GMO Studies

billooo2 · #21 12/30/12, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm

Show us ONE quote where anyone other than you REALLY said that

One quote regarding insufficient evidence is the article about allergens.

The remark about "hundreds of studies"........I think that every farmer that I have talked with (ones who are planting GMO) has made that remark to me. Also, a previous poster made that remark.....

I think that the majority of farmers are very conscientous people and would not, knowingly, do anything that could potentally harm anyone.

I don't know.......do you suppose that the people selling the seeds are telling them that???

billooo2 · #22 12/30/12, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

There are plenty of studies Billboo but it doesnt matter what is posted it will be derided by the anti GMO crowd as an evil Monsanto funded con job if its for GMOs or it will be seen as just another uneducated moonbeam propaganda piece designed to inflame emotions by the pro GMO crowd.

There have been over 100 independent peer reviewed studies on the whole issue of GMO safety coming from many countries, varying Universities,, Science Academies, food safety organizations etc. and about an equal number of studies from various sources that say something different. If your actually interested in learning you might try organizations like the National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society of Medicine who actually present a fairly balanced and rational conclusion that though not everything is known the compelling evidence does not show ill effects to human consumption of GMOs..The science direct link has a review of 100 independent studies showing no known adverse health effects from GMO crops in human consumption from all over the world. Keep in mind GMOs have only been around for 14 years and no study will say anything is completely safe. You can die from drinking too much water and 50 years down the road who knows?

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10977#toc

http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/content/101/6/290.abstract

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78691511006399

On the other side of the coin, if you want a green perspective that is fairly well balanced and scientifically based you might try:greenfacts.org. which to me makes a compelling argument about caution, environmental concerns and labeling.

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/gmo/3-g...-labelling.htm

Two different views of GMOs but a lot closer to reason than the norm on both sides.

My computer opened the links.....I am not familiar with these sources, so don't have much confidence in them.......

Interesting.....

1. The first source looked promising.....the link opened to a page with other links......but when I clicked on those links....a message popped up..."file does not exist"

2. The second link was an article that said that they will be doing a review of studies to examine safety issues.....but it had not been done yet.

3. Third link (Science Direct.....who are they???) This one seems quite humorous. They claim to have looked at different studies, and found no problems.
The humorous part......
1) the studies they cited were done in FRance......does France allow GMO's????
2) they consider feeding rats for 2 years as a "long-term"study

...and they would include data from 90 day studies

(keeping in mind that it takes the average smoker (1 pack/day) 20 years
before adverse effects show up in chest x-rays or puolmonary function tests!!!! .....so using 90 day-2 year studies......smoking would be shown to be perfectly safe!!

) Gee.....why don't I trust Monsanto??

I did not see where any of them claimed to be 'peer reviewed'......let alone identifying the 'reviewers'.....did I miss something????

salmonslayer · #23 12/30/12, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billooo2

My computer opened the links.....I am not familiar with these sources, so don't have much confidence in them.......

Interesting.....

1. The first source looked promising.....the link opened to a page with other links......but when I clicked on those links....a message popped up..."file does not exist"

2. The second link was an article that said that they will be doing a review of studies to examine safety issues.....but it had not been done yet.

3. Third link (Science Direct.....who are they???) This one seems quite humorous. They claim to have looked at different studies, and found no problems.
The humorous part......
1) the studies they cited were done in FRance......does France allow GMO's????
2) they consider feeding rats for 2 years as a "long-term"study

...and they would include data from 90 day studies

(keeping in mind that it takes the average smoker (1 pack/day) 20 years
before adverse effects show up in chest x-rays or puolmonary function tests!!!! .....so using 90 day-2 year studies......smoking would be shown to be perfectly safe!!

) Gee.....why don't I trust Monsanto??

I did not see where any of them claimed to be 'peer reviewed'......let alone identifying the 'reviewers'.....did I miss something????

I am not sure what links you looked at because they all work for me and none of them claim that GMOs are safe; they claim that with the research that has been done there is no evidence yet of health risks but they all mention that GMOs have only been in circulation for about 14 years. The Science Direct link you may have to sign up for but that link takes you to the studies mentioned and again, none of them claim that GMOs are completely safe so I am not sure if you just dont understand or are just trolling. GMOs just havent been in circulation long enough to have completed 20 year studies so if that is your position I agree with you...not sure why you seem so bent on confrontation and rudeness.

