do it.

And that's where it falls apart. You cannot argue with them. Logic is irrelevant because the only logic they understand is "but that's how it is done". It is true because someone smarter than them told them it was true. It is true because their benevolent science, an abstract concept similar but unrelated to the actual Scientific Method, could never allow a harmful chemical or modified organism to be approved.

But it is not that they refuse to apply logic, it is simply that they have been taught from a very young age that attempting to apply logic to life only causes pain. They simply follow the rules they are provided at any given time and are happy to receive their tokens redeemable for food pellets and toys in return. They have not in their adult life experienced any serious self-reflection or self-criticism and are therefore completely incapable of doing so. Your demand of them to do so is a foreign request. The only thing they know is deference to external authority. They literally take science on faith and have no basis of understanding from which to defend their beliefs.

I've also noticed that a lot of people on Reddit have the attitude that because there's a consensus it must be true. I always get downvoted for saying it but consensus, even among scientists, is not actually science. Consensus just means that a bunch of people decided to agree on something because it benefits them and their agenda....even if it's complete BS. Just because someone is a scientist does not mean that they are any more or less honest than anybody else.

Agreed, its kinda like the word normal. People think "normal" means what its definition is, but usually normal is used as a fancy way of saying average. Once you realize this, the idea of "normal" loses its meaning.

What's hidden in this attitude is the claim that the scientific method is synonymous with the scientific establishment. I'm down with the method, but I always, ALWAYS distrust the establishment. But sadly the people who conflate the two ideas come away feeling superior simply because they made a logical error.

Incidentally, it's this exact same type of logical error that leads people to think "Stalinism was Communism, therefore Communism is bad", and "Government X makes shitty cronyist regulations, therefore regulation is bad (and therefore Right-Libertarianism is the answer)".

tbh, without any sort of regulations, it wouldn't be libertarianism... it would be anarchy. Not a fair jump to make sir.

Anarchy is a form of libertarianism. It's the furthest, most extreme extension of the respect for civil liberties that is the basis of all schools of libertarian thought. Anarchy means without rulers, not without rules.

Responsible Anarchy

Responsible anarchy, what?

I'm not sure if you're correcting me, expanding on what I said, or what.

Agreeing with a memorable soundbite quote.

This one?

True, but not according to the people I argue with.

then you are arguing with anarchists and they don't even know it. Not talking about firebombing in black hoodies when I say anarchy btw... there are intellectuals that support the idea of no govt. But there ARE lines govts can cross at the same time.

Yeah, and when I explain that to them in multiple paragraphs they call me a libtard.

same thing but free markets, capitalism, etc.

They just bought off whole universities to say it was safe and healthy and all-American good to go.

Source?

Check my edit.

Edit: Some people asked for sources on the claim that academics can be bought, and asked about the fracking example I used. Please refer to this episode of This American Life where they run through the issue. It's only an hour long or you can read the transcript.

That doesn't answer my question. I know academics can be bought. But in this specific case, were they bought?

Yes. See here

http://gmoseralini.org/smelling-a-corporate-rat/

http://spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/science/item/5495-tumorous-rats-gm-contamination-and-hidden-conflicts-of-interest

Thank you. Christ, why not put that in the OP?

Prolly because op is a faggot

All I have is circumstantial evidence. In other words: I don't know. I know that their lab is funded by Monsanto. I know that in similar cases such conflicts of interest have had a chilling effect on research or testimony regarding controversial subjects.

Is it possible that these two scientists are completely legit and their funding source has no impact on their science? Absolutely. Again. I have no proof.

However, given the circumstances, is this conflict of interest highly suspicious? I personally think so.

Of course it's suspicious, but a shitload of things are suspicious and end up being completely legit, like the couch my roommate bought off craigslist. ^{$50 for the most unfuckupable couch this house has ever had.} I know this is /r/conspiracy and we're suspicious of most everything, but "it's suspicious" still doesn't count as an argument against.

Fair enough. I laid out what I had. I'm not here to lie or use anything other than logic. You're right that I don't have hard evidence. But then, I'm not a spook or detective, I'm just some idiot on the internet. If it isn't enough to convince you, then you're justified in keeping your opinion.

I would listen to the radio story if I were you though. It might open some doors for your future investigations.

Now that I think of it, Monsanto would have to buy off at least 75% of academics in the fields of chemistry, biology, agriculture, and whatever else would be related to GMOs. I mean, if you buy one pro-Monsanto academic study, you would have to pay off the following:

• the researcher in charge
• everyone in that person's research team
• the researcher's supervising department
• the peer review board on every major scientific journal
• more studies to prove that study, because nobody on the planet (except the media) gives a fuck about an experiment that can't be replicated many times by different researchers with any fewer than three standard deviations
• more studies that study the studies that prove the original study and check for bias in all previous studies
• most of the academic community that would spot bullshit instantly and publish independent studies or something
• most professionals working in biology, chemistry, genetics, etc for the same reason as previous
• you would also have to do this with foreign countries as well because most of them also have scientists

That is a LOT of people you have to pay off if you don't want that one single study to get smashed to bits within a year or two, if not less. Where do they get that kind of money? Buying a scientific fact is much more difficult than paying off the EPA to let you dump toxic waste in a public lake. You can't treat them the same. A better comparison would be paying off the EPA to let you get a fire hose and drive around town dousing every building in town with toxic waste. People are gonna notice.

I'm not even trying to convince you anymore, I'm just legitimately curious as to how you justify this belief.

Actually you don't have to do all of this. All you have to do is supply the researchers with the raw data. You give them a skewed dataset and say, "do science on this data". They will come to the conclusion you want, because the data is biased. All you need is for them to not ask questions about the raw data.

Yeah, what happens when five other studies prove that study wrong because the raw data was incorrect? Monsanto just wasted money buying off one research team, and that one research team will never be respected again in the scientific community. Also, like I said, no one pays attention to the results of one study unless it can be repeated by other scientists.

[deleted]

*I'm not a religious person and I like science, but I also employ common sense before blindly accepting things as safe/fact

And yet somehow nobody in this subreddit can be bothered to objectively assess the data on GM foods. There has never been a single study that demonstrates any harm coming to anyone or anything by eating GM foods. That's not to say it can't happen, but it's never been demonstrated.

[deleted]

Not to nitpick too much, but that's an opinion piece. I prefer to get my sources from not opinion pieces. People do get to do science on GMOs.

[deleted]

(who doesn't allow INDEPENDENT studies to be done on their PATENTED food)?

Half of this debate is about Seralini et al., who used GMO corn in their studies. How can you claim that independent studies can't happen when they already have?

[deleted]

Are you saying that Seralini et al. are Monsanto shills?

[deleted]

I've done more googling on that study than you have, I assure you. But googling by itself isn't a source.

[deleted]

And neither is just seeing a "study" and trusting it 100%

I wish more people applied that thinking to the Seralini study.

This is the exact same thing that I think about Global Warming. Listen to the No Agenda podcast (just google No Agenda) and you will hear all kinds of stories come out that get shouted down by the "The science is in!" crowd.

Yeah, screw scientists. I get all the science I need from a former MTV VJ.

I'll take my science from the guys who aren't getting paid by the people making money on the science reported.

Yes, when I go to a University administration parking lot, Lamborghinis and Ferraris everywhere. Those motherfuckers make BANK.

shut up slave

If I wasn't poor, Gold for you.

I personally came to the conclusion that Monsanto is a piece of shit, world and people raping organization that needs to be shut the fuck down a LONG time ago and it simply didn't matter what evidence to the contrary I came across. I was decided.

Perhaps this itself involves coming to a conclusion in an "uncritical" manner. However, the fact that the conclusion I came to is actually TRUE allows me to simply continue to understand the validity of the conclusion itself without having to debate it's truth or doubt myself with regard to the fact that Monsanto is a piece of shit, world and people raping organization that needs to be shut the fuck down.

I have argued against pro-GMO people citing this study, but the depths they go to discredit the data is mind-numbing, which, I suppose, is their intent. But this study is THE reason that I go out of my way not to ingest GMO foods. And I tell anyone that will listen that they should not either. The fact that there are some people that claim that GMO's are "no big deal" is quite unnerving.

Right and all people are asking in the US is to label them. Since when is information bad? If your product is better, GREAT. Everyone will buy it. But for fucks sake we deserve to have information.

Yup, if they were serious about the science behind the goods, they'd have no reasonable objection to that information being attached to the product.

when they stated mounting huge campaigns and putting lots of money into preventing the labeling, that was pretty much all I needed to know. If they don't want you to know what you're eating, there's something wrong.

[deleted]

Money they should have due to increased yield from the GM products.

You don't deserve anything, son. You want information? information is literally the ultimate power of our time. You'll have to fight, risk your family, life, belongings, just like our revolutionary ancestors to get it.

how do you determine which foods aren't GMO?

A lot of companies self label as non GMO and participate in this project http://www.nongmoproject.org/ There is also an app for your phone to scan food packages to see if they are GMO.

as best I can...I don't eat any corn that doesn't specifically say organic/non GMO, I don't eat soy, etc. if I buy processed food I scan ingredients for things like corn syrup, soy lecithin, etc. I can't be 100% sure I'm not ingesting it but I go out of my way to ensure what I buy says its non-GMO.

Anything that is labeled organic. Anything that doesnt contain corn, soy or canola.

There is absolutely no monitoring of "organic" labeling. Anyone can plop that on their products, just so you know. I'd go a step further and not rely on that particular buzz word.

False. The common label words "all-natural" or "natural" have no legal or standardized meaning. However there are standards enforced by the USDA for a product to be labeled "100%organic" "organic" or "contains organic ingredients".

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446&acct=nopgeninfo

So the government, which I think supports Monsanto and derives some type of benefit from Monsanto, holds the ability to certify foods that could possibly be GMO?

can the USDA certify something organic? I know they do for tobacco.

While it may not be fool proof, it is a start. Like I said though, avoid corn, soy and canola (including meat that eats those products as well)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_organic

avoidance of synthetic chemical inputs not on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (e.g. fertilizer, pesticides, antibiotics, food additives, etc.), genetically modified organisms, irradiation, and the use of sewage sludge;

Notice how even the link you've provided points out how it varies from place to place and there's different types of labels and certifications. You told people to go with anything labeled Organic. Literally anyone can label their food organic with no validation or consequence for lying. (I too can bold the relevant part)

You didn't stress to look for a certain level of certification or wording, you just told people to trust organic labels because 'it's a start.' That's frankly not good enough and dangerous advice if they truly are concerned. You need to learn the difference between the word organic and its use as a label and something being certified and by which organization and what qualifications they used.

I encourage you to watch the Bullshit! episode on Organic food labeling in the US.

You need to qualify the word Organic. You CANNOT just trust it. It's being abused all around you

[deleted]

No, only if it's usda certified.

[deleted]

If it's not certified, organic has no standard definition.

You can call whatever you want organic, and no one will stop you.

[deleted]

http://organic.about.com/od/organicindustrybasics/f/When-Is-Organic-Really-Organic.htm

Not a great source, but it links to good ones and gives a good overview.

If it's not certified, it didn't meet the criteria. The usda is pretty lax about the certifying- I've seen a few specials on the local news about farms using chemical fertilizers and still passing- and you can only imagine what the farms that don't meet certification are like.

I'm fairly certain it was an abc special, if you really want to look into it.

Haha. Organic labeling may have its flaws, but they do protect against GMOs. If it's organic it cannot possibly be a GMO.

Penn and Teller are idiots; Penn talks like a fifth grader who just learned swear words.

"if it's organic" being the key thing here. If you understand labeling has its flaws, you'd know that the rest of what I said matters.

I agree Penn and Teller are often flawed individuals, but did you even read what I wrote or why? Organic is fine when it's really organic.

Let me spell it out for anyone else failing to absorb the issue: THE PROBLEM IS SHIT IS MISLABELED AS ORGANIC ALL THE TIME.

That's all that episode has to say about it too, but go ahead and keep thinking you know it all already and don't need to read critically or consider other sources. You can't just whole sale discount what they had to say on any given subject just because you don't like them.

http://www.helpguide.org/life/organic_foods_pesticides_gmo.htm

This non-profit site lists out the qualifications for a product to be labeled organic. GMOs are a no-go.

Forgive me, I'm not sober, but did you post that to refute me or to back me up? If it's to back me up, ignore the rest. If it's what it looks like.....

face palm

Is this the argument you really think I'm making? I even bolded it for you. No one enforces using the word organic. There is a huge difference between actually having one of the certified logos and just plastering the word on your product. I'm telling people to go the extra mile and actually look into if a product is certified and not just using the word. Read what the fuck I'm writing. I know GMOs are a no go. Is that not obvious? I'm not saying anything that your link isn't saying. It specifically points out that certification is different than just using the word organic and especially the word natural.

Can you get on board with "look into it and verify it's actually organic" instead of "eat shit that has the word organic on it."

Fair enough, but fuck Penn and Teller. They are right wing trolls. Look up the guy they interview in that episode - Alex Avery. He's a shill

http://mail.spinwatch.org/index.php/Alex_Avery

Look for usda certified organic.

There is no criteria for slapping "organic" on a label, it means absolutely nothing unless it's usda certified.

Did you ever stop to consider that maybe Seralini et al. 2012 is actually just a terribly done study?

that may be...all studies have their flaws. If you could adequately explain as to why it's so terrible, please enlighten me. But being a former pharma sales/ops type, when there's a concerted effort to either discredit or make a particular study shine, something is typically amiss. Be that as it may, I wouldn't take a drug that wasn't adequately studied in humans, same goes for food that has been modified at the genetic level.

Comprehensive discussions of the problems with the study and the reasons why its conclusions aren't valid:

• Ars Technica

• Nature

• Forbes piece

• New York Times opinion piece on "Single Study Syndrome", the tendency to draw far-reaching conclusions from a single study, which can easily be wrong.

Recently a study came back saying organic food is bad for you. The anti gmo study was funded by greenpeace and conducted by a group known to fudge numbers for news buzz. If you actually read the study you would be disgusted that it was "reviewed". The entire thing is a joke and another black mark on the face of scientific study. It is sad how easy it is to buy the results you want. As greenpeace has just proven.

Got anything to back up that outburst of verbal diarrhea?

Do you have anything to support that GMfood is bad? No so why do I need to post anything when I am stating fact? I do not need to post studies proving gravity do I?

Wow that's a fantastic argument.

It is the same argument being used by the anti-gmo crowd.

So in other words, no. Got it, thanks.

Read the study. Check who conducted it. Check who funded it. That is all I need to back up my claims.

Uhm, no. You're making the claim. You have the responsibility to provide the citation(s) backing up your claim. Failing that, you're simply talking out of your ass - which you seem to be very good at.

I already have posted proof, however the people making the original claim have posted no proof beyond a an anti gmo funded study which is the laughing stock of the scientific community.

Now why should I spend time posting links again and again when people ignore them because it doesn't fit their view. Look it up yourself.

This just defies logic. How can true organic food be bad for you, especially compared to foods that have been genetically modified? Not cross-bred, not hybrid, but modified at the genetic level. Anyway, kindly pont to a reference as to what you are implying with regard to Greenpeace and the fudging of numbers for "news buzz".

http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2012/september/organic.html

They are less nutrient and or equal to conventional counterparts, while costing more money to produce and consume. They also damage the land more.

GM food is exactly the same as traditional hybrid food. Now stop being scared of science and technology. Are you scared of vaccines?

Read this long ago. And first of all, you stated that "recently a study came back saying organic food is bad for you". That is not what this study says. It says that there is no difference in nutritional content, but also that 37% of conventional foods had pesticide residues vs 7% for organic. That in and of itself is a reason to go organic. Otherwise, the study tries to claim that organics are more nutritious, when the real reason for buying organic is that it's more environmentally friendly. Talk about a straw man argument. I, nor anyone else I know, eats organic because they think it's nutritionally superior; they eat it because it's far less likely to be inundated with pesticides and what not. And GM food IS NOT the same as traditional hybrid food. I'm not a science geek and even I understand that. And vaccines go through rigorous clinical studies to prove their efficacy AND safety...years of testing. GMO foods does/has not. In essence, they are conducting trials on humans as we speak, as I would think it would take years to ascertain the effects, or lack therof, of GMO's on the human body. And I would argue modifying a food at the genetic level, given all of the things we still don't know about foods and how they effect our bodies, synergies with other foods, etc., makes it even more important that GMO's are studied before just adding them to everything without letting people know you are doing it.

