Originally shared by Eric Noya
http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/40-different-studies-proving-gm-foods-are-destroying-our-health/
#gmo #monsanto #health
http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/40-different-studies-proving-gm-foods-are-destroying-our-health
This collection lists the discredited Seralini study, and the article pictures one of Seralini's rats.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the article is knowingly lying to you.
David Westebbe THANKS I WILL RESEARCH THE MATTER FOR ALTERNATIVE STUDIES. IF YOU KNOW OF ANY PLEASE SUBMIT. THANK YOU
ReplyDeleteDavid Westebbe THANK YOU VERY MUCH I KNOW HOW TO RESEARCH THESE AND I WILL POST MY RESULTS. I WILL ALSO LET YOU KNOW MY RESULTS DIRECTLY
ReplyDeleteThe pro-GMO advocacy group Biofortified announced in late August that the group’s much-hyped GENERA database of GMO research is now available for public review in a trial version. Though the database contains only a fraction of the GMO research available (400 of 1200 studies, according to Biofortified), this hasn’t stopped the group from drawing sweeping conclusions about what the science says.
ReplyDeleteThe partisan group has always incorrectly stated that the scientific literature shows that GMOs are safe. But with the release of GENERA, the group now boasts that “half of GMO research is independent,” and notes that this finding “should turn the heads of people who thought it was skewed to private, U.S.-based laboratories.”
My head is turning—at the partisan spin that Biofortified continually employs.
First, Biofortified draws its funding conclusion not on its analysis of all GMO research, but only the 400 studies currently available in the GENERA database.
Second, 83 of the 400 studies do not disclose a funding source, meaning there is a major gap in funding data. Biofortified doesn’t say much about this, predictably, so allow me. The fact that authors are not disclosing all sources of funding (and conflicts of interest) presents an obvious avenue for biased research to enter the scientific discourse. If Biofortified is committed to independent science, it should be strenuously calling for full disclosure, not sweeping these findings under the rug.
Third, Biofortified’s deeply flawed funding analysis doesn’t accurately or comprehensively reflect industry influence.
For example, Biofortified doesn’t consider the impact of industry authorship on independence. If the pro-GMO Gates Foundation funds a study that is authored by a Monsanto scientist, should we really call that study “independent?” Biofortified apparently thinks so.
Biofortified has also mislabeled funders as being independent when they are not.
The Monsanto-funded American Society of Nutrition, which co-funded a journal article with Monsanto, is labeled by Biofortified as an “independent” group. Incredibly, if you search for all studies funded by “independent” non-governmental organizations, you find that Monsanto co-funded 10 percent of these 30 studies, calling into question the “independence” of these NGOs.
Did I mention that Monsanto is the most common funder in the database? That’s what the data analysis tool in GENERA shows. Monsanto funded 46 of the journal articles in the database (probably a larger number if you count all Monsanto subsidiaries), which is more than 10 percent of the studies. It is likely that the USDA is actually the largest funder of studies in GENERA, but Biofortified’s coding makes it difficult to tell.
It is worth mentioning that when Biofortified says half of all GMO research is “independent,” most of that is funded by government agencies, many of which are active GMO supporters or promoters, like the USDA. Or consider the “independent” UK-government-funded Biotechnology and Biological Research Council, which officially supports GMOs, invests in GMO research, and regularly collaborates with biotech companies like Monsanto. It’s also “independent.”
We knew at the outset that GENERA wasn’t likely to be a useful tool to anyone except the biotech industry and its supporters. It is a partisan effort built on a mountain of biases, and, predictably, it is being used (poorly) to distort the public discourse on GMOs in the very same way that it distorts the science.
If you are curious about what the scientific literature really says about GMOs, check out the work of hundreds of international scientists, whose findings openly challenge the partisans at Biofortified by proclaiming that not only is there no consensus on the safety of GMOs, there is actually some cause for concern.
