But let's talk about what's really important...

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As you said, I think we have the right to know whether the food we are buying has been genetically modified, especially considering that there is some evidence out there that genetically modified food may cause cancer.

"Rats fed a lifelong diet of one of the bestselling strains of genetically modified corn suffered tumors and multiple organ damage, according to a controversial French study published today."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz2Beakf0Dj
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Hey, Rupert- thanks for the link; I read it. However, I did some additional googling on the study, and it's hugely, hugely flawed, so I don't think one can draw any conclusions from it as it was run by a scientist with an agenda, and the rats used were predisposed to develop tumors anyway. Here's a good piece on the major errors in the study, and how the media was manipulated into releasing it:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science...media-approach

Again, I haven't been convinced one way or another about GMOs, but I fully support labeling and letting consumers choose.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Hey, Rupert- thanks for the link; I read it. However, I did some additional googling on the study, and it's hugely, hugely flawed, so I don't think one can draw any conclusions from it as it was run by a scientist with an agenda, and the rats used were predisposed to develop tumors anyway. Here's a good piece on the major errors in the study, and how the media was manipulated into releasing it:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science...media-approach

Again, I haven't been convinced one way or another about GMOs, but I fully support labeling and letting consumers choose.

I wasn't claiming that there was irrefutable proof that it causes cancer. I was just saying that there was "some evidence" that it may cause cancer. Even if there is no credible proof (at this point) that it causes cancer, I agree with you that genetically modified food should still be labeled so that we can decide whether we want to buy that brand or another brand that has not been genetically modified.

By the way, I'm sure companies like Monsanto are spending millions to bash any study that shows genetically modified food is dangerous. Do you think they would ever admit that their products may be dangerous? I'm sure they will always claim that the study was flawed if they don't like the results of the study.

By the way, the fact that the rats were rats that were predisposed to cancer does not mean the results were not important. There are millions of people that are predisposed to cancer. A person may be predisposed to cancer without even knowing it. I have no idea if I am or not. Neither of my parents ever had cancer but my grandmother did. I would have no way of knowing if I am predisposed to cancer.

[Riot]

Virtually everything we eat is "genetically modified", and has been for centuries. Every animal, every fruit, every crop.

When you take a tomato, and breed it to produce big tomato fruit - that's "genetically modified".

American Indians developing corn? Selection is "genetically modified".

Cows giving 20 gallons of milk a day? Their genes have been "genetically modified" by breeding selection.

I don't understand why people fear "genetically modified" foods - except they don't know what DNA and RNA are, and the terms are scary?

Or they don't understand how eating DNA and RNA from another animal - like a cow - doesn't turn you into a cow? But they think that eating cow DNA will alter their own DNA and cause cancer? While not understanding the concept of denatured proteins, how your own body treats foreign proteins, etc ....

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Riot

Virtually everything we eat is "genetically modified", and has been for centuries. Every animal, every fruit, every crop.

When you take a tomato, and breed it to produce big tomato fruit - that's "genetically modified".

American Indians developing corn? Selection is "genetically modified".

Cows giving 20 gallons of milk a day? Their genes have been "genetically modified" by breeding selection.

I don't understand why people fear "genetically modified" foods - except they don't know what DNA and RNA are, and the terms are scary?

Or they don't understand how eating DNA and RNA from another animal - like a cow - doesn't turn you into a cow? But they think that eating cow DNA will alter their own DNA and cause cancer? While not understanding the concept of denatured proteins, how your own body treats foreign proteins, etc ....

Do you care at all what kind of food you eat??


Again, those who do, should be able to be given the choice to decide if it is an issue to them or not.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Do you care at all what kind of food you eat??


Again, those who do, should be able to be given the choice to decide if it is an issue to them or not.

I eat very well, and everything I eat - and you eat - is already genetically modified, and has been for centuries. You or I cannot name one non-genetically modified foodstuff in our diets. I certainly cannot think of one.

Of course I care about the nutritional quality of what I eat, but the public panic over genetic modification stems more from public ignorance of genetics, than any actual factual concerns, in my observation.

The fear is over the words "genetically modified" - not over any factual thing that genetic modification has done. It's a scary term that Americans, who are bereft of any basic genetic class in high school, simply don't understand.

