In a recent interview on Food Sleuth Radio, Dr. Hansen exposes Monsanto’s latest contrivance – that Bt toxic corn is ‘safe’ to eat. Dr. Hansen provides ‘clean’ science through Consumer Reports that has no private backing, and certainly none by the GM industry.
Hansen states that biotechnology allows you to move genetic traits from any possible source – viruses, bacteria, animals, humans, etc. and put them into plants. This is what allowed scientists to make Bt corn and other Bt crops, and then patent them.
Bt crops are created by inserting a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringienesis into a plant, thereby creating a pesticide that lives within the plant from roots to stems. The plant itself, in fact, becomes a pesticide, and when insect pests eat them, their guts are altered, and the insect dies.
The first Bt corn variety made by Monsanto, MON 810 (which was submitted to the FDA with research only done by Monsanto itself), is promoted by the company as being safe; however, the FDA has never declared that BT crops were safe, and in fact, no solid safety testing has been done on Bt toxins.
Conversely, eating Bt toxins can “turn your gut into a living pesticide.” The FDA, like other agencies, has turned a blind eye to Monsanto’s shenanigans, but never made a statement that GM crops were safe, only that based on studies supplied by the industry, they seem to be equivalent to their non-GM counterparts.
Hansen explains that Cry proteins (the Bt toxins inserted into GM corn, sugar beets, etc.) are likely allergenic. A Dutch study conservatively states that they “found sequence homology between inserted proteins in GE products that are on the market and known human allergens,” but Hansen thinks this is shying away from the truth.
How Cry-Proteins in GMOs are Human Allergens, and Health-Damaging
To counteract this study (and other industry studies which show no correlation to Bt toxins and allergies at all) and to show that there is suggestive evidence that the Cry proteins (but especially Cry1Ab/Cry1Ac) associated with the Bt crops may be human allergens and may have adverse effects on the human gut, Hansen argues:
“In 1999, an EPA-funded study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives and titled “Immune responses in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides,” pointed out that “In 1992 the use of Bt in an Asian gypsy moth control program was associated with classical allergic rhinitis symptoms, exacerbations of asthma, and skin reactions among exposed individuals reporting possible health effects after the spraying operation (7).
Unfortunately, there was no follow-up to determine whether these events were Bt-induced hypersensitivity or toxic reaction or merely due to common aeroallergens coincidental to the season during which the spraying occurred (8). Similar findings occurred during another Bt spraying in the spring of 1994 (8)” (Bernstein et al., 1999: pg. 575). Since there was no follow-up, how can one say that Cry proteins weren’t the source of the allergic reactions? This clearly looks like an example of “don’t look, don’t find.”
The Institute for Responsible Technology explains that pesticide-producing crops (Bt) contaminate nearby streams, possibly affecting aquatic life. The bt toxin produced by these GM crops are far stronger than any found in nature, and are produced throughout the plant.
They may also harm beneficial insects, which is completely the opposite of what Monsanto claims. It has been found that previously-insignificant insects which are not targeted by the GM varieties develop into pests. Then pesticide spraying resumes, on top of the potential build-up of the extra strong Bt toxin in the soil. This has occurred in China, India, and the US.
Even farm workers that have been exposed to Bt pesticide-sprays exhibit skin sensitization and presence of IgE and IgG antibodies with those responses being more numerous in those workers with higher levels of exposure. Both skin sensitization and IgE antibodies are components of an allergic response.
Hansen also points out that an additional series of 5 studies published in the last 7 years and carried out by a team of scientists from two Mexican universities (Universidad Autonoma de Mexico and Cinvestav-IPN) and from Cuba have suggested that the Cry1Ac protein (found in Bt cotton) in both the full-length form (protoxin) and the truncated form (soluble form)-have immunogenic and allergenic properties.
Finally, a recent 91-day study published in the Journal of American Science explained that Bt corn is toxic to rats. According to researchers at Suez Canal University in Egypt, GM corn diet resulted in increased or decreased organs or body weight in lab rats. They also found that the GE corn-fed rats endured changes in blood biochemistry that indicated possible toxicity.
Yep – Bt Toxins are Toxic
Bt toxins, in summary, might very well be the reason we are seeing more food allergies than ever before – more gut disorders, more immunity problems, and other health issues as well. Cry proteins are not safe. The evidence is apparent, so why does Monsanto’s website say:
“Regulatory authorities and other third parties have conducted extensive analysis demonstrating that MON810 [a Bt variety of corn] is safe to humans, animals, non-target organisms and beneficial insects.”
Further studies that support Dr. Michael Hansen’s assertions:
Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, Monastra G, Ambra R, Turrini A, Mengheri E. (2008) Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric Food Chem. Dec 10;56(23):11533-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19007233
Bernstein IL, Bernstein, J.A., Miller,M., Tierzieva, S., Bernstein, D.I.,Lummus, Z.Selgrade, M.K., Doerfler, D.L., and Seligy,V.L. (1999) Immune responses in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides. Environmental Health Perspectives. July; 107(7):575582. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1566654/
“Bt crops are created by inserting a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringienesis into a plant, thereby creating a pesticide that lives within the plant from roots to stems. The plant itself, in fact, becomes a pesticide, and when insect pests eat them, their guts are altered, and the insect dies.”
And it is a pesticide to the flora in the intestines of all who eat GMO food. Not to mention the damage it does to other organs, like say, the liver? 😐
GMO plant material has been found to negatively impact upon the liver cell’s ability to break-down LDL cholesterol.
Abstract
Our previous studies have demonstrated that stable microRNAs (miRNAs) in mammalian serum and plasma are actively secreted from tissues and cells and can serve as a novel class of biomarkers for diseases, and act as signaling molecules in intercellular communication.
