patrick.net

It doesn't take long to learn that the journal is controversial.

http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/05/16/more-controversy-over-open-access-publisher-mdpi/

Of course that doesn't necessarily mean the published article is bunk. If you approach the article (and the claims/conclusions) with appropriate skepticism you should be looking for some support from the scientific community in the form of confirmation (new experimental results that support the conclusions) or at least general acceptance. It will take time to sort out the truth from fiction -- maybe the EPA can be faulted for bad timing, but not for ignoring scientific evidence.

Just reading the statement "it may in fact be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment" makes me skeptical. Too sensationalistic and it just doesn't pass the straight face test for me.

swebb says

It doesn't take long to learn that the journal is controversial.

http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/05/16/more-controversy-over-open-access-publisher-mdpi/

Of course that doesn't necessarily mean the published article is bunk. If you approach the article (and the claims/conclusions) with appropriate skepticism you should be looking for some support from the scientific community in the form of confirmation (new experimental results that support the conclusions) or at least general acceptance. It will take time to sort out the truth from fiction -- maybe the EPA can be faulted for bad timing, but not for ignoring scientific evidence.

Just reading the statement "it may in fact be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment" makes me skeptical. Too sensationalistic and it just doesn't pass the straight face test for me.

I guess these guys have never heard of dioxins. Or MTBE. Or phthalates. Or ....

New Renter says

I guess these guys have never heard of dioxins. Or MTBE. Or phthalates. Or ....

Do you ever stop trolling for the chemical industry?

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/05/scientists-join-journal-editors-to-fight-impact-factor-abuse.html

If enough eminent people stand together to condemn a controversial practice, will that make it stop?

That’s what more than 150 scientists and 75 science organizations are hoping for today, with a joint statement called the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). It deplores the way some metrics — especially the notorious Journal Impact Factor (JIF) — are misused as quick and dirty assessments of scientists’ performance and the quality of their research papers.

“There is a pressing need to improve the ways in which the output of scientific research is evaluated,” DORA says.

Scientists routinely rant that funding agencies and institutions judge them by the impact factor of the journal they publish in — rather than by the work they actually do. The metric was introduced in 1963 to help libraries judge which journals to buy (it measures the number of citations the average paper in a journal has received over the past two years). But it bears little relation to the citations any one article is likely to receive, because only a few articles in a journal receive most of the citations. Focus on the JIF has changed scientists’ incentives, leading them to be rewarded for getting into high-impact publications rather than for doing good science.

“We, the scientific community, are to blame — we created this mess, this perception that if you don’t publish in Cell, Nature or Science, you won’t get a job,” says Stefano Bertuzzi, executive director of the American Society for Cell Biology (ACSB), who coordinated DORA after talks at the ACSB’s annual meeting last year. “The time is right for the scientific community to take control of this issue,” he says. Science and eLife also ran editorials on the subject today.

It has all been said before, of course. Research assessment “rests too heavily on the inflated status of the impact factor”, a Nature editorial noted in 2005; or as structural biologist Stephen Curry of Imperial College London put it in a recent blog post: “I am sick of impact factors and so is science”.

Even the company that creates the impact factor, Thomson Reuters, has issued advice that it does not measure the quality of an individual article in a journal, but rather correlates to the journal’s reputation in its field. (In response to DORA, Thomson Reuters notes that it’s the abuse of the JIF that is the problem, not the metric itself.)

But Bertuzzi says: “The goal is to show that the community is tired of this. Hopefully this will be a cultural change.” It’s notable that those signing DORA are almost all from US or European institutions, even though the ACSB has a website where anyone can sign the declaration.

(Nature Publishing Group, which publishes this blog, has not signed DORA: Nature’s editor-in-chief, Philip Campbell, said that the group’s journals had published many editorials critical of excesses in the use of JIFs, “but the draft statement contained many specific elements, some of which were too sweeping for me or my colleagues to sign up to”.)

DORA makes 18 recommendations to funders, institutions, researchers, publishers and suppliers of metrics. Broadly, these involve phasing out journal-level metrics in favour of article-level ones, being transparent and straightforward about metric assessments and judging by scientific content rather than publication metrics where possible.

The report does include a few contentious ideas: one, for example, suggests that organizations that supply metrics should “provide the data under a licence that allows unrestricted reuse, and provide computational access to the data”.

Thomson Reuters sells its Journal of Citation Reports (JCR) as a paid subscription and doesn’t allow unrestricted reuse of data, although the company notes in response that many individual researchers use the data with the firm’s permission to analyse JCR metrics. “It would be optimal to have a system which the scientific community can use,” says Bertuzzi cautiously when asked about this.