Read this long ago. And first of all, you stated that "recently a study came back saying organic food is bad for you". That is not what this study says. It says that there is no difference in nutritional content, but also that 37% of conventional foods had pesticide residues vs 7% for organic. That in and of itself is a reason to go organic. Otherwise, the study tries to claim that organics are more nutritious, when the real reason for buying organic is that it's more environmentally friendly. Talk about a straw man argument. I, nor anyone else I know, eats organic because they think it's nutritionally superior; they eat it because it's far less likely to be inundated with pesticides and what not.

Organic food is not more environmental friendly. I am assuming you are not a farmer and have never been one. I grew up in a farming area. I have seen first had that organic farming is bad for the environment. It damages the land much more so than conventional farming. Not to mention organic food is more likely to make people sick if it is not properly washed. Talk about cherry picking.

And GM food IS NOT the same as traditional hybrid food. I'm not a science geek and even I understand that.

I can tell you are not a science geek. It is the same.

And vaccines go through rigorous clinical studies to prove their efficacy AND safety...years of testing. GMO foods does/has not. In essence, they are conducting trials on humans as we speak, as I would think it would take years to ascertain the effects, or lack therof, of GMO's on the human body.

Um again not true. But you do not care about facts. YOu just parrot the lies the talking heads spit at you.

And I would argue modifying a food at the genetic level, given all of the things we still don't know about foods and how they effect our bodies, synergies with other foods, etc., makes it even more important that GMO's are studied before just adding them to everything without letting people know you are doing it.

And I would argue that your fear and misunderstanding of science is sad.

this is typical of people arguing for GMO. You say a lot, but in the final analysis, you have said absolutely nothing. If what I said about clinical trials is not true, prove it. Not sure what talking heads you are referring to, but I came to these conclusions on my own based on common sense. I actually worked for a vaccine company, so no fear of science here. But I do know when you go personal, that's all that needs to be said, as it says you have nothing to say. and lol, organic food is more likely to make people sick if not washed? Duh. That goes for anything, but this again says less than nothing. Poof, begone. You know not of what you speak.

Ignoring what I said and posted while showing nothing yourself. Typical of crazy anti gmo crowd.

I'm not making any assertions about what you wrote, and I responded to your assertions regarding organics being "bad" (which you ignored), the Stanford study, and so on...I think I made my points. you've done nothing but say they are wrong, I'm anti-science, yada yada. lol ignoring what you posted? You're quite mad.

Are you joking? Are you on greenpeace's payroll? Or are just incapable of reading what I have posted. I know it goes against what you ignorantly think as you seem to hate science and fear technology but come on. Get with the times. Any "study" funded by greenpeace will be horribly inaccurate. Hell the study this entire thing is about has refused to release the raw data making it impossible for people to replicate. It also as mentioned earlier contains obvious errors. I am sorry that you are incapable of looking past headlines.

Organic food is bad, note it is no better than conventional methods, costs more and damages the environment at a higher rate. Organic farming methods hurts the environment much more than conventional. In order to keep organic foods alive and safe from being eaten they use worse pesticides and worse fertilizers. Enjoy your e-coli.

Oh and do not forget that organic farming employs larger numbers of predator organisms throwing the balance completely out of wack and introducing invasive species of organisms enjoy fucking up nature.

lol shill

Yes yes you are. Move along greenpeace shill.

btw you never gave a reference for your greenpeace assertion. which was expected.

Which reference?

see you're shilling so hard, you're losing track of the misinformation you put out there. Maybe you should go back and review your posts.

btw you never gave a reference for your greenpeace assertion. which was expected.

which one? The fact the study was funded by greenpeace or the fact you are a greenpeace supporter who adamantly denies science?

see you're shilling so hard, you're losing track of the misinformation you put out there. Maybe you should go back and review your posts.

You might want to actually read my posts. I know it's hard since you do not get paid to actually read those with opposing views only to spew your garbage.

edit: http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/Global/australia/True_food/Seralini_Bio.pdf

here they are propping their guy.

And btw when he was sued to release the funding data greenpeace was the original bankroller. enjoy it. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/13/gm-corn-leads-to-organ-failure-not-so-fast/#.UazE7RyvNBk

I think you need to review the definition of the word "fact", as the way you throw it around, I do not think you know what it means.

I think you need to learn to read. Also you might want to skip over headlines and read actual articles. Then look who wrote said article and research that person.

Who has a vested interest in the failure of gm crop? Greenpeace and the organic food industrial complex. This is nothing but a corporate sham to discredit science and technology out of fear and greed.

Read it and "wheat". ;-)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324412604578515502675414838.html

YAY, you can read headlines. The real issue was not as major as you believe. It was a temporary ban due to a strain of grain found in the export that was not purchased by japan. Basically like finding horse meat in your beef.

I just wanted to see to go off. ;-)

Don't pay any attention to 3D, he is a shill.

obviously. still grinds my gears!

He was all over one of my posts and for every single link I provided he said they were biased or lying, while defending Monsanto. He is obviously paid to be soulless and betray his fellow man.

Dude you posted 3 links.

A link to the original study being discussed, that was paid for by greenpeace and conducted by a paid greenpeace "scientist".

A link that had nothing to do with gmo being bad, other than the headline.

And a link to a sketchy website that has connections to greenpeace as they (greenpeace) were authors of several articles.

You posted nothing that was evidence of anything.

You're giving him too much credit with the shill accusation. He's just a moron nutjob on some anti-environmentalist crusade.

I lol every time he refers to greenpeace as a "anti science terrorist organization"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

You are correct sir. Here are 2 excellent articles on the subject:

http://gmoseralini.org/smelling-a-corporate-rat/

http://spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/science/item/5495-tumorous-rats-gm-contamination-and-hidden-conflicts-of-interest

This is a great site where seralini directly addresses every single criticism brought up by the "critics"

http://gmoseralini.org/en/

I agree that this isn't gaming. The majority of reddit actually buys into this stuff. It may or may not have been a shilling campaign at first, but by this point the campaign has been exceedingly successful.

Unfortunately it has. If you go through my reddit comment history, every anti-GMO comment I provide, with links and evidence, get's downvoted to oblivion without comments or with just character assassination.

like this: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1f40lr/hungary_destroyed_entire_corn_fields_that_they/ca6qur4

1) The study didn't have a control group. BUT: If you look at the raw data this is clearly not true.

That is 100% not what the criticism was. The criticism was this: This specific breed of rats is prone to cancer, making any judgments one way or the other about effects of foods is stupid when you use a rat already prone to such high rates of cancer. In fact, if you had bothered to read it, you would see that they company which produces the rats used in the study even admits that 76% of the females will spontaneously develop mammary gland tumors. Take a rat breed that is prone to tumors and feed them ad lib (which is what Séralini did), and you get even higher rates of spontaneous tumors, 71% of males and 87% of females.

2) The data don't support the conclusion that GMOs cause tumors. BUT: Again, if you look at the data, this is not true.

I have to re-emphasize that you cannot come to any firm conclusion when you use a model organism that is prone to such high rates of cancer. BUT, for the sake of argument, if any study that claimed GMO caused higher rates of cancer should also be able to explain why in this study, male rates had lower rates of cancer. In other words, if GMO causes tumors, why did fewer males get tumors? The data from Séralini would actually indicate a potential protective effect on males, but Séralini doesn't even address this contradicting data.

This is big.

It isn't. You just need to read a little closer and think about what you're reading.

And seriously, please note that the letter from de Souza and Oda do not support one side or the other of the GMO issue, but simply that the Séralini paper is really bad science on a very basic level.

It isn't gaming. They're just relying on you to do two things: 1) Be lazy.

This is actually most Redditors you come across. People don't read the articles, they read the headlines, or the comments, and deduce what they will from that.

If I had a nickel for every time redditor replied with "thank you" to a pro-GMO, pro_monsanto articulate argument citing "science," I'd be a rich man. People just want their worst fears to be alleviated so they can have their faith restored in an illusion, the system they were raised to believe in.

When one's core beliefs are challenged, fear and anxiety are created. In response to that, psychological defenses kick in to protect us from from these emotions. Denial, the most primitive psychological defense, is the one most likely to kick in when our beliefs are challenged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

I wouldn't say you have to be a scientist to read a study, but there are certain things in scientific papers that a layperson wouldn't catch on to that may be quite important. I'm not saying their criticism is valid (because I haven't read the paper, so I really don't know), but it is something to keep in mind.

this is perhaps the most convincing conspiracy that's ever come through here, a small part of me buys this, but still I'm a skeptic - and my friend, you are using infallible logic.

The control group was insufficiently large.

Some of the GMO fed rats were healthier than in the control groups - who also developed cancerous tumours.

His logic is certainly not "infallible".

SCIENCE™

Dude it was funded by greenpeace. The "Science" behind it is a joke.

It is bullshit, please stop taking advantage of people with a tenuous grip on reality.

Please stop encouraging people to distrust their own minds you fuck.

Only psychopaths think their own mind is infallible, you fuck.

Validation!? The rat study was the only study to say gmo are bad. It was funded by GREENPEACE an anti gmo group. The study is a blight and a joke in the scientific community. The people behind the study have been caught numerous times fudging numbers to get news buzz.

Indeed. Sadly, redditors here only look for conspiracy if it fits their worldview. Greenpeace, a known terrorist organization, paying for anti-GMO studies? "No, that's fine mate - the governments are in it and they won't pay for the truth, so we need true people like us to fund it..."

I wouldn't go so far to say terrorist, as that word is far too overused these days, but it's true that Greenpeace was overrun some decades back and has shunned science ever since.

Of course it is more of a figure of speech, however they do systematically use terror to advance their agenda...

Yup. A figure of speech, yet you present it as a fact. So someone should believe anything you say why?

A figure of speech, because obviously they cannot be compared to Muslim fundamentalist. However, they do fit the definition of terrorism - systematical use of terror in order to advance their own agenda. So it is a fact.

This "definition" is laughable. It's a ridiculous tautology.

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror". Congratulations, this offers as much content as saying "Communism is defined as the existence of a communist society".

It's only tautological if terrorism and terror are the same thing, which they are not (and he never seemed to argue that they were, either).

You should check the definition of tautology before making such claims and laughing. "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" - Mirriam-Webster dictionary.

Citations/sources pls?

Citations are needed for facts? Which claim would you like a source for?

Gilles-Eric Séralin : greenpeace funded "scientist". That is a fact. Look it up. He has dubious credits and a questionable history.

Also some nice light reading for the simple minded. http://academicsreview.org/2012/09/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-study/

Academics review. lol!

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Academics_Review

Academics review. lol!

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Academics_Review

LMAO seriously you are going to use something founded by spinwatch? You do know it is funded by greenpeace and other "green" terrorist groups right?

http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/lobbying/itemlist/user/62-spinwatch?start=30

Not sure if sarcasm...

You tried to state that academics review was bad by using a source that is funded by greenpeace and other anti science organizations. That is like trying to disprove evolution using the bible as a source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

I'm pretty sure Reddit automatically gives downvotes after a certain number of upvotes.

It appears that way to us on purpose to avoid people gaming the upvote system or spamming it. The numbers are fuzzed. Only the final number is real, however many upvotes and downvotes we can see through res are in constant flux. You can sometimes see it change right before your eyes if you note the numbers and then check again from a refresh or different browser. The total upvote count might be 50, for example, but the spread could be 150/100 or 50/00 or 125/75 or anything else that lands at 50. It means nothing.

Doesn't it degrade the debate just to bring meaningless interweb karma into the discussion when debating this issue?

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

try mentioning anything about excitotoxins in the nutrition sub-reddit and you'll get like 100 downvotes easily.

people are just SO fucking corrupt.

I've concluded that the Aspartame/Sucralose crowd gets a nice sum for their defense of the products. Apparently they don't give a rat's ass whether people have their brains burned out by that crud.

I've concluded that the Aspartame/Sucralose crowd gets a nice sum for their defense of the products. Apparently they don't give a rat's ass whether people have their brains burned out by that crud.

Or, maybe you're wrong?

Or maybe you either don't know what you're talking about or haven't read the many papers on it?

http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_brain_damage.htm

One of many discussions citing many many papers showing the toxicity. Come back when you can refute the papers.

Oh look, Das_Mime went to his /Conspiratard buddies to boast how retarded everyone here is. But couldn't get his dick up to refute my citings. Now I understand why he was compelled to post here. Gang initiation requirement.

"World Natural Health Organizatipn"? That's your source? Pathetic. Get a real source or get out.

Oh look, a Conspiratard doing the usual stupidities. Go back to your hole where you brag about how dumb are the people you cannot debate. I'm waiting for you to refute the papers; so far all you've done is mock the name and not deal with the content. That's weak.

What papers? You haven't linked to a single scientific paper. Next you'll link to TimeCube and demand that I debunk it.

It's sad you're unable to read. The papers are clearly cited at the end of the article I linked. Looks like you did not even read it or else are obviously trolling. Frankly, you're not even fit to sell frozen bananas at a stand,

I read it and there's not a single link to a scientific paper anywhere in there. Apparently you don't understand the difference between peer review and shit people post on the internet.

Such sophistry. You're playing the game that if I didn't spoon feed you wth links and instead point to citations, nothing was referenced. The article has a whole list of citations at the end. Are you some dumb high school kid who never went to college and you don't understand what a citation reference is? What a lazy ass punk. You probably can't eat unless Momma feeds you at the table with a spoon.

What claim are you making, exactly? That aspartame can cause brain damage? Because there's no evidence anywhere that it does, and none of the papers listed at the end of your bizarre article support that point.

So in one minute you switch from 'there are no links, there are no papers' to 'you've read all the papers and are certain there's no evidence in them.' LOLOL, Captain Obvious.

Citing irrelevant papers is meaningless. They made claim X and then wrote the names of some unrelated papers.

Also, for the love of god, learn the difference between science and internet bullshit.

I posted several links in the comments in r/news and the down vote shills went after me worse than I had ever seen. I don't recall getting 10 downvotes for anything, in 5 years, except those anti Monsanto links that got over 15 downvotes each. I intent to keep at them. I like to see them run scared.

/r/news

I had my first run in with the gamed pro-NRA shills recently. I knew it within a comment or two that they had a playbook. The problem is even with a professionally written playbook, they aren't hiring professional arguers like Attorneys, so it's pretty easy to dismantle their arguments. I wonder when they're going to drop serious coin to send professionals to argue their points. Edit: Professionals. Also: I am pro gun ownership, but I think the NRA is just a shill for the gun manufacturers.

Now I'm curious what you mean by "pro-NRA shills". Are you saying pro-gun rights, or actually pro-National Rifle Association shills?

Because I think the NRA is a strawman organization arguing illogically to make those who have actually read the 2nd Amendment appear to be idiots. I believe the 2nd Amendment says that the right to bear "Arms" (with a capital A, because they didn't mean just guns) "shall not be infringed", because that's what it says in plain English. If the NRA was actually intending to defend the 2nd Amendment they would simply point out that no infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms is allowed by the constitution. End of story. That's the only argument that needs to be made. They are not actually intending to defend the 2nd Amendment. They are intending to make arguing for the 2nd Amendment untenable. They disparage Arms rights advocates.

I assume you are referring to defenders of the corrupted organization no longer defending the rights of the people to keep and bear Arms (if they ever even did). Or you could be a proponent of modifying the United States Constitution.

And I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a stoner who realized a year or two ago that fighting for liberty might take you in strange directions. I grew up in a anti-gun household. I don't own any guns myself, but I am willing to die defending your right to Arm yourself at least as heavily as we allow our civil servants in our government to arm themselves. I'm not a professional, just someone who wants to pursue happiness and believes everyone else should be able to do the same without being preemptively punished for the possession of an object or substance. Prohibition is always thoughtcrime. Killing someone is illegal, but owning a gun is not probable cause of any crime, just like possessing or consuming weed is not evidence of a crime. I can't support legalization of cannabis and be against a right actually enumerated in the Constitution. That would be hypocritical.