Here, we report the surprising finding that exogenous plant miRNAs are present in the sera and tissues of various animals and that these exogenous plant miRNAs are primarily acquired orally, through food intake. MIR168a is abundant in rice and is one of the most highly enriched exogenous plant miRNAs in the sera of Chinese subjects. Functional studies in vitro and in vivo demonstrated that MIR168a could bind to the human/mouse low-density lipoprotein receptor adapter protein 1 (LDLRAP1) mRNA, inhibit LDLRAP1 expression in liver, and consequently decrease LDL removal from mouse plasma. These findings demonstrate that exogenous plant miRNAs in food can regulate the expression of target genes in mammals.
NATURE.COM — link
LOL, that’s a paper about ordinary rice.
Make your point.
Just because the study was conducted on rice doesn’t make it’s importance irrelevant.
Since plants of all varieties absorb nutrients and have similar characteristics throughout growth.
You’re easy to please. It takes papers on extraordinary rice to make me laugh.
Well all is fair since chrissy has been lying in her articles for years and years!!!1 Of course proof is on Monsanto’s side where chrissy is a proven liar.
your the proven liar. You aren’t fooling anyone here.
Roberts seem to enjoy stirring up emotions but what has he been shown to be lying about?
gmo’s are toxic period.
Good one! You come up with that all by yourself? We’ve got us a thinker here, folks!
no, I actually read about it and researched it in tons of sources.
“Condemnation without investigation is the highest form of ignorance.”
– Albert Einstein
I’m sure you did. So how much time did you spend reading Internet blogs? Have you ever heard of Google Scholar? Ever bother critically evaluating your own beliefs?
Since science doesn’t start in the lab, it starts at the corporate level.
Science doesn’t end because somebody says so, it is important to keep the imagination and free creativity flowing. Far too many scientists are being ruined through corporate interests by questioning well funded findings that have been shown to have errors. People make mistakes and technology advances, meaning that anything questioned should be reviewed.
Personally I think, the conflict of interests needs to be revised and full disclosure needs to be demanded, then true science can proceed.
It has been reported that over 50% of scientific findings and writings are fraudulent, wouldn’t that warrant further investigation?
Hasn’t google been caught censoring their search engines, yes.
Anything google is therefore questionable as a valid source.
Have you ever stepped foot in a research lab? Do you actually know any scientists personally? Because it certainly sounds like you’ve never had any contact whatsoever with the scientific community. Your views do not reflect reality. I know. I actually work in science.
That wasn’t my point, involvement doesn’t start in the lab.
There are many more factors to be considered.
Sounds like you have never opened your eyes and observed manipulation and corruption.
Doesn’t reflect reality, making mention of a business, corporate, structure?
Let me point out the obvious, science is lead by a business model, corporate structure.
And yes, I was placed in the overall charge of a lab. But I was there to trouble shoot the internal hostilities and evaluate the leadership, implement policies and procedures and recommend disciplinary actions to reduce the potential for EEO complaints and increase lab productivity. I had to be placed as the overall leader to perform effectively and assess the situation without internal influences.
I have been placed in charge of many areas throughout the organizational structure’s for that purpose, that was my job.
Can you clarify what you mean by “involvement”?
You can preach that science is led by business all you want, but that doesn’t make it true. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Industry science is led by business. Academic science can be influenced by business in terms of what academic researchers choose to study. But academic science often challenges business interests.
Everything has a chain of concern, it starts from the top and it flows down, always. I know you don’t tell your boss how things are going to work, chain of concern.
As we progress through the chain we become more involved in the processes and are made aware of the hierarchy and the level’s of leadership. and their responsibilities.
You can pick at everything to justify your cause, but I’m very well aware how corporate structures work.
Involvement, chain of concern from the board room down. Leadership.
I know you don’t tell your boss how things are going to work
You know nothing. I communicate exactly how things are going with my bosses.
Your ruled by the board room. from there it’s called compartmentalization.
Creating departments within the structure to perform certain tasks within the whole of operations, each section accountable for their specific tasks.
Also for security measures, though that’s another topic.
Top down, A chain of leadership.
BS logical fallacies is all I see Ahole. You are a god damn MonSatan shill!
By the way, it’s pretty hypocritical to hold up that quote given the fact that you haven’t done any actual investigation of this issue (reading internet blogs and watching Youtube videos doesn’t qualify as “investigation”).
you have no clue to the research I’ve done period. Pull your fricken head out.
You have done original research that has been published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal?
Or do you mean you’ve read a bunch of webpages?
The two are worlds apart.
Now you have reduced your self to vilification, which is the preferred method of mainstream scientific experts.
So your implying everything on the internet is lies, unless it comes from your resources, monsanto infested.
Monsanto could have done themselves positive credit, but instead they chose to provide the world with question as to their intent. Everybody is going to question their intent and it’s their fault.
In reality, any studies and research could be reviewed and should be, especially under COI conditions.
You and you alone hold the truth?
Nice.
Pointing out that you lack experience is not vilification.
Please be more specific as to my areas of lacking experience?
I didn’t mean to imply that everything on the internet is lies, only that webpages are not the most reliable sources of information. When it comes to scientific issues, peer-reviewed sources are the gold standard. They’re not perfect, only the bare minimum for quality.
Another point worth mentioning here is that Peirce did not believe that
scientific theories could ever be finally verified in the laboratory.
Why? Because of David Hume’s “problem of induction,” which observes
that, eventually, future experiments (observations) almost
always falsify previous previous observations. Therefore Peirce argued
that all theories are, therefore, fallible and subject to future
revision. So when we say that “DNA has a double helical structure,”
we’re really saying that Crick and Watson’s theory has not been
falsified.
freedomsphilosopher. dot blogspot dot com/2011/09/a-priori-method.html
Denying review is in theory illogical.