The green direct link I posted supports the anti-GMO position pretty well so I find it telling you dont mention that and it sounds to me like your just interested in stirring the pot rather than actually doing any research.

But here are some links from the apparent holy grail of journals that you need:

This link from Lancet has 3 pages of studies that cover all sides of the issue:

http://www.scopus.com/results/citedb...xTXbnsoe5w%3a2

Here are some links from JAMA but you may not have considered that the medical community has generally been supportive of all kinds of gene manipulation to treat diseases so they are more open minded...though cautious. Here is a link to just a few of their articles both for and against GMOs:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/searchre...t=&p=1&s=1&c=0

The New England Journal of Medicine again has many articles and research papers both for and against and again the medical community has long played with genetic manipulation to combat disease and just like agriculture its a controversial subject:

http://www.nejm.org/search?q=genetic...fied+organisms

The whole point Billboo is that its a very complicated subject and people should respect each others view when they are based on research or even just gut feelings but propagating impossible to prove claims (i.e., Monsanto has bought off every study on GMOs that dont conform with the anti GMO message) and calling people names and leaving laughing smilies when someone tries to have a serious debate (that you started by the way) is just rude and uncalled for and sure doesnt help your credibility.

None of the links I have posted fully support GMOs or claim they are safe and none of them claim they are evil personified. In real life most things are not so cut and dried and the real debate should be "Do we know enough about Genetic Modification to be sure that the gains (which are considerable) outweigh the potential risks (which are also considerable)".

Its actually a fascinating subject if you actually are interested in learning about it and it goes well beyond GMO corn and soyabeans and it poses ethical, moral, health and societal dilemmas that we still havent come to grips with.

steff bugielski · #24 12/30/12, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwal10

I don't know any such thing. Link please. Where did you get this information....James

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...on_%26_Burling
Covington & Burling also served as "corporate affairs consultants" to the Philip Morris group of companies, according to a 1993 internal budget review document which indicated the firm was paid $280,000 to "serve as general counsel to the Consumer Products Company Tort Coalition, agree the legal objectives with member company litigators, draft legislation and amendments, prepare lobby papers and testimony for legislative committees and administer the coalition's budget". [6]
Covington & Burling was involved in organizing Philip Morris' Whitecoat Project, designed to help obscure the health effects of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke.

http://www.superlawyers.com/missouri...2f562a982.html
Snively started at Monsanto in 1983, when the company was working out settlements following its Agent Orange litigation. Soon after, he directed the defense over the alleged dioxin poisonings in Kemner v. Monsanto, the longest civil jury trial in U.S. history. Today he oversees all legal matters, including the patent infringment cases against farmers around the world.
a veteran trial attorney with Covington & Burling who served as co-counsel in the case, describes Snively as “the best master trial strategist I’ve ever dealt with.

opportunity · #25 12/30/12, 04:14 PM

google scholar is a good place to start though many people will have diffiulty reading the studies since we don't all have access to every data base. Here is just one article that has tons of referances to other studies http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...page&q&f=false

billooo2 · #26 12/30/12, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

I am not sure what links you looked at because they all work for me and none of them claim that GMOs are safe; they claim that with the research that has been done there is no evidence yet of health risks but they all mention that GMOs have only been in circulation for about 14 years. The Science Direct link you may have to sign up for but that link takes you to the studies mentioned and again, none of them claim that GMOs are completely safe so I am not sure if you just dont understand or are just trolling. GMOs just havent been in circulation long enough to have completed 20 year studies so if that is your position I agree with you...not sure why you seem so bent on confrontation and rudeness.

The green direct link I posted supports the anti-GMO position pretty well so I find it telling you dont mention that and it sounds to me like your just interested in stirring the pot rather than actually doing any research.