*where there was such a conflict of interest, 100% of the studies (41 out of 41) made a favourable GM safety finding
ReplyDelete*conflicts of interest are much less likely to be declared where authors affiliate to the GM industry
*more than half (52%) of the 94 analyzed articles did not declare funding source
*proportionally more articles with undeclared funding ended up with conclusions favorable to industry
*in 83% of the cases where funding was actually declared, none of the authors was directly affiliated with industry
*studies funded by industry or involving scientists employed by industry are almost certain to produce conclusions in favor of product commercialization
------------------------------------
Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products.
Diels, J., M. Cunha, et al. (2011). Food Policy 36: 197–203
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VCB-51S6FY9-1/2/08d7c6d3dab66367125cf64e3140e87c
Abstract
Since the first commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops in 1994, the rapidly expanding market of genetically modified seeds has given rise to a multibillion dollar industry. This fast growth, fueled by high expectations towards this new commercial technology and shareholder trust in the involved industry, has provided strong incentives for further research and development of new genetically modified plant varieties. Considering, however, the high financial stakes involved, concerns are raised over the influence that conflicts of interest may place upon articles published in peer-reviewed journals that report on health risks or nutritional value of genetically modified food products.
In a study involving 94 articles selected through objective criteria, it was found that the existence of either financial or professional conflict of interest was associated to study outcomes that cast genetically modified products in a favorable light (p = 0.005). While financial conflict of interest alone did not correlate with research results (p = 0.631), a strong association was found between author affiliation to industry (professional conflict of interest) and study outcome (p < 0.001). We discuss these results by comparing them to similar studies on conflicts of interest in other areas, such as biomedical sciences, and hypothesize on dynamics that may help explain such connections.
Conclusion
The presence of COI in scientific research does not imply actual behavior of study authors. But it does present a risk that the study outcome may be improperly influenced. This study has focused on how commercial interests may interfere with outcomes of risk and nutrition analysis studies of products derived from GM plants. This is a choice justified by the high financial stakes involved in the development of such products and the increasing weight of private funding in research in recent years. Through statistical analysis of a selected population of studies in the described area, it could be shown that a combined analysis of COIs through professional affiliations or direct research funding are likely to influence the final outcome of such studies in the commercial interest of the involved industry. Our results partially confirm those observed in biomedical sciences, tobacco, alcohol and nutrition research.
This is an incontrovertible piece of evidence that Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, Bayer, Cargill, the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association, and others have completely swayed government opinion about GMO safety based on manufactured to appease ‘experts.’ Experts who are supposed to assess the possible toxicity of any food or beverage we consume. This means that GMOs got the green light without safety assessments by independent scientists. No government-appointed shills should be making decisions about our food supply with such little risk assessment conducted.
ReplyDeleteThe new study does suffer from one major limitation, however, since it looked only for published studies involving feeding rats the GM crop in question and then monitoring them for health effects. There are obviously other ways to conduct safety tests, but these were not conducted either.
Furthermore, these companies did indeed test their own crops and hid the results from regulators, even when they knew their toxic GMO products could cause serious health risks. The biotech industry has called these tests a ‘commercial secret’ even when they knowingly promote GMOs while they causes harm. The pesticides and herbicides marketed to go hand-in-hand with GM crop sales are subject to the same ‘scrutiny’ as GMO crops themselves. A 2014 study in the journal BioScience found that the pesticide-approval process has been very similar.
“Risk assessment is compromised when relatively few studies are used to determine impacts, particularly if most of the data used in an assessment are produced by a pesticide’s manufacturer, which constitutes a conflict of interest. Although manufacturers who directly profit from chemical sales should continue to bear the costs of testing, this can be accomplished without [conflicts of interest] by an independent party with no potential for financial gain from the outcome and with no direct ties to the manufacturer.”
===============================
11-http://www.scienceforthepublic.org/assets/154/STHV%20GMO%20ILLUSORY%20CONSENSUS.pdf
An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment Sheldon Krimsky1 Abstract Prominent scientists and policymakers assert with confidence that there is no scientific controversy over the health effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—that genetically modified crops currently in commercial use and those yet to be commercialized are inherently safe for human consumption and do not have to be tested. Those who disagree are cast as ‘‘GMO deniers.’’