The guy is a shill. Call him out for what he is.
Podunk Roberts lies about everything.
He never provides facts just simple one liners based on opinion and attacks as a normal in order to justify his being right.
Doesn’t his actions give you pause?
If not your as questionable as he is, social etiquette is also important when representing a cause, pro or anti.
I’m only interested in seeing evidence to support accusations. I honestly don’t care what the out come is.
Isn’t the outcome the most important part of research?
No, actually it isn’t. Planning and execution are far more important in research. If you care about your outcome, then you’re at risk of becoming biased.
Planning and execution is a biased method of research, which leads to an expected outcome.
Practices, policies, guidelines, procedures and regulations are in place for a reason, which usually lead to a undetermined outcome, though it is still an outcome.
Which could possibly be an indicator to review or reassess the procedures and methods. Maybe involving other experts to verify the findings and any errors possibly overlooked in the process.
Planning and execution is a biased method of research
What?!?!? Have you ever conducted any scientific research??? By planning I mean experimental design and by execution I mean the actual performance of the experimental work. Those are absolutely fundamental to research.
Research isn’t scientific specific, so yes I’ve spent thousands of hours researching.
What is the difference, I’m sure you will ask.
From the top down, practices, policies, guidelines, procedures and regulations. These have been implemented due to historical issues and violations for many varied reasons. Policies and procedures, as well as regulations have been created for a reason..
To ensure a work place is operating within all guidelines, a regulatory authority has to be established, ie your leaders. These guidelines are for the protection of the work and the questions that might arise within follow up or official investigations.
Remember, you are working for somebody and the whole will suffer if basic protocols and policies aren’t established and enforced.
I have planned and executed, usually that was in the means of reaching a predetermined outcome, ie point A to point B, predetermined.
Only should never place planning and execution before practices, policies, guidelines, procedures and regulations. If you don’t know these, then you cannot plan or execute and risk the organization to outside investigation or involvement, with a varying degree of unsatisfactory results.
Again, not science specific.
I am more than to politely discuss anything you would wish and am more that happy to back up everything I say. Little boy hasn’t been able to use any facts only his personal feelings on things.
Roberts, I wasn’t actually trying to dispute anything you’ve said, though I haven’t read all of your comments (there are quite a few). My initial comment was in response to the accusation that you were lying. I was curious what it was thought you were lying about. But so far nothing specific has been pointed out.
Ok thank you. I figured that out after I read more of your posts. I should have done that first, my bad.
No problem. Happens to me too 🙂
Actually I have always provided enough information for people to research my thoughts and make their own determinations.
And I never follow up with berating, belittling or out right attacking.
Podunk Roberts has earned that distinction, since that is his method.
I personally give a crap about the Organic, nonGMO or GMO corporations. I’ve learned enough through research here to know there is a need for regulatory guidance and researchers conflict of interest disclosure. These folks are at war with each other, not an environment that would reflect any credit upon any of them.
Heirloom and local involvement is the only way fix to this totally hostile scientific environment.
Once the people, through local practices, can become self reliant then the external involvement can be addressed or completely dismissed.
And I never follow up with berating, belittling or out right attacking.
Yet another of your lies as your own response rats you out. Truly the sign of a sad person.
Yes, internet communication is a challenging task to say the least, sometimes people misinterpret the content.
Yours are easy, usually idiot, stupid, etc etc.
No communication barriers there.
I don’t shy away, and I also gave you many chances, you created it, bear the burden.
Your display with the retired Veteran is the all telling, your a troll and will berate anybody.
You need emotional education, but as I also stated, the internet has brought new insights to behavioral sciences. Your just here to fight.
Sure with someone like you that has nothing but lies to offer. That have been proven in almost everyone of your statements.
100% troll response.
EDH_Addict ask you a specific question and you are the one that danced around it and never answered. That is how you operate.
I make sure the operations are within required policies and regulations and the leadership knows what they are doing.
I did answer.
The all telling answer is, the scientific community is being coerced into compliance.
You obviously didn’t understand the question then did you.
You obviously don’t understand internal politics and their impacts on the work environment.
Have you ever heard of internal policies and guidelines?
If so maybe give us a class on their uses and reasoning’s, as well as their impacts on performance.
Are references important, ie IAW ?
You really must stop seeing conspiracies around every corner. It must be terrible to go through life as a scared little girl.
Another 100% troll response.
Conspiracy is a law, or a organized action based on a legal precedence.
But in your context it is a fear word that gives people pause in believing information people are attempting to convey, or gives pause and fear in responding based on the unknowns.
The mind control efforts and fear placed educational efforts have been successful to a point. But not to those who understand them.
I’m not scared, others might be, but I’m not.
Sure your not. Your constant conspiracy notions speak volumes. Don’t forget your night light.
Yes real gov programs, mkultra and cointel. I have been briefed by the cointel folks before. There are others, but I’m not going to give you information to better your amateurish efforts.
Your experience on this subject?
0, as in zero.
Sure you have. No calm down there is no need to get excited. Close your eyes and count to ten and all the bad guys conspiring against you will be gone when you OPEN your eyes.
lmao.
Nice one.
I was merely attempting to make a point.
What do you think it was?
One, to demonstrate your acting with programmed responses, are there any other common sense deductions you might be able to make?
Yes that you are paranoid with every little conspiracy that comes along. You think everything bad that has every happen to you is done by some great evil group or organization whose sole purpose is to make your life miserable. I hate to tell you, but you just aren’t that important.
Please give me some examples of the bad that has happened to me?
