Comments on: Study Links GM Corn Consumption to Organ Damage

By: Can Genetically Modified Foods Be Organic? – Eat Drink Better

Can Genetically Modified Foods Be Organic? – Eat Drink Better — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 20:00:47 +0000

[...] opposed to GM foods cite a number of safety, health, and biodiversity concerns. Evidence of organ damage in mammals or the threat of these crops propagating in the wild are certainly reasons to be cautious about [...]

By: A Month Without Monsanto – Eat Drink Better

A Month Without Monsanto – Eat Drink Better — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 23:32:02 +0000

[...] reading about Monsanto’s corn and its link to organ damage, Yes Magazine’s April Dávila decided to go the entire month of March without eating or [...]

By: GM and Anti-GM Groups Unhappy with EU Proposal – Eat Drink Better

GM and Anti-GM Groups Unhappy with EU Proposal – Eat Drink Better — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:45:52 +0000

[...] potential anyway (I think I will write a future post on this issue). Plus, there are still serious health concerns and, as is evidenced by the years of resistance to GM crops in the EU, many [...]

By: Steve Savage

Steve Savage — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:30:14 +0000

In case anyone has been following this, the study is being dismissed as “junk science”. The authors did not actually conduct an experiment at all, they simply cherry picked data from a Monsanto study to get the finding they wanted. This was published in a journal that does not even count for tenure which probably means they couldn’t get it into a real journal. Their claim that they couldn’t get samples to run a study is bogus. They were talking about the seed and the license limitations on that, but what animals or people eat is not the seed (f1 hybrid) but the grain from that seed (f2 hybrid) which could be purchased from any of thousands of growers (its just grain). This is a simple case of “agenda science” and its uncritical acceptance by people who have already made up their minds. This is even flimsier than the vaccine/autism study that was just finally withdrawn.

By: T Saxon

T Saxon — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:29:25 +0000

It is interesting to me that very few people understand the implications of GM food. It’s kind of like math. We don’t get it. We don’t get it in the same way we don’t get how paying the minimum balance on a credit card will keep us permanently in debt. Companies that already have enough clout to buy all the advertising and politicians they want are not in a position to be responsible. They need an outside source of checks and balances. We the people need to be responsible for not buying or eating food contaminated with genetic modification because whether or not it is dangerous we have no way of knowing. What we do know is that someone is making a killing foisting it on a mass population without that population fully understanding how it works and without long term research done by laboratories without a vested interest in the outcome.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:28:45 +0000

Hi Becky, thanks for raising awareness of the issue. I wrote post for my work blog at Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future w/ much the same take on the issue, which may be of interest: http://tiny.cc/Bhslk

By: a biochemist

a biochemist — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:10:53 +0000

If you people actually read the study, you would find that your article is erroneous. They analyzed data using different statistical methods than the original companies…however upfront and at the beginning they scrutinized the experimental setup and concluded that any results obtained from the low number of rats used could not be statistically significant. They then proceeded to use this bad raw data to create statistically significant ill effects that fit their agenda.

Fucking non-scientists reporting on scientific papers. Stop it you are making the world dumber.

By: Penne

Penne — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 21:24:15 +0000

In response to Bob Henry, the reason there is few studies other than those by the company is since Monsanto owns the patents they refuse to sell the seeds for anything but growing (it’s in the extensive contracts that also require purchase of Monsanto’s supporting products such as Round-Up which they no longer have exclusive patents on). Any farmer who provides seed to someone who might use them for studies or testing will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Monsanto law, which is strategic in bankrupting the farmer, forcing him/her to sign a gag order and sowing fear in surrounding farmers. Monsanto is controlling the message and protecting their propaganda.

Please see this NY Times article on scientists protesting the hindering by Monsanto:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html

And this article from Vanity Fair on Monsanto’s compliance tactics:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805

By: Becky Striepe

Becky Striepe — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:35:40 +0000

Thanks, Steve! I’ll go check it out.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:41:37 +0000

This is not European Union research…it was conducted by “scientists” who have been heavily criticized by other legitimate research bodies in Europe. If you read the report, these “scientists” go to great lengths to defend their work and accuse others, including French government researchers (no friends of GMOs), of ignoring their methods.

Essentially, it is junk science designed to make their hypothesis work out.