Before I begin I want to clarify that I am not talking about
the politics of genetically modified organisms (GMO’s), nor the licencing of patent’s,
nor am I justifying or supporting large agricultural companies. All I want to
talk about is, given what we know now, are genetically modified foods safe to
eat?
I get riled up every time I read an article bashing GMO’s
not because of what they said but because they provide no evidence. I have never
come across an article that bashes GMO’s that gives any references. No primary
data to support their claims. As I mentioned earlier, science does not care
what you think, it only matters what you can prove. Without randomized control
trials to support your claims, your thoughts are useless in determining the safety
of GMO’s.
It’s almost become popular to create paranoia about GMO’s.
People refer to them as “Frankin Foods” and use phrases that encourage people
to be afraid of them. The picture I have included illustrates this type of propaganda.
Creating fear might be somewhat justifiable if they ever supported their claims
with real results, but they usually don’t. If there are real reasons to be concerned
about GMO’s then provide the scientific data to prove it. If we are going to
have a scientific discussion then use scientific evidence. I don’t mean to
sound unkind but I don’t care about your opinion on GMO’s, all I want to know
is if they're safe. The way we determine that is through randomized controlled
trials.
So let’s look at the scientific data. A study conducted in
2012 looked at the safety of GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, and triticale1. They reviewed 12 long term studies and
compiled their results to come to a conclusion. Their conclusion was that GM
plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be
safely used in food and feed. So the most reliable evidence shows that GMO’s
are safe.
Just because something is new does not mean that it’s bad or
scary. If done correctly advances in science can lengthen our lives and lead to
a better world. The next time you come across an anti GMO article see if they
give any references. Did they cite any primary research? If the answer is no,
what they have said is meaningless.
Now to anyone that believes GMO’s are not safe I have a
challenge for you. Please comment and give me references to support your
claims. If I have overlooked some important data I will retract what I have
said and re-write the article. I don’t have an opinion on the issue; all I care
about is what’s true. If I am presented with new evidence that shows that GMO’s
are not safe I will change my mind in a second.
I encourage comments and would greatly appreciate them.
References
1. Snell,
Chelsea, et al. "Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in
long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature
review." Food and Chemical Toxicology 50.3 (2012): 1134-1148.
That is a great review you are citing. Have you read it? When you've read the body of your own reference and just as importantly the studies it cites, if you don't have an agenda and are truly a scientist, you will reach an opposite conclusion to that stated in the abstract. That scientific review has all the evidence one needs to realize that the 90 day rodent studies are fraudulent junk science, and that there are no clinical studies on safety. You will also be reading studies suggestive of metabolic harm corroborated by other unrelated independent international scientists. Happy reading!
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment.
DeleteI was wondering if you could provide references for the studies you mention when you talk about "international scientists". Also, what exactly about this review makes it "junk science".
Thank you again for your comment.
The conclusion it reaches isn't based on the data in the references.
ReplyDeleteI will suggest an entry point to start :
1)the Hammond studies cited : see if you reach the same conclusions. I would be glad to help provide background information from veterinary medicine....since the subjects studied are animals.
Then I'd like you to look at
2) Malatesta's work and see if any other independent scientists corroborate the nuclear border changes she describes in mice hepatocytes linked to alteration of splicing structures and regulation of proteins believed to be associated with senescence, which are reversible on a cross over feeding trial
For a clincher read the multi-generational study on triticale and see if you feel as confident stating that 90 days is a long enough interval to test safety in spite of the changes described in the lymph nodes and interleukin levels (which were not noted in the first generation).
I write between appointments, and limit myself to about an hour a day for the virtual world and this biotech hobby....but I will be back.
The key to this, though, is to step back and examine the DATA to see if it supports the hypothesis ( safety).
One last thing: I don't know if you have institutional access to the articles... I don't. One of the authors was kind enough to email me this study and I get others, though not all, relatively cheaply on Deep Dyve
Thanks very much for the post!
Thanks again for commenting. My repose was rather long and therefore could not fit in the comment box. I created another post with the information in it.
DeleteHere is the link.
http://westheeverydayscientist.blogspot.com/2013/07/response-to-ena-valikov-comments.html