Not to be a dick, or anti-gun, but your argument (along with most pro-gun arguments) completely ignores the first part of the 2nd Amendment. It starts with "A well regulated militia..." and that part is almost always overlooked when these topics come up.

I truly believe that the Founding Fathers believed that the right to own guns (they were the 'arms' of the times) would always be held by citizens, but also that those citizens would be trained in the proper use of those weapons in a manner that would allow them to defend the nation when called upon by the government.

Then again the Founding Fathers also weren't exactly in agreement on all things, and the Constitution itself is made of compromises between all of them. And let's not forget they also believed that people of our nation had the right to change the constitution when they felt it necessary.

Let's try replacing Arms with Sugar for illustrative purposes:

[Sugar] being necessary [for fermented spirits], the right of the people to keep and [use] [Sugar], shall not be infringed.

Does that sentence say that sugar can only be used for fermented spirits? Absolutely not.

They said "because we all agree that a militia is essential to the freedom of a state, there shall be no restrictions on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". That is not what I think they said, that's what the 2nd Amendment actually says. In plain English.

Please, take your time and show me exactly how "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." imposes any limitations. It is simply one example powerful enough to require no other enumerated examples. Obviously, to protect themselves from a federal government run amok or any other threat, the states would need to be capable of organizing militias, among other uses for Arms.

How does enumerating one very important example place any sort of limit on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms?

That first part is not ignored, it's just misunderstood. I didn't mention it because there is no reason to. It does not limit the second clause of the compound sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The second half of the compound sentence stands alone with the first part simply acting to illustrate the necessity of the concept that follows.

did you actually read what I wrote? It seems like you just jumped straight to the idea that I was backing the idea of limitations on the 2nd Amendment. Which at no point did I even suggest, so you're arguing fallacy. In fact I straight up said that I believe that the Founding Fathers intended the right to bear arms "would always be held by citizens".

Quit misconstruing people's words and then arguing against statements that weren't even made. Save the diatribes for a blog post or something.

Presenting a logical and reasoned argument is not a diatribe. It is apparent you were not looking for a logical debate in any of this. I'm not going to allow you to distract and confuse the simplicity of my argument. Simply read the 2nd Amendment and take it at face value. That's my entire argument. If something in the 2nd Amendment imposes limits then my argument would not stand. It still does, as I have shown. If you have any evidence to disprove that please present it.

Way to yet again not actually address anything that was actually said.

You claimed the first clause was unfairly being ignored in the discussion. I trounced your argument by showing it imposes zero limitations and can be ignored. You are now using deception to distract from your defeat.

I know you are just obfuscating because if you actually had made a point which I failed to address you would have simply reiterated it by now to prove a point. You have not, because there is no alleged point made which was ignored. Go lick your wounds elsewhere.

I never claimed that it did impose any limitations so your "trouncing" was exactly what I called it, a misdirected diatribe. I made a perfectly valid distinction as to why I feel it needs to be included that you have repeatedly and completely overlooked to instead defend a position that isn't under attack (there should be no limitations). You yet again fall back on ad hominem attacks instead actually finding an error in your own responses.

The point that you keep overlooking even though it was clearly stated is that (needing to repeat myself is something I feel shouldn't even happen when dealing with children) :

I truly believe that the Founding Fathers believed that the right to own guns (they were the 'arms' of the times) would always be held by citizens, but also that those citizens would be trained in the proper use of those weapons in a manner that would allow them to defend the nation when called upon by the government.

That is taken directly from the first post I made, you could have easily reread it on your own multiple times. It is actually the main point of the entire post that you some how completely overlooked and instead jumped straight to the conclusion that I wanted to put limitations on gun owner ship (which you have now argued against twice) even though I have directly stated TWICE that I, in know way, believe that. At this point I feel that it more than fair to call into question your reading comprehension skills and motives. You claim that I am trying to use deception to distract, yet completely mischaracterize my arguments repeatedly. What makes this even more curious to me is that your initial response was on a post talking about 'NRA shills' and you are now repeatedly pushing NRA talking points without actually addressing anything stated.

You are sore because I discarded an obvious strawman argument early on?

Obviously if the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (all types) cannot be infringed, then even your attempt to misrepresent the definition of a common term "Arms" as being only a subset thereof, "guns". You are arguing that there are limitations on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms by redefining "Arms" to mean a limited subset of guns. That is absurd and does not warrant a response.

And since you have no logical argument you have changed the subject to my mental capacity. I have presented sufficient evidence allowing third parties to judge my capacity for logical thought and comprehension and do not require any feedback from you on the subject. In fact, I don't really care to hear anything else from you. There is no way this conversation can go uphill once you are out of arguments but unwilling to admit defeat. I have not mischaracterized your comments, I have only maintained my position that there are no lawful limits imposed on our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear Arms (of all types). You have not shown that position to be false.

talk about a strawman. You literally redefined my statements then argued against them. You are still missing the point completely, and are still insisting that I am talking about limiting ownership. FOR THE 4TH FUCKING TIME: I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE LIMITATION OF OWNERSHIP. The fact that you keep saying I make that assertion is the fucking definition of a strawman fallacy. The fact that you keep resorting to the same fallacy over and over is a sign that you either 1)do not understand what is being said 2) are not actually participating in good faith 3)are a worthless troll with nothing to actually add.

You cant even understand that I wasn't actually trying to argue your point at all (I'm not sure why thats so hard for you to grasp). I was making addition to your stance and making a clarification that I thought was important. I'm getting the feeling that if I were to say you were right (I actually have agreed multiple times with you) that you would still argue and insist that you were in fact wrong.

And you wonder why I question your mental capacity... HINT: its because you can not understand what is clearly explained to you multiple times. Keep arguing against a proposition I haven't made though, I find it humorous.

EDIT: I've actually stated 4 times now that I don't believe in limitations of ownership. I can't wait to see how you try and spin this to say that I'm insisting that there should be limitations.

You first said that your point was that the first clause of the 2nd Amendment is relevant to the discussion. I said that only distracts from the simplicity of the argument that no limits are imposed on our right to "keep and bear Arms".

You then get upset and say I'm ignoring your overarching point, which you even quote for clarity. That point is that the word "Arms" basically means "guns". It is a facially illogical argument. Any six year old with a set of revolution-era war themed Lego® Blocks knows canons and swords and all sorts of other Arms were available at the time.

So, which is it? Is the first clause relevant to a discussion or are you trying to convince me that "Arms" actually means "guns"? Both are illogical, both a distraction from the facts of the matter. You may think they are contributions but they are not.

Your really going to claim that was the only thing I said in that paragraph? The weed really has made you a fucking moron hasn't it? Since you are to fucking stupid to actually figure it out regardless of how many times I repeat it, lets try some watered down bullet points of that paragraph for you:

• I truly believe that the Founding Fathers believed that the right to own guns (they were the 'arms' of the times) would always be held by citizens

• those citizens would be trained in the proper use of those weapons in a manner that would allow them to defend the nation when called upon by the government

I even did the strike-through so that your little pea-brain wouldn't get hung up on the same fuckin that wasn't even the actually point of the paragraph. I bolded the part that was there the whole fucking time that you keep overlooking. The bold italics are the actual reason that I think the first part is important. WHAT A FUCKING TARD. Do you need fucking pictures to understand or something? At least you know some $20 words (even if you have the reading comprehension of the afore mentioned 6 year old).

I hope I never mistake you for a rational human being again.

LMAO from what I can from our interaction, all you fucking do is make one glaring mistake after another. What a tool. Put down the bong and pick up a book.

http://i.imgur.com/CDfNDUQ.png

You ought to see the downvote brigading in /r/Monsanto.

[deleted]

Furthermore, if I had a dime for everytime I heard the accusation of "shill" in this subreddit, I would have a lot of dimes.

So you feel that 'shills' don't exist?

If the science of a study is sound, shouldn't it not matter who payed for a study? If you think a study is wrong, demonstrate the errors.

The OPs point was that the groups refuting the study were funded by monsanto - not that Monsanto paid for the study. Furthermore, he did demonstrate the errors; that was the entire thrust of this post. He did the research and discovered those he was arguing with were the definition of 'shills' (paid to argue against certain ideas or points being made).

It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you can't even speak to the OP's point.

You will accuse them of doing bad science, but if that is true, just SHOW me where the bad science is and I will agree with you.

Again, he did exactly what you asked. What's your point?

So, after one questionable paper saying that GMO might cause cancer in rats (what doesn't these days), you are ready to say, yes, this is the conclusive proof I have been looking for,

No. What makes you think that?

despite countless other studies over decades which found no such thing?

Almost all of which look at rats for 90 days, not the two years of the Seralini study.

Have another dime.

Pointing out Monsanto funded an agency which paid the scientists for a particular study does not inherently mean the study is false.

Thanks, I needed that laugh.

Four main reasons I don't take it seriously as a biologist:

1. The control was too small for standards (specifically OECD 452)

2. The rat species used doesn't match the purpose and is especially susceptible to late-life cancer, since it was bred to research cancer

3. Major components are missing, like the suspected mechanism of action, sourcing of the corn, and the ACTUAL DATA. They only report the general trends, which is frustrating at best.

4. If you spent a second looking at the study you'd realize your second point was wrong and the study shows that GMO + R (GMO diet cultivated with Roundup) was less cancerous than the control. This contradicts the conclusion Seralini's study made, and reinforces the idea that the study isn't conclusive.

And if you're gonna cite a study, at least link to it: http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf

Edit: read more here

Most of these criticisms are addressed here

• 1

Séralini used ten rats per sex per group – the same number of animals as Monsanto analyzed for blood and urine chemistry in its 90-day tests claiming to show that GM foods are safe. This is the same number that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recommends for a 90-day subchronic test of the type that Monsanto does on its GM foods, as well as for one of its chronic toxicity protocols. According to statistics experts, groups of this size are enough to show toxicity, but not enough to show safety. This means that industry toxicity studies on this number of rats that claim to show safety are inadequate.

No mandatory protocols exist for GM food safety testing. Industry is free to design its own tests, which are generally weak. Séralini designed a protocol to test the long-term health effects of a GMO and its associated pesticide. His protocol was the first to differentiate between the effects of the GMO and those of the pesticide.

Séralini’s control groups were the same size as each treatment dose group, in line with standard scientific practice. It is not good scientific practice to introduce extra irrelevant “reference” control groups, though Monsanto has routinely done this in its tests on GM foods.

From a common sense point of view: the purpose of having minimum group sizes is to assure that the experiment is sufficiently powered to show safety. A study of 2 rats with no adverse outcomes is not convincing, but study of 200 rats is. If the Seralini study supported the null hypothesis, then the objection "not enough rats" would be valid. But the Seralini wasn't arguing for the null hypothesis. If you have a small study that shows (statistically significant) harm, then great! You've got your result and the study doesn't need to be any larger. The p-value is what counts.

Perhaps a more valid criticism is that Seralini's statistical analysis was not great.

• 2

The Sprague-Dawley (SD) rat strain that Séralini used is also used in long-term 2-year toxicity and carcinogenicity studies by industry and academic scientists.

The critics say that Séralini used too few rats of a strain prone to tumours, so the tumours seen may have occurred spontaneously and no conclusions can be drawn. But Séralini’s study was a chronic toxicity study, not a carcinogenicity study. The increase in tumour incidence was a surprise outcome. The logical response to the findings is not to dismiss them but to follow up with a full-scale carcinogenicity study on GM NK603 maize and Roundup.

The Sprague-Dawley rat is an excellent human-equivalent model for predicting cancer in long-term (two-year) studies. It gets around the same number of tumours as humans do over its lifespan and as with humans, these increase with age. However, it must be remembered that Séralini’s study was not a carcinogenicity study, because of the relatively few numbers of rats per group

• 3

How often do studies provide their actual data? I agree this is frustrating, but this is par for the course in studies with lots of data.

• 4

This criticism centres on the incorrect assumption that Séralini’s study is a carcinogenicity study, and concludes that it is poorly designed for this purpose. But Séralini’s study was not a carcinogenicity study, but a chronic toxicity study. Thus Séralini avoided over-interpreting the increase in tumour incidence observed and did not claim that NK603 maize or Roundup are carcinogenic in humans. Further studies must be carried out before such conclusions can be drawn. What is concluded is that NK603 maize and Roundup had serious toxic effects on rats, including kidney and liver damage, increased mortality, and the increased and earlier development of tumours, especially in female rats.

As a biologist, can you tell the the truth to the best of your knowledge on whether GMO have positive or negative effects in the humans in 200 years.

For instance, will the 7th generation from now be different because of these genetic changes?

Thanks for your answer.

It might sound like a cop out, but I don't know. GMOs are not my area (I am in microbiology, as opposed to zoology, anatomy, or agricultural science). The studies are positive, but no study can predict the future by 200 years, especially since we've only been using GMOs for a couple of decades and on nonhumans during tests.

From what we see, though, the studies that we have don't show harm. At least the ones that followed protocol.

My main concern with GMO is not the effects on the immediate use. If it makes you sick, it will be routed out in due time.

My concern is that it make the great-grand kids infertile or autistic or lizard hands, or sunflower hair etc.

Do you think the companies that make these products are concerned about these long off consequences? Over short term profits?

I do not trust they are practicing due diligence in these areas and it would set my heart at ease to find reasons not to be concerned.

My concern is that it make the great-grand kids infertile or autistic or lizard hands, or sunflower hair etc.

I don't see how it could possibly do that. They alter the genome of the plant, not the genome of the people eating it.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/austrianstudy-nov2008

This study, again, unknown validity, claims that subsequent generations are smaller and fewer.

Epigenetic effects of GM maize feed

In the F3 generation of the multigeneration trial, DNA microarray analyses were performed on the lower small intestine. This identified 2 374 genes that were significantly abnormally expressed in GM fed compared with non GM fed mice; with 421 of these showing a 2-fold or greater change from controls. This was more than 3.2 percent of the total 13 034 genes expressed in the lower small intestine. The reproductive and other effects observed could be just the tip of the iceberg as far as the epigenetic changes are concerned. The impacts could take more generations of GM feeding to become fully manifest.

That, too, doesn't seem to be able to link to a peer-reviewed journal. All the links go to the Institute for Science in Society, which also is rather open about being anti-GMO. They even sell pamphlets making the case against GMOs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html

I do not know the validity of this study.

The guy writing that piece cites almost nothing but his own website (The "Institute for Responsible Technology", which is quite open about its anti-GMO platform), and even the links to his own website don't go to the specific pages that he says they do. He talks about a Russian study on hamsters but there is no link anywhere to the actual study itself, only to a news item from a Russian radio station. I'm not even sure if the study was peer-reviewed.

He cites only one source other than himself, and that one doesn't say what he claims it does. According to him, it indicates that contact with GMO corncob bedding made rats infertile. What the study actually says is that corn itself makes the rats infertile. The study never mentions GMOs once, and while it does raise concerns about the amount of corn in our diets, it does not support the idea that GM corn is worse than regular corn.

Man, I appreciate your dialogue.

However, when I see people rely solely on the concept of peer review to find truth in life I shudder in an equivalent way to religious fundamentalism. I just don't think you cannot wait for peer review to find the truth or you will be the last to find out.

Science is constantly overturning past findings and learning new things, therefore we cannot give full credit to science. You know what I mean.

I make my own decisions on things, I do not let Monsanto or their opponents make up my mind. Finding the truth is hard, and in the end probably subjective. I do not trust the company that made Agent Orange to make my food and am skeptical of anything they claim.

I have a friend who worked for Monsanto, we went to eat a few weeks ago. He made a comment about aspartame. I had to ask, if you understand the engineering behind it why don't you eat it? He replied, not all engineering is as good as it seems.

Thanks again, I do not wish to bash you in any way and truly appreciate the dialogue.

However, when I see people rely solely on the concept of peer review to find truth in life I shudder in an equivalent way to religious fundamentalism. I just don't think you cannot wait for peer review to find the truth or you will be the last to find out.

