Politically liberal science is bad science.

The very title of your thread reads as a bias narrative.

You are starting off your discussion by providing your politically biased answer without first asking the question.

Just maybe you might have titled your thread as a question.

For example:
1. Is politically liberal science bad science?

Another example:
2. Is politically liberal or conservative science bad?

Another example:
3. Is politically liberal science good science or bad science?

Another example:
4. Is politically liberal or conservative science good science or bad science?

Neither of my examples are giving, stating, or implying a specific answer.


One last thing. Here is something that you wrote and is the reason for my reply:

maxdancona wrote:
People who do good science ask a question without a pre-ordained answer. Then they collect the data and they accept objective answer whether it fits a political ideology or not.

Don't get me wrong.

I don't have a problem with you starting a bias narrative.

That is perfectly normal.

The best any of us can do is to explain the reasons and provide evidence for our views and opinions.

I provide reasons and evidence to explain my views and opinions and there is nothing wrong with doing that.

I simply wanted to point out that you do this as well.

Providing a well thought out narrative is not necessarily a bad thing.

There are objective, fact-based answers in science.

I provided a set of objective criteria for what it takes for me to accept a fact as supported by science. If you show me a fact that is considered true according to reputable non-biased organizations (NIH, NASA, JMS and academic institutions), and is supported by well-designed, transparent research ... I will accept it no matter what the political implications. Both global climate change, and the NAS opinion on the safety of GMOs meet these criteria.

If science is not objective, it is useless. Having different scientific facts for people with different political ideologies is silly.

Obviously the title of this thread is because it is mainly liberals in this forum who are pushing ideological narratives as science (there is a recent thread by Gungasnake on evolution, but I don't think anyone takes him seriously). My direct inspiration for this thread was a thread claiming that the human civilization is about to end.

I have made it clear that any political narrative posing as scientific fact is equally bad.

Say, you wouldn't happen to know where someone could find this well-designed and transparent research data you keep talking and talking about, would you?

I have posted it several times now. Are you going to keep asking?

https://able2know.org/topic/525546-2#post-6872570
https://able2know.org/topic/525546-2#post-6872677

You obviously know that scientific institutions such as the FDA and NIH are saying that after "detail examimation" they find " no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts".

If you didn't know this you wouldn't be posting links to conspiracy theory sites to discredit them.

One of your links does not have anything to do with any research having to do with any safety testing on GMO foods.

And here is an excerpt from your other link:

This report indicates where there are uncertainties about the economic, agronomic, health, safety, or other impacts of GE crops and food, and makes recommendations to fill gaps in safety assessments, increase regulatory clarity . . .
_________________________________________________

So, once again, you wouldn't happen to know where someone could find this well-designed and transparent research data you keep talking and talking about, would you?

If you weren't starting with your political beliefs and seeking only the evidence to support them, the information you are seeking is two clicks away. Go to the National Academy of Sciences link. Then you can click at the research behind each of their findings. The report is quite detailed and has extensive footnotes.

If you choose to reject the findings, there is nothing I can do. But the research and the conclusions are very well documented.

You don't have any doubts about equivalent reports from reputable organizations about global climate change.

My point is that you should accept scientific conclusions as scientific conclusions regardless of how they fit with your political ideology.

So you can't find anything specific to bring to the table to back up your claim concerning research and test data that proves the safety of GMOs? Not even a link?

Didn't I have the exact same conversation with you concerning a 9/11 conspiracy theory?

If someone is looking to discredit science, I suppose there is nothing I can do to stop them. Maybe that is the lesson for me here.

Impossible. We're talking about GMO safety testing; specifically your claim concerning the existence of research and test data that proves the safety of GMOs. Just a link will suffice.

Sure,

Here are the studies used by the NIH report to reach their conclusion

You can get the link page here. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791249/

Or I will post it for you here....

The problem is that you don't trust the FDA, the NIH or the WHO or the research used by any of these organizations. The research is all well documented.

Here you go.



