Monsanto silences scientist who explores risks of gene modification

[Spectral]

If they have peer-reviewed studies to back them up, why would I?

Because trusting a Gish Gallop of one sentence summaries of papers that you haven't read is a generally poor plan. I'd be inclined to read a scientific review of the literature that it's in a peer reviewed journal and trust that, but even then, I know from experience that the referees don't generally do a great job of fact-checking the references to make sure they say what the reviewer says they say. In the context of some web advocacy group, it's all too easy for them to cite a paper, distort its findings, claim that it supports their view, and mislead readers.

[Zecora]

Pink?

What the fuck are you thinking? We skim read it after reading such a biased statement. When was the last time you read Science and an article had a title like that?

I see the point passed about a mile above your head. Let me spell it out for you then:

You, like most rabid GMO-supporters, dismiss any evidence (whether it is hard or not) that comes your way. If it is not because it is summed up on the wrong web page, it is because it's the wrong scientist, or the wrong method, or if you can find no fault with any of the above, you just refuse to consider it, and claim that is it all lies, and that anyone who oppose GMO's is advocating genocide / are idiots / have no clue / are biased / are plain wrong / etc, etc (strike as needed).

The FACT of the matter is that there are a lot of dubious sides to the GMO industry, which goes far beyond the harmful effects shown in some consumption studies. Yet you refuse to hear that, while claiming that you hold the moral high ground, which frankly sickens me.

- - - Updated - - -

Because trusting a Gish Gallop of one sentence summaries of papers that you haven't read is a generally poor plan. I'd be inclined to read a scientific review of the literature that it's in a peer reviewed journal and trust that, but even then, I know from experience that the referees don't generally do a great job of fact-checking the references to make sure they say what the reviewers says they say. In the context of some web advocacy group, it's all too easy for them to cite a paper, distort its findings, claim that it supports their view, and mislead readers.

And how do you feel about the studies paid for and widely publiced by Monsanto? Do you trust them any more? I hope not, because it is exactly the same situation, just approaching it from the other side, with a lot more money backing it.

Anyhow, by all means go, read those papers. I have more for you too, if you want them. But do not attempt to discredit peer-reviewed studies that you have not even read, or webpages, just because they represent a specific view which you may not agree with.

[Deleted]

I see the point passed about a mile above your head. Let me spell it out for you then:

You, like most rabid GMO-supporters, dismiss any evidence (whether it is hard or not) that comes your way. If it is not because it is summed up on the wrong web page, it is because it's the wrong scientist, or the wrong method, or if you can find no fault with any of the above, you just refuse to consider it, and claim that is it all lies, and that anyone who oppose GMO's is advocating genocide / are idiots / have no clue / are biased / are plain wrong / etc, etc (strike as needed).

The FACT of the matter is that there are a lot of dubious sides to the GMO industry, which goes far beyond the harmful effects shown in some consumption studies. Yet you refuse to hear that, while claiming that you hold the moral high ground, which frankly sickens me.

I understood your point, but couldn't actually believe the stupidity of it, hence why I explained further.

You're scientifically illiterate, and think a paper consists of a list of "facts" with a discussion. The "wrong method" is a pretty big deal, or do you not know of statistical veracity when conducting quantitative research? Like your mice papers from that "article", where their methodology was laughably horrible. Using the "wrong" strains of mice, only 10 per sample group, the list goes on. There's a reason why anti GMO "papers" have such plain language and almost no methodological veracity, because they know who's going to read them.

Be sickened, I'd rather have people live with the minute, and undemonstrative, chance of becoming ill, than relegate them to starvation.

[Spectral]

And how do you feel about the studies paid for and widely publiced by Monsanto? Do you trust them any more? I hope not, because it is exactly the same situation, just approaching it from the other side, with a lot more money backing it.

I have implicit trust for primary research published in major journals. Everything else, I'd consider of questionable veracity, on some general spectrum ranging from lul Info Wars up through "oh, a view in Science is probably worth trusting". What you've linked here is much closer to the former than the latter.

Anyhow, by all means go, read those papers. I have more for you too, if you want them. But do not attempt to discredit peer-reviewed studies that you have not even read, or webpages, just because they represent a specific view which you may not agree with.

This is a dishonest tactic: "Here's a biased source that cites 33 papers that I haven't read. Go read them if you don't agree with the biased source that I've provided". No. Fuck that shit. If you have a paper (or even a legitimate review) that you think supports claims of Bad Things, go ahead and cite it. It's not my job to painstakingly debunk a dishonest Gish Gallop.

