Political ideology and GMOs

Cool! Let's start with general principles of science.

In science you start with a question. You then gather all of the information (whether it supports your pre-existing beliefs) to come to an objective conclusion.

In political ideology you start with an answer. You then gather just the information to support what you already beliefs.

Picking individual stories to support the conclusion that you started with is not a good way to have a discussion about science. I call this process "Science by Soogle" where people enter the phrases they want to find... strangely google can find a "scientific" paper that seems to say anything.

When I look at science, I ask myself two questions. I apply these questions to any scientific claim whether it supports a political ideology or not.

- Is it supported by reputable scientific organizations (NAS, NIH, etc.). These institutions represent scientific consensus. These findings represent all of the research considered together (rather than parts of studies taken out of context)?

- Is it based on well-designed, transparent, peer-reviewed research. Good scientific research includes the metrics used, provides access to the data and discusses weakness in the study.

Here in Europe, the stance on GMOs is at heart conservative.
But don't consider this to be politically but in the original sense of the word.
(Not only Conservatives are against GMO, many on the left political side as well.)

Who doesn't accept the conclusion of this report? I certainly do.

I think Glennn is setting up a straw man... but I will play along.

Just adding that the authors of this research paper have been members of the research group which led to the Séralini affair (Wikipedia report)

You accept the conclusion of that study? Good. Then we have no issues.

To which of the studies mentioned in this research paper are you referring?

A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm

I just posted the conclusion of that study . . .

Take your pick, Walter. I am going to assume that you disagree with the conclusion I've posted. Is that true?

Whatever you assume.

I've the advantage to have had a coffee with one of the authors. (Actually, it was a working breakfast with a historian of the same university. The said author just joined him because it was a nice café ... and talked mainly with two other [former] A2K'ers and the missus.)

Well if you're not going to say, then I'll have to assume.

What does your breakfast have to do with the topic?

These are the facts about science and GMOs. I am looking at the scientific community as a whole rather than cherry picking individual arguments... This is a test of my new idea of "Fact Syncing"; I am giving a list of facts in declarative statements.

- I invite you to say a simple "agree" or "disagree" to each one.
- I also invite you to create your list of simple declarative facts that I will state whether I agree or disagree.

This way we will have a succinct understanding of where we agree or disagree.

I have provided the conclusion of a study. You have provided no study to the contrary. My conclusion is that you have nothing to say.

Facts about Science and GMOs

- Most reputable scientific institutions (NAS, NIH, etc.) support the idea that GM foods are as "safe as their non GM counterparts" (as stated by the NIH).

- Most scientists agree that GM foods should be tested and regulated for safety before public use (this is what the initial article you posted said).

- As reported by Pew, most scientists (89%) support the general statement "GM Foods are safe". In comparison 88% of scientists say that global climate change is "mostly caused by human activity".

- There have been some studies showing specific harm caused by specific GM organisms. The NIH states that there is no evidence of harm to human health by any currently available GM crops.

- There is at least one study showing specific harm caused by a specific GM organism on the growth of fungus in the soil.

I would ask if you would either "agree" or "disagree" with each of these statements. The more we can agree on, the better.

I agree with the conclusion of your initial article. They are saying that GM food should be tested and regulated. This is my subjective political opinion in addition to being backed by the scientific facts.

If you can provide your list of facts, I will respond in kind and we can see where we are...

Again, science is not done by consensus. I've repeatedly asked you to provide the studies done on GMOs that prove their safety. Scientific reassurances like " doesn't seem to be any riskier," as found in your link, is hardly reassuring. And as far as the title of your link goes, what some scientists "think" about the safety of GMOs isn't reassuring either.

So we're back to the weakness of your claim; that being that you cannot point me to those long-term studies that prove the safety of GMOs.

I prefer to let the willing be guinea pigs. I will continue to keep as much GMO and Roundup out of my life as possible.

Since he was involved in previous researches, I for the first time met such a person.

I'm afraid that the details of your past social life reminds me very little of the topic. Let's start again, lest your reminiscing gives people the wrong idea of what this thread is really about.

A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health.

Here is their conclusion:

Patho-physiological profiles are unique for each GM crop/food, underlining the necessity for a case-by-case evaluation of their safety, as is largely admitted and agreed by regulators. It is not possible to make comments concerning any general, similar subchronic toxic effect for all GM foods. However, in the three GM maize varieties that formed the basis of this investigation, new side effects linked to the consumption of these cereals were revealed, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity. This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown. Furthermore, any side effect linked to the GM event will be unique in each case as the site of transgene insertion and the spectrum of genome wide mutations will differ between the three modified maize types. In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods. Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.
　
http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm

Let me remind you that one of the authors of this research paper published already a paper in 2012, which attracted major controversy. It was interesting in those days to talk personally with him - even in a café.

I am afraid, you are not well read about this topic. (Not that I am, but I can read scientific papers, know the differences between researches and studies, and got - thanks to the author of your source - a bit of knowledge about this topic.)