Slashdot Mirror
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.
The issue has never been about GMO itself
That's not what Greenpeace says:
http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...
Which by the way, greenpeace is completely wrong about this issue. In fact, you ought to read the history about their opposition of Bt spliced plants. First their argument was that GMO plants contain too much Bt, but then when it was found that conventional plants are sprayed with an even higher quantity of Bt, their argument suddenly turned into GMO plants don't have enough Bt, even though the amount they have has been proven to be equally effective.
If Greenpeace was truly an environmentalist organization instead of the anti-science one they've become over the last few decades (and similarly why Patrick Moore, a co-founder, left them) they'd be in favor of GMO as it is already solving some environmental problems (namely, higher crop yield for the same landmass and needing less water) and has the potential to solve many more.
Anyways there are a lot of other organization opposed to GMO technology (and for similar nonsensical reasons.)
I don't care one way or another about Monsanto, by the way. When I speak about GMO, I'm referring entirely to the technology itself, which has great potential.
If we weren't tricked into buying it because it's not labeled, that might help a bit. The deception alone is enough to ruin trust, and then how do we know this study refuting the other studies aren't again, manipulated by the pro-GMO side?
Whether someone chooses GMO or not based on health reasons, philosophical ones, or simply just to save the small farmers from the big Farm Corporations, we ought to have that choice. Having that choice removed through deception and treachery won't win any confidence.
No need for GMO?
OK, so you need to do some research. GMO foods have saved millions of lives by making drought resistant crops available to people who would otherwise starve to death.
You are arguing from a position of ignorance. Do yourself a favor and look at what the scientists are up to. They don't want to fuck it up. They are very conscientious and test far more than you think. In fact, I bet they have a better handle on what the dangers might be than you do(since it is their field of expertise). I had a botanist walk me through one of the GMO changes that was made to corn. They basically doubled up on a protein(or enzyme I forget which) that is naturally produced in corn. This protein ends up blocking the intestines of insects. The guy(a professor of botany with a huge research lab) told me he'd have no issue eating tablespoons full of that protein because it's completely harmless to people(because we have giant guts compared to insects). You'll never even get a gram of that stuff in your system at once by eating the corn so it's benign. But even eating pounds of it aren't going to do anything to you except maybe give you the runs, but you can do that now with beer and taco bell.
It reminds me of physics teachers who do stunts that a lay person thinks, using common sense, is dangerous. These guys are very serious and very talented scientists. They know what they're doing. If you really think you're in a position to argue against the experts, you should probably consider worrying about power lines and radio waves too.
Being anti GMO is every bit as nonsensical as being an anti-vaxer.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Goodie! Fresh meat! You wanted evidence? You can't handle the evidence, And my little chachalaca, I will definitely expect more thasn a one sentence off the cuff dismissal
Heeeeere we GO! Wif cytaytions
In 1998, Andrew Wakefield published a fraudulent paper in thte Medical Journal "The Lancet"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The paper had 13 co-authers who ended up repudiating the possibility that MMR vaccines could cause autism.
So what happened Oh yes, we'll go into this, yes we will.. As it turns out, this staretd a little time before, when teh good Richard Barr, a lawyer, met up with the Good Andrew Wakefield. This was a marriage made in heaven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As well, teh Good Andrew Wakefield recieved 55,000 pounds from other lawyers who were looking for evidence to use in lawsuits agains MMR manufacturers. But don't worry, it must have been on teh up and up because Wakefield kept this a secret from his co-authors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Turns out that the Good Andrew Wakefield and his lawyer buddy had big plans to make a lot of money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Eventually, after investigations of manipulation of data, a General medical council investigation and eventual full retraction of the paper by the Lancet,
And in 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Just in case you aren't reading the citations, and I don't believe you will: 28 January 2010, the GMC ruled against Wakefield on all issues, stating that he had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant",[13] acted against the interests of his patients,[13] and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his controversial research.[14] On 24 May 2010 he was struck off the United Kingdom medical register. It was the harshest sanction that the GMC could impose, and effectively ended his career as a doctor. In announcing the ruling, the GMC said that Wakefield had "brought the medical profession into disrepute," and no sanction short of erasing his name from the register was appropriate for the "serious and wide-ranging findings" of misconduct
Here's a pdf of their findings https://web.archive.org/web/20...
Now I betchya you are just about sick and tired of Wikipedia citations aintchya? http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBl...
Maybe it's a conspiracy. But they removed the deadly autism causing agent from vaccines, that the good Andrew Wakefield said was a cause, and, and, and, didn't change a thing. It might have appeard that it went up, but considering that autism speaks seems to be moving toward a world where everyone is autistic, that data is fuzzy at best, IMO http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
There's all of about zero credible scientific data against it.
You want credible evidence GMO is bad? Go to home depot and buy a bottle of roundup. Read the warning label.
Until someone can explain with a straight face how Roundup r
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The problem with labeling GE crops is that GE crops are not substantially different from any other crops, so not justified, and beyond that, it's deceptive. You don't see any other crop improvement technique market for singling out, just one, and you want to label it, not tell people the exact details, not tell people the hows or the whys, not correct any misconceptions, and give no context about the generalities of crop genetics that are prerequisite to understanding the topic. I call that a lie of omission.
You label an Arctic apple that has PPO gene silencing, but not label applesauce made with a Gravenstein apples, which are triploids with an entire extra set of chromosomes. You label a Rainbow papaya genetically engineered with the PRSV-CP gene, but not a Pusa Nanha papaya produced with radiation induced mutagenesis. A tomato with the Ph-3 gene for late blight resistance bred in from a wild species goes unlabeled, but a potato with GE late blight resistance is. Corn bred for higher levels of maisin as a defense against insects is unlabeled, but you must label genetically engineered insect resistant Bt corn, even though it has been shown to have lower levels of carcinogenic mycotoxins.
Do you see my problem here? This is basically the 'evolution is just a theory' label thing all over again. Yes, labeling things that are GE as such is technically true, but unless you are also giving the whole story (which a simple label absolutely does not give), it is also deceptive and just a way to make GE crops look bad when there is no science to support the anti-GE movement's stance.