Top Health Tools
Top Health Tools

Top Reports
Top Reports
 
Top Articles
Top Articles

Top Reviews
Top Reviews
   
YouBlog Archive

From Dee
Trish,

I am, as you know, a health freedom activist and writer, and I have to inform you that you could not have quoted a more ridiculous 'authority' than the EFSA, which has been shown time and time again as a corrupt and corporately biased group. Their record of destroying health freedom is already legendary, and has been amply exposed by the Alliance for (Natural Health International) in England, as well as the National Health Federation UK and NHF International and many others.

I could point to a pile of references, but I know you've probably already got them: If you don't have spying eyes on what you have to counteract out there, I'd be most surprised. And you'd have to dig a whole lot deeper to find an 'authority' that non-vested scientists could not destroy in a hot second in debate. Unfortunate choice, that fraud Monsanto picked for the anti-Prop 37 commercial, by the way. This is the same guy who said that Fukushima radiation exposure was "good for you", because they use it in cancer treatment to kill cancer cells, and lobbied for Big Tobacco saying cigarettes were "not harmful". You do catch my drift, don't you?

Of course, we all knew Monsanto would move quickly to try (and that IS the operative word here) to debunk the French study. FAIL. Since Monsanto has never had to test GMO effects in food/feed for more than 3 months, your company should be sitting down and shutting up... if it were honest. In fact, at the first sign of toxicity, an honest company, one who truly wanted to profit honorably, would go back to the drawing board to figure out where they went so wrong. Not so Monsanto. Instead, Monsanto spends many millions trying to cover up its own ineptitude in trying to improve on Mother Nature; the company appears indeed to exist by the philosophy that the end justifies the means, but considers only its own end... not that of the rest of us. As for us, Monsanto seems much to prefer that our ends are pointed skyward and our heads buried in sand.

We've all been asking for the simple right to know what the hell is in the food we pay for with our labour, eat, and give to our children to eat, and you've all been telling us you don't think we need to know. Is there something wrong with wanting to know? And again, if GMO's are so safe, why shouldn't we know? Where is the answer to that question? I asked it before: you did not address it.

And what will you tell people when the Monsanto finger pops out of the dike holding back all the real science?
"Ooops"?

*sigh
Dee








-------Original Message-------

From: JORDAN, TRISH L (AG/5125)
Date: 10/11/12 21:15:52
To: Dee Nicholson
Subject: Here you go

EFSA publishes initial review on GM maize and herbicide study
Press Release
4 October 2012
The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that a recent paper raising concerns about the potential toxicity of genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 and of a herbicide containing glyphosate is of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment.
EFSA’s initial review found that the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate. To enable the fullest understanding of the study the Authority has invited authors Séralini et al to share key additional information.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121004.htm
ALSO
Below is copy is a letter to the Editor on behalf of 25 scientists in 14 countries. Some key takeaways / concepts:
1. Such extraordinary claims must be based on sound and extensive evidence, as they are guaranteed to cause – and indeed, have caused – widespread alarm.

2. The flaws in the study are so obvious that the paper should never have passed review. This appears to be a case of blatant misrepresentation and misinterpretation of data to advance an anti-GMO agenda by an investigator with a clear vested interest. Appalling that a journal with the substantial reputation of FCT published such “junk” science so clearly intended to alarm and mislead.

3. In view of the importance of the ability to use modern molecular methods of crop improvement to increase the global food and feed supply and decrease the deleterious environmental impacts of conventional agriculture, the paper must be subject to rigorous re-review by appropriate experts and promptly retract it if it fails to meet widely held scientific standards of design and analysis.

The text of the letter:
Wallace Hayes, PhD, DABT, FATS, FIBiol, FACFE, ERT
Harvard School of Public Health
Editor-in-Chief, Food and Chemical Toxicology
awallacehayes@comcast.net; awhayes@spherix.com

Dear Dr. Hayes:
We write to you, as Editor in Chief, to request a serious reconsideration of the recent paper by Seralini et al. alleging tumorigenesis in rats resulting from consumption of corn derived from crops improved through biotechnology (Séralini, G.-E., et al. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol. (2012), http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637).

As you are undoubtedly aware, the use of molecular methods to improve crop plants, now known as GMOs, continues to be a highly controversial subject globally despite the absence of evidence, to date, of human, animal or environment harm. The paper by Seralini et al. makes claims that contradict a large body of literature on the subject, reviewed recently in your journal by Snell et al. (2012) under the title “Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review.” Food Chem. Toxicol. 50:1134.