And provide your proof that I have stated the bogey man is out to personally get me?
Or maybe, again, it’s just because say so?
Maybe my only job in life was working at wal mart, please tell me where I have worked and the job descriptions that I have had.
You need to allow the readers here to know your vast knowledge of the worlds affairs, an insights as to the wonderful workings of the world’s politics.
I make mention of a couple of gov programs, you belittle and those who work to secure the Nation, then twist it to a commonly known activist tactic?
Don’t try to drag me into your sick realm of conspiracies. Even your id shows that you are nothing more than a scared child, not go get your pacifier and take your nap like a good little boy.
And since my Family as well as millions of others, have a tradition of either Military service or Service to the Nation.
Your comments make you a dirt bag of the highest order.
Millions have made the ultimate sacrifice so you can insult them without harm.
A simple sorry, but you chose to continue.
Your a disgrace to the pro GMO advocates and everything attributed to humanity.
Why who did I insult?
And again your bashing the gov.
You think they are bad guys?
No wonder you were bashing our Veterans like you did.
I have never once bashed the government as I think it is the best in the world. Why do you have such fantasies about me? It is kinda weird that you constantly seem to be thinking of me.
Behavioral sciences and their experts have made many advances. With the invent of the internet many more research studies have been conducted and patterns have been discovered. With a little research into trolling and flaming, much can be disclosed about Podunk Roberts.
He just wants to fight with someone and has chosen the internet, because it provides him safety and he doesn’t have to account for his actions ie get beat up.
Well done, MLB! GMO Roberts is a well known pro-GMO spokesperson (probably paid for.) I’ve never seen EDH Addict, but clearly this is also a shill and troll for the biotechs. It’s quite astounding how often you see the same person over and over again trolling these types of articles. Monsanto et al., must have a huge slush fund for such miscreants…
The PR corporations are hired for this activity.
They are primarily run by ego, if ya piss them off, they will show up in droves.
I like the challenge of screwing with these folks, that’s all.
I’m sorry for being disruptive, but trolls need special attention.
What an utter pile of malarkey. Bacillus thuringienesis has been used for decades as a biopesticide without any evidence of health risks.
bt toxin produced by these GM crops are far stronger than any found in nature
Care to elaborate or provide supporting evidence? No? Ok, then I can ignore this, especially if IRT is the only source of this claim (Jeffery Smith is literally paid to promote anti-GMO views. He has no science background and doesn’t have any respect for scientific inquiry).
a recent 91-day study published in the Journal of American Science
A study published in an obscure journal that no one has every heard of? The editor in chief of the journal has a gmail address as his contact as does the contact email for the journal itself. That about sums up the quality of that “journal”. Sounds like a pay-for-play publication. Not that I expect anything less from anti-GMO quacks like Christina Sarich.
And as a further example of how utterly dishonest Sarich is, the second reference listed at the end of the article refers to biopesticides containing Bacillus thuringiensis, i.e. the type used in organic agriculture, which has nothing to do with GMOs. Sarich is expecting most people to not bother looking into that little detail. What a joke.
who is actually going to pay anti gmo supposed quacks? now it’s obvious monsatan will and does pay shills……….hell they even have mercinaries………..HELLO!
http://www.ota.com
Oh. I don’t work for Monsanto. Nice old trope you got there.
the pic is me but it’s about 10 years old. However I still look the same.
Yea I only wonder how such incompetent person can wrote so many about
things he dont understand. Firs the corporation which label themslelf as
gmo-free earn more money than monsato they have more conflict of
interest you talk in other comments about payed shill in the same time
providing link to campaning runed by gmo-free companies I wonder this
pure hypocritism is a form or pure incompetence or you are shill?.
Yes the Corporate leadership is acting towards their shareholders interests, profit.
That’s the point, no morals, no ethics.
The family and independent farms are being regulated out of business.
The GMO free is rapidly becoming corporate and has attempted to get the USDA to lower the organic certification standards, which would allow more foreign product on the market without proper testing.
The organic industry is rapidly being absorbed into the corporate structure.
Good point the profit pirates are in both corporate camps.
Again leadership serving the shareholders bottom line, profit.
Family run and independent is being destroyed by your leaders.
It takes a good strong local involvement to survive and provide for their own into the future.
You again about this leadership really? you dont have any other arguments which ” will get more sense?.
“The GMO free is rapidly becoming corporate and has attempted to get the
USDA to lower the organic certification standards, which would allow
more foreign product on the market without proper testing.” and the same wants to
“The family and independent farms are being regulated out of business.” so pls dont spread hypocritism
“Family run and independent is being destroyed by your leaders.
It takes a good strong local involvement to survive and provide for their own into the future.” I will only remind you they are the same as corpotation work the same way, but pls end this because this is not a topic in this discussion here.
He has serious trouble comprehending, you must forgive him.
He’s ok, it’s not his fault.
There are many things about the structure of an organization people don’t realize.
Too you it’s not, because your not willing to accept any arguments unless your able to direct the agenda to your satisfaction.
Because you dont provide any, pls wrote exactly what you mean about leadrship and how its affect topic we talk about.
READ THE ARTICLE TITLE.
PhD Says MONSANTO Has Been Lying.
Corporations have been known to lie, Monsanto isn’t special in that avenue they all do it. And that is usually directed by the leadership, NOT THE JANITOR!!
gmo free does not earn more money than monsatan……………not even fricking close. Do you pull this out of your arse?
http://www.nationofchange.org/10-companies-controlling-world-s-seed-supply-1382363748
“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.” – Albert Einstein
So money decides leadership qualities?
And the GMO advocates providing links run by the GMO industry.
Make your point?
Either way not all too bright. We know a shill when we see one.