When you take a view that's contrary to the general consensus in the scientific community, the burden of proof emphatically does not lie on posters to spend hours of their time sorting through questionable sources.

[Zecora]

I understood your point, but couldn't actually believe the stupidity of it, hence why I explained further.

You're scientifically illiterate, and think a paper consists of a list of "facts" with a discussion. The "wrong method" is a pretty big deal, or do you not know of statistical veracity when conducting quantitative research? Like your mice papers from that "article", where their methodology was laughably horrible. Using the "wrong" strains of mice, only 10 per sample group, the list goes on. There's a reason why anti GMO "papers" have such plain language and almost no methodological veracity, because they know who's going to read them.

Be sickened, I'd rather have people live with the minute, and undemonstrative, chance of becoming ill, than relegate them to starvation.

Hyperbole, Ad hominems and a total lack of common courtesy. Your "arguments" betray you. It is pretty clear that you have no intention of considering any position other than the one you already hold.

I can't be bothered to have a discussion with someone that won't even consider what they are shown, so I shall not bother with you anymore. However, if you want to have an actual discussion on the pro's and con's of GMO's, feel free to say so, and I will be more than happy to oblige!

- - - Updated - - -

I have implicit trust for primary research published in major journals. Everything else, I'd consider of questionable veracity, on some general spectrum ranging from lul Info Wars up through "oh, a view in Science is probably worth trusting". What you've linked here is much closer to the former than the latter.

You're welcome to that view, certainly. I myself would prefer to consider the evidence independently of where it was refered from, but like they say, it is a free country (and I admit I would be somewhat distrustful of any scientific report comming from Monsanto's labs).

This is a dishonest tactic: "Here's a biased source that cites 33 papers that I haven't read. Go read them if you don't agree with the biased source that I've provided". No. Fuck that shit. If you have a paper (or even a legitimate review) that you think supports claims of Bad Things, go ahead and cite it. It's not my job to painstakingly debunk a dishonest Gish Gallop.

No, it is very honest. I never claimed the source was unbiased, but I maintain that you should not try to discredit the peer-reviewed papers merely because they are linked through that source. If you do not want to do so, that is fine, no need for the profanity. I will link one study directly so that you can start off on that instead (note of course, that as with most peer-reviewed articles you will have to register if you are not already a member. I recomend doing so, it is quite interesting). If you do not want to register, I can link you a short summary (the findings were in short, to quote the head of the study, that the salmon fed on GM feed had "Changes in the digestive system, blood, liver, kidneys, pancreas and reproductive system" and that the changes "were within the norm, but they grew larger, digested protein less efficiently, had changes in the immune system and in their blood"). Link.

When you take a view that's contrary to the general consensus in the scientific community, the burden of proof emphatically does not lie on posters to spend hours of their time sorting through questionable sources.

I have to disagree. There is nothing to show that there is any "general consensus" in the scientific community on the safety of GMO's. That is rather the fact actually, we cannot say with absolute certainty in either direction. Which is why I, and so many others, advocate that we take the route of caution. Another matter is the non-consumption related problems with the GMO industry, those have been made abundantly clear.

[MerinPally]

I don't get why people don't make the distinction between GM and Monsanto. GM is good, that doesn't necessarily make Monsanto good nor does if it's bad make GM bad. Monsanto has done some bad shit but probably not enough to render labeling it evil.

[nextormento]

to quote the head of the study, that the salmon fed on GM feed had "Changes in the digestive system, blood, liver, kidneys, pancreas and reproductive system" and that the changes "were within the norm, but they grew larger, digested protein less efficiently, had changes in the immune system and in their blood"). Link.


I have to disagree. There is nothing to show that there is any "general consensus" in the scientific community on the safety of GMO's. That is rather the fact actually, we cannot say with absolute certainty in either direction. Which is why I, and so many others, advocate that we take the route of caution. Another matter is the non-consumption related problems with the GMO industry, those have been made abundantly clear.

Given I have next to zero background on genetic engineering, I've been always more than willing to explore any side of the issue. What I've found, so far, is a clear distinction between those who advocate and those that oppose GMO: that the former have a tendency to have scientific papers in hand, while the later tend to show studies easily palatable by your average Joe. That, in my mind, sends off several alerts: yep, the tint of green of the cover in those studies (particularly this green) is more that enough, for me, to smell BS. Then reading through, I can't help but notice common routines of some other denial groups.

