GMO-Science Takes a Blow as Studies Are Retracted

[Cap]

The pesticide producers are one of the most powerful industries on the planet, the influence they possess is enormous. You have probably heard that an Elsevier journal has retracted the Seralini study which showed evidence of harm to rats fed a GMO diet, despite admitting they found no fraud or errors in the study.

This journal had also just recently appointed an ex-Monsanto employee as an editor - one could only guess the value of this strategy for the pesticide industry. Expect Seralini to sue as this story develops, as it appears he has a very strong case.

Alas, the scientific ground on which the genetic engineering of plants is built may now be shakier than ever, thanks to GMO promoting scientists like Dr. Pamela Ronald. A recent article in Independent Science News[SUP]1[/SUP] questions whether she'll be able to salvage her career, as two of her scientific papers (published in 2009 and 2011 respectively) were recently retracted.

With the loss of her credibility, and the domino effect these retractions are likely to cause within the scientific field, the entire chemical technology industry stands to suffer a great blow to its scientific integrity.

"Her media persona... is to take no prisoners," Jonathan Latham, PhD writes.[SUP]2[/SUP] "After New York Times chief food writer Mark Bittman advocated GMO labeling, she called him 'a scourge on science' who 'couches his nutty views in reasonable-sounding verbiage.' His opinions were "almost fact- and science-free" continued Ronald.
​

In 2011 she claimed in an interview with the US Ambassador to New Zealand: 'After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of two billion acres planted, GE crops have not caused a single instance of harm to human health or the environment.'"

​

She may have to turn down her criticism a notch, considering the fact that not one but two of her own studies were found to contain sizeable scientific errors, rendering her findings null and void. Questions have also been raised about a third study published in 2011, according to the featured article.

Read more here:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...gn=20140311Z1&et_cid=DM40701&et_rid=452736328

 

[angelatc]

Dumb assery from Mercola. Who da thunk it?


Pamela Arnold retracted her own work because she found flaws in it. http://retractionwatch.com/2013/10/10/ronald-science/#more-15950/


She wrote an absolutely amazing piece discussing the processes that led to the retraction that contained a call to arms for fellow scientists to do the same: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/food-matters/2013/10/10/lab-life-the-anatomy-of-a-retraction/

An fine example of a scientist doing the right thing, but like a zombie looking for food, the only thing the quacks and conspiracy theorists can do is stumble around while emitting guttural cries - "MONSANTO!"

 

[Petar]

You'd have to be kind of dumb to wanna eat shit that may as well come from Mars...

 

[angelatc]

You'd have to be kind of dumb to wanna eat shit that may as well come from Mars...

^^^

This what happens when you grow up in a world that has Astrology columns instead of science columns in newspapers.

 

[donnay]

The pesticide producers are one of the most powerful industries on the planet, the influence they possess is enormous. You have probably heard that an Elsevier journal has retracted the Seralini study which showed evidence of harm to rats fed a GMO diet, despite admitting they found no fraud or errors in the study.

This journal had also just recently appointed an ex-Monsanto employee as an editor - one could only guess the value of this strategy for the pesticide industry. Expect Seralini to sue as this story develops, as it appears he has a very strong case.

Alas, the scientific ground on which the genetic engineering of plants is built may now be shakier than ever, thanks to GMO promoting scientists like Dr. Pamela Ronald. A recent article in Independent Science News[SUP]1[/SUP] questions whether she'll be able to salvage her career, as two of her scientific papers (published in 2009 and 2011 respectively) were recently retracted.

With the loss of her credibility, and the domino effect these retractions are likely to cause within the scientific field, the entire chemical technology industry stands to suffer a great blow to its scientific integrity.

"Her media persona... is to take no prisoners," Jonathan Latham, PhD writes.[SUP]2[/SUP] "After New York Times chief food writer Mark Bittman advocated GMO labeling, she called him 'a scourge on science' who 'couches his nutty views in reasonable-sounding verbiage.' His opinions were "almost fact- and science-free" continued Ronald.
​

In 2011 she claimed in an interview with the US Ambassador to New Zealand: 'After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of two billion acres planted, GE crops have not caused a single instance of harm to human health or the environment.'"

​

She may have to turn down her criticism a notch, considering the fact that not one but two of her own studies were found to contain sizeable scientific errors, rendering her findings null and void. Questions have also been raised about a third study published in 2011, according to the featured article.

Read more here:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...gn=20140311Z1&et_cid=DM40701&et_rid=452736328

Great article. It must be a real let down to good scientist who are out to seek the truth.


Union of Concerned Scientists respond again to Pam Ronald's attacks
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/ne...entists-respond-again-to-pam-ronald-s-attacks

 

[ClydeCoulter]

^^^

This what happens when you grow up in a world that has Astrology columns instead of science columns in newspapers.

I still want Monsanto and their ilk out of politics and don't want to eat their stuff. Scientific or not.

 

[angelatc]

I still want Monsanto and their ilk out of politics and don't want to eat their stuff. Scientific or not.

Oddly enough, I want the anti-science liberals and their ilk out of politics, and I don't want to eat the expensive, dirty e-coli laced organic crap they want to shove down my throat.

So I'm not on board with the implication of your assertion, which I take to mean that Monsanto should simply shut up and let their competitors write factually void, emotionally charged legislation.