And Bertuzzi acknowledges that journals have different levels of prestige, meaning an element of stereotypical judgement based on where you publish would arise even if the JIF were not misused. But scientists should be able to consider which journal suits the community they want to reach, rather than thinking “let’s start from the top [impact-factor] journal and work our way down,” he says. “The best of all possible outcomes would be a cultural change where papers are evaluated for their own scientific merit.”

The NAR of science ;)

Had some Orville Redenbackers PCorn recently. Felt woozy and had slight vision issues. Then I ready that PCorn has high residual Roundup, by virtue of the fact that the seeds are designed to tolerate Round Up.

The questions is, this by definination means we are ingesting more Roundup byproducts. Now the question is when the body burden goes up, which by design it goes up, but how much and how long?

I am the most Republican/Libertarian dude on this group - but as a good pragmo-conservative - show me the data!!!!

puhim says

New Renter says

I guess these guys have never heard of dioxins. Or MTBE. Or phthalates. Or ....

Do you ever stop trolling for the chemical industry?

Do you EVER take your head out of your ass? How do you even breathe in there?

Entitlemented says

I am the most Republican/Libertarian dude on this group - but as a good pragmo-conservative - show me the data!!!

It's a myth a legend a hoax, don't worry about it. Keep eating and drinking without a care in the world. Nothing to see here.

In fact I think you should only eat processed foods.

You should definitely go and live on McDonalds, don't worry about the liver and kidney failure, you won't feel a thing, and don't worry you won't live long enough to get cancer.

New Renter says

Do you EVER take your head out of your ass? How do you even breathe in there?

Truth hurts, but not for too long, keep trolling for the chemical industry and don't worry we will all be dead soon from their poison.

I say just feed us the pure glyphosate and get it over and done with.

Make it a condiment! Why not.

puhim says

EPA about to raise allowable concentrations of glyphosate (Roundup) on food crops – Tell them how you feel

July 1st Deadline!

July 1st Deadline.

Say something or demand a condiment be made of this poison.

Convenient, patented, profitable, and hard to see. So what if it may ruin someones health and shorten their life. Is that such a bad thing?

puhim says

New Renter says

Do you EVER take your head out of your ass? How do you even breathe in there?

Truth hurts, but not for too long, keep trolling for the chemical industry and don't worry we will all be dead soon from their poison.

I say just feed us the pure glyphosate and get it over and done with.

Make it a condiment! Why not.

You still haven't answered the question! How DO you breathe in there? How do you cope with the stench?

New Renter says

You still haven't answered the question! How DO you breathe in there? How do you cope with the stench?

Glyphosate and Fluoride , that's how chemical boy troll.

Did you get your dime today? It's so obvious your becoming a joke Renter. You only argue with people who post anything remotely negative against your precious chemical industry.
Take a look at your very own posts. I see the passion.

But don't worry you won't have to do it for too much longer. You, your family and "ALL" the rest of us will be long dead after consuming all this poison. Debate, let's not even bother, just start burying yourself now New Renter.

EPA about to raise allowable concentrations of glyphosate (Roundup) on food crops – Tell them how you feel

July 1st Deadline!

http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=10886

But if you want to die from this poison like New Renter, do nothing. In fact make some soup from it, or take it intravenously.

EVERY "study" mentioned on this forum has been shown to be complete nonsense. For example, the study that claimed GMO caused tumors in rats, where they neglected to mention that the rats were BRED to grow tumors.

Yet you assholes keep at it. Day after day. You don't have a scientific leg to stand on here, but you won't shut the fuck up about GMOs and glyphosate, no matter how many times we prove you wrong.

When are you going to learn that just because some moron made a fancy graphic with checkmarks showing all the "dangers", doesn't mean it's true. Think about this, using your BRAIN, for one second. Why would the EPA raise the allowable limit? Because the stuff isn't dangerous, that's why. People have done studies that had people DRINK the stuff, and it didn't hurt them. What's all the hysteria for? There is no reliable evidence whatsoever that glyphosate, or any GMO product currently being sold, in the amounts that humans are exposed to them, is harmful to humans in any way. The anti-GMO nuts have no qualms about mentioning the same already discredited, fringe "studies" over and over, and ignoring the body of evidence showing this stuff is perfectly safe.

puhim says

EPA about to raise allowable concentrations of glyphosate (Roundup) on food crops – Tell them how you feel

July 1st Deadline!

http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=10886

But if you want to die from this poison like New Renter, do nothing. In fact make some soup from it, or take it intravenously.

And good evening to you as well KarlRoveIsScum. It seems your vacation away from PatNet has done little for your hysteria.