Allison S, Palma PM. Commercialization of transgenic plants: potential ecological risks. BioScience. 1997;47:86–96. doi: 10.2307/1313019. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Ballari VR, Martin A, Gowda LR (2012) Detection and identification of genetically modified EE-1 brinjal (Solanum melongena) by single, multiplex and SYBR® real-time PCR. J Sci Food Agric. doi:10.1002/jsfa.5764, Published online 22 June 2012 [PubMed]
Beagle JM, Apgar GA, Jones KL, Griswold KE, Radcliffe JS, Qiu X, Lightfoot DA, Iqbal MJ. The digestive fate of Escherichia coli glutamate dehydrogenase deoxyribonucleic acid from transgenic corn in diets fed to weanling pigs. J Anim Sci. 2006;84(3):597–607. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Berberich SA, Ream JE, Jackson TL, Wood R, Stipanovic R, Harvey P, Patzer S, Fuchs RL. The composition of insect-protected cottonseed is equivalent to that of conventional cottonseed. J Agric Food Chem. 1996;44:365–371. doi: 10.1021/jf950304i. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Bernstein IL, Bernstein JA, Miller M, Tierzieva S, Bernstein DI, Lummus Z, Selgrade MK, Doerfler DL, Seligy VL. Immune responses in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides. Environ Health Perspect. 1999;107:575–582. doi: 10.1289/ehp.99107575. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Brake J, Vlachos D. Evaluation of transgenic Event 176 “Bt” corn in broiler chicken. Poult Sci. 1998;77:648–653. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Brian H. Unintended effects of Bt crops. World Watch. 1999;12:9–10. [Google Scholar]
Brigulla M, Wackernagel W. Molecular aspects of gene transfer and foreign DNA acquisition in prokaryotes with regard to safety issues. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010;86(4):1027–1041. doi: 10.1007/s00253-010-2489-3. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Burks AW, Fuchs RL. Assessment of the endogenous allergens in glyphosate-tolerant and commercial soybean varieties. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1995;96:1008–1010. doi: 10.1016/S0091-6749(95)70243-1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Butler T, Reichhardt T. Long-term effect of GM crops serves up food for thought. Nature. 1999;398(6729):651–653. doi: 10.1038/19348. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Cellini F, Chesson A, Colquhoun I, Constable A, Davies HV, Engel KH, Gatehouse AMR, Karenlampi S, Kok EJ, Leguay JJ, Lehasranta S, Noteborn HPJM, Pedersen J, Smith M. Unintended effects and their detection in genetically modified crops. Food Chem Toxicol. 2004;42:1089–1125. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Chapman MD. Allergen nomenclature. In: Lockey RF, Dennis Ledford K, editors. Allergens and allergen immunotherapy. 4. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2008. pp. 47–58. [Google Scholar]
Clive J (1996) Global review of the field testing and commercialization of transgenic plants: 1986 to 1995. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. http://www.isaaa.org/kc/Publications/pdfs/isaaabriefs/Briefs%201.pdf. Retrieved on 17 July 2010
Clive J. Global status of commercialized Biotech/GM crops. ISAAA Briefs 43. Ithaca: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications; 2011. [Google Scholar]
Conner AJ, Jacobs JME. Genetic engineering of crops as potential source of genetic hazard in the human diet. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 1999;443:223–234. doi: 10.1016/S1383-5742(99)00020-4. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Crevel RWR, Lerkhof MAT, Koning MMG. Allergenicity of refined vegetable oils. Food Chem Toxicol. 2000;38(4):385–393. doi: 10.1016/S0278-6915(99)00158-1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Deisingh AK, Badrie N. Detection approaches for genetically modified organisms in foods. Food Res Int. 2005;38:639–649. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2005.01.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Domingo JL. Health risks of genetically modified foods: many opinions but few data. Science. 2000;288:1748–1749. doi: 10.1126/science.288.5472.1748. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Ewen SWB, Pusztai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet. 1999;354:1353–1354. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05860-7. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Fares NH, El-Sayed AK. Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on delta-endotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Nat Toxins. 1998;6:219–233. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1522-7189(199811/12)6:6<219::AID-NT30>3.0.CO;2-K. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Frewer LI, Salter B. Public attitudes, scientific advice and the politics of regulatory policy the case of BSE. Sci Public Policy. 2002;29:137–145. doi: 10.3152/147154302781781092. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Gerhard F, Andrew C, Karen A. Animal nutrition with feeds from genetically modified plants. Arch Anim Nutr. 2005;59:1–40. doi: 10.1080/17450390512331342368. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Guertler P, Paul V, Albrech C, Meyer HH. Sensitive and highly specific quantitative real-time PCR and ELISA for recording a potential transfer of novel DNA and Cry1Ab protein from feed into bovine milk. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2009;393:1629–1638. doi: 10.1007/s00216-009-2667-2. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Hamer H, Scuse T (2010) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, US Department of Agriculture. Acreage report, NY
Hammond BG, Vicini JL, Hartnell GF, Naylor MW, Knight CD, Robinson EH, Fuchs RL, Padgette SR. The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance. J Nutr. 1996;126:717–727. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hamstra A (1998) Public opinion about Biotechnology. A survey of surveys. European Federation of Biotechnology, The Hague
