patrick.net

Um, you DO know this study was thoroughly discredited last year don't you?

On October 19, 2012, six French national academies of science issued a joint statement - "an extremely rare event in French science"[47] - condemning the study and the journal that published it.[48] "In withering terms, it dismissed the study as 'a scientific non-event'"[47]

The European Federation of Biotechnology, which counts Monsanto and other GM firms among its members,[49] called for the paper to be retracted, calling its publication a "dangerous failure of the peer-review system."[50]

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

More info:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/25/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-genetic-engineering-study/

http://www.nature.com/news/hyped-gm-maize-study-faces-growing-scrutiny-1.11566

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm

Apparently the J K L in the upper left corner of each photo denotes Just Kidding Loser!

Them there are some fat rats.

New Renter says

Um, you DO know this study was thoroughly discredited last year don't you?

I did not know that. Good catch.

That's the great thing about science. If someone comes up with results that cannot be replicated, those results are rejected.

From the Forbe's article,

the investigators used a strain of rats that were bred to develop tumors as they aged (a detail they failed to disclose)

That's a pretty big mistake!

Dan8267 says

I was skeptical of the health hysteria surrounding GMOs, but one must either refute or accept a scientific, peer-review study regardless of whether or not its conclusions are what you believed true.

Refuted. I'm going back to being skeptical of the health hysteria.

I also posted a comment on the OP's website stating that the study was discredited. They should really remove it from their website.

Dan8267 says

Refuted. I'm going back to being skeptical of the health hysteria.

Here's another one for you

http://www.businessinsider.com/gm-pig-study-is-deeply-flawed-2013-6

There was also a scuffle regarding a study which was misinterpreted as showing GMO soybean yields as being lower than that of non-GMO soybeans:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html

The author of the quoted study published a rebuttal in essence accusing the author of the above of inappropriately exploiting his work:

http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/FILELIB.NSF/0/3FCACF5C93CFA9A18525743A006C7630/$file/Gordon_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Dan8267 says

I also posted a comment on the OP's website stating that the study was discredited. They should really remove it from their website.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story

Any study that shows any kind of deleterious effects of food with GMO ingredients will find 100 detractors. That's why we need labeling of produce that contains ingredients from GMO plants (or animals) so everybody can decide for herself.
Benzoic acid is a food preservative and harmless when consumed by humans. Nevertheless it is listed on the 'ingredients' list of any food product that contains it. Same should go for ingredients derived from GMO plants and animals. I want to know what I eat. The only reason GMO labeling is resisted is the fear the bottom line might be impacted. If it's harmless why not consent to labeling and let the consumer decide.

eastcoast guy says

Any study that shows any kind of deleterious effects of food with GMO ingredients will find 100 detractors.

That's because such studies are nothing but bullshit designed to scare people into funding more bad "science".

eastcoast guy says

That's why we need labeling of produce that contains ingredients from GMO plants (or animals) so everybody can decide for herself.

Would you like the ingredient list to mention the food product contains radioactive carbon-14, potassium-40, thorium-223, uranium-238, polonium-218, and tritium(hydrogen-3) as well?

eastcoast guy says

If it's harmless why not consent to labeling and let the consumer decide.

Because your average consumer doesn't know the difference in the health impact between benzoic acid and hydrofluoric acid

eastcoast guy says

I want to know what I eat.

Exactly...so that when the "oh dear..." memo comes out, you can adjust accordingly.

New Renter says

The author of the quoted study published a rebuttal in essence accusing the author of the above of inappropriately exploiting his work:

Let's be honest, anyone that quotes scientific studies are exploiting someone else work.

CaptainShuddup says

New Renter says

The author of the quoted study published a rebuttal in essence accusing the author of the above of inappropriately exploiting his work:

Let's be honest, anyone that quotes scientific studies are exploiting someone else work.

WTF are you talking about?

