|
The Seralini Study: What it taught about Honesty in Science
The Seralini Study: What it taught about Honesty in Science
When those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results, or when governments exploit political opportunities by picking and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public confidence in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own citizenry at risk.
Date: 7/5/2013 7:58:22 PM ( 11 y ) ... viewed 998 times The GMO's have really not been safety tested, not according to Dr. Dave Shubert, a Salk Institute Scientist, who I heard and recording during the Prop 37 Campaign.
He says basically:
"The Problem is not with GMO's, the major issue is the safety Testing Issue.
Essentially the argument is being experimented on is true...Is is a cause of concern.
He says, there have been No long term studies in humans...
This is a very contentious issue...
He brings up the Serillini Study...
Study over the lifetime of a rat....
herbicides that were used.... concerned him.
herbicide resistent crops...
Dr. David Schubert on Serilli studies...
He is a scientist at Salk Insitute in La Jolla.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRgP9ASQAq4
HERE IS AN INTERESTING POST BY JON ENTINE OF THE GENETIC LITERACY PROJECT
The title suggested that the article was about Seralini responded to the
Torrent of Critism against his work. This article is not about that at all.
Jon Entine has his own position to put out...Seralini was off.
http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/anti-gm-corn-study-reco...
GOOD FIND
https://www.facebook.com/LabelitYourself/posts/178811012263653
http://gmspud.com/seralini-and-science-an-open-letter/
David Schubert of Salk Institute La Jolla is one of the Authors of the
Open Letter
6) Conclusion: When those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results, or when governments exploit political opportunities by picking and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public confidence in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own citizenry at risk. Safety testing, science-based regulation, and the scientific process itself, depend crucially on widespread trust in a body of scientists devoted to the public interest and professional integrity. If instead, the starting point of a scientific product assessment is an approval process rigged in favour of the applicant, backed up by systematic suppression of independent scientists working in the public interest, then there can never be an honest, rational or scientific debate.
The Authors: Susan Bardocz (4, Arato Street, Budapest, 1121 Hungary); Ann Clark (University of Guelph, ret.); Stanley Ewen (Consultant Histopathologist, Grampian University Hospital); Michael Hansen (Consumers Union); Jack Heinemann (University of Canterbury); Jonathan Latham (The Bioscience Resource Project); Arpad Pusztai (4, Arato Street, Budapest, 1121 Hungary); David Schubert (The Salk Institute); Allison Wilson (The Bioscience Resource Project)
Signatories: Brian Wynne (Professor of Science Studies, UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, Cesagen, Lancaster University); Irina Ermakova, Dr of Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences; Jo Cummins (Professor Emeritus University of Western Ontario); Michael Antoniou, (Reader in Molecular Genetics; his university (King’s College, London) has a policy not to allow Dr Antoniou to use his affiliation here); Philip L. Bereano (Professor Emeritus University of Washington & Washington Biotechnology Action Council); Dr P M Bhargava (Former and Founder Director, Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology, Government of India); Carlo Leifert (Professor for Ecological Agriculture Newcastle University); Peter Romilly (formerly University of Abertay, Dundee); Robert Vint (FRSA); Dr Brian John (Durham University, UK, retired); Professor C. Vyvyan Howard, University of Ulster); Diederick Sprangers (Genethics Foundation); Mariam Mayet (African Centre for Biosafety, South Africa); Eva Novotny (ret. University of Cambridge); Ineke Buskens (Research for the Future); Hector Valenzuela (Professor, University of Hawaii); Ronald Nigh, (Centro de Investigaciones y Estudio Superiores en Antropología Social, Chiapas, Mexico); Marcia Ishii-Eiteman (PhD, Senior Scientist, Pesticide Action Network North America); Naomi Salmon (Dept. of Law, Aberystwyth University, Wales); Michael W, Fox (Minnesota, Veterinarian & Bioethicist, PhD, MRCVS); Neil J. Carman (PhD Sierra Club); Vandana Shiva (India); Hans Herren (President, Millennium Institute, Washington DC, USA); John Fagan (PhD Earth Open Source, UK and USA); Sheila Berry and the Global Environmental Trust; Av Singh (PhD, Perennia); Laurel Hopwood (for the Sierra Club, USA); Philip H. Howard (Associate Professor of Community, Food and Agriculture, Michigan State University); Donald B. Clark (on behalf of Cumberland Countians for Peace & Justice and Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility, United Church of Christ, Pleasant Hill, TN); Robert Mann (Senior Lecturer in Biochemistry & in Environmental Studies (rtd) University of Auckland, NZ); Chris Williams (PhD, FRSA, University of London).
Footnotes
SERALINI STUDY
http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Pap...
OUTSTANDING INTERVIEW FROM THE SEEDS OF DOUBT CONFERENCE
OCTOBER 6, 2012 LOS ANGELES
Serillini more studies on safety of GMO's than any other.
19th of September....what were missing were lifelong studies with GM Foods.
Video gives a summary...of the study of GM Corn in Rats.
Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food
Spilling the Beans, May 2009
This has a few quotes from Dr. David Schubert of the Salk Institute:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/doctors-warn#2
Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases
AAEM states, "GM foods have not been properly tested" and "pose a serious health risk." Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the "potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants" revealed "that experimental data are very scarce." The author concludes his review by asking, "Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?"[28]
Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, "The experiments simply haven't been done and we now have become the guinea pigs." He adds, "Anyone that says, 'Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,' I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying."[29]
Dr. Schubert points out, "If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop." If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.
This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood—but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites! Print this page
Email this page
 Alert Webmaster
|