Harrison LA, Bailey MR, Naylor MW, Ream JE, Hammond BG, Nida DL, Burnette BL, Nickson TE, Mitsky TA, Taylor ML, Fuchs RL, Padgette SR. The expressed protein in glyphosate-tolerant soybean, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4, is rapidly digested in vitro and is not toxic to acutely gavaged mice. J Nutr. 1996;126:728–740. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hashimoto W, Momma K, Katsube T, Ohkawa Y, Ishige T, Kito M, Utsumi S, Murata K. Safety assessment of genetically engineered potatoes with designed soybean glycinin: compositional analyses of the potato tubers and digestibility of the newly expressed protein in transgenic potatoes. J Sci Food Agric. 1999;79:1607–1612. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199909)79:12<1607::AID-JSFA408>3.0.CO;2-T. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Hashimoto W, Momma K, Yoon HJ, Ozawa S, Ohkawa Y, Ishige T, Kito M, Utsumi S, Murata K. Safety assessment of transgenic potatoes with soybean glycinin by feeding studies in rats. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 1999;63:1942–1946. doi: 10.1271/bbb.63.1942. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
IRDC (1998) Alliance for biointegrity. http://www.biointegrity.org including Calgene FLAVR SAVR™ tomato report, pp 1–604; International Research and Development Corp. first test report, pp 1736–1738; Conclusions of the expert panel regarding the safety of the FLAVR SAVR™ tomato, ENVIRON, Arlington VA, USA pp 2355–2382; Four week oral (intubation) toxicity study in rats by IRDC, pp 2895–3000
Ivanciuc O, Schein CH, Braun W. SDAP: database and computational tools for allergenic proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003;31:359–362. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkg010. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Joana C, Isabel M, Joana SA, Oliveira MBPP. Monitoring genetically modified soybean along the industrial soybean oil extraction and refining processes by polymerase chain reaction techniques. Food Res Int. 2010;43:301–306. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2009.10.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Johnson SR. Quantification of the impacts on US Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2006. Washington DC: National Centre for Food and Agricultural Policy; 2008. [Google Scholar]
Kleter GA, Peijnenburg AACM. Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences identical to potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens. BMC Struct Biol. 2002;2:8–19. doi: 10.1186/1472-6807-2-8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Kumar GBS, Ganapathi TR, Revathi CJ, Srinivas L, Bapat VA. Expression of hepatitis B surface antigen in transgenic banana plants. Planta. 2005;222:484–493. doi: 10.1007/s00425-005-1556-y. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Lack G. Clinical risk assessment of GM foods. Toxicol Lett. 2002;127:337–340. doi: 10.1016/S0378-4274(01)00517-3. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
La Mura M, Allnutt TR, Greenland A, Mackay LD. Application of QUIZ for GM quantification in food. Food Chem. 2011;125:1340–1344. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.10.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Lappe MA, Bailey EB, Childress C, Setchell KDR. Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant soybeans. J Med Food. 1999;1:241–245. doi: 10.1089/jmf.1998.1.241. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Lassen J, Allansdottir A, Liakoupulos M, Olsson A, Mortensen AT. Testing times: the reception of round-up ready soya in Europe. In: Bauer M, Gaskell G, editors. Biotechnology—the making of a global controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002. pp. 279–312. [Google Scholar]
Louda SM (1999) Insect Limitation of weedy plants and its ecological implications. In: Traynor PL, Westwood J H (eds) Proceedings of a workshop on: ecological effects of pest resistance genes in managed ecosystems. Information Systems for Biotechnology. Blacksburg, Virginia, pp 43–48, http://www.isb.vt.edu
Mari A, Riccioli D. The allergome web site—a database of allergenic molecules. Aim, structure, and data of a web-based resource. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;113:S301. [Google Scholar]
Martinez-Poveda A, Molla-Bauza MB, Gomis FJC, Martinez LMC. Consumer-perceived risk model for the introduction of genetically modified food in Spain. Food Policy. 2009;34:519–528. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.08.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Maryanski JH. Bioengineered foods: will they cause allergic reactions? NY: U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)/Centre for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN); 1997. [Google Scholar]
Metcalf DD, Astwood JD, Townsend R, Sampson HA, Taylor SL, Fuchs RL (1996) Assessment of the allergenic potential of foods derived from genetically engineered crop plants. In: Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 36(S):S165–S186. CRC, Boca Raton [PubMed]