I think it's extremely hasty to make claims about the truth before those claims have been vetted by others. Science isn't based on the idea that peer review is perfect (all scientists have a laundry list of complaints about the problems with peer review), but it is based partly on the idea that peer review is still better than a lack of peer review. The need for repeatability is paramount-- if one person writes a paper in which they publish some result, that's great, but it's not until multiple independent studies have been able to achieve the same result that it's given credence. Even the best-designed studies can potentially have "unknown unknowns", so a single study is never taken as authoritative.

I think science differs from fundamentalism in a couple of important ways-- first of all, even the giants of science are not taken as the gospel truth. Many of them were outright wrong about many things-- Einstein gave us many important discoveries, especially relativity, but he fought against quantum mechanics, famously stating that "God does not play dice". Which we now know to be false-- quantum effects are actually random. A modern PhD student studying general relativity probably understands it better than Einstein ever did because we've made considerable advances since Einstein's work.

Science is constantly overturning past findings and learning new things, therefore we cannot give full credit to science. You know what I mean.

Science isn't so much about being right as it is about becoming less wrong. From an epistemological point of view, science isn't a way to achieve total correctness, but rather a way to come closer to the truth. It's about shrinking the error bars. Philosophically, science is a progressive enterprise insofar as it's based on a continual improvement of knowledge and the belief that we can better our understanding.

But it's also a conservative enterprise-- science in general is reluctant to abandon well-established theories, and for good reason. As an example, you may recall the brouhaha a couple years ago when some scientists working on a CERN project apparently found neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light. Even the scientists who reported the result were extremely skeptical of it, because there was a century of scientific data which contradicted their result. They published largely in the hopes that the physics community would be able to find and point out their error. In the ensuing weeks, hundreds of papers were published with possible explanations, and the news media of course went into a frenzy about "WAS EINSTEIN WRONG?" For one thing, the media totally misread/misrepresented the tone of the CERN announcement, which was extremely cautious. For another, it wasn't a question of whether Einstein was wrong-- it was a question of whether the entire physics community was wrong.

Of course, it turned out that somewhere in the experiment a cable was plugged in the wrong way and there was a clock that was running too fast, so the results didn't actually disprove relativity. This is why scientists won't throw out a well-established theory on the basis of a single study.

On the other hand, scientists will accept new ideas if they're based on thorough and repeatable analysis. In the late 90s there were two teams (High-Z Supernova Search and Supernova Cosmology Project) working on observing distant supernovae in order to figure out how much the Universe's expansion was slowing down. Based on the accepted Big Bang model, the universe should have rapidly expanded in the early universe and over time its expansion should be slowing down as the gravity of all that matter tries to hold everything together. So these two groups, working independently (and competing against each other) wind up publishing, within a month or two of each other in 1998, the same result: that the universe's expansion was accelerating, not slowing down. This implied that most of the energy in the universe was in some form of as-yet-unknown "dark energy" which was driving the expansion. Additional results, from the WMAP and Planck telescopes, and from many other sources, have backed up this result, and now virtually all cosmologists accept that there must be dark energy, and the leads of the two teams split a Nobel Prize.

Science is certainly discovering new things and overturning the old, but:

1. Many old things are still very valid and very important to science, like conservation of energy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, natural selection, relativity, etc.

2. While imperfect, science is the most reliable means of obtaining knowledge that we have.

I have to read this later with my attention. Thanks for typing this, whether you did it unique to my post or in a thesis you made before or whatever.

I am curious what your thoughts are on Funding Bias in science. My specific example will be cannabis research funding and anti-cannabis research funding. I think this is probably the biggest problem in all of science.

I think funding bias is relevant to GMO study, although I have not looked into it.

Funding bias is certainly a problem, but my field (astrophysics) is, for the most part, far enough removed from hot-button political issues that I'm not really familiar with the issue first-hand (and hardly even second-hand).

Research on cannabis is hampered primarily by the fact that the DEA still classifies it as Schedule I, meaning "no recognized medical use". That has a massive chilling effect on even being allowed to do a study, much less get funding for it, even though (and this is mostly my personal perception) it seems like much of the medical community is more than willing to consider cannabis' medical uses.

edit: seems like it's more than just my perception, just saw this on /r/news:

http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1fjo9x/survey_76_percent_of_doctors_would_approve/

edit2: according to the comments, that study may actually not be all that reliable, so back to square one I guess

The story of cannabis hemp that is described in the book "the emperor wears no clothes" by Jack Herer might be worth a gander. You are on r/conspiracy so it leads me to believe you have an interest in such topics as are discussed in the book. It is available for free online: http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/

If you do take the time to read it please then imagine the consequences of the petro-dollar that stem from this atrocity of legislature against a highly useful plant. Plus the failure of the subsequent legislatures to correct such an error.

Science is less corrupt than government, but not uncorrupted by the same forces that corrupt the government. Big money funds its desires, not the truth.

Which we now know to be false-- quantum effects are actually random. A modern PhD student studying general relativity probably understands it better than Einstein ever did because we've made considerable advances since Einstein's work.

So if I want to understand Quantum Physics, I should be looking to get a PhD in physics?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wJwsSbiVE2g

Are you familiar with Dean Radin? I have submitted this video to a statistics professor to give me some feedback on the validity of the claims. My own personal anecdotal evidence suggests that while random, we actually do have some form of control, therefore not actually random, just unmanipulated = random.

I have yet to hear back from that professor. He's probably just busy, but I would still like to hear peoples thoughts on the concept Radin puts forth.

Mentioning Dark Energy is not helping me think that science is truth! But I love your description of less wrong.

Is it possible that the physics of dark energy, when discovered, will be a more accurate way to describe the universe considering the comparative amount.

Haha, believe none of what you hear and half of what you see. What the hell is real anyways!

So if I want to understand Quantum Physics, I should be looking to get a PhD in physics?

If you're looking to understand it, you'll be disappointed-- it's famously unintuitive, as even many of its proponents are fond of saying.

But yes, if you want to gain some understanding of how quantum mechanics operates, university courses are a good way to go. A PhD is a really involved process that you should only undertake if you're certain you want to do it. Upper-level undergrad courses can give you a good working knowledge of it.

On a layperson level, I'd recommend, for example the Feynman Lectures. The Minute Physics Youtube channel is also very good at giving quick, understandable summaries of physical concepts without sacrificing accuracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wJwsSbiVE2g

Are you familiar with Dean Radin? I have submitted this video to a statistics professor to give me some feedback on the validity of the claims. My own personal anecdotal evidence suggests that while random, we actually do have some form of control, therefore not actually random, just unmanipulated = random.

Anytime you hear someone seriously propound the phrase "Electric Universe", you can be 100% sure that they are full of shit. It's a fringe group of people who mostly just have a hardon for Nikola Tesla and who completely ignore all of modern physics. There is as yet no evidence whatsoever that humans can alter the physical universe just by thinking about it (except insofar as our brains are physical objects, but they can only influence things via the known laws of physics). Telekinesis does not exist.

Radin isn't as far from reasonable science as some, but his claims are still riddled with flaws.

Mentioning Dark Energy is not helping me think that science is truth! You mean true for this iota of what you can measure but no accounting for the majority of the universe. Is it possible that the physics of dark energy, when discovered, will be a more accurate way to describe the universe considering the comparative amount.

Dark energy is a phenomenon that we don't yet understand. However, when we do learn more about it, that won't change how already-known physical laws operate. It's like when Einstein discovered relativity: Newton's laws weren't thrown out the window. It was just modified for high velocities. For low velocities, Newton's laws continue to be just as valid as they always have been. Dark energy will no doubt involve a lot of exciting new physics, but any new theory will have to replicate the old. Special Relativity wouldn't work at all as a physical theory if it didn't reproduce Newton's laws in the low-velocity limit. A more complete theory of physics will still have to agree with modern quantum mechanics and relativity, because they're extraordinarily well supported experimentally (quantum electrodynamics has made predictions that are correct to better than a part in a billion).

I am a 2nd year student at a local community college. I am not definitively working towards a specific goal quite yet. My approach towards school is not career driven, it is answering my own questions and trying to spend my time doing something productive and healthy. Many of those questions are about math and physics. I have been taking a math heavy, full time load and have a 4.0 after the first year.

I do not openly reject psy phenomena, or electric universe people, I do not openly accept it either. I think the story about Tesla and Edison is about par for the course for capitalists. I would also say that if Tesla was right about free energy, it is weird that no one has ripped him off yet. I will learn as much as I am capable of learning about things and would say I will tell you in a few years when I get to the point I can actually look at the details and do the work of disproof or explanation. Perhaps some of those theories are correct in some way shape or form, yet as unexplained as relativity before Einstein.

I would punctuate this with, snake oil salesman are snake oil salesman and with or without electric universe ideas, there is no shortage of them. We should question the large and powerful snake oil salesman, not be distracted by fringe groups. What products are we spending massive amounts of money on that are scams against people? To bring it full circle for artistic reasons not logical, for instance GMOs?

Did you go to CU, or just a good link? When I clear my mind and think about where I want to go to school, that school comes up more that any others. Would it be a good place to learn these things later on in my education? (ie, are the spirits pointing me in the right direction?)

I didn't go to CU, but I have several friends who did and it's definitely a good school.

The Feynman lecture filled in some gaps on the math of the two slit experiment. Thanks!

GMO will have the same effect as conventional breeding techniques had the last ten thousand years.

What will seriously impair our genetic heritage are the petrochemicals that are sprayed on everything, including conventional produces. The GMO debate is a retarded attempt to fix something that is not fixable in our economic and thermodynamical environment.

[deleted]

However, 200 years is not nearly enough time for our bodies to adjust (evolutionarily) to changes in the relative compositions of nutrients (or lack there of) in these foods.

There is no way you're a biologist because what you said is absolutely absurd.

The relative change in global diets in the last 200 years is VASTLY greater on it's own, without even looking at GM foods. You're argument is just plain silly.

Keyword: Sugar.

You are correct that even without GMO's our diet is very different, and with them, it is further still from the paleo-diet. I believe GMO corn is a leading source of high fructose corn syrup, to cite one example of rapid agricultural changes that are increasingly unhealthy.

I don't care if a scientific study says you shit gold after eating GMO products. I just don't trust Monsanto. I'm sure if GMO products reduced your life span by 20 years and they made a dollar off it, they would do it.

I have a court order here stating any and all "shitted gold" produced after ingestion of products raised on or grown from Monsanto Corporation (hereby known as Monsanto) products, has always been, and continue to be, the sole propriety of Monsanto. Said shitted gold must be surrendered to a Monsanto representative within 24 hrs of its passing or face crippling legal action and/or financial ruin.

I just read the paper and agree with point #1, a control group of 10 animals per sex is too small for statistical significance.

Regarding point 2, it seems like since they were studying cancer as caused by GMO/Roundup, they would want to pick mice that were bred to research cancer.

Regarding point 3, I think you'll find this is the case in most papers (not including the full data, which can often be megabytes of numbers and is not suitable for publication). You can usually e-mail the authors of the paper if you want the actual full data. I should add that I'm a published author and have never once published the full data, as it would take 100's of pages if printed out, in a very small font. Statistical summaries/graphs are the best you can do given space constraints.

Point 4 - err, what? I'll provide a quote from the paper you linked to that directly contradicts your claim:

Up to 14 months, no animals in the control groups showed any signs of tumors whilst 10–30% of treated females per group developed tumors, with the exception of one group (33% GMO + R). By the beginning of the 24th month, 50–80% of female animals had developed tumors in all treated groups, with up to 3 tumors per animal, whereas only 30% of controls were affected. The R treatment groups showed the greatest rates of tumor incidence with 80% of animals affected with up to 3 tumors for one female, in each group.

I should clarify for point 2 - they're bred to observe cancer after it happens. Not to determine likelihood of developing cancer in humans. We have other rats that better-match human cancer rates.

For 3, people asked. Organizations asked. Seralini didn't give out the data, and only released the studies to selected sources, which just strikes me as weird. Seralini et al. have not released any mechanism of action, which IS common in scientific studies, and is usually the main content of such a paper.

For point 4, look at the graphs on page 4. I made a mistake earlier, I meant to say R group, not GMO+R. Sometimes less rats died than the control, and sometimes more did. Looking at those tables alone, you tell me which is the worst experimental group. 9 of 10 male rats died on the control, and 3 of 10 female died. From this, it can be inferred that Roundup will save you from death if you're a male, but quickly kill females.

The paragraph you quote only looks at the females. Seralini looks at the data he's given selectively.

Actually, for a large effects sizes , small samples can be sufficient to find a significant difference. You might have legitimate concerns of generalizability, however.

Were you aware the ninety day study used to show this gmo strain was safe used the exact same number in their sample size? Guess who question the legitimacy of that study based on sample size? None.

a control group of 10 animals per sex is too small for statistical significance.

This blanket statement is untrue. Changing sample size changes power. A sufficiently large effect can be significant on extremely small sample sizes. A properly designed experiment with matched pairs can show certain strong effects (especially by looking at multiple factors rather than the probabilities merely of individual dimensions) with groups as small as 5 or 6, for instance.

For an example of a fascinating small-sample size study which has statistically significant effects, it's worth finding a copy of a PhD dissertation by the title of "Drugs and Mysticism" which had the conclusion that the drug studied (psilocybin or similar) induced a mystical experience under the circumstances of the experiment. The sample size in each group wasn't more than 20 as I recall, and it's very tightly crafted to show the significance of what is being measured.

Edit: Downvotes? You people are clinically retarded. I'm always amazed at how bad people are at stats. Truly awe-inspiring.

A sufficiently large effect can be significant on extremely small sample sizes.

Right, but when you're using a breed of rat which usually dies of cancer within two years even when NOT fed GM foods, you need a much much larger sample size than 10.

Again, that's not true as a blanket statement. It depends on what you're trying to determine. If it were test of carcinogenicity, then I would be inclined to agree. My understanding is (not having finished the paper but only read some commentary on it) that this is explicitly not what they did but instead were looking for a cumulative-toxicity, for which the sample may have been less than perfect for proving safety (10 per group, 200 total), but as has been pointed out: weaker power doesn't mean that you can't find a significant result, it just means that the effect (probably) has to be larger to be significant.

Edit: And as was also pointed out in various other commentary, the studies "proving safety" (failing to show a toxic effect) were also done with 10 rats per group. So if we're going to make the absurd claim that no science can be done with groups of 10 for some magical reason, then we also must reject the studies which didn't show an effect, and re-do all the testing with larger sample sizes.

Then it comes down to a question a risk tolerance: in the absence of sufficient evidence one way or another, would you prefer to try a new creation and assume it's safe, or continue to use something that has been "generally accepted as safe" in the lay understanding of that phrase for literally thousands of years.

The difference is that determining toxicity is done by means of specific chemical tests, and there are far, far, fewer confounding variables.

Is it wrong to be somewhat pro-GMO but against Monsanto type tactics?

IMO it is the patents on our main food sources that is the scary part.

What are you talking about?

Everybody wants to see you shine

their terminator seeds + their cut throat lawsuit happy mentality too

Terminator seeds are not used. Lawsuits were more common against them for bogus claims than from them. So many myths surrounding this corporation it's nuts.

No. I think most people feel the same way.

But I'm open to anything, as long as science backs it up. As soon as someone comes across indisputable evidence that GMOs are bad I'll change my mind in a heartbeat. But for now I'd rather spend my time speaking against Monsanto than GMOs.

I'm with you on this. In order to feed BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of people we're going to have to come up with inventive ways to boost crop yields and make these plants hardier. Food can be genetically modified to be "better, stronger, faster" but if a mega-corporation is the one pulling all the strings then the bottom line is always going to be profit. I'm pro-GMO, anti-Monsanto.

I don't think it's wrong; I think there are probably safe GMOs, but I do not trust Monsanto to bring them to my family. I would prefer much more research first.

Monsanto would sell you a safe GMO food, but make you pay every time you shit it out.

I agree. It's the whole "better safe than sorry" idea. Same thing with artificial sweeteners. I've looked into them extensively and what I've found is that in really large quantities they are toxic, in small they seem to be alright. So while you could probably be fine having a bit here and there, what is the point in risking it?

Reddit loves to hate companies. They think GMOs are a smoking gun. Genetically modified hybrid crops have been used for a long time, and people didn't start crying about it until recently. With certain corn you no longer have to dump pesticides on them because of the BT modification. People have been cross breeding plants for a long time and its increased production- so what. Monsanto's doing the same thing Orville Redenbacher did, you don't see Redditors crying about him though.

natural eugenics from breeding is vastly different than splicing genes to remove the ability to ever produce seeds.