But here are some links from the apparent holy grail of journals that you need:

This link from Lancet has 3 pages of studies that cover all sides of the issue:

http://www.scopus.com/results/citedb...xTXbnsoe5w%3a2

Here are some links from JAMA but you may not have considered that the medical community has generally been supportive of all kinds of gene manipulation to treat diseases so they are more open minded...though cautious. Here is a link to just a few of their articles both for and against GMOs:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/searchre...t=&p=1&s=1&c=0

The New England Journal of Medicine again has many articles and research papers both for and against and again the medical community has long played with genetic manipulation to combat disease and just like agriculture its a controversial subject:

http://www.nejm.org/search?q=genetic...fied+organisms

The whole point Billboo is that its a very complicated subject and people should respect each others view when they are based on research or even just gut feelings but propagating impossible to prove claims (i.e., Monsanto has bought off every study on GMOs that dont conform with the anti GMO message) and calling people names and leaving laughing smilies when someone tries to have a serious debate (that you started by the way) is just rude and uncalled for and sure doesnt help your credibility.

None of the links I have posted fully support GMOs or claim they are safe and none of them claim they are evil personified. In real life most things are not so cut and dried and the real debate should be "Do we know enough about Genetic Modification to be sure that the gains (which are considerable) outweigh the potential risks (which are also considerable)".

Its actually a fascinating subject if you actually are interested in learning about it and it goes well beyond GMO corn and soyabeans and it poses ethical, moral, health and societal dilemmas that we still havent come to grips with.

Thank you.

My position, as far as GMO's, is that we do not have adequate information
or experience/time with this yet.

I spent 30+ years in the medical field. I believe that it was about 20 years ago when there were optimistic announcements that with 'gene
therapy' we would have a cure for cystic fibrosis. Well, we still don't
have that cure for CF. We use gene therapy to help manage the
disease......but no cure.

If you want to criticize me for laughing.....I hope that you are consistent, and confront all the 'pro-GMO' who poke fun at those of us who are more
cautious about the use of GMO's.

I figured if they want to laugh and make fun of the 'anti and cautious' people, then they certainly could not complain about the same treatment.

elkhound · #27 12/30/12, 11:28 PM

here ya go....real world farmer and links under the ...show more button.

rambler · #28 12/31/12, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billooo2

Thank you.

My position, as far as GMO's, is that we do not have adequate information
or experience/time with this yet.

I spent 30+ years in the medical field. I believe that it was about 20 years ago when there were optimistic announcements that with 'gene
therapy' we would have a cure for cystic fibrosis. Well, we still don't
have that cure for CF. We use gene therapy to help manage the
disease......but no cure.

If you want to criticize me for laughing.....I hope that you are consistent, and confront all the 'pro-GMO' who poke fun at those of us who are more
cautious about the use of GMO's.

I figured if they want to laugh and make fun of the 'anti and cautious' people, then they certainly could not complain about the same treatment.

1. At what point will we have enough data to satisfy you about gmo corn and soybeans?

2. Is the gene therapy used to manage CF dangerous, or unproven, or what is the connection from CF to gmo corn and soybeans?

3. Well - never mind on 3. Be happy if I can understand the firt 2.

--->Paul

steff bugielski · #29 12/31/12, 04:54 AM

There are dozens more.
Is that proof enough for you skeptics that GMOs are bad?

http://howtoeliminatepain.com/crohns...-ulcerative-c/

http://urbanorganicnews.com/celiac-d...mune-diseases/

http://vitalissues.info/download/new/11.pdf

http://www.pamelamaloney.com/2010/06...llons-disease/

arabian knight · #30 12/31/12, 04:58 AM

Well I needed a laugh and that provided it. Thanks.

Bearfootfarm · #31 12/31/12, 05:19 AM

Quote:

There are dozens more.
Is that proof enough for you skeptics that GMOs are bad?

So blaming GMO'S for diseases that existed PRIOR to GMO's is "proof" they are CAUSED by GMO's?
This sort of "logic" is why no one listens to your side

billooo2 · #32 12/31/12, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rambler

1. At what point will we have enough data to satisfy you about gmo corn and soybeans?

2. Is the gene therapy used to manage CF dangerous, or unproven, or what is the connection from CF to gmo corn and soybeans?

3. Well - never mind on 3. Be happy if I can understand the firt 2.

--->Paul

1. Perhaps when the studies are more uniform in their results. Apparenly, we still do not have peer reviewed studies that say it is safe.

2. Another poster mentioned genetic research being done/used in the medical arena. The genetics has not delivered as hoped. If I remembeer correctly.......when the announcement were made about CF....they thought they would have a cure in about 6 months. Years later, we still do not have a cure.

