7sigma

If you use Seneff's paper as proof of glyphosate's harmful effects, it probably means you have no idea how to distinguish good science from junk science.

caffeine is about thirty times more toxic than glyphosate. According to wikipedia:

"The LD50 of caffeine in humans is dependent on individual sensitivity, but is estimated to be 150 to 200 milligrams per kilogram of body mass (75–100 cups of coffee for a 70 kilogram adult)"

For glyphosate: "The acute oral LD50 in the rat is 5,600 mg/kg. Other oral LD50 values for glyphosate are 1,538 to greater than 10,000 mg/kg for mice, rabbits mg/kg, and goats"

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-gly...

Organics also use pesticides which are not a s effective as synthetic ones and therefore need to be applied more often so they it can be more harmful

A lot of of the criticism of GMOs is based on flawed science and misleading use of statistics

That article you linked was flawed on quite a few levels. It argued for example that France was able to reduce its levels of pesticides without using GMOs and used percentages to show the reduction, thereby arguing that GMOs are not necessary

But looking at absolute values, France had a far higher use of pesticides and insecticides and even after the reduction it is still higher than the US, although in the US herbicide use has gone up (primarily glyphosate, but that replaced other more toxic herbicides).

Greater crop yield means more efficient use of the land and resources. I agree we produce more than enough food but reducing yield is not the answer. Also we've barely scratched the surface in terms of using the potential of GE.

[1] http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/10/the-tiresome-discussion...

This is the complaint:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-pJR4cGo9ckUU1OQjJjcVQ4aUU...

Its basically a motion to compel an EPA guy to go under oath and sounds like the complainant had some run ins with Rowland.

The complainant, Marion, makes some claims about the effects of glyphosate without really citing any scientific evidence. Marion also claims there is a lot of evidence to back it up, but if so why not cite it?

"Your trivial MS degree from 1971 Nebraska is far outdated, thus CARC science is 10 years behind the literature in mechanisms."

So we have to take her word that Rowland didn't keep up to date with the literature? I find that hard to believe that someone would still be in a position that requires constant learning to keep their job.

Not really a smoking gun, if this is all there is

Maybe instead of being cynical about people's motives you should try to go through what they are saying and see if it makes sense or not, or if the evidence its based upon is correct.

"The first red flag that there are corporate interests behind any "debunking" effort is that an actually serious finding is not discussed openly"

So which finding was not discussed properly in the link i posted?

You mean Anthony Samsel ? If so, he's known to have published shoddy research along with Seneff that makes wild claims about glyphosate being the cause of many ills like autism and celiac disease based on correlation and without much evidence

Steven Novella thoroughly debunks this: http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/

Edit: spelling

better than wooden sticks and flossing are the interdental brushes. Those clean a lot better in my experience and my oral health improved a lot after i started using them.

Where in that link does it say that organic techniques use fewer pesticides?

Organic farming is restricted to naturally occurring pesticides which are often less effective than synthetic ones and so they need to be applied more often.

Also, organic yields are often lower than conventional ones, so more land may be needed to compensate. Clearing land is way more environmentally unfriendly than using pesticide, so any gains from organic techniques are nullified.

But i guess it depends on crop/climate and exact techniques

[0]http://www.science20.com/agricultural_realism/example_how_mu...

Well in the case of BT (bacillus thurigensis) cotton and corn, for example, the GM plant produces the Cry toxin which is bad for the insects that eat the crop, so better than spraying it (Also BT is used in organic agriculture via spraying btw).

Herbicides like roundup affect a certain pathway in plants, not humans in animals.

"And pesticides are bad for people and animals in the longer term too."

Not at the concentrations that are used. The amount of residue is minuscule and modern pesticides have far less toxicity than older ones that have been phased out.

IIRC, the BT toxin only affects insects that have an alkaline digestive system. Animals and humans are unaffected as its acidic.

Terminator gene was never commercialised

"It's because they're optimised to withstand heavy pesticide use"

Actually, GMOs need less pesticides than non GMO crop. Some of them produce their own pesticide (BT corn and BT cotton).

"Pesticides are bad."

Thats kind of the point, they are bad to pests that try to eat the crop

"GMO are generally sterile"

You are confusing GMO with hybrids and no they are not sterile, the just lose vigour after a few generations, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid

", so you have to buy seeds every year from Monsanto. Great business model for Monsanto, not so much for the farmer."

Most farmers in the developed world buy new seed every year because of the hybrid thing, and do so because its convenient. At the end of the day its a choice the farmer makes: they could re use their own seeds and hybridise them, but for most its not worth the hassle.

" point to the 'overwhelming evidence' that proves GMOs and roundup is safe"

You can't prove with absolute certainty that any food is safe, only what the risks are.

And yes there is a lot of real scientific and independent evidence that GMOs are no more risky than other foods.

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/the-s...

Not really related, but I noticed the name of the prosecuting attorney: Carmen M. Ortiz.

She's the one who prosecuted Aaron Swartz IIRC

Kevin folta breaks down the flaws in the article pretty well:

"1. No genes for yield were ever installed. The current suite of biotech traits were not meant to improve yields, they were made to ensure yields. In other words, they help ag producers farm with lower costs, fewer insecticides, improved weed control and virus resistance in some cases. Same yield at lower cost = better for farmers."

https://kfolta.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/rehashing-tired-argume...

The thing to remember as well with IARC is that it does its classifications with a hazard based approach, while most regulatory agencies use a risk based approach.

A hazard is something that can harm potentially harm you. Risk quantifies how likely that will happen.