Cross pollination of two breeds to create a hybrid makes seed that's unable to produce. Ever heard of detasseling corn? It's the same thing. Kids like you have no idea what you're talking about, how it works, if there's anything actually dangerous and have never even set foot in a farm field or feed store to learn about it. You're all just blindly hating on something in a massive hivemind circlejerk.

I like how I said it was dangerous, oh wait I didn't. Maybe if you actually talk to people instead of assume you might learn something too.

Perhaps if you read more than 1st line in wikipedia you might notice detasseling is process for creating male / female for cross pollination so that you don't get wimpy looking corn. Not that I have garden and grow my own food and learned hard way why they came out wimpy the 1st time. But keep making assumptions =)

But please do tell me how removing the tassel for pollination is the same as editing genetic code?

How do you know I'm not a farmer myself, and have years of experience growing corn and other crops? This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's just a Reddit witch hunt against an 'evil corporation' for the sake of whining about capitalism.

It is about the same as liking connectivity and hating Apple, Google and Microsoft for their shitty hijacking of our data. There are ways to accomplish communication without the typical tactics.

Pure science is a wonderful thing: The pursuit of truth and knowledge for the sake of truth and knowledge.

Unfortunately this is a rare creature indeed, and most of what we call SCIENCE is corrupted ulterior motives - the drive for money, fame, feeding and/or defending the ego, political agendas etc.

Chiming in on the "right" side of an issue can be very rewarding, whereas finding the "wrong" results can destroy your career, your scholarship potential, your life.

Daring to submit for peer-review (let alone publish) a study that is this damning to the likes of Monstronto takes balls of steel.

I wonder, what happened to the careers of the authors?

I am lead editor of a few peer-reviewed pubs, and even when the science is solid, there is definitely a hesitation to call out companies, even when it's a small company (not from me; I say "fuck it, let's call them out."), and this is from some idealistic scientists and researchers. Maintaining the health of the publication is like protecting their research and the field they care about. Going against Monsanto is huge.

I applaud you for your commitment to integrity, sir. If you find that something is amiss in research, subject the objections to the same scientific scrutiny as should be assigned to the subject material.

Attacking scientific findings based on speculation of "bad study design" or "guilt by association" is for the realm of politics, not of science.

I have seen many studies that were funded/supported by various pharmaceutical companies that were abruptly halted and "buried" because they were not producing results favorable to the benefactors. Unfortunately such data manipulation can result in the vetting of drugs or products that ultimately prove to do far more harm than good. Sometimes these products are eventually pulled, other times they are allowed to continue - but in either case, they can be very profitable in the interim.

I'm sure you realize that you are treading on thin ice when you take a stand, and that the risks can be substantial, as the resources of those who you may find yourself opposing in the name of honest science are vast, and their conscience is quite literally con-science: To them, the bottom line is the bottom line, and they think nothing of crushing their detractors like bugs.

Sadly, there is no shortage of "respectable scientists" who will happily whore themselves out to these bastards for the sake of filthy lucre.

But at the end of the day, you go to bed with yourself, and if you can say in good conscience that you have done the right thing, you have something of value that the likes of the corporate whores will never know.

Carry on, my good man.

Well I certainly don't want to sound more impressive than I am. I work on computer science pubs, so I don't see as much of the corruption as others (in the medical and pharmaceutical fields especially). For the most part, the researchers that I work with are idealistic and optimistic nerds who break and build things.

And not to get too far afield, but the peer-reviewed journals are all being inundated with more and more corporate involvement. R & D teams from businesses are, often times, equal with academics (for better or worse). Now the detractors and shills can work from the inside of the scientific process. Not all industry researchers are bad; hell, some are great. And some academics are bought out with corporate funding for their research. It's a whole big pile of craziness...

Fuck.

Monsanto still sucks, though.

imho

So basically you're saying you have no idea what you're talking about. Computer science journals are not the same as medical journals. Your first comment seems to imply that these publications are corrupt and afraid to hurt businesses. Do you have any knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes at a medical journal? Have any proof? Anything besides an appeal to authority?

So basically you're saying you have no idea what you're talking about. Computer science journals are not the same as medical journals.

Well, I wouldn't say I have "no idea" what I'm talking about; my first comment was basically saying that even idealistic researchers (those with the best of intentions) sometimes don't want to rock the boat because threatening the stability of a journal can affect the stability of their fields, research, and jobs. My second comment was meant to make sure I clarified what kind of pub I work on. Chill.

And yeah, there is a big difference between med journals and CS ones, but it's a matter of scale and complexity. Money has influenced all scientific journals, in various ways.

This is the case with all scientific studies, you have to look at who is paying the bills. They are not going to pay for a study that is adverse to profits. They will do the study in their own labs, with their own people, or farm it out to a trusted lab. This is the same in most studies done, they are done by man, and man interprets the results. Sometimes the bad interpretation is found, but sadly most of the time the studies are just accepted.

With GMO it is even worse because the producers of the product own intellectual property rights. With the cost of the study being so high, few would anyone pay for another study especially when they will have such a hard time even getting the product they want to test.

So you are left with the study from the manufacturer as the lone voice of truth. And we are supposed to accept that profit did not affect that study at all. This company is completely moral and just, so they are telling us the whole truth.

This company is completely moral and just, so they are telling us the whole truth.

And then, when they lie and kill and rape us, it is excused by saying "well what did you expect? It's just supposed to make a profit. The executives could've been jailed if they didn't!!!1!"

Good work!

I thought the reason the study was bullshit was because the breed of rat chosen was a research breed that was developed to have a ridiculously high rate of cancer. This response to the paper claims:

The rats were obtained from Harlan, whose catalogue shows that the strain used has a survival rate of just over 50% after 2 years. They are susceptible to tumours if kept alive for too long, even on a standard diet.

This information should be included in the paper. The ARRIVE guidelines specifically recommend commenting on “any limitations of the animal model”.

The length of study was inappropriate for the strain of rats used, raising questions of animal welfare as well as helping to invalidate the findings.

The critique you linked also mentions this as well (though you chose to ignore this claim). How exactly do you refute that?

Also there are many, many more letters to the editor written by scientists who don't work for AnBio. You can really just go down the "referred to by" list on the original paper and find plenty of responses that disagree with the paper for similar reasons.

The length of study was inappropriate for the strain of rats used, raising questions of animal welfare 

as well as helping to invalidate the findings.

The critique you linked also mentions this as well (though you chose to ignore this claim). How exactly do you refute that?

Okay, so Sprague-Dawley rats were used, and these are known to produce tumors - so the study is bunk?

Question: Were there marked differences in the appearance of symptoms found among Roundup Rats as opposed to Control Rats, or not?

Let's see:

Quotes from the abstract: "Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls" ... "In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher" ... "Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater" ... "* Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier*" ...

But because they used the "wrong kind of rat" all of these marked increases in disease, disorder and deaths in the Roundup Group vs the Control Group should be ignored?

If the Roundup has no detrimental effects, how do you explain the anomalies?

EDIT: Typo's fixed

they can't, this shit is fucked.

we are basically experiencing the equivalent of living in the 50s and doctors blowing cigarette smoke in our face at the hospital

Well see, the problem lies in their statistical analysis. The experiment was set to run for 24 months (Table 2 in the original paper), however the 2 year survival rate of these rats is so low, and the rate of tumor accumulation so high that it cannot be made immediately clear what factors caused the deaths. In basic statistics, we can analyze the statistical significance of a deviation from the norm (read more here), and if this type of analysis if performed you will find that the differences are not statistically significant.

To put it into other terms, there is so much statistical "noise" attributed to the death and tumor rates of these mice that a deviation from a norm at the level detected cannot be seen. This holds even though there was a measured 6% increase of death in the GMO group.

Regardless, you should ask yourself, why wouldn't they choose a different rat species? It would seem like a simple way to increase the rigor of your study to choose more "average" rats, wouldn't it?

I see.

So you're saying that, because these rats are naturally more inclined to have a short life-spans, and have naturally higher incidences of tumors, the results are bunk.

Okay, so let's say that a team of scientists wanted to study whether Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) might affects the development of breast cancer in women, these scientists should NOT review data collected from women of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, as these women are known to be far more likely to carry either the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes, and therefor any data collected from this population would be worthless and should be tossed out, EVEN IF that data showed that HRT doubled the risk of breast cancer in these women?

Is that a valid analogy compatible to your logic?

Why or why not?

You're missing the entire point. First of all, I highly suggest you look into a class or a book on statistics, it would clear things up immensely. Secondly, I don't know much of anything about the study you're referencing so bear that in mind.

I don't think this analogy is necessarily appropriate though, you need to specify if the sample contains only Ashkenazi Jews or a random sample that also contains some Ashkenazi Jews. Also is the sample large enough? This is a very important point, because in the rat study, the population wasn't large enough to begin with.

Regardless, my point was about statistical significance. You must measure the validity of an alternative hypothesis against a null hypothesis. So when we challenge the null hypothesis, we gather data in some experiment or study, then we analyze this data and obtain information (p-values, means, etc.). This information can then be tested for statistical significance. We try to test whether or not our data is due to some deviation from the null hypothesis, random chance, or error by measuring the significance and seeing if we can be confident in refuting (or confirming) the null hypothesis.

So in the case of the rat study, the alternative hypothesis (Bt Corn caused more cancer) was not found to be statistically significant because it cannot be confidently said that that the change in mortality was due to the Bt corn or the increased cancer risk/chance/something unaccounted for.

In this breast cancer case, it is possible that a measured double cancer risk is not statistically significant or that it is. It all depends on the details really.

First of all, I highly suggest you look into a class or a book on statistics, it would clear things up immensely.

FYI, when the cornerstone of your argument rests on the implied ignorance of your opponent, you look disingenuous at best.

I don't think this analogy is necessarily appropriate though, you need to specify if the sample contains only Ashkenazi Jews or a random sample that also contains some Ashkenazi Jews.

Except that Ashkenazi Jewish women are a specific group of interest in the study of breast cancer in that they, as a group, are far more likely to fall victim to breast cancers due to their carrying of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.

Similarly, **white Americans are 10 times more likely to contract Melanoma than are Black Americans.. So, if you wanted to design a study to determine whether a given substance (sun screen, lotion, specific foods, etc) might either increase or decrease the chance of contracting Melanoma, would you think it wise to concentrate your efforts on whites, or would you think it necessary to include blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc?

And if someone did conduct such a study in which only white subjects were included, and found significant differences between test and control subjects, would you feel it necessary to reject the results outright because of the non-inclusion of other races?

FYI, when the cornerstone of your argument rests on the implied ignorance of your opponent, you look disingenuous at best.

Or maybe I'm just being honest because I've repeatedly explained this to you and you still just don't get it, and some knowledge of the basics might just be important or necessary. If you knew enough about statistics we wouldn't be talking.

Except that Ashkenazi Jewish women are a specific group of interest in the study of breast cancer in that they, as a group, are far more likely to fall victim to breast cancers due to their carrying of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.

Okay so you're not referring to specific studies, you're speaking in general? You still aren't understanding this whole statistical significance thing.

When studying Ashkenazi Jews and the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, they have to measure the statistical significance of their findings just as in all other cases. In order for any such study to withstand scrutiny, they must show that the statistical significance of any information learned from the group is at an acceptable level. Using a large sample size, as well as picking a sample whose pop. proportion of cancer is not significantly larger helps. But furthermore, there are methods of correction that can help with generalizing the sample to a broader population. So basically, studies are performed on the BRCA genes in Ashkenazi Jews, and samples are selected and corrected for so that any discrepancies due to race no longer have a statistically significant effect when generalized to the whole population.

You will find that best, most solid studies and experiments use very strict, rigorous analysis. They plot statistical significance, confidence intervals, error bars, etc. And they correct for any possible "noise" or bias while going into great detail as to how and why. You find none of that in the rat study. They used a small population, they didn't perform standard statistical analysis, they didn't measure statistical significance, and they didn't correct for the unusually high cancer rates of the mice. The study is trash because at their core, their results tells us nothing useful, they only look like they do when framed the wrong way.

Edit: Semi-related, but you should see this video

That video was cute. I especially enjoyed the British accent.

:-)

But tho' the screed was dramatized

With pseudo-facts and blurbs

It made scurrilous attacks

On natural cures and herbs

And tho' "science" will discredit these

As placebos being bunk

They form the very foundation

Of their pharmaceutical junk

And tho' you blokes may scoff at them

As worthless or as funny

When you cut down to the core

It's all about the money

;-)

To bring your analogy closer to what happened:

If the average Ashkenazi Jewish woman died after two years from breast cancer, then you studied two sets of ten women for two years, you wouldn't call that study representative or conclusive.

Perhaps a longer, larger study is necessary?

What about a study that included 2,000 horses (1000 being fed GMO/Roundup crops and 1000 control), that lasted 30 years?

Do you think Monsanto would be cool with that?

It's not up to a big number like 2,000. OECD 452 lays out chronic toxicity guidelines. http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/41753317.pdf

When you're dealing with things like endocrine disruptors (as was indicated in the study in question), sometimes it may be advisable to test the material on specimens wherein any effects will manifest more quickly, no?

IOW, can we afford to wait through several generations of humanity before coming to the OH SHIT! realization that f*cking with genes in plants and animals may have massive unintended consequences?

If Monsanto (and their cheerleaders) didn't like the study design, why not have the NIH and other independent watchdog organizations replicate the process via several new studies wherein the criticisms of in the original study are addressed?

And why were these "faults" in the study not recognized during the peer-review process?

The way it is, it looks like the study's findings made SOME people VERY uncomfortable, and the critics look like a pack of paid howler monkeys unleashed by Monsanto in a propaganda war.

And why were these "faults" in the study not recognized during the peer-review process?

The way it is, it looks like the study's findings made SOME people VERY uncomfortable, and the critics look like a pack of paid howler monkeys unleashed by Monsanto in a propaganda war.

How are you missing this? Go to the paper and look at the referred to list and you'll see plenty of people calling out the faults. This is "peer-review." Problem is, as soon as anyone decries the obvious faults, people like you immediately start claiming they're monsanto paid shills. But if you look through the responses you'll find plenty of independent scientists refuting that paper. Tons of scientists from all backgrounds refute it by the save reasoning, but it isn't enough for you to consider the study to be flawed.

Thank you. When in doubt go to the data and just look. Most of these criticisms can be directly address with the data.

Wrong type of rats?

The Sprague-Dawley (SD) rat strain that Séralini used is also used in long-term 2-year toxicity and carcinogenicity studies by industry and academic scientists, as well as in 90-day studies on GMOs. If this was the wrong type of rat for Séralini to use, it was the wrong rat in all these other studies, and market authorizations for the thousands of chemicals and GM foods that were authorized on the basis of these studies should be revoked.

http://gmoseralini.org/category/critics-answered/

Link to any other papers that received positive feedback and used SD rats? I predict you'll find actual statistical analysis in them. Also, I would say SD rats are fine for 90 day studies, the increased cancer rates are likely not as significant over shorter times.

So they knew they were susceptible to tumors and used them in the study anyway? wth? Why would they choose them then? I have my theories.

This criticism hinges on the incorrect assumption that Séralini’s study was intended to be a carcinogenicity study. The critics say that Séralini used too few rats of a strain prone to tumours, so the tumours seen may have occurred spontaneously and no conclusions can be drawn. But Séralini’s study was a chronic toxicity study, not a carcinogenicity study. The increase in tumour incidence was a surprise outcome. The logical response to the findings is not to dismiss them but to follow up with a full-scale carcinogenicity study on GM NK603 maize and Roundup.

If this was the wrong type of rat for Séralini to use, it was the wrong rat in all these other studies, and market authorizations for the thousands of chemicals and GM foods that were authorized on the basis of these studies should be revoked.

http://gmoseralini.org/category/critics-answered/

Valid points. Now, you(using you in a general way) can go and a trust a corporation that has this kind of power with almost no over site and protectionist international, national and corporate trade laws, as you like but for me, I'll pass. When whole genomes, DNA sequences and rna are controlled under the umbrella of share holders ....I'm out.