Miles S, Frewer LI. Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards—higher and lower order attributes. Food Qual Prefer. 2001;12:47–61. doi: 10.1016/S0950-3293(00)00029-X. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Miraglia M, Berdal K, Brera C, Corbisier P, Holst-jensen A, Kok E, Marvin H, Schimmel H, Rentsch J, van Rie J, Zagon J. Detection and traceability of genetically modified organisms in the food production chain. Food Chem Toxicol. 2004;42:1157–1180. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.018. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Momma K, Hashimoto W, Ozawa S, Kawai S, Katsube T, Takaiwa F, Kito M, Utsumi S, Murata K. Quality and safety evaluation of genetically engineered rice with soybean glycinin: analyses of the grain composition and digestibility of glycinin in transgenic rice. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 1999;63:314–318. doi: 10.1271/bbb.63.314. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Nakamura R, Matsuda T. Rice allergenic protein and molecular-genetic approach for hypoallergenic rice. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 1996;60:1215–1221. doi: 10.1271/bbb.60.1215. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Netherwood T. Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nat Biotechnol. 2004;22:204–209. doi: 10.1038/nbt934. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Nordlee JA. Identification of Brazil-Nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. New Engl J Med. 1996;334:688–692. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199603143341103. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Nordlee JA, Taylor SL, Townsend JA, Thomas LA. Identification of a Brazil nut allergen in transgenic soybean. New Engl J Med. 1996;334:688–692. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199603143341103. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Noteborn HPJM, Bienenmann-Ploum ME, van den Berg JHJ, Alink GM, Zolla L, Raynaerts A, Pensa M, Kuiper HA. Safety assessment of the Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal protein CRYIA(b) expressed in transgenic tomatoes. In: Engel KH, Takeoka GR, Teranishi R, editors. ACS Symp series 605 Genetically modified foods—safety issues. Washington, D.C: American Chemical Society; 1995. pp. 135–147. [Google Scholar]
Novak WK, Haslberger AG. Substantial equivalence of antinutrients and inherent plant toxins in genetically modified novel foods. Food Chem Toxicol. 2000;38:473–483. doi: 10.1016/S0278-6915(00)00040-5. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
O’Neil C, Reese G, Lehrer SB. Allergenic potential of recombinant food proteins. Allergy Clin Immunol Int. 1998;10:5–9. [Google Scholar]
Padgette SR, Taylor NB, Nida DL, Bailey MR, MacDonald J, Holden LR, Fuchs RL. The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans. J Nutr. 1996;126:702–716. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pusztai A (2001) Safety tests on commercial crops. American Institute of Biological Sciences. actionbioscience.org, http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html viewed 2 March 2010
Pusztai A, Ewen SWB, Grant G, Peumans WJ, van Damme EJM, Rubio L, Bardocz S. Relationship between survival and binding of plant lectins during small intestinal passage and their effectiveness as growth factors. Digestion. 1990;46(suppl 2):308–316. doi: 10.1159/000200402. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Pusztai A, Grant G, Bardocz S, Alonso R, Chrispeels MJ, Schroeder HE, Tabe LM, Higgins TJV. Expression of the insecticidal bean alpha-amylase inhibitor transgene has minimal detrimental effect on the nutritional value of peas fed to rats at 30 % of the diet. J Nutr. 1999;129:1597–1603. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Redenbaugh K, Hiatt W, Martineau B, Kramer M, Sheehy R, Sanders R, Houck C, Emlay D (1992) Safety assessment of genetically engineered fruits and vegetables: a case study of the Flavr Savr Tomato. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Sahai S. Genetically modified crops: issues for India. Fin Agric. 2003;35:7–11. [Google Scholar]
Snell C, Bernheim A, Bergé J-B, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A, Agnès ER. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012;50:1134–1148. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Steinbrecher RA. From green to gene evolution: the environmental risks of genetically engineered crops. Ecologist. 1996;26:273–281. [Google Scholar]
Streit L. Association of the Brazil nut protein gene and Kunitz trypsin inhibitor alleles with soybean protease inhibitor activity and agronomic traits. Crop Sci. 2001;41:1757–1760. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2001.1757. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Taylor NB, Fuchs RL, MacDonald J, Shariff AB, Padgette SR. Compositional analysis of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans treated with glyphosate. J Agric Food Chem. 1999;47:4469–4473. doi: 10.1021/jf990056g. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Teshima R, Akiyama H, Okunuki H, Sakushima J-i, Goda Y, Onodera H, Sawada J-i, Toyoda M. Effect of GM and non-GM soybeans on the immune system of BN rats and B10A mice. J Food Hyg Soc Jpn. 2000;41:188–193. doi: 10.3358/shokueishi.41.188. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Tsourgiannis L, Karasavvoglou A, Florou G. Consumers’ attitudes towards GM free products in a European region. The case of the Prefecture of Drama-Kavala-Xanthi in Greece. Appetite. 2011;57:448–458. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.06.010. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
van Beilen JB, Yves P. Harnessing plant biomass for biofuels and biomaterials: production of renewable polymers from crop plants. Plant J. 2008;54(4):684–701. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03431.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Vazquez-Padron RI, Moreno-Fierros L, Neri-Bazan L, Martinez-Gil AF, de la Riva GA, Lopez-Revilla R. Characterization of the mucosal and sytemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2000;33:147–155. doi: 10.1590/S0100-879X2000000200002. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Vijayakumar KR, Martin A, Gowda LR, Prakash V. Detection of genetically modified soya and maize: impact of heat processing. Food Chem. 2009;117:514–521. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.04.028. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Xiumin W, Da T, Qingfeng G, Fang T, Jianhua W. Detection of Roundup Ready soybean by loop-mediated isothermal amplification combined with a lateral-flow dipstick. Food Control. 2012;29:213–220. [Google Scholar]