You mean you all have a confirmation bias that you use to dismiss information that doesn’t conform to your a priori belief structure.
The Fixation of Belief: The A Priori Method
When we introspect our consciousness, we are actually looking in at
relative culturally-based truths that are usually based on authority.
So your saying that if one believes further research should be conducted, they are wrong according to your beliefs?
Isn’t that considered an oxymoron?
No, I’m all for more research. But there is little point in doing more research if people refuse to accept the results. And I get the impression that you are unwilling to accept the possibility that your views are wrong.
People aren’t going to accept the results from COI sources.
Since funding is available, independent sources should be used. There are plenty of unbiased resources. and scientific experts.
The GMO industry has such a shoddy reputation, who’s fault is that?
Yours, no.
Mine, no.
Theirs, yes!
Again, oxymoron.
Technology changes and many reports are being revisited and being found to be wrong when new technologies are applied or independently funded research is applied.
My views might be wrong, but yours also might be wrong, which is it?.
Consider your defending outdated research gained through antiquated research methods, or academia trained paradigm methods.
Yes, my views could be wrong. But I base my views on the best available evidence. Consequently, my views change based on evidence. I too used to think GMOs were going to poison us all. Then I got an actual education on the subject. My views changed as I became familiar with the science on a professional level.
As for research methods, I don’t see how you’re in any position to make those statements. It’s obvious that you don’t work in biology, much less plant biology. That’s your uninformed opinion.
Again, a scientific education or background is irrelevant.
In 100% of fallacy’s or errors the leadership is the fault.
Never forget that to an expert in a
completely different field, you are the public.
Again, a scientific education or background is irrelevant.
Is that what you tell your dentist? You family doctor? The pilot of the airplane you’ve just boarded? The mechanic repairing the brakes on your car? I doubt that very much. Education and background is very important when trying to understand highly technical issues like genetic engineering. Unless of course you take your car to your dentist for repairs and have your mechanic fill your cavities.
No that’s what I tell people who tell me I have no background in research.
Though I have fired dentists and doctors before.
I’ve told pilots worse things, lol.
I usually do my own brakes, they are really easy.
I ran a lab before, the atmosphere improved 100% under my supervision and I’m not a scientist. Anybody can manage a lab.
My point was most problems are because of the leadership, 100%.
Yes, in management a specific scientific background or scientific education isn’t necessary.
I have run a lot of areas without any education relating to the operation.
Basically I was sent in to train the leadership and fix problems. Review and revise policies and procedures and make sure the operations were in compliance with applicable regulations.
It doesn’t take a scientist to lead, it takes a leader.
I’m not talking about leadership. Nice attempt at deflection though. The subject we’re talking about is genetically modified organisms, which is a decidedly biological issue. You might be a great leader, but you know jack s— about molecular biology.
I can get briefed from my superiors, get exact details as to what they want to see. Doesn’t matter, who, what, why, where or how.
I can disseminate the information down to my subordinates and get the results the superiors asked for, to the exact detail.
Your an employee, you do as your told. I can effect the end results without any specific background, I’ve done it before, that was my job.
My point, your decisions are controlled and predicted.
Obviously you haven’t a clue as to the extensive effect leadership has, now think about a leader who has no morals, ethics and is totally self-serving.
Why is the delphi technique so effective, think about maslow and what about machiavelli.
Isn’t behavioral sciences a science?
Isn’t it possible, that one science could influence or direct another?
People are easy to manipulate.
Leadership has a greater impact on your work and the end results than you could ever begin to imagine.
I’m talking the big picture, and your just saying I’m not a scientist.
Are you familiar with the Dunning Kruger effect? You display all the tell tale signs of it.
Being a manager doesn’t make you a scientist, nor does it provide you with the knowledge basis to understand technically complex issues relating to science. You’re arrogance is rather amusing. I bet you’re an American 🙂
Your right, I make french fries at burger king, in America.
Dunning Kruger Effect
The authors noted that earlier studies suggested that ignorance of
standards of performance lies behind a great deal of incorrect
self-assessment of competence.
fail to recognize their own lack of skill
fail to recognize genuine skill in others
Problem, this assessment can go both ways, now what?
All your really saying is, your views of “your world” are complete, I was just attempting to demonstrate that behind all of our views there are forces that also demand consideration whether we know them or not.
By your constant reminding me that I’m not a scientist, I just revealed some background information as to my potential experience, as you did by revealing your knowledge of science.
Your the one denying the existence of the chain of concern with an organized structure, not me.
You also didn’t recognize internal policies, procedures or guidelines, and regulations designed to protect the organization, which someone posted a study that was retracted because they didn’t follow policies and procedures.
And you used a reference to a student study as an experts opinion to make a scientific point, since I’m not the researcher and you are. Why didn’t you catch that before you posted it, or do you consider students experts in the field of science.
I read your comments and wondering not only you are pure incompetent
you also ” state is nothing wrong about wroting about things you dont
understand.
“By your constant reminding me that I’m not a scientist, I just revealed
some background information as to my potential experience, as you did by
revealing your knowledge of science.” he remining you that you are not
scientist because not only you provide wrong information and also state
you are right even if you dont have knowledge in this field
Go ask your leadership, they are the ones who are failing you, not me.
He posted a student paper as an experts opinion?
Are students findings considered expert opinions within the scientific community?
“Go ask your leadership, they are the ones who are failing you, not me.” currently Im leaderhisp of my own research but again what this have to do with topic we wrote its like I was talking about sky and you about river. i think EDH_Addict
point you that “I’m not talking about leadership. Nice attempt at deflection though. The
subject we’re talking about is genetically modified organisms, which is
a decidedly biological issue. You might be a great leader, but you know
jack s— about molecular biology.”