This review, analyses by serious scientific bodies, including the U. S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, as well as the European Union’s recent overview of 25 years of biosafety research on GMOs, all conclude that there are no negative health impacts specifically attributable to the use of molecular methods of crop improvement. Moreover, the herbicide glyphosate, which affects an enzyme present in plants, but not animals, has a short residence time in the environment and a long history of safe use, as does the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, from which the so-called “Bt” gene was transferred to a number of crops to render them resistant to certain kinds of insect pests.

Seralini et al. make the extraordinary claim that rats fed GM corn, with or without added glyphosate, develop tumors earlier in life and die prematurely compared with controls, attributing enhanced morbidity and mortality to consumption of the GM corn and herbicide. Such extraordinary claims must be based on sound and extensive evidence, as they are guaranteed to cause – and indeed, have caused – widespread alarm. As detailed below, this study does not provide sound evidence to support its claims. Indeed, the flaws in the study are so obvious that the paper should never have passed review. This appears to be a case of blatant misrepresentation and misinterpretation of data to advance an anti-GMO agenda by an investigator with a clear vested interest. We find it appalling that a journal with the substantial reputation of FCT published such “junk” science so clearly intended to alarm and mislead.

In view of the importance of the ability to use modern molecular methods of crop improvement to increase the global food and feed supply and decrease the deleterious environmental impacts of conventional agriculture, we appeal to you to subject the paper to rigorous re-review by appropriate experts and promptly retract it if it fails to meet widely held scientific standards of design and analysis, as we believe it fails to do.

We make this request for you to reconsider the paper because it falls short of the customary scientific and ethical standards in several specific regards:

• The experimental design is flawed, using far fewer animals per treatment (10) than dictated by the OECD guidelines mentioned (but not cited) in the paper (N = 50; see http://www.oecd.org/science/biosafety-biotrack/42470554.pdf);

• The reader is not informed that the rats used in the study, Sprague-Dawley rats, fed ad libitum diets, would be expected to develop tumors in patterns fully consistent with what the paper reports, vitiating the authors attempt to link the observed tumors with any specific dietary components. There is an abundant literature on these rats, and their responses to ad lib/restricted diets, which the authors cite in an incomplete and entirely misleading way;

• The experiment lacks appropriate controls (i.e., at least 50 individuals, fed a measured diet of confirmed identity differing from tested diets only by absence of inserted DNA; a robust experiment would also include a random, unrelated diet, e.g., one derived from organic maize);

• Inappropriate and non standard statistical tests were used, rendering meaningless any interpretations of the results reported – robust statistical tests of raw data to determine whether or not differences are statistically significant must be used, not mere reporting of percentages or irrelevant and exotic tests of no value (e.g., OPLS-DA);
• Critical details on how much food was consumed by each rat are absent, making it impossible to establish any dose/response relationship;

• The identity of the “control” diet (i.e., “non GM” was not confirmed, and details on food preparation methodology were not provided;

• The animals were not euthanized in a timely manner to eliminate unnecessary pain and suffering, as stipulated by both European and U.S. animal research guidelines;

• The underlying and complete data are being withheld, not shared with other scientists, as is required by Elsevier’s published policies (“Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication…” - http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/New_Code.pdf).

From Dee
http://geneticroulettemovie.com/
You can also view Genetic Roulette plus have access to the film for a full month for $4.50
PPV registration, along with access to all shows and movies including PPV Sports events
at www.tgun.tv under movie file "G". No obligation to continue membership. (PayPal)

You can also view it for free on the same site but it is rotated with other docs on the "AllSource Docs" tab so
it is not so convenient. But this is a permanent posting so it will be available. Small price to pay if you miss the window, or if you want to set up a group showing.

If you miss this window of opportunity you can view it there.... if you have questions, please ask me.
Cheers,
Dee



-------Original Message-------

From: cdsapi
Date: 10/11/12 03:33:01
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:,
Subject: Fw: Free Online Viewing Week Genetic Roulette Oct 10-17

Cdsapi's Added Comment:This is the documentary that EVERYONE should watch - Take advantage of the free viewing - regularly it costs $20 to buy the DVD. Jeffrey Smity is doing a yoeman's job of dedication to halt the GMO agenda in North America - since GMOs have now been proven to be very toxic foods destroying the health of all who eat it..

PLEASE pass thsi one to ALL your Contacts!!!!!!


Share/Bookmark
...............................................................................................................

This site is owned and operated by PreventDisease.com © 1999-2017. All Rights Reserved. All content on this site may be copied, without permission, whether reproduced digitally or in print, provided copyright, reference and source information are intact and use is strictly for not-for-profit purposes. Please review our copyright policy for full details.
aaa
Interact
volunteerDonateWrite For Us
Stay Connected With Our Newsletter