Don't you reject the NIST report on the 9/11 attack? Or, am I confusing you with someone else?

This thread is about political ideology versus science (it isn't specifically about GMOs). The 9/11 conspiracy theory is another example of where people start with a political belief and then find evidence to "support" it in spite of the findings of scientific institutions.

Good! Let's look at this one:

Pusztai A (2001) Safety tests on commercial crops. American Institute of Biological Sciences. actionbioscience.org, http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html viewed 2 March 2010
Pusztai A, Ewen SWB, Grant G, Peumans WJ, van Damme EJM, Rubio L, Bardocz S. Relationship between survival and binding of plant lectins during small intestinal passage and their effectiveness as growth factors. Digestion. 1990;46(suppl 2):308–316. doi: 10.1159/000200402. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Arpad Pusztai was one of the first scientists to raise concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods. In the late 1990s, Pusztai, a respected molecular biologist, conducted research on GM potatoes for the Rowett Institute in Scotland. The potatoes were genetically altered to produce lectins, natural insecticides, to protect them against aphids. Pusztai conducted feeding studies on rats and found that the potatoes damaged the animals' gut, other organs, and immune system. In 1998, Pusztai expressed his concerns about GM foods on a British television program and was promptly suspended and forced to retire from his position. Dr. Pusztai's research was later peer reviewed and published in The Lancet, a leading British medical journal.