[herkhorse]

Originally Posted by Riot

I eat very well, and everything I eat - and you eat - is already genetically modified, and has been for centuries. You or I cannot name one non-genetically modified foodstuff in our diets. I certainly cannot think of one.

Of course I care about the nutritional quality of what I eat, but the public panic over genetic modification stems more from public ignorance of genetics, than any actual factual concerns, in my observation.

The fear is over the words "genetically modified" - not over any factual thing that genetic modification has done. It's a scary term that Americans, who are bereft of any basic genetic class in high school, simply don't understand.

It's OK just to shut up once in a while.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by herkhorse

It's OK just to shut up once in a while.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Virtually everything we eat is "genetically modified", and has been for centuries. Every animal, every fruit, every crop.

When you take a tomato, and breed it to produce big tomato fruit - that's "genetically modified".

American Indians developing corn? Selection is "genetically modified".

Cows giving 20 gallons of milk a day? Their genes have been "genetically modified" by breeding selection.

I don't understand why people fear "genetically modified" foods - except they don't know what DNA and RNA are, and the terms are scary?

Or they don't understand how eating DNA and RNA from another animal - like a cow - doesn't turn you into a cow? But they think that eating cow DNA will alter their own DNA and cause cancer? While not understanding the concept of denatured proteins, how your own body treats foreign proteins, etc ....

You are obviously using a different definition of "genetically modified". If not, there would be no need for such labeling. If everything was genetically modified then there would be need to differentiate GMO from non-GMO.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You are obviously using a different definition of "genetically modified".

How so? Genetically modified is genetically modified, whether you do it by selecting two racehorses to breed together, by covering flower fruits so you can pollenate them by hand, or combining genes from different breeds.

If not, there would be no need for such labeling. If everything was genetically modified then there would be need to differentiate GMO from non-GMO.

What definition are you using? Every single thing you eat is already genetically modified. Where shall we draw the line?

I have many concerns about our abilities to genetically modify crops and the inadvertent results of changing them, we've been doing genetic modifications for thousands of years. But my concerns lay more with pest resistence, removing original crops from gene pool availability, monogenetic crops, etc.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

How so? Genetically modified is genetically modified, whether you do it by selecting two racehorses to breed together, by covering flower fruits so you can pollenate them by hand, or combining genes from different breeds.



What definition are you using? Every single thing you eat is already genetically modified. Where shall we draw the line?

I have many concerns about our abilities to genetically modify crops and the inadvertent results of changing them, we've been doing genetic modifications for thousands of years. But my concerns lay more with pest resistence, removing original crops from gene pool availability, monogenetic crops, etc.

If all foods are already genetically modified then which foods were going to be required to be labeled under the new law? By the way, Prop 37 used pretty much the same language as the law in Europe which requires GMOs to be labeled. Since you are the expert, you can explain to everyone which GMOs are required to be labeled since you think all foods are GMOs.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If all foods are already genetically modified then which foods were going to be required to be labeled under the new law?

I agree that's a problem, and that's the question. Only foods that are GMO and have been for years like seedless grapes and navel oranges? Every chicken? Only foods that have gene insertions from other species? Foods that are manipulated to be pest-resistant? What if it's done in a test field, rather than in a laboratory greenhouse?

What do you think? Which of those should be labeled as GMO?

If a farmer has a particularly good looking crop and he then uses the seeds of that crop, nobody would define that as "genetically modified". All species evolve over the years. Nobody would call these species "genetically modified".

They certainly are, when certain genes are selected for by the growers, and other former genes are eliminated on purpose. That's exactly what genetic modification is.

When Monsanto alters DNA in a laboratory, that would be "genetically modified".

That is exactly my point. What do you think is the difference between Monsanto altering DNA in a laboratory, and the DNA alterations selected by farmers over 5 years?

The product is often the same.

Foods have been genetically modified for centuries. In modern America our foods have become uniform in size and appearance, ship well, last forever, at the expense of nutrition and taste, due to genetic modification.

Good lord - look at apples in a supermarket. They taste nothing like apples should. We killed off the species of banana we were eating 40 years ago because they were genetically modified and were wiped out by disease. The bananas we eat today are entirely different (also genetically modified)

I'm more concerned about how the genetic modifications done over the past 80 years to our foodstuffs, so they can ship across country, have ruined the nutritional composition, taste and variety.