What do you mean WFT do I mean?
I mean exactly what I said. We're all guilty of finding an article about a study that aligns with a belief or sides with our arguments.
99.98% of those articles don't even include any details of the study what so ever. The author of that article is even more guilty reporting on a study with out even as much delving into the details of those studies.

"Hey study says Sex makes you smarter... whada you say Einstein bend over!"

New Renter says

eastcoast guy says

Any study that shows any kind of deleterious effects of food with GMO ingredients will find 100 detractors.

That's because such studies are nothing but bullshit designed to scare people into funding more bad "science".

I'm going to have to side with New Renter on this one. From the Business Insider article he cited,

Though the authors claim no conflicts of interest, the funding for the study itself was provided by Verity Farms, owned by one of the study's authors, which sells non-GMO grains. They also got funding from the Australian non-profit, Institute of Health and Environmental Research, which seems dedicated to anti-GMO activism.

eastcoast guy says

Any study that shows any kind of deleterious effects of food with GMO ingredients will find 100 detractors. That's why we need labeling of produce that contains ingredients from GMO plants (or animals) so everybody can decide for herself.

I'm all for labeling GMO foods as full disclosure, but that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about whether or not GMO foods are harmful to health. If that question is not answered definitively, then "non-GMO" is just a marketing label.

People absolutely should not be deciding for themselves whether or not GMO foods are unhealthy any more then they should be deciding for themselves whether or not smoking or eating a pound of bacon every day for breakfast is healthy or not. The truth is not a democracy. Whether or not GMO foods are dangerous is not a matter of opinion. It is a factual statement that is either right or wrong and acceptance of either conclusion should be based on real, peer-reviewed, and reproducible results.

Before I read the study in the original post, I had no reason to believe in the health danger claims made against GMOs. After I read the study -- not knowing that it had been discredited -- I changed my mind on the basis that new evidence, going through peer review, has been established to support the claims. Hell, if the rats were normal rats, as opposed to ones who were bred to form tumors, that evidence would have been overwhelming.

However, once New Renter pointed out that peer review actually discredited that study and pointed out the specific flaws, such as using rats bred to form tumors in old age, I immediately accepted that the study did not pass mustard and adjusted my world view accordingly.

The moral of the story is that your allegiance should be to the rational process of the scientific method, not to any specific conclusion. Every person should be willing to completely abandon whatever they believed in when solid evidence contradicting that belief is presented. Sure, be skeptical about everything, but never take the position that you will never accept a conclusion simply because you don't want to accept it.

The debate over the health effects of GMO is a scientific question, not a religious one. There is a definitive, correct answer that does not vary from individual to individual.

CaptainShuddup says

We're all guilty of finding an article about a study that aligns with a belief or sides with our arguments.

In my case, I found an article that contradicted my belief, changed my belief and posted the article, only to find out the study was flawed, and changed my belief again.

CaptainShuddup says

hat do you mean WFT do I mean?

I mean exactly what I said. We're all guilty of finding an article about a study that aligns with a belief or sides with our arguments.

99.98% of those articles don't even include any details of the study what so ever. The author of that article is even more guilty reporting on a study with out even as much delving into the details of those studies.

"Hey study says Sex makes you smarter... whada you say Einstein bend over!"

But that is NOT what happened here. In this situation a person with an agenda misconstrued the findings of a study.

Its one thing to present evidence which supports your argument. Its another thing entirely to present evidence which does not but falsely claim it does.

Dan8267 says

CaptainShuddup says

We're all guilty of finding an article about a study that aligns with a belief or sides with our arguments.

In my case, I found an article that contradicted my belief, changed my belief and posted the article, only to find out the study was flawed, and changed my belief again.

Keep in mind rodents are not that great a model for humans. If cancer behaved exactly the same way in rodents as it does in humans we'd have cured it decades ago.

Dan8267 says

In my case, I found an article that contradicted my belief, changed my belief and posted the article, only to find out the study was flawed, and changed my belief again.

You both exploited two studies, and were exploited by others who posted the two articles.