10 Shocking Facts About Genetically Modified Food

Pages

10 Shocking Facts About Genetically Modified Food

By palmerskiss

Food • April 2014 • Views: 1,152

YouTube

More: 10 Shocking Facts About Genetically Modified Food

-7

Genetically Modified Food Shocking Facts

Recent Pages by bostonhousekitten (palmerskiss):
The People's View: Livestreaming The Baltimore Protests 'Baltimore Spectator' Dr. James MacArthur Speaks Of Strife And Turmoil On British Television Jonah Goldberg's Dog Is A Manchurian Liberal Plant If Only Erick Erickson Actually Knew How to Talk About Race, Without Being a Racist Baltimore Police Assault Several Journalists During Freddie Gray Protests

Jump to bottom

6 comments

Randall Gross Apr 27, 2014 9:16:02am

Much of what you see cited in this video is craptastic pseudoscientific bunk, the most noteworthy is the mouse cancer bullshit:

scientificamerican.com

Randall Gross Apr 27, 2014 9:39:52am

More from SBM
scienceblogs.com

Randall Gross Apr 27, 2014 9:44:34am

more here foodsafetynews.com

There might very well be serious issues with Monsanto’s roundup ready corn, but doing a shoddy study isn’t the best way to find them.

The strain of rat used in the two-year study is prone to developing tumors during their life expectancy of approximately two years. This means the observed frequency of tumors is influenced by the natural incidence of tumors typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors.
• The authors split the rats into 10 treatment sets but established only one control group. This meant there was no appropriate control for four sets — some 40 percent of the animals — all of whom were fed GM maize treated or not treated with a herbicide containing glyphosate.
• The paper has not complied with internationally recognized standard methods — known as protocols — for setting up and carrying out experiments. Many of these procedures were developed by the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).
• For a study of this type, the relevant OECD guideline specifies the need for a minimum of 50 rats per treatment group. Séralini et al used only 10 rodents per treatment set. The low number of animals used is insufficient to distinguish between the incidence of tumors due to chance rather than specific treatment effects.
• The authors have not stated any objectives, which are the questions a study is designed to answer. Research objectives define crucial factors such as the study design, correct sample size, and the statistical methods used to analyze data — all of which have a direct impact on the reliability of findings.
• No information is given about the composition of the food given to the rats, how it was stored or details of harmful substances — such as mycotoxins — that it might have contained.
• It is not possible to properly evaluate the exposure of the rats to the herbicide, as intake is not clearly reported. The authors report only the application rate of the herbicide used to spray the plants and the concentration added to the rats’ drinking water but report no details about the volume of the feed or water consumed.
• The paper does not employ a commonly used statistical analysis method nor does it state if the method was specified prior to starting the study. The validity of the method used is queried and there are questions over the reporting of tumor incidence. Important data, such as a summary of dropouts and an estimation of unbiased treatment effects have not been included in the paper.
• Many endpoints — what is measured in the study — have not been reported in the paper. This includes relevant information on lesions, other than tumors, that were observed. EFSA has called on the authors to report all endpoints in the name of openness and transparency.