The study took 2 years. GMO has been out for about 17 years and industry has no similar life time study.
Hmmmm... Did God talk to them? Special revelation? -lol-
Industry is spending about $30 million to avoid labeling... I can't imagine this study cost even $1 million.
Are Monsanto researchers and accountant idiots? Spending $30 million top fight labeling in one state to save $1 million in research? Fabulous!
The study passed peer review. The conspiracy thickens!
>>One immediate problem, [Martina] Newell-McGloughlin said, is that the line of rodents used in the study, known as Sprague-Dawley rats, are frequently used in cancer research because a large majority of them naturally develop tumors at a high rate, regardless of what they eat or how they're raised.<<
The issue isn't that the rats got tumors... the issue is that the GMO/RU groups got 250-350 MORE CANCER than the control rats. Rats that get tumors have no reason to rig studies in this manner. Something appears to be different in the rats consuming GM/RU.
Using a complete non problem as a FIRST "problem" tells you they are trying to fool people who naively think the news is real (not influenced by cold cash) and who don't pay attention.
You do understand this, right? If ti was all about a type of rat, we'd expect the control to have as many tumors as the GM/RU rats WHICH DIDN'T HAPPEN - NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Again, the GM/RU rats died prematurely 70% of the time, or 250% more than the control group. You can't blame this on the type of rat used throughout the study.
Now, it would make sense if different types of rats were used for the control that didn't get tumors. But that's not the allegation.
>>What's more, the rats were allowed to eat an unlimited amount of food, which increases their chances of developing tumors. And two is a very old age for these rats, which could account for the large rate of cancer seen across all groups, including the controls.<<
Again, this doesn't address the MASSIVE difference between the control and the GMO/RU groups. The control group should be just about as bad as the GM/RU group. It isn't.
This is basic stuff here.
>>The small size of the control group also raised red flags. Even experienced scientists in the field had trouble interpreting data in the study, as seen in comments collected by the UK's Science Media Center, but it appears that the study included just 10 or 20 control animals.
That means there were at least nine times more test animals than control animals. If anything, studies of this kind usually include two or three times more controls than experimental animals.<<
This has some legitimacy, but remember, the reason we have only one small study is because industry refuses any kind of studies at all!
They prefer to spend $30 million in CA and probably $100s of millions across the world over time to fight labeling.
What are they hiding that makes them willing to avoid testing and spending $30 million in CAs to fight labeling? That's the obvious question for folks not under some kind of Monsanto mind control.
Do you trust people that lie to you constantly (Agent Orange, DDT, rBST?)?
BTW, I'm all for more studies with larger control groups and GM/RU groups.
Having said that, the results of this study are staggering. We aren't talkign a 10% increase in the rate of cancer (which factors out the number of rats in each group). We are talking a 250% to 350% higher rate.
>>The results don't make a lot of sense, either. No matter how much of either herbicide-laden or genetically modified maize the rats ate in proportion to their other food, rates of cancer and premature death remained the same. However, to be meaningful, toxicology studies like this should show a dose-dependent response, which means that if something is toxic, more of it should be more toxic.<<
Uh, no - you can't determine the outcome before the study. The studies are used to show us how things work, not so we can impose preconceived ideas onto studies. You know, unless the cash is good. ;-)
Unsettling Accounts:
youtube.com
This "rebuttal" scores about a 3 on the scale of 1-10, IMHO. Basically, the rebuttal can be summed up with "we need more research to better understand what is in play here."
But note that he didn't say that. Rather, he shilled as though he was a paid witness by the legal team. And he did a bad job at that. I guess he had very little to work with.
I'm all for more research. Unfortunately, industry refuses and don't let the fascist corporate / government revolving door smack you in the head... that sucker is spinning around right now.
Monsanto's government ties:
organicconsumers.org
I'm sure they are all angelic... just like Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke.
They really care about you - profits be d*mned.
Serious, pumpkin. ;-)
On to the Forbes article (see Bilow, reading isn't that hard!). |