If you don't want to eat the food that conventional farms produce, then eat organic. Grow your own. Leave my food alone.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Oddly enough, I want the anti-science liberals and their ilk out of politics, and I don't want to eat the expensive, dirty e-coli laced organic crap they want to shove down my throat.

So I'm not on board with the implication of your assertion, which I take to mean that Monsanto should simply shut up and let their competitors write factually void, emotionally charged legislation.


If you don't want to eat the food that conventional farms produce, then eat organic. Grow your own. Leave my food alone.

I do eat what I grow and raise. But unless everyone grows and raises and milks their own, it's getting impossible to know what you're eating.

And, no, I don't want Organic[SUP]tm[/SUP] either, nor them creating legislation.

Do YOU have any food except what is produced for you?

 

[donnay]

Monsanto is political. Just look at the administration's alphabet soup agencies and members who used to work for Monsanto. Now Monsanto's GMOs are being shoved down our throats, literally, because it is has been in our food supplies since the mid-1990s.

More than 60 percent of all processed foods on U.S. supermarket shelves—including pizza, chips, cookies, ice cream, salad dressing, corn syrup, and baking powder—contain ingredients from engineered soybeans, corn, or canola.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/food-how-altered/

Neocons certainly love pushing the crony capitalism agenda and the neoliberals think it will feed the world. The deck is stack against us, because both sides of the political spectrum have people who worked for one Biotech or another. Common sense would dictate if you dig deep enough that it isn't about the money, it's about the power. To leave the private sector and go into public office is how they get the power. You can have all the money in the world, but they have all the men with guns. If that isn't political, I don't know what is.

 

[Paulbot99]

Many people who dislike GMO want to make sure I don't eat it either.

 

[Petar]

^^^

This what happens when you grow up in a world that has Astrology columns instead of science columns in newspapers.

I know that I have been a complete asshole to you lately, but you really are lacking any sort of coherent point here...

Anyone with any basic appreciation of science would understand that eating foods that are pretty much completely alien for all intents and purposes would be a very dumb thing to do...

You seem to lack a basic understanding of science and simply choose to believe arbitrary corporate propaganda instead...

 

[Petar]

And who said a word about astrology???

 

[Petar]

Face it Angela; you are simply a blind proponent of eating crazy shit that cannot possibly be proven healthy, and you are basically going to spend the rest of your life trying to bully people who are smart enough to disagree with you...

 

[Petar]

Unless your position really is that there is nothing "totally alien to Earth" about splicing fish and corn together in a laboratory...

 

[Fox McCloud]

Unless your position really is that there is nothing "totally alien to Earth" about splicing fish and corn together in a laboratory...

For clarity, this makes it sound very brutal, rudimentary, and brings forth images of a 50/50 splice...when that's not the case.

It's more like "hey, this fish has a very tiny slice of its genes that makes it produce this property/chemical that is a natural deterrent to X/Y/Z (ie: parasites, insects, or something), so let's splice it into corn so the corn does the same thing"

For example, the puppies that glow? I doubt you'd consider them a "Jellyfish-Canine Hybrid", when the only gene they have is the one that makes the skin produce bioluminescence.


Genes are like segments of code---so if you can sequence genes in a particular way, you can make that organism behave in a particular way..it's just that, right now, due to technological and knowledge limitations we're at the "copy-pasta" stage for genes instead of writing completely original and new genes (AFAIK; I haven't kept up with this particular types genetic engineering in the past couple of years).

But yeah, I don't think a 50/50 splice is going to happen any time soon....dont' worry, you can rest easy at night, for now, werewolves don't exist...yet =p

 

[Cap]

Horror movies, specifically Frankenstein analogy bump.

 

[donnay]

Horror movies, specifically Frankenstein analogy bump.

 

[donnay]

 

[specsaregood]

Unless your position really is that there is nothing "totally alien to Earth" about splicing fish and corn together in a laboratory...

Is it your position that it is alien scientists that are doing the splicing together of earth native organisms in an off world laboratory?

 

[PierzStyx]

Oddly enough, I want the anti-science liberals and their ilk out of politics, and I don't want to eat the expensive, dirty e-coli laced organic crap they want to shove down my throat.

So I'm not on board with the implication of your assertion, which I take to mean that Monsanto should simply shut up and let their competitors write factually void, emotionally charged legislation.


If you don't want to eat the food that conventional farms produce, then eat organic. Grow your own. Leave my food alone.

The...irony (?) in this post is astounding.

E.coli laced? The only time I've seen E.coli as an issue is in non-organic food such as prepackaged spinach. But neither organic nor gmo foods are more prone to E.coli. That is all on the handlers and how they package the product.

Monsanto shouldn't br writing legislation-period. That is the issue. Any time you allow a corporation to have control of what is supposed to be "policing" it then it will abuse that power to attack its detractors and promote itself at the public's expense. And if you can't see that Monsanto is doing just that then you're either blind or an idiot.

"Your" food? I don't know if you understand this, but organic food, or as I like to call it food is how plants have been grown for millions of years. Its what humanity evolved to live off and digest. "Conventional" farming has only been the way it is not for less than a hundred years. To somehow suggest it is lesser than gmo food is just plain stupid. If anything its you who are altering and changing my food, not the other way around.