But even if I gave further credibility to those who oppose, I don't really understand what is their point. Or what is is they propose.
-Caution? of course: I imagine everyone is exercising caution. We are cautious about every single thing we produce. It's my understanding that research in the field is done regularly.
-Regulation?: are GMOs not held to the same (or possibly higher) standard than other foods?

Other than those two, I fail to see what those who oppose actually want. Unless of course, you fail in the category of those nut-jobs that would rather stop commercialization, or spread unfounded fear among the populace.

[Zecora]

Given I have next to zero background on genetic engineering, I've been always more than willing to explore any side of the issue. What I've found, so far, is a clear distinction between those who advocate and those that oppose GMO: that the former have a tendency to have scientific papers in hand, while the later tend to show studies easily palatable by your average Joe. That, in my mind, sends off several alerts: yep, the tint of green of the cover in those studies (particularly this green) is more that enough, for me, to smell BS. Then reading through, I can't help but notice common routines of some other denial groups.

Let me see if I get you right: You dismiss studies and sources purely on the basis that they have a "green" bias? I find that rather ridiculous. The statement "The sky is blue" is no more or less true based on whether you are told so by your parents, a multi-million dollar kitten-soul-snack company, or a tree-hugging hippie.

But even if I gave further credibility to those who oppose, I don't really understand what is their point. Or what is is they propose.
-Caution? of course: I imagine everyone is exercising caution. We are cautious about every single thing we produce. It's my understanding that research in the field is done regularly.
-Regulation?: are GMOs not held to the same (or possibly higher) standard than other foods?

Actually, no. GMO's are not held to the same standards as many other products. Worse, those who are supposed to check their safety (the FDA) employ a "revolving door" policy, wherein people move back and forth between them and Monsanto.
As for caution, there is no distinguishable measure of it, yet the GMO-proponents tries their best to crucify anyone pointing that out.

As for what those who oppose GMO want, try listening to them rather than dismissing them out of hand because you perceive them to "have a certain tint of green". In general, it is food safety, consumer choice and a responsible course of development. None of the above is being served by the current status of the GMO industry.

Other than those two, I fail to see what those who oppose actually want. Unless of course, you fail in the category of those nut-jobs that would rather stop commercialization, or spread unfounded fear among the populace.

Excuse me? Wanting to avoid the commercialization of our food production (which would put every living man, woman and child on the planet at the mercy of corporations, creating a serfdom far worse than at any other time in history) make you a nut-job? You seriously need to review your values if you really believe that.

[nextormento]

You dismiss studies and sources purely on the basis that they have a "green" bias?
As for what those who oppose GMO want, try listening to them rather than dismissing them out of hand because you perceive them to "have a certain tint of green".

Make no mistake: I didn't dismiss anything -yet-. The appeal to populace puts me off, though; that's about it.

GMO's are not held to the same standards as many other products. Worse, those who are supposed to check their safety (the FDA) employ a "revolving door" policy, wherein people move back and forth between them and Monsanto.

Could you kindly point me to more information on this? I'm rather interested.

In general, it is food safety, consumer choice and a responsible course of development. None of the above is being served by the current status of the GMO industry.

I don't know what's stopping you from buying -or growing yourself- other products. In any case, I think labeling GMOs as such could be an interesting route. I find it very ineffective, given labeling is about the contents of the products, not the manufacturing procedures. But w/e: the population is interested, so I rather have it in plain sight.

Excuse me? Wanting to avoid the commercialization of our food production (which would put every living man, woman and child on the planet at the mercy of corporations, creating a serfdom far worse than at any other time in history) make you a nut-job? You seriously need to review your values if you really believe that.

We do plenty of stuff that we don't fully understand. So far, there's little to no evidence of severely adverse consequences, so meh. I rather have people alive, not starving, albeit 'processing proteins within the norm but inefficiently', than having them dead. After all, any alteration we've made to food (and we need to make plenty of those) has changed us: it's the name of the game.

Anything short of an study directly and indubitably connecting GMOs to severe illness of any sort is fear mongering in my book.

[Zecora]

Make no mistake: I didn't dismiss anything -yet-. The appeal to populace puts me off, though; that's about it.

My mistake then.

Could you kindly point me to more information on this? I'm rather interested.

Naturally. I already linked some of it through the site you stated that you were mistrustful of, so here's a wikipedia article on one such revolving door case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor

I don't know what's stopping you from buying -or growing yourself- other products. In any case, I think labeling GMOs as such could be an interesting route. I find it very ineffective, given labeling is about the contents of the products, not the manufacturing procedures. But w/e: the population is interested, so I rather have it in plain sight.