It's like the whole GMO thing, you may not like it, but you really have no choice. Given our bloated population figures, exactly how does on plan to feed everyone without using pesticides and GMO crops? You'll notice that an alternative to mass starvation is never provided.

Reminds me of those people who don't want any drilling for oil, but they drive their car just the same.

donjumpsuit says

B)GMO corn, which is basically just a tiny amount of DNA and protein

Both of which will be cooked during the popping of the corn which should render them inert.

Fake butter is more plausible, that stuff is nasty!

Take a look at ear of corn sometime. It's covered by a thick husk which serves to protect the kernels from the outside world. It's so good at its job the corn needs the silk to pick up pollen and transport it inside.

Now if you have some evidence glyphosphate can enter corn kernels via the silk that would be a different story. Even then it would have to be physiologically active after the corn popped.

Of course this could all be a coincidence and your physical symptoms totally unrelated to the popcorn as well.

zzyzzx says

It's like the whole GMO thing, you may not like it, but you really have no choice. Given our bloated population figures, exactly how does on plan to feed everyone without using pesticides and GMO crops? You'll notice that an alternative to mass starvation is never provided.

Reminds me of those people who don't want any drilling for oil, but they drive their car just the same.

This is a good point, although as of now food is there in abundance, it's simply a distribution problem - also they improved yield has been debated very much since the claim was made, it's inconclusive. Monocultures in general are very susceptible to parasites, and the yield of moncultures vs polycultures is also highly debated. Definitely not a clear-cut answer here, but we could benefit from eating less in general - or riding our bikes more often ;)

donjumpsuit says

mell says

Monocultures in general are very susceptible to parasites, and the yield of moncultures vs polycultures is also highly debated. Definitely not a clear-cut answer here, but we could benefit from eating less in general - or riding our bikes more often ;)

I'll be the first to sign up for Utopia, be it the parameters are clearly defined, and everybody has a say.

Sounds like Holland.

Option #1, at least as far as GMO's are concerned.

Want a precident for an irrational, international hysterical overreaction to a relatively benign threat? Here you are:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_same-sex_marriage

Is it more likely that 55 countries are over-reacting?

First of all, there is no indication whatsoever given as to where this number "55" comes from. Looking at lists on the web, I count about 20 countries that have any sort of restrictions on GMOs, and those aren't necessarily bans on all GMOs, either.

And even if we say, for the sake of argument (although it doesn't appear to be true), that 55 countries have banned GMOs, there are some 196 countries in the world. So obviously there are far, far more countries that don't feel GMOs need to be banned.

But until I see a source for this "55" number, I'm assuming it's 20. So...

Which is more likely?

That 176 countries are so evil that they knowingly poison their citizens, for no reason other than to assist the most evil corporation on earth...

Or this is some knee-jerk reactionary bullshit?

IHomeboy says

Or this is some knee-jerk reactionary bullshit?

Or just trade protectionism

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/opinion/27iht-edkogan_ed3_.html?_r=0

New Renter says

Or just trade protectionism

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/opinion/27iht-edkogan_ed3_.html?_r=0

Wow! Nice find. Had no idea that was going on, but it explains a lot.

Of course, the anti-GMO nuts probably won't even read the piece, since it's not printed up in a jpeg with cute fuzzy animals, bright colors, and an evil-looking font.

Homeboy says

New Renter says

Or just trade protectionism

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/27/opinion/27iht-edkogan_ed3_.html?_r=0

Wow! Nice find. Had no idea that was going on, but it explains a lot.

Of course, the anti-GMO nuts probably won't even read the piece, since it's not printed up in a jpeg with cute fuzzy animals, bright colors, and an evil-looking font.

Too many big words.

The FDA and GMOs.

Views on GE foods
While FDA regulates foods and ingredients, including foods made from GE plants, the agency neither supports GE plants based on their perceived benefits nor opposes them based on their perceived risks. FDA's priority is to ensure that all foods, including those derived from GE plants, are safe and otherwise in compliance with the FD&C Act and applicable regulations.