Here is an interview with Pusztai:

You were initially supportive of genetically modified foods, is that correct?

Yes, I thought at the time on the basis of rather poor understanding of genetic modification that it was a good idea. As we progressed with our experimental work we found all the snags and I had to re-assess my ideas.

What negative impacts did you find with GM potatoes you were developing?

The first problem that we encountered was when we tried to correlate the protection of the potato plant leaves against aphid attack with the transgene expression level. We found there was very little or no correlation at all. That is a major flaw, sufficient to question the validity of the whole idea. The next was that the transgenically expressed insecticidal protein did not only damage the aphid pests but also their natural enemies, such as the ladybugs. What was particularly damaging for the validity of genetic modification was when we found that diets based on GM potatoes affected the growth, organ development, and immune reactivity of young rapidly growing rats. The final straw was when we showed that the damage originated not from the transgene and its expressed product but from the damage caused by the insertion of the transgene, probably due to insertional mutagenesis.

Why is genetic engineering a risky technology?

Gene insertion is a major problem. You cannot direct where the splicing of the genetic construct will happen. It is well known that when you insert a genetic construct into the DNA network of a plant, you create changes in that network. As a result, you will get changes in the functionality of the plant's own genes. They may become more active or silent. The effects will be unpredictable and uncontrollable. It can sometimes cause irreparable damage to the genome. This is insertional mutagenesis.

The biotechnology industry simply overrides this concern. They say we don't have to worry about it, and if you raise your voice, you are called a Luddite.

Fundamentally the science of genetic engineering is crap. One gene expressing one protein is the basis of genetic engineering, but the Human Genome Project discovered 23,000 genes, and there are 200,000 proteins in every cell. With this discovery, genetic engineering should have disappeared into the dustbin, but the biotechnology industry is so strong. Genetic engineering is a product driven technology. If you have enough money to throw at it, you can do many things. But the industry won't waste money on safety assessment.

What are some of the studies you are aware of showing negative health impacts of GM foods?

In addition to the organ ultrastructural studies showing up significant changes, the most important studies are ones that showed alterations in the immune system. The Australian study (showing that GM peas caused immune damage in mice), the recent Italian study (showing immune disturbances in mice fed GM corn), and the reproduction studies of Irina Ermakova and more recently the Austrian study (showing reduced fertility in mice fed GM corn).

Although the significance of these studies is questioned by the biotech industry and regulatory agencies, in scientific terms the writing is on the wall for the present genetic modification technique.

What type of safety testing do you think should be done on GM foods?

We could do more targeted safety testing using proper nutritional/toxicological, metabolic, cancer, immunological and reproductive studies to reassure ourselves that the major dangers have been eliminated. Most of the methodologies for these exist and have been used with new non-GM food protein sources in the past. Why are these not used?

GM food advocates try to discredit studies showing negative health or environmental impacts of GM foods and scientists who conduct the studies. You were forced to resign from the Rowett Institute. Why are GM food advocates so hostile to such research and what can be done to ensure that independent research on GM food safety is conducted?

The reason is simple: GM advocates' main reason for denying money and facilities for proper safety assessment is that they financially and socially benefit from the existence of GM products. We have to make society to understand that they and the state will have to pay for independent research.

Why are such limited funds available for research looking at health effects of GM foods?

It is not in the interest of the biotech companies, or most of the governments, to dig up data that could question the safety of GM products. For the industry GM is just another product and, if it is not acutely poisonous, their job is to sell as much as possible of it.

Do you believe that scientific research will conclusively show that GM foods pose significant health risks?

Yes.