You would have a very good point if not for two key points. The lesser of these is the absence of labelling on food with GMO ingredients (labelling GMO ingredients is something Monsanto and other GMO companies have spent millions lobbying against), thus avoiding GMO products is increasingly hard where it should be an easy and obvious choice offered to the consumer. The far greater concern is genetic contamination from GMO crops entering into related non-GMO / Organic produce, since there is no current regulation demanding that GMO's should be sterile, or grown in a controlled environment to avoid uncontrolled spread. The result of this is not only the huge potential losses by organic farmers, or even the uncertainty it brings to those that tries to avoid GMO products, but also the resultant loss of biodiversity as more and more natural strains become contaminated with GMO material.

We do plenty of stuff that we don't fully understand. So far, there's little to no evidence of severely adverse consequences, so meh. I rather have people alive, not starving, albeit 'processing proteins within the norm but inefficiently', than having them dead. After all, any alteration we've made to food (and we need to make plenty of those) has changed us: it's the name of the game.

I would like to remind you that the position you take ("So far, there's little to no evidence of severely adverse consequences, so meh") is precisely the same as tobacco fabricants and the general public was taking 50 or so years ago. Then too, all research that hinted that there might be a problem was branded as "crackpot pseudo-science", and variously ignored or fiercely attacked by the tobacco fabricants. Monsanto has learned from this, as they have lobbied for years to not only make themselves immune to prosecution, but to ensure that their crops can not be banned, no matter how bad health or other effects might be (see the "Monsanto protection act").

I would also like to point out once again that the claims that GMO crops have increased yield has been shown to be false (see "The failure to yield"). The increase in yield shown in some cases have been down to increased use of pesticies on pesticide-resistant GMO crops, a practice that harms the ecosystem and contaminates the soil, leading to further soil degradation (see this for more on how our agricultural soil might be gone or unusable in no more than 60 years).

Anything short of an study directly and indubitably connecting GMOs to severe illness of any sort is fear mongering in my book.

No, just plain no. I find it highly intellectually dishonest (and I admit it causes me to question your claim of not dismissing anything) to claim that studies that does not "directly and indubitably" connect GMO's "to severe illness" is "fearmongering". That is not how science works. And it is not how harmful substances has been proven harmful in the past. Evidence builds over time, until a clear picture stands forth, and a secure connection can be made.

[Mayhem]

We do plenty of stuff that we don't fully understand. So far, there's little to no evidence of severely adverse consequences, so meh. I rather have people alive, not starving, albeit 'processing proteins within the norm but inefficiently', than having them dead. After all, any alteration we've made to food (and we need to make plenty of those) has changed us: it's the name of the game.

yeah uhm what people exactly are you talking about here? because i think there are other things that have a bigger impact than GMOs that would be beneficial to them

[Zecora]

Hi. I am an average college student and has taken college biology. [snip]

Did perhaps that class not include the part where you should actually read studies before dismissing them out of hand? Because you (and every other GMO-proponent) have skipped every linked study that doesn't fit with your world-view of GMO's being perfectly safe.

Oh and as for GMO's being inspected...the safety tests are performed by the company that made the product (and stands to lose millions if it isn't proven safe) for as little as six weeks to two months, then rubberstamped by the FDA (which employs revolving-door policies, ensuring that the same people sit on both sides of the table), so inspected? Don't be ridiculous.

[Osmeric]

Hey! It's not like the world needs those 2 billion people that only exist because of GMO based crops.

Well, I wasn't referring to those, since that genetic modification by breeding is apparently ok for some reason. I was talking about the hundreds of thousands of children who could be saved from death or blindness each year by Golden Rice, and by the deaths from reduction in standard of living in third world countries caused by GMO bans intended to preserve export markets to Europe.

But the callous and inhumane slaughter of millions of third world children apparently is less important to the anti-GMO forces than is comforting their delicate sensibilities about hypothetical and unproven risks. Their priorities say a lot about what kind of people they are: selfish monsters, depraved and devoid of basic compassion.

[Colimin]

Actually, no. GMO's are not held to the same standards as many other products. Worse, those who are supposed to check their safety (the FDA) employ a "revolving door" policy, wherein people move back and forth between them and Monsanto.

You are correct about the "revolving door" situation between Monsanto and the FDA, in fact the FDA is largely the public representation of numerous large corporate industries (eg, bing/google "Tougher Supplement Regulation: A Necessity Or Politics?" for discussion on this) primarily serving and protecting their interests, instead of the public's.