Political ideology and GMOs

@Glennn,

Actually science is done by consensus. I don't really know what you are getting at, but there is a scientific community. There are institutions and processes including peer review that are specifically designed to reach consensus.

The alternative is that everyone can decide for themselves what science says.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Oh, well what was this inside information that you got about the topic? Specifically, what did you discover about this:

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

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

Quote:

know the differences between researches and studies

Are you trying to make the point that this "research paper" was not based on a study? Or are you trying to make the point that the study was not based on the results of experiments?

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Oh, well what was this inside information that you got about the topic? Specifically, what did you discover about this:

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

He tried to explain one of the quoted studies.
What inside information I got? It might have been 'inside' on that day, but was explained the other day in public.
I haven't discovered anything, especially nothing what has been published later.

Besides that molecular biology isn't a subject I'm educated about.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

What do you think your article proves, Glennn?

It says they found some toxicity for three specific strands of Bt corn. It specifically says that it "is not possible to make comments concerning any general, similar subchronic toxic effect for all GM foods". The point that their finding "[underlines] the necessity for a case-by-case evaluation of their safety, as is largely admitted and agreed by regulators."

It seems like we all accept your article. It seems like you are trying to make some more general point which you haven't specified yet.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

What do you think your article proves

It's not an article. It's the conclusion of a study that was published in the International Journal of Biological Science which was based on experiments.

It appears that you would like to sweep some of their findings under the rug.

From the study:

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.

Quote:

The point that their finding "[underlines] the necessity for a case-by-case evaluation of their safety, as is largely admitted and agreed by regulators."

Uh huh. You wouldn't happen to know of any long-term studies that fulfilled the need for safety testing, would you? If you're going to make safety claims that you can't support with long-term studies, keep them to yourself, as they have no place in a fact-finding thread.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

I am doing the opposite of sweeping anything under the rug. I am agreeing with everything this article says.

There is no point in manufacturing an argument since we agree on the facts.

I don't see anything to fight about here. I don't mind arguing with you (if that is what you want), but you are going to have to give me something to work with here.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Does this mean I should quit eating corn?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

It is good to hear you acknowledging the facts brought out in the study I provided.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

It is good to hear you acknowledging the facts brought out in the study I provided.

Thank Glennn, I am glad to oblige.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

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...

These are the facts I posted on GM foods. Your study fits right in with these facts.

I am still hoping you will tell me which of these you accept or reject.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Until you, or anyone else, can produce the long-term studies proving that GMOs are safe, I reject any claims concerning their safety. So far in this thread, we have one long-term study. And that study does not support the notion that GMOs are safe; quite to the contrary.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Ok. I don't have any problem with that.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Since we can grow sustainable crops, why do we need more tasteless food items. Have you tried a red delicious apple? It tastes like zippo. Factory farm Beef and Chicken and Pork are bland and have no texture. Why do we continue to slaughter animals for food when we know they have been undernourished, shot full of chemicals and treated like garbage.

Even trying to buy butter is futile, its enhanced with water so it weighs more and it's useless in baking or even trying to clarify the butter,. The Europeans are right, we poison our food with ridiculous chemicals....and we are unhealthy because of it.

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

I still wonder why in the title of this thread "political ideology" is questioned.
Sure, 'Greenpeace', the 'Greens', many on the 'Left' are against GMOs. It's also clear that the big food producers can make more profit from GMOs, and that's why many conservatives and Liberals support their introduction.

In general, however, it seems to me that this has little to nothing to do with personal political attitudes but since benefits are hardly recognisable for consumers, risks have hardly been researched, many oppose, on any side of the political spectrum.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

For lots of consumers, "factory fed beef and chicken and pork" are the only option.

Organic food from Whole Foods is fine if you have the money for it. But for people who live paycheck to paycheck, free range chicken and pasture feed beef are out of the question.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

In general, however, it seems to me that this has little to nothing to do with personal political attitudes

In another thread, it was proposed that someone holding the position that GMOs have not been proven safe is someone driven by a political ideology. My position is that, if that is true, then the reality is that those who declare that GMOs have been proven safe are the ones guilty of being driven by political ideology. And I provided a long term-study to prove my case.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

So you started with a conclusion. Then you went to Google to search for some study that you think supports your pre-existing conclusion. And you think this means that people who don't share your conclusion are being driven by a political ideology.

I understand your logic.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

No, the study provided a conclusion. I chose not to ignore it. Those who do choose to ignore it are driven by their political ideology. Now you understand my logic and yours.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

And I provided a long term-study to prove my case.

Any idea where this research paper proves that it is driven by political ideology. (I admit, though, that the researchers might be called "left-leaning" in the view from the USA.)

1 Reply

What is all this thread debate about?

The study abstract in the OP recommends more testing of GM maize on animals.

That's not difficult to do. All they are doing, presumably, is feeding one group of animals GM maize and the other non-GM maize and then comparing health problems in the two populations. Assuming the experimental conditions are the same for both groups, then it will be interesting to see if the non-GM maize eaters are healthier and in what ways.

It would also be good, though, if they would publish how many of the non-GM animals also have similar health problems to the experimental group, because it's not like one group is going to be completely sick and the other completely healthy. There may be some statistical differences between health rates in the two populations, but it won't be that pronounced.

2 Replies

Political ideology and GMOs

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know