However, FDA recognizes that there are diverse views among food manufacturers, the agricultural industry and the public.

http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm352067.htm

puhim says

But it's the World Bank (LOLZ!) and Monsanto on their quest to feed the poor! Better preemptively invade these 55 countries for not allowing the seeds of freedom. Just open you eyes and get on board already.. Priceless! ;)

Talking about wasting taxpayer money, if you're really concerned about that then you should demand the FDA stop wasting FED salaries on busting raw dairy farmers and requiring labeling on raw milk, as it is safe > 99.99% of the time. At the minimum, let's use the numbered labeling system we discussed and let us have equally free access to raw milk than we have to GMOs :)

Where's the science based backing for defending the usfedgov in this wasteful attack against the health of the populace

The same government that insisted for decades, that a healthy diet consists of over two dozen daily servings of "food groups", with half of that being cereals, bread and grains, rice and pasta, is now supposed to be THE source for what is and what isn't healthy? That's your "science" LOL

------------

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/sep08/feeling.htm

100M+$ mistake by the worthless FDA

--------------

mell says

Talking about wasting taxpayer money, if you're really concerned about that then you should demand the FDA stop wasting FED salaries on busting raw dairy farmers and requiring labeling on raw milk, as it is safe > 99.99% of the time. At the minimum, let's use the numbered labeling system we discussed and let us have equally free access to raw milk then we have to GMOs :)

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/06/latest-raw-milk-outbreak-blamed-on-minnesota-dairy-farm/#.Ucx1kTDn93A

http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-index.htm

You go ahead, I'll stick with pasteurized.

errc says

Where's the science based backing for defending the usfedgov in this wasteful attack against the health of the populace

They don't use the food pyramid anymore. Try to keep up.

Since a lot of evidence has come to light that processed grains are not healthy, the USDA now recommends consuming whole grains, and no longer recommends larger amounts than the other food groups. Isn't that pretty much the very definition of science? When the evidence contradicts your hypothesis, you change the hypothesis. The problem with the "alternative" crowd is that they don't use science AT ALL. They just accept the word of a few nutballs as dogma.

puhim says

The FDA and GMOs.

Outright lie. All GMO foods have been tested. You guys have absolutely no standards as to the sources of your "information".

mell says

Talking about wasting taxpayer money, if you're really concerned about that then you should demand the FDA stop wasting FED salaries on busting raw dairy farmers and requiring labeling on raw milk, as it is safe > 99.99% of the time. At the minimum, let's use the numbered labeling system we discussed and let us have equally free access to raw milk then we have to GMOs :)

Wait. So you think the government should NOT regulate raw milk, which has caused demonstrable cases of illness, but they SHOULD regulate GMOs, which have never caused even a single illness, ever.

Yeah, that makes sense...

Homeboy says

mell says

Talking about wasting taxpayer money, if you're really concerned about that then you should demand the FDA stop wasting FED salaries on busting raw dairy farmers and requiring labeling on raw milk, as it is safe > 99.99% of the time. At the minimum, let's use the numbered labeling system we discussed and let us have equally free access to raw milk then we have to GMOs :)

Wait. So you think the government should NOT regulate raw milk, which has caused demonstrable cases of illness, but they SHOULD regulate GMOs, which have never caused even a single illness, ever.

Yeah, that makes sense...

They should label both, so people can have a choice. I don't object to the warning on raw milk that says that raw dairy can cause food-borne illness since it is a possibility, albeit very small. The health benefits of raw milk though outweighs that risk for many who make that conscious choice. Keep in mind that many countries (incl. the US in earlier years) have been allowing the sale of raw dairy without ever having significant occurrences of food-borne illness, not moving the needle to anywhere close to statistically significant, like the pro-GMO studies claim to. I have my preferences but I'd be ok with labeling for both (the vast majority of food-borne illness comes from vegetables btw.).

mell says

They should label both,

Then why did you say it was a "waste of fed salaries" to label raw milk? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

mell says

(the vast majority of food-borne illness comes from vegetables btw.).

Right, and that has nothing to do with GMO. So why are you demanding that we put labels to warn of something that has caused ZERO illnesses, when there are other things that cause illness all the time, and don't require any special labeling?

Homeboy says

mell says

They should label both,

Then why did you say it was a "waste of fed salaries" to label raw milk? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

That wasn't regarding the labeling, that has been on forever. They have been clamping down in recent years and made it much harder to distribute raw dairy apart from the labeling and busted raw milk farmers on the basis of new regulations with grey areas. Litigation is going on still today, but it is very hard to figure out what rules apply for interstate vs intrastate sale and sale to the public vs sale to farms vs sale within co-ops. I'd' call that taxpayer money waste, let alone that not a single case of the busts confirmed any contamination.

Homeboy says

Right, and that has nothing to do with GMO. So why are you demanding that we put labels to warn of something that has caused ZERO illnesses, when there are other things that cause illness all the time, and don't require any special labeling?

It hasn't caused ZERO illnesses, all you can talk about are risk probabilities at this point. Labeling is necessary, warning label or not I don't care. To the argument that there is a non-GMO choice with Organic or explicit non-GMO labels I'd say there is also a label for non-raw-dairy which reads "pasteurized".