There was nothing confusing about the law.
I don't know why you're trying to confuse people.

I never said there was, and I'm not trying to.

People know what "genetically modified" means, notwithstanding your disingenuous attempt to confuse people and tell them that all food is genetically modified.

Fine - define what you mean by "genetically modified". Give a definition right here, right now.

That's my point. The words are scary. But people don't really understand what it means.

I don't care if people want their food to be labeled for GMO. I have no respect for Monsanto, in spite of your ridiculous baseless assumption.

But people in the USA have very little knowledge of what "genetically modified" means. So you define it right now, so we're both on the same page.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

How so? Genetically modified is genetically modified, whether you do it by selecting two racehorses to breed together, by covering flower fruits so you can pollenate them by hand, or combining genes from different breeds.



What definition are you using? Every single thing you eat is already genetically modified. Where shall we draw the line?

I have many concerns about our abilities to genetically modify crops and the inadvertent results of changing them, we've been doing genetic modifications for thousands of years. But my concerns lay more with pest resistence, removing original crops from gene pool availability, monogenetic crops, etc.

If a farmer has a particularly good looking crop and he then uses the seeds of that crop, nobody would define that as "genetically modified". All species evolve over the years. Nobody would call these species "genetically modified". When Monsanto alters DNA in a laboratory, that would be "genetically modified".

There was nothing confusing about the law. I don't know why you're trying to confuse people. People know what "genetically modified" means, notwithstanding your disingenuous attempt to confuse people and tell them that all food is genetically modified. Monsanto should hire you as a propagandist.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Hey, Rupert- thanks for the link; I read it. However, I did some additional googling on the study, and it's hugely, hugely flawed, so I don't think one can draw any conclusions from it as it was run by a scientist with an agenda, and the rats used were predisposed to develop tumors anyway. Here's a good piece on the major errors in the study, and how the media was manipulated into releasing it:
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science...media-approach

Again, I haven't been convinced one way or another about GMOs, but I fully support labeling and letting consumers choose.

By the way, you should read the 2nd rebuttal to your article. Here is a piece of it:

Response to author's call
In response to the author's comment regarding not being "pro-GM", I would suggest that perhaps the tenor of her articles don't do her feelings justice. There must be some reason why the majority of readers across time seem to be getting the incorrect impression. Regarding the issue of good journalism, I won't disagree, but it's interesting that the few positive responses to the relentlessly pro-GM sounding articles usually seem to come either from those who express a marked pro-GM bias, themselves, or from those who don't reason particularly well. Personally, I'm going to withhold judgement about the articles being 'fair and insightful' until I see some good supporting evidence.

But my intent is to help, not criticize. The author asked for links to articles that show poor methodologies being used elsewhere. Surely she's aware of the difficulties of proving negatives, but I do have a few examples. One that comes to mind are the remarkable number of field trials of GMO crops that purport to demonstrate their safety, but which fail to follow the 'life cycle' of GM proteins as they leave the plant and enter the gut flora of pollinating insects or the soil biota. Where do those genes go after leaving their initial points of contact, and what influences do they have as they travel through the environment? Nobody really knows, because very few (especially Monsanto et. al.) have asked. However, the most recent research suggests that this gap in inquiry has allowed the gut flora of field insects exposed to GM proteins in situ, to mutate and confer host immunity. That wasn't, according to Monsanto et al., supposed to happen! There was no evidence that it could happen! The reality is that the evidence was waiting to be discovered, but the GM industry never honestly looked for it. It wasn't found until independent researchers thought to inquire. How much more evidence of harm is out there, lying hidden until somebody insightful enough and wealthy enough to ask, can run the correct studies?

Unfortunately, the absence of evidence was taken as the evidence of absence. This seems to hallen a lot with Monsanto. It's too bad that economic and political interests often push this mental sleight-of-hand onto unsuspecting members of the public and the press. When one substitutes logical fallacy for logic, and bolsters one's world view with selective evidence, the mistaking of all sorts of absurdities for truth becomes easy.

An issue related to "absence of evidence" is the sheer politics of publishing scientific reviews critical of Monsanto's work. Surely the author knows that scientific research and publishing are highly political endeavors, despite the official dogma that science is free and independent of such un-scientific concerns. Independent? Hogwash. The practical reality is that science is almost as political an endeavor as - well, as politics itself. And those pushing GM are currently the same ones holding the clout, and always have been right back to the beginning of this game.