Well, actually, the FDA didn't even trust each other when it came to the safety of GMOs. I'm guessing that you've already forgot about this:

Here are FDA documents showing that they ignored GMO safety warnings from their own scientists.

EXCERPT:

The FDA's records reveal it declared genetically engineered foods to be
safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts--all the while
claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance. Internal
reports and memoranda disclose: (1) agency scientists repeatedly
cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA technology entail
different risks than do their conventionally produced counterparts and
(2) that this input was consistently disregarded by the bureaucrats who
crafted the agency's current policy, which treats bioengineered foods the
same as natural ones.

Besides contradicting the FDA's claim that its policy is science-based,
this evidence shows the agency violated the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act in allowing genetically engineered foods to be marketed without
testing on the premise that they are generally recognized as safe by
qualified experts.

http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/FDAdocuments.html

There are dissenters about global climate change too. The game you are playing to deny GMO safety is the same game the climate deniers play.

That doesn't change the fact that there is a general scientific consensus that human activity is raising global temperatures, or that GMOs on the market are just as safe "as their non-GE counterparts". Your conspiracy theory link shows that you understand that the FDA is stating the GM foods are safe for human consumption.

This thread is about political ideology versus science. Science accepts or rejects claims based on objective facts... meaning that you will apply the same criteria to evaluate claims whether they support your political ideology or not.

You accept the science on global climate change. You reject the science on GMs. These two fields of science use the same scientific process, the same system of review even some of the same institutions.

The difference is that one fits nicely with your ideological narrative, and the other doesn't.

Indeed.

A consensus. I didn't know that scientific findings were based on consensus.
________________________________________________

And about those dissenters. The treatment of Dr. Pusztai sent a chilling precedent around the world. By 2001, New Zealand Parliament member Sue Kedgley told the 2001 Royal Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification: “Personally I have been contacted by telephone and e-mail by a number of scientists who have serious concerns about aspects of the research that is taking place . . . and the increasingly close ties that are developing between science and commerce, but who are convinced that if they express these fears publicly, even at such a commission. . . or even if they asked the awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out of their institution.”

On September 2, 2009, the prestigious journal Nature acknowledged that the regular attacks on biotech researchers are orchestrated by a “large block of scientists who denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge and is outside the ideals of scientific inquiry.”

On September 2, 2009, the prestigious journal Nature acknowledged that the regular attacks on biotech researchers are orchestrated by a “large block of scientists who denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge and is outside the ideals of scientific inquiry.”

These attacks have all but stopped independent research into the health and environmental side-effects of GMOs. According to University of California at Berkeley professor Ignacio Chapela, there is a de facto ban on scientists “asking certain questions and finding certain results.” He says, “It’s very hard for us to publish in this field. People are scared.”

Scientists involved in research on the effects of GMOs are being threatened and fired from their jobs.Dr. Charles Benbrook, former Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, said he has personally spoken with dozens of scientists who “had to contend with this backlash and these counter attacks that the industry unleashes on scientists that they view as a threat. The majority of them get out of the field. The majority of them will not put themselves, or their families, or their career at that kind of risk again.” he said.

And then there's this:

Indian Supreme Court Uncovers Regulatory Scam

In February 2008, the Indian Supreme Court asked renowned biologist P. M. Bhargava to evaluate the practices of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC). Dr. Bhargava attended meetings, studied submissions, and consulted more than 600 scientific journals for his analysis. After 10 months he concluded that not only was the Indian approval system inadequate, but no GM crop in the world had ever been properly evaluated. In fact, of the 29 different categories of scientific research that he said should be conducted to protect the environment and public health, only 10% had been addressed. But these studies were industry-funded – designed so poorly that Dr. Bhargava deemed them worthless. He asked the Prime Minister and Health Minister to institute an immediate moratorium on GMOs until adequate tests could be completed.

While attending the GEAC, whenever Dr. Bhargava presented adverse findings about GMOs, the material was summarily dismissed with the statement, “That’s been discredited.” It didn’t matter what prominent journal or highly credentialed scientist had published the work, the response was automatic. When Dr. Bhargava submitted his own report on the GEAC, they tried to discredit him in the same way.

