Fraud Detected In Science Research That Suggested GMO Crops Were Harmful (nature.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Three science papers that had suggested that genetically modified crops were harmful to animals and have been used by activist groups to argue for their ban have been found to contain manipulated and possibly falsified data. Nature reports: "Papers that describe harmful effects to animals fed genetically modified (GM) crops are under scrutiny for alleged data manipulation. The leaked findings of an ongoing investigation at the University of Naples in Italy suggest that images in the papers may have been intentionally altered. The leader of the lab that carried out the work there says that there is no substance to this claim. The papers' findings run counter to those of numerous safety tests carried out by food and drug agencies around the world, which indicate that there are no dangers associated with eating GM food. But the work has been widely cited on anti-GM websites — and results of the experiments that the papers describe were referenced in an Italian Senate hearing last July on whether the country should allow cultivation of safety-approved GM crops. 'The case is very important also because these papers have been used politically in the debate on GM crops,' says Italian senator Elena Cattaneo, a neuroscientist at the University of Milan whose concerns about the work triggered the investigation.

Comments

GMO itself isn't the problem. Its how its used

[Jailbrekr]

This article is going to further cloud the issue and I fear its going to give Monsanto and its ilk free reign to continue their abuse of the local seed supply. The issue has never been about GMO itself, its been about how GMO is used. Genetically modifying crops to produce more, be resistant to fungus, or have a longer shelf life is a net positive and is nothing more than a more advanced form of selective breeding. Its when you use it to introduce resistance to toxic chemicals that you start to have a real problem. That resistance not only allows to overuse of toxic chemicals (to the point of saturating the local environment), you also introduce a form of addiction where the farmer becomes dependent on the chemical. This addiction dooms the farmer to a form of indentured servitude and will eventually result in their exiting the market due to unsustainability.

Re:GMO itself isn't the problem. Its how its used

[Pharmboy]

That is the real problem, and why some 3rd world countries won't use them. You become a slave to Monsanto. If you are willing, and you can make good money, then fine: you are a well compensated slave, but a slave nonetheless.

Re:GMO itself isn't the problem. Its how its used

[Galactic Dominator]

The issue has never been about GMO itself

Of course it has insomuch as any other thing which is beyond their immediate comprehension. There are oodles of people who will not consume food cooked on a non-stick skillet, yet go to a quack chiropractor believing the chiropractor cured them of MS using a foot bath. Others will spend their life savings investing in things like oil extracts believing it will prevent/cure things like nearsightedness and pretty much any other malady or the fake African currency years before the Internet became widespread. Still others have their sickly elderly parents drink silver water "for good health" and this on the heels of sending them to ER because they took St. John's wort(from the same child) in conjunction with HBP. Some claim to know people who were assassinated by the government because they knew the secret to make gasoline engines 100x more efficient. Others think the moon landing was a hoax. These are only examples from within my own extended family and I haven't even gotten to the crazy shit yet. Anyone else heard the "Obama is hoarding .22 rounds"? GMO is just another one these things.

People who are susceptible to conspiracy theories need no reason other than they don't understand it so it must be bad. And there is no need for them to understand it, as they see it -- poison in, poison out. Period. These people have already condemned themselves to perpetual indentured servitude and I have long ago given up on any hope of trying to use logic with them.

Re:GMO itself isn't the problem. Its how its used

[Cyberax]

Monsanto patents on RoundUp resistance have expired. There are now several over competing companies providing these seeds.

Re:GMO itself isn't the problem. Its how its used

[Copid]

I have no idea why people use Schmeiser as a poster boy for Monsanto abuse. He's a poster boy for exactly the sort of thing IP protection exists to prevent, not an innocent victim. He intentionally isolated the small percentage of hybrids he found on his property and created his own unlicensed field of Roundup Ready crops. He admitted as much in court and the courts found him to be completely in the wrong. He was nowhere near being an accidental victim of uncontrolled cross-pollination. Actual incidental cross pollination doesn't result in 95% of 1000+ acres carrying the Roundup Ready trait.

Interesting thing to note: All of the anti-GMO web sites post their summary of the Schmeiser story, but none of them that I've found link back to the court documents that actually describe what happened. Monsanto's own web site links to the primary sources. What does that tell you about who is blowing smoke?

Re: FUD

[ArmoredDragon]

Probably the later.

Being anti GMO is every bit as nonsensical as being an anti-vaxer. There's all of about zero credible scientific data against it.

Furthermore, the efforts to label it are purely for the purpose of stigmatizing it and shouldn't be taken seriously. The reason ingredients are labeled is to help people with dietary concerns (such as allergies) however there's no dietary or other concerns with GMO food, hence labeling serves no useful (other than perhaps religious) purpose.

return to reality, please

[ooloorie]

Its when you use it to introduce resistance to toxic chemicals that you start to have a real problem. That resistance not only allows to overuse of toxic chemicals (to the point of saturating the local environment),

Presumably, you are referring to glyphosate resistant crops. If you think glyphosate (or some other GMO-related chemical) is "toxic", why are you arguing against GMOs and not what is actually toxic? Oh, yes... because both the US and the EU regulatory agencies have determined that it is, in fact, not toxic as used in agriculture and permit its continued use. Now, this issue may be revisited by the courts, but until then, the science is settled, at least from a legal point of view.

you also introduce a form of addiction where the farmer becomes dependent on the chemical. This addiction dooms the farmer to a form of indentured servitude and will eventually result in their exiting the market due to unsustainability

Saying that farmers become "addicted" to glyphosate is disingenuous and manipulative. What happens is that GMOs actually result in lower costs and higher yields, so farmers that don't use it can't compete (unless they manage to sell into the "organic" market). In different words, what you are actually saying is that GMOs and glyphosate work as advertised.

Face it, you have lost the scientific and economic arguments. GMOs and glyphosates are generally considered safe and they are (by your own reasoning) effective at what they promise to do, namely increase productivity.

Now, having said that, I am perfectly sympathetic to wanting to eat "natural" vegetables without any GMO or herbicides involved in their production. But unlike you, I don't fool myself into believing that that is a rational preference; it's the same kind of preference I have for natural fiber over synthetics, and wood over plastic. And when I indulge in that preference, I'm willing to pay the higher price for the vegetables myself, instead of trying to bamboozle others with fake scientific arguments about "toxicity" and "addiction".