Bearfootfarm · #33 12/31/12, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Apparenly, we still do not have peer reviewed studies that say it is safe.

And no CREDIBLE studies that say it's NOT

billooo2 · #34 12/31/12, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm

And no CREDIBLE studies that say it's NOT

EXACTLY!!!!

Why would anyone believe it is a good idea to turn most of our food supply over to an unproven technology????

Bill........just wondering.....????

greg273 · #35 12/31/12, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billooo2

EXACTLY!!!!

Why would anyone believe it is a good idea to turn most of our food supply over to an unproven technology????

Bill........just wondering.....????

Because its ridiculously profitable!

billooo2 · #36 12/31/12, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greg273

Because its ridiculously profitable!

EXACTLY!!!!

From my conversations with Monsanto people.......as long as they think that any adverse effects cannot be traced directly to them (as long as they think that they cannot be sued)......they do not care what adverse effects may occur.

Steve L. · #37 12/31/12, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billooo2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve L.

I did a Google search for {peer reviewed scientific papers on gmos site:.edu}.

https://camcom.ngu.edu/Science/biolo...y%20Review.PDF
Table 5 (Food Allergy Research Projects That Meet the Inclusion Criteria) on page 25

I got this link from Monsanto's website -
http://cera-gmc.org/index.php?action...raphy_database

Searched - key word + corn, got 453 papers listed
http://cera-gmc.org/index.php?source...raphy_database

Finding this info isn't hard, but you need to use the 'right' search terms.

You first link only addresses food allergies......and it states that the research is NOT adequate to say whether or not it is safe.....

You second link is not a study of any kind.....it appears to be an opinion piece with references to other sources.

Your third link (I did not look at all 400+).....is interesting......does not actually link to any studies.......and I did not see any titles that actually addressed "safety" issues....?????? And, when they listed authors, they did not identify what company/organization they are employed by.....they failed to identify who funded the studies.

VERY interesting.......IMO, seems to raise more and more questions.....and I did not see any of the most respected journals mentioned

Bill, you wanted to know "Where are all the studies published that show GMO to be safe???".
My links take you to sources for some of these studies. I'm not going to take literally days of my time to sort them out and spoon feed the results to you, because you'll just make up objections like this one

Quote:

Your third link (I did not look at all 400+).....is interesting......does not actually link to any studies.......and I did not see any titles that actually addressed "safety" issues....?????? And, when they listed authors, they did not identify what company/organization they are employed by.....they failed to identify who funded the studies.

Heck, in my post I quoted the first study

Quote:

Result 1 of 453
Title: Safety assessment of insect-protected corn
Author(s): Sanders P;Lee T;Groth M;Astwood J;Fuchs R;
Source: In: "Biotechnology and Safety Assessment". Chapter: 10 pp. 241-241 Taylor & Francis Group.(1998)
Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group

It's pretty obvious that you either don't want to know, or can't understand the scientific publication process.

billooo2 · #38 12/31/12, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve L.

Bill, you wanted to know "Where are all the studies published that show GMO to be safe???".
My links take you to sources for some of these studies. I'm not going to take literally days of my time to sort them out and spoon feed the results to you, because you'll just make up objections like this one Heck, in my post I quoted the first study It's pretty obvious that you either don't want to know, or can't understand the scientific publication process.

....I am confused.....the first study said that the results are inconclusive........

Steve L. · #39 12/31/12, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billooo2

....I am confused.....the first study said that the results are inconclusive........

My first link is to a literature review, not a study. The studies that were reviewed are listed in the references, p. 35 - 37.

Here is a link to one of them -
http://cib.org.br/wp-content/uploads...mentares18.pdf

billooo2 · #40 12/31/12, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve L.

My first link is to a literature review, not a study. The studies that were reviewed are listed in the references, p. 35 - 37.

Here is a link to one of them -
http://cib.org.br/wp-content/uploads...mentares18.pdf

Even this article says that more studies need to be done......I believe that I am accurate in saying that the evidence is inconclusive....
a
I will try to paste in a statement from the article's conclusion:

However, widespread agreement by
regulatory authorities around the world on the nature and
application of various criteria in the assessment of the
allergenicity of foods produced through agricultural
biotechnology is needed.