How does being in charge of your research qualify you as a leader in the Corporate structure or even in simple supervisory or management processes and positions?
Your not leadership, otherwise you would know better.
The title of this article is very specific.
Are you attempting to represent the Monsanto Corporation, since the disputed information comes from their leadership asserting their studies are the word of them.
So far, everybody but the Corporate industry posters are wrong, that presents a red flag. The pro and anti GMO experts are acting like a bunch of children, stifling the flow of information and discrediting any relevant information and their resources.
If your a leader, I’m saying you need retraining because your a failure.
You have failed those below you as well as the corporation you are representing, just by being here.
Have you had any PR training, based on your presence here, I’d say NO.
“If your a leader, I’m saying you need retraining because your a failure.” based on what you joking? there is no even one situation here you can drawn such conclusion sorry not only you change topic but also show incompetence in field you claim have knowledge. We are talking about studies not leadership this have nothing to do in this topic you only in force try put your claims and only change topic.
Again the title of this article is representative of leadership,
PhD Says Monsanto Has Been Lying.
I changed the topic, I was actually trying to discuss leadership.
Which it appears none of you all have the slightest clue and are making every attempt to avert the topic to fit your agenda.
“Again the title of this article is representative of leadership,” AGAIN check about what we are wroting,
“I
changed the topic, I was actually trying to discuss leadership.” no
when someone point you that you dont have knowledge in this
field(science) you wrote
“Again, a scientific education or background is irrelevant.
In 100% of fallacy’s or errors the leadership is the fault.” and start wroting about leadership, and you really wrote
“Which
it appears none of you all have the slightest clue and are making every
attempt to avert the topic to fit your agenda.” really? person who
change topic to fit his agenda (I mean you) tell other that do this?
this is definition of hypocrite.
“Which it appears none of you all
have the slightest clue” sorry but truth is that you dont have any clue
how science work and you are changing topic to fit his agenda.
Leaders and managers have personnel, they rely on them for expertise.
Tell me the CEO of your company is doing all of the testing, or maybe he has leaders in the various departments reporting to him?
If you are not accepting and supporting the role of leadership, no wonder the scientific community is all acting like a bunch of children.
It is kind of disturbing to have to explain the role of leadership to scientific experts and them not able to grasp the concept.
Do you have even basic knowledge how laboratories work? from this comment I say you dont. “It is kind of disturbing to have to explain the role of leadership to scientific experts and them not able to grasp the concept.” the most disturbing is your changing topic. Pls if you will reply me do it in one comment(wrote all in one comment) be easier.
The article title is, Monsanto has been caught lying about safety…
You are willing to accept full responsibility for your leaderships failings?
Or in the reference of lying did they mean their lab tech’s and scientists.
Sounds like your accepting full responsibility.
But if your name is on the report, your the one who will get cooked, Because that is how inept leadership works, by blaming those below them.
HEHE good one ” scientific education or background is irrelevant.” so in other word you say Im incompeten in this field yet Im right, this is called pseudoscience
you say Im incompeten in this field
I don’t know you, but I will say your leadership is incompetent.
I’m talking about your leadership and their lack of morals and ethics.
Maybe you got an education. Maybe you’re a pawn in yet another perfectly legal capitalistic game. http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/12/scientists-conspire-monsanto-gmos/
” Maybe you’re a pawn in yet another perfectly legal capitalistic game.” or maybe look at other side of the coin gmo-free also have conflict of interest
Yes corporations on both sides are playing the disinformation game. They have the shareholders demanding profit.
The best example of agriculture is the independent family run farms. That’s called self reliance.
Correct
All I’m really saying is the leadership is failing your corporations.
LOL put on your glasses!
LOL good one did someone tell you that on the play ground?
So your saying,
The BT in genetically engineered corn is different than the Commercial BT products?
Which would make more research relevant, due to the differences.
Or if it’s the exact same, that would make the link relevant.
Allow me to show you a magical way to earn a lot of extra money by finishing basic tasks from your house for few short hours a day — See more info by_ visiting >MY;#)~~&~diqsus~~^~(#ACCOUNT;:
Have a look at the info for MON810 (for ex) on the GM Crop Database website (cera-gmc[dot]org).
According to the information provided, the cry1Ab protein expressed by the transgenic plant is identical at the amino acid level to the naturally occurring form of the protein and thus to the protein used in organic agriculture.
No, the comparison to bacterial-based spray is not applicable. There is a vast difference due to the presence of viable bacterial spores versus one or two transgenes genes derived from the bacteria. Thus, the link is not relevant and it is either included deceptively or due to incompetence.
Total assumption.
The human error factor is one of the most common factor’s, which represents my statement, more research needs to be conducted due to inconsistencies.
Everybody makes mistakes, vilifying someone for being human isn’t very scientific.
Sure, humans make mistakes. But when it comes to research, human error typically one affects a single study. Maybe two if luck is particularly bad. The whole point of the scientific method is reproducibility. No conclusion stands on the results of a single experiment. In science, claims are not accepted until the results can be shown to be reproduced or to fit consistently with other results by other groups. Science is self-correcting and self-monitoring in this way. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best we have.
No conclusion stands on the result of a single experiment,I guess I would agree,however,where are the long term,multi-generational,species compatible feeding trials?Claims of safety should not be acceptable until results are reproduced.
In the livestock industry there is no long term.
Get them fat as soon as possible and sell.
I posted a study here somewhere, I think it’s in the monsanto profit article.
Oh I’m sorry you think all of the babies come from the stork don’t you. And dairy cows are giving milk at birth. Can you really be this stupid?
LMAO.
WTF are you talking about.