Edit: wording

The article is quite misleading with its claims of organic being better than conventional agriculture

1) The UNCTAD report that is cited actually has the following text:

"The views expressed in the articles contained in this Review are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their respective organisations and institutions."

Many of the authors have ties with the organic industry (see https://thoughtscapism.com/2015/09/21/myth-un-calls-for-smal...)

2) Organic food has less pesticides exposure.

Not necessarily as organic agriculture also uses pesticides (naturally occuring ones). Though they tend to degrade quicker than synthetic ones, they are not as effective and need to be applied more often. Also the use of copper sulfate is allowed, which doesn't biodegrade and builds up in the soil.

The following is also completely rubbish

"Yes, pesticide residues are regulated by the U.S. Food Quality Protection Act, but the tolerance levels assigned for some pesticides pose potential health risks, even though they are considered “allowable.”"

3) Organic foods are more nutritious and taste better.

Nope. The article just cherry picks a few studies. Following meta study comes to conclusion that organic food is not more nutritious

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22944875

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11833635

4) Organic foods help achieve biodiversity and soil fertility

Maybe on the area farmed, but it tends to not be as efficient as conventional farming, so increase acreage is needed which reduces biodiversity.

Regarding soil fertility, GMOs have actually helped thanks to no till agriculture.

5)Organic foods have no GMOs.

GMOs actually can help reduce pesticide use (but its not a silver bullet)

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

"and respect the process and fruits of natural history"

sounds to me like an appeal to nature fallacy. The crops we grow have been modified beyond recognition from their wild counterparts. Add to that use of mutagenics to randomly mutate plant dna and that hasn't ushered any cataclysm.

That doesn't mean that there aren't any danger and you can't prove beyond doubt that any food is safe, at the end of the day its a risk vs benefit decision. The evidence shows that GE crops lead to less land use via better efficiency and reduced pesticide use.

not necessarily. if they get paid to do the tests whether or not it there is a positive or negative outcome, that incentive is reduced.

The choice of 3rd party should be open, transparent and done by the regulating agencies.

I think they were referring to unintended risks. There's probably less chance modify a plant in an inadvertently bad way with GE as its more precise. But yes if you want to weaponise an organism, it easier with GE.

However, from my understanding, the regulations of GMOs are much more stringent than for other types of breeding.

You can traditionally breed a potato to have high levels of solanine and i'm not sure whether regulations would stop it from going to market.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that the safety testing has to be done by the company.

A system where the company pays for the a 3rd independent party to do the testing is desirable IMO

I think the way its done in biotechnology is that the company pays and some 3rd party lab (e.g. university) then does the experiment.

There is also a positive bias from industry studies due to the fact that products tested internally that don't work will not be pursued and therefore that research is not published.

Regarding gmos, thats not really true. While a lot of the research was done by industry (which is how its supposed to, why should the public pay for safety testing of products ?), there is also publicly funded research that confirms that GMOs are no more risky than traditional breeding and mutagenics.

The EU funded a 10 year project in that area https://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-...

The genera database can also give an indication of the funding by private and government in biotech (i think its 1/3 or 1/2, but can't find the link)

https://www.biofortified.org/portfolio/infographic-world-map...

Update: Replying to some of the comments, just want to clarify that company should pay for the testing, but the actual scientific research should be done independently. Of course the company will probably have done some initial research of their own (at least you would hope so), but it would need to be replicated independently.

Update 2: Grist covered gmos a few years back and here is the part about the regulation http://grist.org/food/the-gm-safety-dance-whats-rule-and-wha...

Does anybody know the consequences of this regarding the search for dark matter? Specifically, dark matter particles?

"The more food is altered, the less sure we become about that."

Except with genetic engineering, by being precise as to how and where the new genes are inserted, we are actually altering it less than with traditional breeding or mutagenics. Those types of breeding have far less testing than transgenics. We can potentially create new genes with those older methods that have never existed before and never know about it.

This is something that taleb was criticised for by biologists and geneticists (and basically his reply was "that they are idiots", yup, great argument).

"Normal food has the advantage that we already know it has no disastrous ecological consequences".

There is no such thing as normal food: Take the sweet potato. It has been altered transgenically using the agrobacterium twice in its history without human intervention. The agrobacterium is the same bacteria used when doing transgenic GMO. Basically nature beat us to it a long time ago when it comes to transgenics.

You can breed a potato the old fashion way to contain high level of solanine (which can be poisonous). Its not how the genes are altered, its what they do that is key.

what I meant is that we know what proteins the genes at that location will do.

"We know nothing of the proliferation that gene may have in a wild population, or how our modification will help or hamper the organism to adapt to a changing environment."

We don't know exactly, but we do know a lot more than nothing.

You can never prove that any food is safe beyond a doubt. You can only say whether it riskier or not than other types of food or breeding. In the case of GMOs, it has been shown to be no less risky than conventional or mutagenic breeding.

"we modify genes without really understanding what they really do with detail"

Except that with genetic engineering, we know precisely what they do. Ironically previous ways of changing genes are a lot more random.

thats why gmos are the most tested foods in history (despite what the naysaysers say)

Mutagenic crops devised with stuff like cobalt 60 was never tested. Also you can breed a potato to be poisonous. In the end its a case by case basis

Edit: spelling

google takeout my friend:

https://takeout.google.com/settings/takeout

You don't necessarily need ORMs. If the developer had used prepared statements (e.g. PDO in php), then there would probably have been a lot less vulnerabilities.