Ninja edit

Maybe the authors of the study were short-selling Monsanto stock?

Maybe the authors of the study were molested by Monsanto executives when they were children, and were seeking revenge?

Maybe the authors of the study started a band named "Monsanto" and got sued for using that name?

We need moar theeories! Can I get some help here, PLEASE?

My thoughts are that it's an easy out. Everything is calculated so I wouldn't put it past these Monsanto sociopaths.

Did Monsanto fund or otherwise have influence over the study in question?

Ya know what at this point concerning Monsanto, a spade is a spade. I've seen enough and they're fucking gangsters. http://www.thenation.com/article/154739/blackwaters-black-ops

All this stuff about Monsanto is fucking with my mind. Where does one start to get a better understanding about all this GMO and Monsanto talk?

Why not askscience?

http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ce3v4/gmos_science_on_the_subject_rather_than_the_bs/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VEZYQF9WlE

Ok, this is my first time posting here. As a disclaimer, I am neither pro-GMO or anti-GMO - I am pro-science. That said, one of the authors of the paper, Seralini, is a known anti-GMO researcher, whose work in last 15 years was focused only on Monsanto corn - and whose virtually all papers were discarded as being unscientific and with huge conflict of interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair here's a small summary, you can read more by just Googling Seralini. An interesting part in this study and in all others I read by him is that there is an acknowledgemnt section saying "Greenpeace contributed to the start of the investigations by funding first statistical analyses in 2006, the results were then processed further and evaluated independently by the authors." (in other cases, it says that the whole study was funded by Greenpeace), immediately followed by "The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest." ! Now, you folks are really sensitive for even slightest sign of conspiracy everywhere - and you haven't noticed two following sentences, which contradict each other?

As far as scientific value of this paper is regarded, again you seem to dismiss any contraindication to your claims, even if they are reasonable for layman - like having a sample size of 10, even high school students should know such results are mediocre at best - and on the other hand, you claim governments dismiss your critique without addressing it - don't you think by censoring critique the same way you effectively create as totalitarian society as the one you would like to avoid? Also, claiming that the study is okay because 1000 redditors without any notable background read the study - and heavens, they agreed with it, because it generally agrees with their worldview - that's not how science works folks. Science works by consensus - and the current consensus is that the link between GMO and cancer is dubious at best. Studies like that, manufactured by Seralini and on Greenpeace's payroll will not help to change this consensus - it will only help to view anti-GMO protesters as crazy hippie youngsters, who don't care about scientific facts and dismiss everything as conspiracy.

INB4 he's on Monsanto payroll, I live in Europe in a country, where GMO is currently banned.

[deleted]

Because there were widespread protests of citizens, a large majority of them were underinformed and acted out only because the populist political party they supported, also supported anti-GMO tendencies as a way of contrasting themselves from the ruling party (at least that's what happened here).

Your point on sample size is just flat wrong. This exact same sample size used to show this strain was safe for human consumption in the 90 day study sponsored by Monsanto. This is why the number was chosen in this longer term study.

"The Monsanto Protection Act" was signed into law to protect the company against lawsuits, and not hold them responsible if their products cause any illness to the people who consume it.

I think thats a big red flag if you ask me. Many of the test monsanto funded scientists run, are only for a short period of time, like 3 months. and many times right after the 3 month mark is when the tests would start to heed results. It is very clear it does not matter what issues there is with the GM product, the government is backing them all the way

Actually that's not really what the bill you're talking about does at all... It has nothing to do with protection from lawsuits. What it does is allows farmers to continue using crops that have been approved by the USDA while court proceedings are going on if a court decides to reverse that approval.

We are both right.

The bill states that even if future research shows that GMOs or GE seeds cause significant health problems, cancer, etc, anything, that the federal courts no longer have any power to stop their spread, use, or sales.

That line is incorrect, but even if it were correct, that still doesn't protect them from lawsuits.

I mean, you can read the text of the measure here.

The part that's been called the "Monsanto Protection Act" is section 735.

(Sec. 735) Directs the Secretary, if a determination of non-regulated status under the Plant Protection Act has been invalidated, to authorize movement, introduction, continued cultivation, or commercialization for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status.

The courts can still ban it, this just delays the effects of the ban until everything is squared away.

copy/paste from a GMO thread

I agree that inserting a gene randomly into the genome of a plant that does not already possess and express said gene can have unintended side effects. Let me expand with some examples.

There are a few different ways this can happen. The products of inserted genes can go on to interact with other genes (wikipedia). Given the large number of genes in most organisms and the complexity of proteins, these interactions and their significance can be hard to predict.

Another reason that there can be unintended side effects is that disrupting a certain metabolic pathway can affect the production of other molecules that share the same pathway or are connected to it. To give an example, in humans, statins are prescribed to lower cholesterol. Statins work by inhibiting the enzyme HMG-CoA-reductase which is involved in the synthesis of cholesterol. However, this enzyme is also needed for the synthesis of coenzyme Q, which is vital for mitochondria. Statins thus have the unintended effect of reducing the synthesis of coenzyme Q. [On a side note, this can lead to symptoms like muscle pain which can be treated with supplemental coenzyme Q.]

In genetic modification of plants, scientists usually don't aim to inhibit enzymes. Rather, they might try to increase the synthesis of certain molecules by inserting the gene for an enzyme (perhaps with the goal of producing a pesticide, or granting the plant pesticide resistance). Nonetheless, increasing the synthesis of a certain molecule can divert resources from other shared or related metabolic pathways and affect the production of other molecules.

To give an example, a canola strain was genetically engineered to produce higher concentrations of carotenoids. An unexpected consequence of this genetic modification was that the production of fatty acids was also altered. This change may be harmless. But given what we know and are still learning about the effects of the fatty acid composition of foods on human health (think omega-3's vs omega-6's), this could have serious public health implications.

To give another example, in a series of transgenic experiments on potatoes, many of the transgenic lines were found to produce substances that were not found in the original potato - one of these substances could not even be identified. In order to assess the safety of these plants, it's important to be able to identify all the changes so that we can study their effects on humans. With proper analysis of the modified plant, and proper safety testing, GMOs that are safe for human consumption could theoretically be brought to market. The problem is that according to the idea of "substantial equivalence", GMOs would not need to undergo the intensive testing needed to detect and assess the safety of these changes.

Now the million dollar question is how that whole we-dont-know-what-happens is different from fucking around with conventional breeding like radiaton or just collecting freaks on the field.

we have science for that

Yes! And this takes time the compound-interest corporations do not have.

The criticism of the study came from many different scientists. Look at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

You should taken the time to actually read this "criticism"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512008009

You may also find it interesting to know that the other critics failed to disclose serious conflicts of interest.

http://spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/science/item/5495-tumorous-rats-gm-contamination-and-hidden-conflicts-of-interest

more on conflicts of interest

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14424

Monsanto is doing exactly what big tobacco did in the 50s

Europe has similar cancer rates to America and they don't have anywhere near the same volume of GM food as us.

Yey, finally.

But we have the exact same industrial complex and spray petrochemicals on everything, all the time. But at least we don't die because of worms or bad water. That is something.

Can someone link me to studies that say GMOs are actually bad for you? Just trying to get sourced up. Everything I learned in college tells me nothing is wrong with GMOs AS LONG AS they aren't engineered to do bad things. From what I understand, GMOs are the only way we can feed the world's population. Before inevitably downvoting me, I just want to say I know little to nothing about this, just want to get some facts and don't know where to get them. You guys have always been pretty trustworthy in the past

I think the problem with fertilizers and the missing natural gas to produce it will much more hamper good nourishment of the world population. Permaculture and its general approach to use material flows that are already there is will probably have more impact per acre tonnage than GMO. But lets try anything and see what happens is my stance.

http://earthopensource.org/index.php/7-feeding-the-world/7-1-myth-gm-crops-are-needed-to-feed-the-world-s-growing-population

http://gmoseralini.org/research-papers/

thank you

50 years ago and several times since, Doctors got up before congress and on TV and put their names on the line to defend cigarette companies. People lacking ethics and morality are even more prevalent today. Don't think for one second that those same types of people are not out there now. Paid shills are a real thing, marketing companies now employ these tactics regularly. Monsanto is the new cigarette lie but with much more dire consequences.

It's called tobacco science.

Monsanto is an expert on it.

Have you looked into who funded the original study? I'll give you a clue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auchan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrefour

This may also be of interest.

Just FYI, we have 11 rebuttals to the study in rbutr: http://rbutr.com/rbutr/WebsiteServlet?requestType=showLinksByFromPage&fromPageId=10745

Of which, the most upvoted rebuttal is this one: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22287-study-linking-gm-crops-and-cancer-questioned.html

As far as the six acadamies is concerned, what does that mean to you? Because it was confusing to me what it meant. Till I found this:

Even without having read their statement, I have to draw the public’s attention to the fact that it did not engage any of these academies in their entirety. Indeed, a group of experts was convened in an emergency, we do not know by whom, no one knows how, with a total lack of transparency in the selection of its members, and on the basis of two representatives from each academy. These people have seen fit to write in a very short space of time an opinion highly critical of this study. They cannot claim to embody the opinion of the entire French scientific world, and it would be a crime to suggest that they do.

Paul Deheuvels, Member of the Academy of Sciences, France, and the Academy’s sole statistician (1)

does this change your validation of the counter argument you posted?

Not really, because the rebuttal isn't an appeal to authority. The reference to the six academies was an update, not an argument. The arguments follow in the article.

Exerpt from AskScience topic:

I'm going to expand on that a little bit, because it's critically important. Every food crop GMO that I am aware of is transgenic; that is, the genes being inserted are not artificially created, they are instead taken from another plant (or animal) and inserted into the crop cultivar's genome. Examples include genes inserted into tomatoes to produce a protein that makes them resistant to frost damage and genes inserted into potatoes to make them toxic to their primary insect pest (the Colorado potato beetle).

The fact that it's transgenic is important because it means that, to some extent, the products of these genes are already vetted. We aren't creating entirely new genes (and subsequent proteins) out of thin air. The anti-freeze protein in the tomato was already safe to eat when it was in a flounder; it doesn't magically become toxic in a tomato (things like acidity can change protein folding dynamics and so it must be tested for safety again in the food system, which it was).

The case of the transgenic potato is especially sad. Here's an excerpt from a review paper regarding the fate of these potatoes:

Potatoes were among the first successful transgentic crop plants (An et al. 1986). Genetically modified potatoes expressing Bacillus thuringiensis delta-endotoxin that is toxic to the Colorado potato beetle were sold in the U.S. from 1995-2000. Although well-received at first, they were discontinued after only five years of use because of consumer concerns about genetically modified crops, grower concerns, and competition with a new and highly efficient insecticide imidacloprid (Grafius and Douches 2008).

Why is this sad? Because the potato was fine. It successfully resisted the potato beetle and allowed the growers to stop pouring massive amounts of insecticides onto their fields. However, because of consumer mistrust and a host of fear-mongering by anti-GMO organizations, use of the potato was discontinued and farmers went back to using lots and lots of insecticide. This cognitive dissonance from environmentalists (which I consider myself to be) really frustrates me.

I think it's safe to say that they're paid shills. I spoke to one once that admitted it and unusually he was also a prisoner. Apparently they hire out inmates as telemarketers and apparently to watch messages boards.

[deleted]

sorry that was probably 3-4 months ago. Here is a story about them being used as telemarketers

...I need some soma right now.

Welcome to the opposing side of science where any divergence from the hive mindset is grounds for excommunication

OP made some good points but I feel the need to point out that he's giving the average reddit user's intelligence too much credit. There are definitely groups out there that spread bullshit and down vote everything that points our their bullshit, but once something has a lot of down votes or up votes the general reddit populace ALWAYS hops on the bandwagon. People will down vote anything if they see it has a lot of down votes already.

Again, I'm not one of these guys that claims people are shilling. That's not the point of the post. I think it's much more likely they actually believe this but are either too dumb/trusting/lazy to verify and dig out the facts for themselves.

Most people (sadly also many scientists) are perfectly satisfied to rely on appeal to authority.

Thank you.

I have no problem with people using science to refute conspiracies or scams, just so long as its backed up with peer reviewed data. If people are going to poopoo a study, their points better be valid, just like anything else.

I see way too many people who are willing to believe anything they hear without verifying it themselves on both sides of the fence. Many people in this sub are guilty of instantly believing anything negative that they've heard about Monsanto without actually looking. This is no better than people who automatically support Monsanto or any other controversial subject. How many of you are just going to say "I knew it!" and STILL not go look for yourselves? It's shameful shit.

Here is a list of video links collected from comments that redditors have made in response to this submission:

• VideoLinkBot FAQ
• Feedback
• Playlist of videos in this comment

161719, I have been questing corporate science for years, but the science worshipers here are like zombies, they believe anything professors tell them.

Anti gmo people are relying on you to be anti technology and science. The rat study was bogus and backed by greenpeace. Greenpeace funded the study... that alone is a giant fucking red flag. Move along. You are as bad as the anti vaccine people.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2012/09/24/anti-gmo-study-is-appropriately-dismissed-as-biased-poorly-performed/

This is not the first time this group has fudged the results to make the tabloids.

The rat study was bogus

Demonstrate what's wrong with it or GTFO.

backed by greenpeace

The critique is backed by Monsanto. I cited sources you didn't. Next?

Move along.

The statement of one who knows lingering will expose his bullshit.

anti technology and science.

How is looking at data in a peer reviewed study "anti-science." Last I checked, "Science" doesn't mean bowing to whatever the big scientist in the sky tells you is true. Science relies on making a hypothesis, testing it, and retesting it. So far the data I have seen lead me to believe that GMO maize could result in tumors in rats. You've done nothing except call me "anti-science."

You really need to reconsider your position. If you're trying to be persuasive you are failing utterly.

Demonstrate what's wrong with it or GTFO. I already did. And if you read the study you could find out for yourself that it proves absolutely nothing and was a simple manipulation to get news. The data did not prove what you are saying it does. At all. It is also a horrendously small sample size.

The critique is backed by Monsanto. I cited sources you didn't. Next?

What sources? http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/a-great-study-on-science-mixing-terribly-with-pr-machines

The statement of one who knows lingering will expose his bullshit.

No it is a statement informing you of how ignorant and easily manipulated you are by retarded fear mongering claims.

How is looking at data in a peer reviewed study "anti-science." Last I checked, "Science" doesn't mean bowing to whatever the big scientist in the sky tells you is true. Science relies on making a hypothesis, testing it, and retesting it. So far the data I have seen lead me to believe that GMO maize could result in tumors in rats. You've done nothing except call me "anti-science."

You have not looked at the study then. You are anti science because science is against the study. This study is akin to a study basically saying people did not evolve they were created by god. Or you are easily lead astray. The study is a joke and a shows just how easy it is for bad science to be bought and paid for.

You really need to reconsider your position. If you're trying to be persuasive you are failing utterly.

I could say the same for you. Jumping onto a anti gmo circle jerk is pathetic. This anti gmo conspiracy is ridiculous are you all on Greenpeace's payroll? I know they have been out in droves lately, harassing people on the streets.

What you are doing is trying to ignore science and fact by throwing out shock tactics. Completely unsubstantiated fear mongering tactics. This is pathetic.

retarded fear mongering
ignorant and easily manipulated
easily lead astray
a joke
bad science
bought and paid for
circle jerk
pathetic
ridiculous
harassing

Which of these statements is fit for a gentleman to respond to?

You've given me nothing to debate. Good day, sir.

Haha. He edited his comment to add this:

You are anti science because science is against the study
science is against the study

wut.

Just so we can have a teaching moment here: "Science" is a method of inquiry. That's it. "Science" does not hold opinions. Science is one of the tools by which we come to our opinions. But "Science" can not decide anything or tell us how to think.

You should check yourself on appeal to authority because I think your claim that I'm acting religious is actually just you projecting.

You know you've lost an arguement when this is how you have to respond, it's just astounding.

You've given me nothing to debate. Good day, sir.

Well, of course not. Nothing of substance got through your blinders at all. Interesting to see what did, though. Thanks for that.

Which of these statements is fit for a gentleman to respond to? You've given me nothing to debate. Good day, sir.