“In the livestock industry there is no long term.
Get them fat as soon as possible and sell.”
That is how stupid you are to think that is all there is to feeding livestock. What about the breeding stock? What about the dairy cows? I’m sure those multi year animals eating gmos don’t count, because you were to stupid to consider them. You really are an embarrassment.
Your making vague points, followed by insults, is also embarrassing.
Make a solid point for once, educate me.
I just did by showing that some animals eat gmos for years once again destroying you fantasy. And once again your stupidity got in the way and you couldn’t make the connection.
You didn’t show anything, you made your usual vague comment followed up with insults.
What is wrong with making informative statements and whats wrong with making rebuttal statements?
Oh yeah, because according to you that’s stupid.
And by the way good point about the breeding stock.
LOL, you say I did show you anything, and then tell me I made a good point? Thanks for that by the way.
Instead of listing them myself, here’s a review paper that provides many references to long-term and multi-generation studies.
Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review
Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 50, Issues 3–4, March–April 2012, Pages 1134–1148
You don’t even have to read or accept the conclusions of the review paper. Just use it for the references. The fact is, such studies exist. Now you have no excuse for not being aware of them.
Very familiar with that review paper,and you know what? I’m aware more than you know. Guess what? NO LONG TERM FEEDING STUDIES TO SHOW SAFETY PERIOD!
I tried to politely direct you to literature that directly addressed you question. Since you continue to be intransient I am left with the possibilities that you are either ignorant or lying. So which is it?
Here are a few examples of studies that you claim don’t exist:
A 104-week feeding study of genetically modified soybeans in F344 rats
Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2008 Aug;49(4):272-82.
A two-generation reproduction study with transgenic Bt rice TT51 in Wistar rats
Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 65, March 2014, Pages 312–320
A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation
Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 46, Issue 3, March 2008, Pages 1164–1170
Long term feeding of Bt-corn–a ten-generation study with quails
Arch Anim Nutr. 2005 Dec;59(6):449-51.
You referenced the Snell report.You are the ignorant one here.
Lead authors are biased biotechnologists who seem to have no health background.
Snell
Bernheim
The
Snell review has been heavily criticized as being,”biaisée” and for
suggesting safety based on studies that do no meet safety guidelines(Par
Gilles van Kote 2011). Not surprisingly the lead authors were plant
scientists/biotechnologists with a professional conflict of
interest(Snell LinkedIn profile, Bernheim LinkedIn profile). Criticism
includes reviewing studies which used animals not physiologically
comparable to humans(Brake 2003, Flachowsky 2005, Sissener 2009,
Trabalza-Marinucci 2008), used performance and/or limited health
parameters(Steinke 2010, Daleprane 2009 and 2010), that none of the
relevant long term studies reviewed meet the minimum criteria to suggest
safety for a chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study using too few
subjects, only a single dose, etc.(Daleprane 2009 and 2010, Sakamoto
2007 and 2008, Haryu 2009) and none of the results have been repeated
using two or more mammal species. 8 of the 24 studies also used
varieties of GE feed not currently consumed by humans.(Baranowski 2006,
Domon 2009, Flachowsky 2005, Krzyżowska 2010, Rhee 2005, Sakamoto 2007
and 2008, Trabalza-Marinucci 2008). Some studies reviewed were not long
term(Tudisco 2010, Brake 2004 and 2004a, Kiliç 2008). Therefore, this
review cannot be used as evidence to suggest safety by chronic
toxicity/carcinogenicity standards. In comparison, most of the relevant
studies on the long term studies list suggested unintended potentially
adverse effects were observed(Malatesta 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2004,
Vecchio 2004). Most relevant long studies including those the authors
did not review, suggest unintended potentially adverse health effects
were observed for the GE fed subjects compared to the controls.
So this study was considered invalid because of violations of guidelines and policies and procedures required for conducting research, huh.
I thought you said all you had to do was plan and execute?
I posted a reply,I guess the moderators didn’t approve,so lets try this. You cited the Snell review whose authors are biased bio technologists who seem to have health background.
The Snell review has been heavily criticized as
being,”biaisée” and for suggesting safety based on studies that do no
meet safety guidelines(Par Gilles van Kote 2011).
I cited the review as a source of references, not as a source itself. Please reread my comment more carefully.
Nice, those testing guidelines have been rendered obsolete.
These obsolete Test Guidelines have been deleted in order to allow
national/regional regulations that make reference to specific Test
Guidelines and versions to be updated accordingly. They should not be
used for new testing. They are included here because it may be useful to
consult them in the framework of the assessment of substances based on
old study reports
Your reference is now obsolete, Time to retest.
Sounds a bit like moving the goal posts. Now, I’m guessing you are not an expert in the field of food toxicology, neither am I, so perhaps you can show me that this view is actually reflected by a significant number of food toxicologists.
That was from the site linking the used testing method, How can they be wrong.
As technology advances so does the need for retesting.
I don’t need to be a scientific expert to look up a test method and copy and paste their statement.
You’ll have to talk to the scientific experts on this one.
Lots of reports coming out about fraudulent scientific research and reports lately…
Human error needs to be researched and immediately addresses. many cases have been found to be incompetence, not luck. Results are not based on luck.
No not reproducibility, consistency in methods, using established procedures in compliance with research methods and guidelines creates consistent results and reliable and measurable outcomes.
Self correcting and self monitoring means you have ineffective leaders, that is a misnomer.
Reproducibility is paramount. Furthermore, DIFFERENT METHODS should be used when attempting to reproduce a result! This demonstrates that the results are not due to the methods used.
Self correcting and self monitoring means you have ineffective leaders, that is a misnomer.
That is utter nonsense.
Stop playing scientist. You clearly have zero experience in research.