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science...media-approach

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

By the way, you should read the 2nd rebuttal to your article. Here is a piece of it:

Response to author's call
In response to the author's comment regarding not being "pro-GM", I would suggest that perhaps the tenor of her articles don't do her feelings justice. There must be some reason why the majority of readers across time seem to be getting the incorrect impression. Regarding the issue of good journalism, I won't disagree, but it's interesting that the few positive responses to the relentlessly pro-GM sounding articles usually seem to come either from those who express a marked pro-GM bias, themselves, or from those who don't reason particularly well. Personally, I'm going to withhold judgement about the articles being 'fair and insightful' until I see some good supporting evidence.

But my intent is to help, not criticize. The author asked for links to articles that show poor methodologies being used elsewhere. Surely she's aware of the difficulties of proving negatives, but I do have a few examples. One that comes to mind are the remarkable number of field trials of GMO crops that purport to demonstrate their safety, but which fail to follow the 'life cycle' of GM proteins as they leave the plant and enter the gut flora of pollinating insects or the soil biota. Where do those genes go after leaving their initial points of contact, and what influences do they have as they travel through the environment? Nobody really knows, because very few (especially Monsanto et. al.) have asked. However, the most recent research suggests that this gap in inquiry has allowed the gut flora of field insects exposed to GM proteins in situ, to mutate and confer host immunity. That wasn't, according to Monsanto et al., supposed to happen! There was no evidence that it could happen! The reality is that the evidence was waiting to be discovered, but the GM industry never honestly looked for it. It wasn't found until independent researchers thought to inquire. How much more evidence of harm is out there, lying hidden until somebody insightful enough and wealthy enough to ask, can run the correct studies?

Unfortunately, the absence of evidence was taken as the evidence of absence. This seems to hallen a lot with Monsanto. It's too bad that economic and political interests often push this mental sleight-of-hand onto unsuspecting members of the public and the press. When one substitutes logical fallacy for logic, and bolsters one's world view with selective evidence, the mistaking of all sorts of absurdities for truth becomes easy.

An issue related to "absence of evidence" is the sheer politics of publishing scientific reviews critical of Monsanto's work. Surely the author knows that scientific research and publishing are highly political endeavors, despite the official dogma that science is free and independent of such un-scientific concerns. Independent? Hogwash. The practical reality is that science is almost as political an endeavor as - well, as politics itself. And those pushing GM are currently the same ones holding the clout, and always have been right back to the beginning of this game.

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science...media-approach

Before I forget- thanks for opening up this line of discussion, Rupert. I've really enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts on it. And to think it came from a joke about the porn industry!

The letter writer is absolutely right that scientific study is influenced by all sorts of external factors, and again, I'm not challenging that research into GMOs may not eventually turn up clear evidence that they are harmful; just that I haven't seen it yet. I see the concerns the letter writer has about the criticisms of the study, but they don't hold up to me as strongly as the flaws in it.

A big problem I do have with the response is the complaint about the difficulties of proving negatives, as I think it shows a bit of scientific illiteracy on the part of the letter writer. I'm simplifying a bit, and someone like Riot who has actually participated in medical studies may be able to explain better, but as I understand from my statistician brother, and a very long science CD for which I did the audio narration, good studies begin with a null hypothesis- that is, the assumption at the beginning of the study is that what is being studied will turn out not to be true, i.e., "GMO foods do not increase cancer risk." That way, evidence that ends up contradicting the null hypothesis must be pretty clear, and not the result of interpreting it to fit an agenda. An extreme example of this would be that study done about estrogen replacement therapy some years back, where the mounting evidence that in fact, it did contribute to breast cancer risk became so overwhelming that they stopped the study for fear of the women's health. In that case, the null hypothesis was disproved pretty clearly.

So, in a way, science is always trying to prove the negative. Or rather, it is always assuming the negative to be true, and looking for evidence to challenge that claim. I just don't think this particular study made a good challenge to the claim, due to the flaws in methodology.

But I certainly don't challenge the claim that scientific inquiry is as influenced by Big Business and political expediency as everything else is! I think the only real weapon we have against it is to try to be as scientifically literate as we can be, so that we can better apply critical thinking skills to what the media feeds us.