How about the part that the study contains no information that you say it does. And how about the fact it was funded and peer reviewed by greenpeace, and greenpeace supporters who are notoriously anti gmo.

How about every other study not showing these results. How about the control in this study being extremely low in tumors compared to historical controls. How about the minuscule sample size. How about the lack of any real science being done in the study?

That's right you have no ground to stand on hence you are simply trying to shut people down with fear mongering. If you wanted a real debate maybe you should have actually opened up for a discussion instead of being an insulting douche bag in the original post.

peer reviewed by greenpeace

You serious? You think "greenpeace" is out there "peer-reviewing" studies?

every other study

Feel free to cite your sources.

maybe you should have actually opened up for a discussion

There's a comment section. What are you talking about?

shut people down

Yes I'm oppressing Monsanto.

insulting douche bag

You'll survive.

You serious? You think "greenpeace" is out there "peer-reviewing" studies? What I actually said: "And how about the fact it was funded and peer reviewed by greenpeace, and greenpeace supporters who are notoriously anti gmo." It was peer reviewed by a supporter of greenpeace.

In other words greenpeace paid for it to make it into the news. It has not been replicated and its data and the study itself is a joke. There is nothing in it saying what you or the headlines are saying.

Feel free to cite your sources.

They are already cited in the previous posts and the links.

There's a comment section. What are you talking about?

You started the post with insults and false information.

Yes I'm oppressing Monsanto.

No you are being ignorant. Just like the anti vaccine people. You are buying into the anti gmo propaganda being thrown out there by greenpeace.

There is no debate about this. You are spouting about one study that has not been replicated and is laughed at by the entire scientific community.

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

Why do people with a differing opinion automatically get labelled shills?

Strawman. I never labeled anyone shills and in all my comments in this thread I have been careful to argue that they are not shills, they are just misinformed and usually using fallacious arguments.

Dude just because the guy made a good point, doesn't make him a strawman. You have to be prepared for discussion if you want to post. Part of discussing things is addressing arguments and points that aren't 100% connected to your original post but still relevant to the discussion.

note- before you claim I am a shill or strawman or whatever other whacko paranoid term you have concocted to discredit and disregard my post, take a look at my post/comment history.

however, if someone wants to buy me off I'm all ears. I will shill for anyone/anything for the right amount of money.

I guess the hip thing these days is to call all opinions that disagree with your 'out of the loop' opinion are strawmen, rather than shills subverting your opinions. Now that you've established the new argument cop-out of the month, please watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ET7Xv2m9k

Silly question, but when it comes to crazy conspiracy theorists vs corporate shills, is it not possible that both people could be wrong?

What if the genetically modified food grain that was used in the study is only harmful in certain situations, like eating uncooked seeds vs processed and completed food product, rendering the data from the study invalid due to humans not ingesting GM food the same way a rat would?

I also haven't read the study involved, but when they show a statistic variance between the cancer rates or the GM-eating rats vs the control rats, just how much 'more likely' was the one group to contract cancer? If it is a small variance, say 0.2% instead of 0.1%, that risk my be worth the added benefit to the use of such crops. If it is larger, like 1% vs 0.1%, then it might not be.

So, yes, maybe there is a higher cancer rate using Monsanto seeds, but is the cancer rate the only thing we should look at?

I'm advocating for 2 things:

1) Better debate. That means anyone can test the stuff. The seeds can't be proprietary when it comes to research. More independent testing is done before rolling them out wide scale.

2) This bullshit about not labeling GMO needs to stop. If it is a good product then labeling won't hurt it. Give people information. Arguing against labeling is evil in my opinion.

I can get on board for those two points. I'm personally not afraid of genetically modified food, after all they claim that everything I do causes cancer anyway. But some people might decide that they don't want to eat that way, and that is their choice.

I think they're hippies, but it's their choice.

what kind of person is okay doing that kind of job?

Telemarketers are bad enough but sticking up for Monsanto...they must be getting paid well or some poor sods in a foreign country having no alternative job option?

What's different from Greenpeace funding an anti-GMO study and Monsanto funding a paper de-bunking it? I don't understand how you can praise this study which was backed by an organization with a vested interest, yet slam any counter-evidence also backed by organizations with a vested interest.

http://topinfopost.com/2013/06/06/kansas-farmer-sues-monsanto-over-the-discovery-of-genetically-engineered-wheat-in-oregon-field

Don't let the technocrats win.

youre the good kind of crazy

Just a sample of other links showing that GMOs are harmful (both to the plants as well as the humans who eat them):

Árpád Pusztai on GM potato findings

proof that the genome of corn is being damaged by the insertion

Robert Bellé on round-up's carcinogenic toxicity

"the fact is there are no studies as yet linking GMO to health problems" is false.

These skeptics appeal only to the lowest scum in society.

who on earth has the time to be pro-monstanto?

These guys

Fantastic and insightful post, thanks for the OC and posting what /r/conspiracy wishes to see more of.

Of course. Anyone who knows what monsanto actually does and is pro-monsanto, is either funded by them or for some reason, wants to consume poison.

Any Monsanto thread always brings out the shills in full force. Look at the cancer rate in America. Its becoming not if you get diagnosed with a certain form of Cancer but when.

This is our great cleansing. Fortunately like most evils in America you can simply opt out if you are enlightened enough. For many people this will be the ignorance that kills them and whoever is left will have come out the other end of the evolution gears worthy to pass their genes onward. I think that on some level the elites are fine with this because they realize that the subcultures that are worthy will choose to continue living.

Try not to eat that food and tell others not to eat it either. A lot of people are still going to die from it in the meantime and they may never have an idea even in the end. Many of these people will blindly approve of wars, police-state surveillance and know nothing of politics, economics or spirituality. We won't be missing them much. However this whole GMO practice will need to be put down before it endangers humanity, and it will be put down.

Here, some help to overcome your Christian mindset:

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.ch/2013/05/the-politics-of-times-shape.html
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.ch/2013/05/the-rock-by-lake-silvaplana.html
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.ch/2013/05/the-pleasures-of-extinction.html

Ha its their end not The End.

that... is the whole point of the rapture eyeroll :D

also: you must be the fastest reader on earth.

People die get over it. I've read, written and spoke about many similar things and yes I can scan very quickly.

I have the feeling that you have defined yourself primarily with having transcended Christianity. You knows what kind of important sounding moniker your school of thought has imagined up for itself.

I encountered one the other day by accident. I was only answering his question and being a very polite middle of the road kind of person. I didn't have much time to debate or it would have been a bit different, but I digress. The main thing I find so puzzling with these people is how adamant they are about GMOs being great even though we are one of the few industrialized countries in the world that really uses them. It is almost as if by insulting GMOs you basically went up to their grandmother and cunt punched her in front of them.

We should make a subreddit where people link to scientific articles and we as a community try to create a summary of what it concludes. Top voted comments rise to the top and all that.

[deleted]

Why? I'm sure they make good money doing what they do. They probably have nice, healthy lives.

Aside from the Pro-Con GMO science debate, Can someone point me in the direction of a few credible resources detailing Monsanto's more dubious activities? i.e the mexican corn thing, Agent orange etc etc...? No conspiracy theory stuff if pos ,im looking for good trusted reporting, News articles, papers. Cheers.

Ha ha I just realised I put >No conspiracy theory stuff if pos In R/conspiracy what a dick

There also seems to be quite a few trying to persuade people that "GMO isn't bad - only Monsanto" . I think that's a trap. By dismissing the scientific argument against the health effects of GMO they essentially win. Making all about Monsanto makes it look like those arguing this purely have a vendetta against Monsanto.

Think of a Venn diagram of everyone on this issue. The circle of people worried about the health and environmental impact of GMO is larger and not concentric with the people worried about Monsanto.

I know many pro corporate conservatives that shop only organic and are concerned about the environment. But they think anti corporate corruption activists are "looney". I'm not one of those people, but pro capitalist pro environmentalist types are an ally on this fight.

I think the majority of people are or would be against GMO given the opportunity. That is why the Monsanto propaganda army is out in full force on reddit, and I'm sure everywhere else, trying to divide and conquer.

Yea there are some weird pro monsanto folk on here.

Ive had a few commenting on my posts if i ever say anything against cocksanto

It seemed like a legit study. But the pro-GMO crowd were adamant that "all scientists now agree that this study was a fraud."

The skeptics do this shit all the time. Anytime a study comes out that challenges big money, it is immediately declared fraud and you will ALWAYS see the lead scientist take the direct hit for the fraud. They do this for very specific reasons, so other scientists are unlikely to publish similar data in the future. This was Andrew Wakefield's case to a T. Every single parent of the 12 children he studied (when he found measles virus in their gut) wanted to testify on Wakefields behalf during his fraud hearing in the UK, but they were not even allowed in the building. It wasn't about the truth, it was about a witch hunt and public show trial. They needed to be able to call Wakefield a fraud so they could start off every legitimate discussion about vaccines with "Well, Wakefield is a fraud, so everything you're going to say is invalid."

If money and power doesn't like a study they just call it bad science. The aggressive skeptics we run into online are just medico fanboys. None of them doctors, some maybe students, but all naive tools. To skeptics, it's not really about science or evidence. It's about, above all else, being right and rubbing that in in the most hateful, arrogant way possible. They are the perfect tool for a medical industry gone bad.

If money and power doesn't like a study they just call it bad science. The aggressive skeptics we run into online are just medico fanboys. None of them doctors, some maybe students, but all naive tools.

YUP. The one thing that irritates me is that they've claimed the proud mantle of "Skeptic."

Skeptics used to be against the church, which at that time was the source of unquestionable authority. Now that authority comes from the *-Industrial complex, and is backed up by shit-tons of money and therefore "science."

A true skeptic is skeptical of power. That's the only real skepticism in this world. Being skeptical in defense of the mainstream is actually reactionary, which is what most "skeptics" on reddit actually are.

Meanwhile, the real skeptics are today simply called "kooks," "nuts," and "conspiracy theorists." It's part of this campaign by these "skeptics" to just use repeated ad hominem rather than actually engaging with anything.

I have never spent that much time on /r/conspiracy, but I agree with that 100%. I consider myself a skeptic, but one thing the bulk of the skeptic movement seems to be missing is that skepticism of power itself. Right along with their potential to be exploited and used as pawns to shut people up.

great stuff! whenever i see people so adamant that gmo is the future and science proves it - im always weary. how can you be so sure about such a new technology when there are so much concerns raised by others in the field

Thank you for your 10 minutes of research and additional time to compile this post. We need more Redditors like you.

DAMN! i have never seen someone internet bitch slap them like that! thats so gansta

Science has been politicized by industry. This is very similar to the situation that existed in the USSR. In the end, science (reality) will win. (but it may not matter if we are all dead from GMO or climate change)

They're counting on you not taking the time to check the BS they spew. and most people don't. The do this at every level of society, even the churches. These pastors teach nonsense that is either not in the bible or the meaning has been twisted beyond recognition. GMO products may destroy your body but false doctrine can send you to Hell eternally.

I was having the same argument on my post of the Monsanto protest photos in Chicago that seemed strange also.

It's no secret that science done in academia is in bed with corporate America.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding#.UaVQLteOwYw

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/06/16/monsanto-funding-future-farmers.aspx

http://www.naturalnews.com/035930_Monsanto_universities_propaganda.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Etg-WT0iYvk

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/05/how-agribusiness-dominates-public-ag-research

This American Life, ugh I hate NPR and the like, you can hear so much script reading when it comes to any issue really, be it Israel, Syria, Libya, the economy, chastising Ron Paul and people with similar theories and ideas

Youre on yahoo front page.

ahhaha wtf. can you link me?

ahha i saw it. Jesus Christ. Glad they have reporters like me to get out facts to the people. I hope they credit 161719 with the scoop.

I also like that "some crazy shit" is now yahoo-style content. Good going, assholes.

Yeah dude it was surreal seeing that after reading your post...and Shit right there lol.

Here is a breakdown of the publication detailing the effects of Roundup and Roundup-resistant corn on lab rats, for anyone who's interested.

-And here are the swift rebuttals made by by the European Food Safety Authority and six French science academies attempting to discredit Séralini's publication.

EFSA says: Insufficient number of rats, therefore it is possible that the resulting tumors were a chance occurrence. Science Academies say: Inconclusive study that promotes fear mongering about a scientific non-event.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so disturbing.

I've written several letters to Mossad pleaing with them to get involved, to resolve the issue. They do reply (personally), which is to say that we are being heard. The demonstrations and the mysterious field of GMO wheat appearing last week seems heaven sent (; just what the doctor ordered ;)

DAMMIT! It is not the GMO but the chemicals they spray on EVERYTHING, including conventionally produces food.

The addional (petro-)chemical products are the problem.

-> Label any chemical that was used when producing any food whatsoever. And see how:
- Wine gets fungicide and copper
- Wheat gets fungicide, every fucking kilo of it has that
- Maize has always something on it
- Apples, oranges, bananas, almost every traded fruit has insecticides on them

etc.etc.

This makes me so happy. Every time I've tried bringing this topic up I get downvoted so much that I don't even get a chance to make my argument. Props dude, thanks.

[deleted]

You can tag users with this

Was that the French study? If so, I read somewhere that the rats they used were specially prone to tumours, and that made the results less reliable too? Edit: here's the article I was referring to

maybe you should check who wrote that...

Found the article relating to the french study: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-linking-gm-corn-cancer-non-event.html

the AFP?

Hence the presence of a control group. Go look at the actual data I linked it for you, dummy.

I also found this on the article, "Seralini is a well-known opponent of GM crops, and his research was funded in part by an alliance comprising anti-GM campaigners and supermarket chains that have invested heavily in organic food" Did you actually read the article I linked by the way?

Also he refuses to give out his data for the EFSA to verify.

Well that article says nothing of the sort. In fact it just claims six scientific academics dismiss the studies as non science. This statement is expounded on by saying the academics never come together in a joint effort like this. Pretty powerful stuff there I guess. But how does this work? I don't quite understand the wording or process. So I looked into it and here is a statement of one French academic members.

Even without having read their statement, I have to draw the public’s attention to the fact that it did not engage any of these academies in their entirety. Indeed, a group of experts was convened in an emergency, we do not know by whom, no one knows how, with a total lack of transparency in the selection of its members, and on the basis of two representatives from each academy. These people have seen fit to write in a very short space of time an opinion highly critical of this study. They cannot claim to embody the opinion of the entire French scientific world, and it would be a crime to suggest that they do.

So to me, that suggests these guys were assembled for damage control. We are really fucking easily led idiots.

EDIT: stupid phone spellchecker. Not academics but academies.

You're right, sorry, I assumed that was the article which referenced the rats, apparently not. While looking I did however find this criticism of people complaining about the rat breed. Though this came to my attention "Monsanto and other manufacturers of glyphosate, the main chemical ingredient of Roundup herbicide, used the SD rat in their two-year carcinogenicity and multigenerational reproductive toxicity studies that form the basis of the EU authorization of glyphosate.", I thought that Monsanto hadn't done any two year tests? people keep saying that they only did 3 month tests that wouldn't show shit.

But the French are known to lie, and to surrender like spineless wimps the moment they are confronted.

Is it not therefor safe to conclude that the French refutation is a "a scientific non-event"?

;-)

Out the known shills...?

Good work.

So, who do we downvote and who do we upvote? :)

Can we please identify and start going after these shills?

The thing that bothers me most by all these anti-Monsanto threads/comments is that I can practically guarantee at least 90% of you consumed a product that has at least one Monsanto ingredient or was grown with Monsanto-owned seeds.

Stand up against bullshit in your daily life as well as on reddit.

This is why we want the labels

See corn syrup on that ingredient list? You've got an 80% chance that corn is Monsanto (in America).

Eating pure organic 100% of the time is fucking expensive. Some of us aren't rich. Novel concept.

I also smoke.

I'll do what I want with my body but I won't be lied to by bastards. I also won't stand by quietly while bastards take advantage of stupid people like me. Same for cigs.

So what's the end goal? A Surgeon General warning on every Monsanto-containing product? I think we're to the point (in America at least) where warnings aren't necessary for cigarettes. It is general knowledge, and even taught in schools, that cigarettes are harmful. We're far off from GMO education in public health classes.