Again research isn’t science specific. research is a method, either guided by personal experience or internal policies and guidelines, with direct relation to regulatory guidelines.
Answer me this, how much experience do I have in research, and in what areas?
There is enough information to the fact that the GMO corporations have all say in research and submitted studies, without follow up or review. They are on the revolving door program with regulatory agencies and their corporations.
That in itself makes independent review necessary. Most studies are questionable due to conflict of interest, that is the biggest reason that independent peer review should be demanded.
Did you ever happen to research the petro-chemical industry and the BPA’s. There were many studies, then they lobbied and got the regulatory agencies to allow them to create the Scientific Industry Standard and for their work to have the authority, not peer reviewed. After that they went on their vilification program to discredit all previous studies.
Where do you think all of this Scientific research corruption started. It is all profit motivated.
The scientific community is lead by ego and those who seek nobility through recognition.
There is a serious problem, as long as people ignore it, it’ll only get worse.
Very well reported, the over 50% of medical science studies are fraudulent. There are also studies that conclude that most scientific researchers are acting in favoritism to protect funding sources as required through their institutions, or a vilification campaign usually ensues.
All sciences have been taken over in favor of corporate profit.
Answer me this, how much experience do I have in research, and in what areas?
You? I would guess you have very limited, if any, experience conducting scientific research.
There is enough information to the fact that the GMO corporations have all say in research and submitted studies, without follow up or review
Factual untrue. Yes, corporations do produce scientific research, but not all of it. I wouldn’t even say they produce the majority of the peer-reviewed research.
Most studies are questionable due to conflict of interest, that is the biggest reason that independent peer review should be demanded.
Agreed. Independent peer-review is essential.
Did you ever happen to research the petro-chemical industry and the BPA’s
Red herring. Irrelevant to the discussion of the science behind GMOs.
Research doesn’t take a PHD in science, your biased and serving to meet your personal agenda. Changing the subject matter to a specific.
Most research is based on a paradigm, antiquated methods or preferred by policy and guidelines, not subjecting older research to the advancing technologies or the creativity or imagination of the individual researchers.
That would be an indicator of stifling true scientific research.
Opposing views are being vilified, your even doing it here.
That would render my statement extremely plausible, by your own actions.
COI and full disclosure should be determined, that would apply precedence as to the need for peer review and where they should be conducted.
To your last statement, wrong.
As long as the corporations can lobby and gain favors and full control of their research and results.
All and any have the ability, ALL.
You stated,
Did you ever happen to research the petro-chemical industry and the BPA’s
Red herring. Irrelevant to the discussion of the science behind GMOs.
But you left out,
There were many studies, then they lobbied and got the regulatory
agencies to allow them to create the Scientific Industry Standard and
for their work to have the authority, not peer reviewed. After that they
went on their vilification program to discredit all previous studies.
Your selecting points to fit your agenda.
Your trying to make all things black and white, when everybody knows there are grey areas.
Truth is,
Your truth
My truth
And actual truth
Everything isn’t black and white!
Seriously, ceragmc,
On their advisory panel,
Jerry Hjelle, Ph.D., DABT
Consultant, Monsanto Company
Conflict of interests, I would research everything that came out of that resource.
That’s not a research website. At least I don’t treat it as one. I use it for the single purpose of getting specific details about genetically modified crops. For example, what genetic modification are present in which specific crops, etc. This is the type of information you can really only get from the company that actually produced the GM plant. Where else do you propose I get this information? For example, if I want to know the T-DNA expression cassette used for produce MON810, where should I look? I would assume that Monsanto would actually be the best source for this information. Such information has no bearing on claims about efficacy or safety. There is no conflict of interest.
Yes the scientific community is denying conflict of interest above all. Disclosure being relevant in establishing connection which would indicate probabilities of questionable persons and their influence. Look it up, corporations are leading the cause, fighting COI and disclosure. They have even got around obvious evidence of infiltration COI violations. How, Why?
Look at Monsanto’s involvement in the TPP, they are pushing for it.
And we’ll get the same bs as the health care, can’t know whats in it unless we pass it.
My objective point is, working in a lab is only a fraction of the story, and not even the most important aspect of the GMO battle. There are external forces guiding everything.
Here is some of that hard to get information,
October,2001. In EPA’s approval process, EPA imposed
several conditions on growing Bt corn varieties, including a requirement that farmers plant no more than 80 percent of their corn acres with Bt corn. The corn acres planted with a non-Bt variety would act as a “refuge” for the pests susceptible to Bt and delay the onset of resistance.
They know and have always know a resistance would develop.
Which might suggest the frankenweeds are becoming resistant due to the unknown effects of genetic mutilation and the genetic mutilation being passed directly to the weeds of various varieties.
Source, cspinet dot org
Another reason for existing studies to be reevaluated.
Which might suggest the frankenweeds are becoming resistant due to the unknown effects of genetic mutilation and the genetic mutilation being passed directly to the weeds of various varieties.
No. None of those things are suggested. GM plants are not becoming resistant due to unknown genetic changes. The genetic changes that make GM plants herbicide resistant are well document and INTENTIONAL!
The development of herbicide resistance in weeds is due to basic evolution by natural selection. It does NOT involve the transfer of genetic material from a GM plant to a weed, unless that weed happens to be reproductively compatible with the GM plant (unlikely, but then a “weed” is any plant growing where it is not wanted).
And if you accept CSPI as a reliable source, perhaps you should have a look at their page on biotechnology.
For example:
“1.) Foods and ingredients made from currently grown GE crops are safe to eat. That is the conclusion of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Academy of Sciences, the European Food Safety Authority, and numerous other international regulatory agencies and scientific bodies.”