This article examines scientific reviews and papers on GMOs, compares the findings of professional societies, and discusses the treatment of scientists who have reported adverse effects in animal feeding experiments. This article concludes by exploring the role that politics and corporate interests have had in distorting an honest inquiry into the health effects of GMO crops.
Science, Technology, & Human Values 1-32 ª The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0162243915598381
Diels found that 47% of the studies had at least one author with a professional or financial affiliation to the GMO industry or an organization tied to it. The rest of the studies’ authors either had no such conflict of interest (39%) or gave insufficient information about funding sources to judge (14%).
ReplyDeleteAccording to Robinson, the “industry-linked studies were much more likely to find that the GMO was safe,” while those with no conflict of interest were more likely to reach less-than-favorable conclusions about the GMOs in question.
But the BFI doesn’t acknowledge this, instead touting their new database as an example of how “independently researched” GMOs supposedly have been.
Studies Show a Pattern of Harm from GMOs
While the industry standard for animal feeding studies are always capped at 90 days, several independent studies have shown harmful effects following this 90 day period, including the famous study by French researcher Gilles-Eric Séralini which showed large tumors and other serious internal health problems in rats.
The Séralini study was heavily criticized by pro-GMO interests immediately after publication, as the multi-billion dollar industry rushed to calm public fears and to protect its vast financial interests.
It was a classic example of how independent research is routinely attacked when it produces unfavorable conclusions on GMOs, and was eventually retracted from the journal it was originally published in, Food and Chemical Toxicology (but only after powerful pro-GMO interests rallied and organized against it).
Following the publication of the study in the journal, 11 of 13 letters to the editor actually had undisclosed financial relationships with Monsanto, including Paul Christou, the editor of Transgenic Research who is an investor on patents on GM technology, many of which Monsanto owns. At the journal itself, a new position for associate editor was actually created and filled by Richard E. Goodman, a professor from the University of Nebraska who previously worked for Monsanto.
The study was criticized for the type of rat that was used, but it was actually the same strain that Monsanto uses on its 90-day studies on GM foods and long-term studies of glyphosate, just utilized in a new type of study that went on for long than 90 days. This is just one instance of how double standards were used to “invalidate” the study’s findings.
A few months later, FCT’s publisher Monsanto announced that Seralini’s paper had been retracted in yet another textbook example of how the industry attacks independent science.
After a long political bout with the GMO companies, vindication came to Séralini and his team after a rigorous peer review led to the study’s republication recently, this time in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe.
A large percentage of GMO research is conducted by people with financial ties to Biotech, a GMWatch report says.
“Safety” Proclamations Ignore Red Flags on GMOs
Unfortunately, another key point the BFI’s database misses is just how glaring the lack of “official” 90-plus day studies are on GMOs.
As the Institute for Responsible Technology puts it:
Short studies could easily miss many serious effects of GMOs. It is well established that some pesticides and drugs, for example, can create effects that are passed on through generations, only showing up decades later. In the case of the drug DES (diethylstilbestrol), “induced female genital cancers among other problems in the second generation.” The authors urge regulators to require long-term multi-generational studies, to “provide evidence of carcinogenic, developmental, hormonal, neural, and reproductive potential dysfunctions, as it does for pesticides or drugs.”
And then there are the studies in the database with shocking conclusions that are not mentioned in the press release from the BFI.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/ (2014)
ReplyDeleteI BELIEVE I MADE SOME GOOD CONCLUSIVE POINTS IN SUPPORT OF MY ANTI-GMO POSITION.
IF YOU CAN DEBUNK THESE PLEASE LET ME KNOW WITH A DETAILED RESEARCH OF YOUR OWN THAT WOULD BE VERY HARD TO DEBUNK. THIS ONE WAS TOO EASY FOR ME
NICE TO HAVE DEBATED AN ISSUE WITH YOU
Regards
Eleni
Government GangStalking and Electronic Harassment
ReplyDelete