Dr Bhargava found that no GM crop in the world had ever been properly evaluated. The GEAC attempted to portray him as anti-government, which was ludicrous. Dr. Bhargava had served on over 100 government committees, including the intelligence committee where he had unrestricted access to secret government documents. The GEAC also claimed that he had no experience publishing DNA or RNA research. In reality, Dr. Bhargava had published more relevant papers than all the GEAC members combined.

And what about this:

Dirt Down Under

Epidemiologist Judy Carman used to investigate outbreaks of disease for a state government in Australia. She knows that health problems associated with GM foods might be impossible to track or take decades to discover. Moreover, the superficial, short-term animal feeding studies usually do not evaluate biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver function, and kidney function, and are too short to test for cancer or reproductive or child health. Dr. Carman has critiqued the GMO approval process on behalf of the Public Health Association of Australia and speaks openly about her concerns. As a result, she is repeatedly attacked. Pro-GMO scientists threatened disciplinary action through her Vice-Chancellor, and circulated a defamatory letter to government and university officials.

Carman was awarded a grant by the Western Australia government to conduct some of the few long-term animal feeding studies on GMOs. Apparently concerned about what she might find, GMO advocates wrote letters to the government demanding that the grant be withdrawn. One scientist tried to convince the Western Australia Agriculture minister that sufficient safety research had been conducted and he should therefore cancel the grant. As his evidence, however, he presented a report summarizing only 60 GMO animal feeding studies – an infinitesimal amount of research to justify exposing the entire population to GM foods.

A closer investigation, however, revealed that most of the 60 studies were not safety studies at all. They were production studies, measuring, for example, the animals’ carcass weight. Only 9 contained data applicable to human health. And 6 of the 9 showed adverse effects in animals that ate GM feed! Furthermore, there were several other studies with adverse findings that were mysteriously missing from the compilation. Carman points out that the report “does not support claims that GM crops are safe to eat. On the contrary, it provides evidence that GM crops may be harmful to health.”

When the Western Government refused to withdraw the grant, opponents successfully interfered with Carman’s relationship with the university where she was to do the research.

Denying Access to Seeds

In addition to using threats and other attack strategies, the biotech industry has limited independent research by denying scientists access to their patented seeds.

For example:

When Ohio State University plant ecologist Allison Snow discovered problematic side effects in GM sunflowers, Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Dow AgroSciences blocked further research by withholding GM seeds and genes. After Marc Lappé and Britt Bailey found significant reductions in cancer-fighting isoflavones in Monsanto’s GM soybeans, the seed seller Hartz told them they could no longer provide samples. Research by a plant geneticist at a leading US university was also thwarted when two companies refused him GM corn. When a Japanese scientist wanted to conduct animal feeding studies on the GM soybeans under review in Japan, both the government and the bean’s maker DuPont refused to give him any samples. Hungarian Professor Bela Darvas discovered that Monsanto’s GM corn hurt endangered species in his own country. Monsanto immediately shut off his supplies. Dr. Darvas later gave a speech on his preliminary findings and discovered that a false and incriminating report about his research was circulating. He traced it to a Monsanto public relations employee, who claimed that it mysteriously appeared on her desk – so she faxed it out.

Almost no independent studies are conducted. According to a scathing opinion piece in an August 2009 Scientific American, “Agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers. . . . Only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal.”

A group of 26 insect scientists protested this restriction in a letter submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. They warned that the inability to access GM seeds from biotech companies means there can be no truly independent research on the critical questions. The scientists, of course, withheld their identities for fear of reprisals from the companies.
________________________________________________

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

Let's get religious for a moment.

Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

"Delivered unto me," get it? Satan is the god of wordly authority. Any time one person tells another what to believe, that is a position of authority and Satan owns it if he wants it. Worldly governments are included automatically, and higher education is being taken over. (It is taking some time.) That is why you get personal insults if you question any scientific pronouncement: it is a matter of authority, not rightness. That is also why politics and academics are so intimately related.