If we, as a country or even countries, break the tradition of corporate lies and misconceptions but still use the product, what's the point? Monsanto would still be at large. I thought the whole point of all these protests is what they're doing, not them just simply covering up their untruthful ways.

People have the right to poison themselves with anything they want, but they MUST be informed they are poisoning themselves. No one can stop Monsanto from making any kind of fucked up GMO product they want, but if they are witholding information from their consumers they are guilty of poisoning. The truth is the basic right here, if people are dumb enough to poison themselves regardless the facts, as smokers do, let them.

If Monsanto's GM products are indeed poison, it's ok for a parent to continue serving it to their children as long as they KNOW they're poisoning them?

The government should mandate Monsanto and the like to publicly address their mislabeling and misdirection, but it's ok for that same government to provide a few million of their own soldiers with unethical means of consumption as long as they're aware it's potentially harmful?

We should look out for the benefit of mankind, animalkind, nature, and earth but continue ingesting dangerous products and allow the spreading of disastrous GM products into our ecosystem without a second thought all for the sake of pseudo-individualism and self-proclaimed freedom?

If we want to take them down, we should take them down. If (mostly) everyone here is convinced of the facts on Monsanto and especially their seedy past, why are we still sitting around and sharing optimistic protest pictures and defending posts to skeptics instead of fighting?

Surely liberty is dead if nothing real is done. Conspiracy theorists have fallen into the trap of evils they have proclaimed to uncover if all they do is talk. "Uncovering" Monsanto means nothing if we're all still sucking from the teet.

If the government won't oblige us, then it's time to oblige the will of every fallen man, woman, and child that truly faced the fact that liberty comes with a price.

I'm sure all those currently fighting back in Istanbul weren't content with sitting around saying "as long as the dangers are known, we'll pacify ourselves with a government that acknowledges dangers but does nothing about them."

Here's a novel idea eat food that is labeled non gmo jnstead of forcing legislation based on feelings and emotion.

When I was growing up I was best friends with Monsanto's CEO, Grant's son. Their family was extremely nice and growing up we really didn't know or understand what our parents did. As we got older we started to understand Monsanto and, my friend even had some hard talks with his father. My town, very very well off was a place where executives from major companies lived. I feel although the company makes it choices and decisions, the children and wives/husbands of the workers really shouldn't be criticized. Maybe not on this thread, but others I have read has wished ill will on their families and I don't feel as though that is morally right. Tell me what you think, and what I should relay to my friend.

What? Who is criticizing the families of workers? Who is criticizing workers?

I'm criticizing the business practice and the product itself. I'm also questioning the way in which the debate is being framed and carried out.

This is a fucked up world. Ain't no one with clean hands. I don't go around criticizing workers for making a paycheck, let alone their wives and kids. Such wives and kids have a heavy destiny. I have witnessed this sort of thing first hand. I think the dad might have some splainin to do if it turns out there's such a thing as a caring God.

I would be curious to know where the family shops though. I reckon they aren't eating their own products.

Sorry, wrote this after a night of drinking at a festival. You weren't critisizing the workers, but some threads I have read have.

You will get a kick out of this (Monsanto's CEO, Hugh Grant, has also admitted only eating organic food)

mon was 107 when redit started talking shit. i should have bought some puts

Respect for doing this man, I appreciate this.

You did not read the critique.

1) The study didn't have a control group. BUT: If you look at the raw data this is clearly not true.

The crit completely did not claim this. What it claimed is that the breed of rat used was not appropriate for tests measuring carcinogenicity (cancer formations). The reason: SD rats develop cancers at high rates and at high variability within a population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_rat#Use_in_research

A 1972 study compared neoplasms in “Sprague-Dawley” rats from 6 different commercial suppliers and found highly significant differences in the incidences of endocrine and mammary tumors. There were even significant variations in the incidences of adrenal medulla tumors among rats from the same source raised in different laboratories. All but 1 of the testicular tumors occurred in the rats from a single supplier. The researchers found that the incidence of tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats from different commercial sources varied as much from each other as from the other strains of rats. The authors of the study "stressed the need for extreme caution in evaluation of carcinogenicity studies conducted at different laboratories and/or on rats from different sources."

2) The data don't support the conclusion that GMOs cause tumors. BUT: Again, if you look at the data, this is not true.

The crit didn't actually claim this directly, either. The actual claim was:

Actually, due to the high incidence of spontaneous cancer under the conditions of the study, any conclusion based on such a small group is basically impossible. According to OECD guidelines, at least 50 per sex and group would be needed, but this study only used 10 animals [per sample]. It is very limited for the reader to make own judgments and conclusions on the meaning of the study.

The original paper didn't have a large enough sample size for the test to have statistical power. It then got popular play in the press - as anything that carries high percieved risk does.

omg you guys are actually retarded. seralini paper looked like a "legit study". lol. please keep doing this stuff, it's really entertaining. and yes, I'm a monsanto shill. I get 50 cents sent to my paypal for every pro monsanto comment I post.

Wow I wasn't convinced until you wrote "lol." Then I thought to myself. "Shit, this person i've never met is laughing at me so I am clearly int he wrong."

Thank you for logically and conclusively showing me the error of my ways.

Okay, I am going to try to explain some of the criticism leveled at this study.

*Firstly, the control group is very small. To make any accurate comparison between the numbers of tumors and deaths in this study, you must have a comparable number control individuals and experimental individuals. This is not the case in this study. There is a control group of 10 males and 10 females, but 9 experimental groups of 10 males and 10 females. Even if the GMO corn and the roundup had literally no effect and there were similar amounts of tumors and deaths, the authors of the story (who are known to be anti-GMO) could say that the experimental animals had 9 times the mortality rate.

*Second, these rats are known to develop tumors. This type of rat is usually only studied for 90 days, because when they get old, they die of tumors. If you look in Table 2 of the study, many of the control animals had pathological abnormalities. For the 3 of the 6 most common defects, 5 of out of the 10 control animals had defects, and for Pituitary defects, 6 out of 10 of the control animals had defects. Now, I am not going to try to say that the control group had more defects for every single group, but defects and tumors were found in all of the animals, not just the experimental animals.

*Thirdly, dosage effects are not seen in the animals. In some of the experimental groups, the more gmo and roundup the animals ate, the longer they lived. If gmo corn and roundup was damaging or toxic, the rats that ate the highest dosage should have died or had more complications than the rats that ate lower dosage.

This study was conducted too long and with rodents that are known to develop tumors. It was conducted by scientists known to be anti-gmo. They statistically cherry-picked data.

I think that GMO food should be studied. However, shoving GMO corn down the throats of cancer-prone rats and waiting for them to die is not the way to do it.

Just my two cents.

Yep, they are here. There is no one in their right minds who would be throwing massive downvotes at this thread ..there is no reason for it other than being paid to do it - the alternative is that people are literally so stupid and mindless that they want to believe whatever they want and science/logic be damned; all while claiming that's what "the conspiracy theorists" do, and they just follow along in /r/conspiracy reacting emotionally to anything that makes them look stupid, while calling their friends to downvote with them.. and how pathetic would a bunch of people have to be to do that, as a group?

Personally I think that GMO tech is going to be a big part of our future.... but sadly only assholes like monsato are playing with it atm and they're trying to use it to screw us over...

It looks like Monsanto and their pals are doing their best to monopolize the production of all major commercial crops. In the meantime you have other corporate monstrosities (like Bechtel) that are trying to gain complete control over all fresh water on the planet, and others (like Pfizer) are trying to monopolize all access to drugs and medications.

Now, why on earth would anyone want to do such things?

Profit - If you control 100% of something then you can pretty much name the price new can't you?

Good research. You guys are missing out on the good news though: http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1fj134/connecticut_senate_passes_gmo_labeling_bill/

Whenever I see a Wikipedia link as source, your arguments start to diminish

PLEASE READ THE STUDY!!!! As much as id love to agree, I too have a problem with the control. They grew 3 fields.

One with non GM corn

One with GM corn no Round-Up

One with GM Corn with Round-up used.

We can assume the non-GM corn would have died if Round-Up was used. So these controls are fine. However when feeding the rats, we have 7 different feeds (food).

the 3 below w/ AND w/o Rround-Up for a TOTAL of 6

one is 11% GM corn and 89% filler

one is 22% GM corn and 78% filler

and one is 33% GM corn and 67% filler.

The issue is the 7th feed, the control, is made with 33% non-GM corn. Why do they not have multiple controls to also include 11% and 22% none GM-corn?

I know its a minor detail and the evidence anyway is pretty interesting but this one part of the study irked me.

SOURCE BELOW, Last Sentence:

The varieties of maize used in this study were the R-tolerant NK603 (Monsanto Corp., USA), and its nearest isogenic non-transgenic control. These two types of maize were grown under similar normal conditions, in the same location, spaced at a sufficient distance to avoid cross-contamination. The genetic nature, as well as the purity of the GM seeds and harvested material, was confirmed by qPCR analysis of DNA samples. One field of NK603 was treated with R at 3 L ha−1 (WeatherMAX, 540 g/L of glyphosate, EPA Reg. 524-537), and another field of NK603 was not treated with R. Corns were harvested when the moisture content was less than 30% and were dried at a temperature below 30 °C. From these three cultivations of maize, laboratory rat chow was made based on the standard diet A04 (Safe, France). The dry rat feed was made to contain 11, 22 or 33% of GM maize, cultivated either with or without R, or 33% of the non-transgenic control line.

[deleted]

Strawman. I never said that. I said that this study seems to rise above the criticism leveled at it SO FAR.

Please don't try to refute me with over-the-counter fallacious arguments.

I would just like to point out that this was a study about a single type of Genetically modified corn and does not constitute evidence for or against GMOs in general, regardless of one's opinion of the study or it's outcomes. If you think the study is solid, all you can fairly conclude is that this ONE TYPE of GM corn increases cancer rates in rats. If you think the study is bogus, then it means nothing.

If one were so inclined one could GM tomato plants to make them poisonous. The fact that they killed rats would only prove that THOSE tomatoes are deadly. It would say nothing about GMOs as a whole.

i down vote Monsanto hating conspiracy nuts to make them get scared. AMA

Not sure if trolling or just an idiot.

I still dont understand why people could be pro-genetically modified anything. Whether you believe in intelligent design or not, something seems very pure about the way everything has survivee on this planet and it just seems like something you shouldn't mess with.

That just makes no sense at all. Most of the plant matter you eat are human inventions from corn to the banana.

You understand that we've been genetically modifying plants for thousands of years, and we couldn't have most of our vegetable crops without that? Look at a wild banana, or the common strawberry, or most wild corn.

Cross pollination is what we've been doing and is what your talking about in your examples. Gene splicing and adding genes or removing them is a whole other ball game. I used to work for Pioneer Seed and cross pollinated soy beans...the 'old fashioned' way, by hand. Nature can do that on her own. Adding and or splicing genes into soy beans from fish or other life forms(or any other example) will have unintended consequences and it's the tip of the iceberg. I don't trust those Monsanto dogs period.

Inserting genes is effectively mutating the plant, something nature would do given the time, especially with the pesticide resistance genes.

Mother nature vs Monsanto, feel free to choose. I Would really like an informed and full Consensual choice here and we don't have itEvery which way possible they thwart transparency, accountability And betray our consumer rights. Many will trust them to be always 100% benevolent and I find that to be wishful thinking wrapped in appeal to authority. Even if the coporate heads of Monsanto are so enlightened that they speak three 'Angelic' dialects and they can press nine for heavens customer Service direct line. The unintended consequences is the global devil in the details.

You do realise that not all genetic modification is brought about by Monsanto right? there are many strains of GM crops that have been developed by other companies for use in more extreme natural conditions, where food supply might otherwise be compromised.

Personally I think GM will be the way forward, though not the way Monsanto are doing, with thorough research and testing it will provide us with much more reliable and yielding crops. And that is a good thing. And it may even reduce the amount we need to eat meat, via growing of meat, and that will greatly reduce CO2 emissions and provide more land for crop growth.

What doesn't cause cancer these days?

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112

http://skepchick.org/2012/07/ask-surly-amy-genetically-modified-plants/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_admits_he_was_wrong.html

http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/

http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gm-corn-rat-study/

Seems pretty conclusive if you ask me...

While it may not be fool proof, it is a start. Like I said though, avoid corn, soy and canola (including meat that eats those products as well)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_organic

avoidance of synthetic chemical inputs not on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (e.g. fertilizer, pesticides, antibiotics, food additives, etc.), genetically modified organisms, irradiation, and the use of sewage sludge;

It appears that way to us on purpose to avoid people gaming the upvote system or spamming it. The numbers are fuzzed. Only the final number is real, however many upvotes and downvotes we can see through res are in constant flux. You can sometimes see it change right before your eyes if you note the numbers and then check again from a refresh or different browser. The total upvote count might be 50, for example, but the spread could be 150/100 or 50/00 or 125/75 or anything else that lands at 50. It means nothing.

Yup, if they were serious about the science behind the goods, they'd have no reasonable objection to that information being attached to the product.

can the USDA certify something organic? I know they do for tobacco.

You serious? You think "greenpeace" is out there "peer-reviewing" studies? What I actually said: "And how about the fact it was funded and peer reviewed by greenpeace, and greenpeace supporters who are notoriously anti gmo." It was peer reviewed by a supporter of greenpeace.

In other words greenpeace paid for it to make it into the news. It has not been replicated and its data and the study itself is a joke. There is nothing in it saying what you or the headlines are saying.

Feel free to cite your sources.

They are already cited in the previous posts and the links.

There's a comment section. What are you talking about?

You started the post with insults and false information.

Yes I'm oppressing Monsanto.

No you are being ignorant. Just like the anti vaccine people. You are buying into the anti gmo propaganda being thrown out there by greenpeace.

There is no debate about this. You are spouting about one study that has not been replicated and is laughed at by the entire scientific community.

False. The common label words "all-natural" or "natural" have no legal or standardized meaning. However there are standards enforced by the USDA for a product to be labeled "100%organic" "organic" or "contains organic ingredients".

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446&acct=nopgeninfo

I'm advocating for 2 things:

1) Better debate. That means anyone can test the stuff. The seeds can't be proprietary when it comes to research. More independent testing is done before rolling them out wide scale.

2) This bullshit about not labeling GMO needs to stop. If it is a good product then labeling won't hurt it. Give people information. Arguing against labeling is evil in my opinion.

I have since learned the difference re submissions but not content, thank you

when they stated mounting huge campaigns and putting lots of money into preventing the labeling, that was pretty much all I needed to know. If they don't want you to know what you're eating, there's something wrong.

Doesn't it degrade the debate just to bring meaningless interweb karma into the discussion when debating this issue?

this is typical of people arguing for GMO. You say a lot, but in the final analysis, you have said absolutely nothing. If what I said about clinical trials is not true, prove it. Not sure what talking heads you are referring to, but I came to these conclusions on my own based on common sense. I actually worked for a vaccine company, so no fear of science here. But I do know when you go personal, that's all that needs to be said, as it says you have nothing to say. and lol, organic food is more likely to make people sick if not washed? Duh. That goes for anything, but this again says less than nothing. Poof, begone. You know not of what you speak.

He was all over one of my posts and for every single link I provided he said they were biased or lying, while defending Monsanto. He is obviously paid to be soulless and betray his fellow man.

You don't deserve anything, son. You want information? information is literally the ultimate power of our time. You'll have to fight, risk your family, life, belongings, just like our revolutionary ancestors to get it.

(who doesn't allow INDEPENDENT studies to be done on their PATENTED food)?

Half of this debate is about Seralini et al., who used GMO corn in their studies. How can you claim that independent studies can't happen when they already have?

"World Natural Health Organizatipn"? That's your source? Pathetic. Get a real source or get out.

Which reference?

I've done more googling on that study than you have, I assure you. But googling by itself isn't a source.

People die get over it. I've read, written and spoke about many similar things and yes I can scan very quickly.

I have the feeling that you have defined yourself primarily with having transcended Christianity. You knows what kind of important sounding moniker your school of thought has imagined up for itself.

I just wanted to see to go off. ;-)

Way to yet again not actually address anything that was actually said.