GMOs Scary or not?

Aaron_K123 · July 2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair

That study was retracted. The author of the study was someone who was advocating actively against GM at the time the study was conducted.

To answer your question pudding YES, the did use Sprague-Dawley rats.

For those of you who don't know Sprague-Dawley rats are a breed of rat that get tumors all over their body normally due to a genetic defect. If you fed a Sprague-Dawley rat nothing but broccoli chances are it would end up with tumors all over its body.

Lilly_the_Hillbilly · July 2014

Where is the link to the study that this article is about? The assumptions in that article are horribly flawed. I see no viable link that the increase of diabetes or cancer was due to GM foods. Just because two events happen at the same time does not mean they are linked or caused by each other.

Aaron_K123 · July 2014

There is no link to the study because the study was retracted after review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair

Textbook example of fraud similar to the cold fusion debacle with Pons and Fleischmann

Meerataila · July 2014

Then why were Sprague-Dawley rats used in the short-term Monsanto funded study to begin with?

Why does anyone ever use these rats at all if they don't have similar cancer progression patterns to humans?

Aaron_K123 · July 2014

Good question for the author of the paper, probably one of the reasons the paper was retracted. Look up Sprague-Dawley rats if you don't believe me.

Here is a study of the spontaneous tumor formation in that particular breed:

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/33/11/2768.full.pdf

or another if you don't like that one:

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/194

Or you could just look at the info sheet for the company that produces SD rats:

file:///C:/Users/Aaron/Downloads/117b20f991764a5e98e32d366d83e876.pdf

or this article about the issue using that breed of rat in that study:

http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/gm-corn-tumor-study-120920.htm

Meerataila · July 2014

I read that. Yet I've read nothing suggesting these rats are no longer used in other peer reviewed studies. And again, Monsanto also used these rats in their own, shorter studies. Which is why I find the assertion that these rats are unsuitable very suspicious.

Aaron_K123 · July 2014

They are used in peer reviewed studies, lots of peer reviewed studies. They are used to study cancer because most of the time they spontaneously get cancer. That is what they are for.

If however you have a paper about toxicology and you use sprague-dawley rats and hold up pictures of them having tumors (which they get) and go "zomg tumors" then yeah, that is questionable.

Meerataila · July 2014

Don't humans also spontaneously get cancer? ('Spontaneously' perhaps deserves quotation marks, since it can also be a cancer with a cause unknown to researchers and medical professionals.)

Aaron_K123 · July 2014

Yes. But not at a rate of 50%. 1:2 Sprague-Dawley rats get tumors all over there body which is the rate that that study reported. So basically they reported the background level that that breed has anyways. Notice that all of their groups got tumors. They didn't have a tumorless group.

This was pointed out, the paper was retracted...that was that.

Meerataila · July 2014

Then these rats should never be and should never have been used in cancer research, including by Monsanto. As I said, the objection to the breed of rat is suspicious due to Monsanto's own use of these rats, as well as use by other cancer researchers. I'm sure you can see how that smells funny.

QueenBishOTUniverse · July 2014

Ok, so I figured out what it is that really bugs me about the "just label it, we have a right to know, let the people decide" rhetoric being used on this topic. It's the exact same damn emotional belief over fact based evidence rhetoric used by the "teach the controversy crowd" to try and force their beliefs in to print in order to sway a public body that doesn't actually HAVE the science education necessary to make a truly informed decision. And just as with the teach the controversy issue, the burden of proof lies on those trying to force their feelings and beliefs in to print through legislation, NOT the other way around.

Aaron_K123 · July 2014

What are you going on about. Of COURSE they should be used in cancer research. Hard to research cancer if only 1 in 10,000 of your test subjects get cancer. Much easier if 1 in 2 do. That was what they were bred for that is why they are used.

But go ahead and have a strong opinion about how cancer research is doing it wrong.

Also not sure why you are talking about Monsanto...Monstanto had nothing to do with conducting that study.

Meerataila · July 2014

So my demand to have a label that tells me something about my own food that I will put into my own body is suddenly forcing something on someone else?

No.

I'm an intellectual, all day, every day. And I don't have too high an opinion of human intelligence in general. Nevertheless, I abhor the mindset of those who wish to treat the majority of the population like they're children, unable to have the information and make their own decisions.

Aaron_K123 · July 2014

Your not a child you are just not very informed about cancer biology (clearly) and yet still feel the need to voice strong opinons about how cancer researchers should conduct their research.

That makes you annoying.

Meerataila · July 2014

Monsanto used the same rats in their own studies from what I've read. Which is why I bring them up.

When and if cancer is ever linked definitively to any GMO foods, you're going to see a public backlash against this technology that makes the anti-abortion stem-cell furor look like a playground squabble. I think you and I both want the same thing: GMO foods that are edible, safe, and beneficial to our species and our planet. But I think you fail to understand the consequences of a screw up by companies that have bought and paid for politicians that have in turn granted them immunity in our court system.

Meerataila · July 2014

I respected you until you decided to resort to personal attacks. Your education clearly didn't include logic and debate. Mine did.

Edit: And despite all my education, I still let you aggravate and derail me!

Make up your mind: Are the rats good in cancer research or not? And if so, why were they not suitable for this particular cancer research involving GMOs?

QueenBishOTUniverse · July 2014

It's the EXACT same rhetoric. You have no proof, no sources no nothing to suggest why you get to force through legislation that makes company's print a label that is going to do nothing more than scare uninformed consumers away from perfectly harmless products, because you BELIEVE despite all evidence to the contrary that big scary Monsanto or whoever your boogie man is, is going to poison you with a technology that you don't fully understand. The burden of proof is on YOU, what good comes from forcing the printing of labels on every single product besides making you *feel* better. What is the benefit besides letting you feel better because now you can avoid the scary GMOs?

Meerataila · July 2014

So let me get this straight: We're all ignorant consumers, so we should be kept ignorant about our food because we're too ignorant?

QueenBishOTUniverse · July 2014

I don't know, do you need the label on the hairdryer that tells you not to take it in to the bathtub with you? I can see the possible benefit of that one, so what's the benefit of the contains GMO label? Burden of proof, why do we need the label? What important and vital information is being provided for the consumer and why is it important? You want the label, you explain why it's necessary.

Meerataila · July 2014

Also, instead of simply dismissing the study and forcing the researcher in question to withdraw it (which is what happened, he did not do so voluntarily and there is a Forbes article where he is quoted as threatening to sue the journal), why aren't there several independent laboratories doing their best to duplicate his study or, in failing to do so, prove it flawed?

It wouldn't take very long, the rats only live a couple of years.

If there have been any peer reviewed studies that do disprove Seralini's, I'd love to see them.

GMOs Scary or not?

Replies

Categories