What do we know about GMOs?
- Thread starter cheri1122
- Start date
wvcourier
Expert Expediter
Better for the Consumer?? I dont think so, better for Monsanto and other Corperations bottomline...Eat local, organic, or just be their GMO Guinea Pig.
Krogers actually has a decent Organic section compared to Walmart.
Sent from my SPH-L900 using EO Forums mobile app
Last edited:
Not much meat on a guinea pig.
I wonder how the "dosage" compares to what normal humans would ingest over a lifetime? Sometime these studies have been known to use, mega doses, for lack of a better term. Like some of the studies for saccarine, or the radon gas studies, where one would have to live in the basement for hour after hour, for years, to develop lung cancer.
Just wondering out loud.
They had 4 groups. One group was fed no soy at all (they were fed non-GMO corn and other non-GMO grains), one group was fed non-GM soy only, one group was fed GMO soy of 50% with the other 50% being the non-GMO grains, and the final group's diet consisted solely of GMO soy. The first two groups developed no abnormal problems. The fourth group couldn't reproduce after three generations, and the third group couldn't reproduce after the 8th generation.
While these two studies confirmed each other's results, it is only two studies. More studies will have to be done before any real conclusions can be reached. Like, the studies will have to be repeated using several different types of rats, and with different types of GMO foods. It will also need to be done using organic and non-organic (pesticide sprays) GMO and non-GMO foods. At this point there's no conclusive evidence that the abnormalities where caused by the genetic modifications, or by the pesticides used on the GMO foods, which tend to be in higher concentrations of pesticides because they are pesticide resistant.
What percentage of a normal human diet, taking ethnic background into consideration, would grain of any kind be? What percentage of the diet was other plant matter? Animal products? Dairy? Were any of the test subjects fed normal ratios of all foods that humans eat over a day, week, year, lifetime?
I guess what I am driving at is that one has to look at the entire diet, over years, with both gmo and non-gmo, in normal ratios, double blind, for the studies to be of real value in humans.
I get the pesticide part, but even that would be affected by the total diet.
The study wasn't really about seeing if hamsters can survive on a human diet. Hamsters don't normally eat a lot of animal products.
Not really. They do the testing over several generations, so it's the same as over years with humans. And they have (in these particular tests) four separate groups each with a different controlled diet, so that they can see what the effects of that diet will have over the generations. The information from those tests, while not complete, is still quite valuable. Two groups with no GMO foods had no problems, and two groups with GMO foods did. That's an indication of a possible problem. That can be a real value to humans because 88% of the corn we eat is GMO corn, and corn in one form or another is in nearly everything we eat. The more that research gets done in the lab, the more that the findings can be compared to what is or is not happening in humans.
Doing double blind tests in the lab with animals would be less than worthless. Double blind testing is where the testers nor the subjects know what's going on, as information about the testing could influence either one.
I understand why they do it, their track record, however, is rather tainted. I also know why double blind work is done. I believe that it should be used. It won't make a difference on the test subject, but the testers often are out to "prove" a hypothesis rather than just pure research. Like when stats were "altered" to help prove "global warming". Science and scientist need to be "watched" as closely as politicians. I just believe that more checks are better than fewer.
I even used to see the same thing at the Agency. Analysts would try to prove an idea they had, instead of just letting the data take them where it might. More often than not, they were wrong.
Some testing, often accelerated by mega doses, to mimic a life time, don't always pan out. Like:
Another study linked large doses of sucralose, equivalent to 11,450 packets (136 g) per day in a person, to DNA damage in mice.
(Sucralose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
OR
So how much is too much?
The FDA recommends ingesting no more than 50 milligrams of aspartame per kilogram of body weight every day. That amounts to 22 cans of diet soda for a 175-pound man, and 15 cans for a 120-pound woman. If you're putting two packets of artificial sugar into coffee, that would be about 116 cups of coffee for the man in this example, and 79 cups for the woman.
(Real or fake sugar: Does it matter? - CNN.com)
Last edited:
In this case, if the researchers are aware or unaware of which is the control group, it won't change the results. That's the reason for double blind tests, so that the researchers or the subjects aren't affected by a bias or by the placebo effect. Not knowing which is the control group won't have any effect on the outcome in a test like this.
I agree. There is no substitute for bad science.
In both of those cases the studies did indeed pan out. One of the reasons for testing in amounts that people wouldn't normally consume is to find out what happens if you consume too much, and to find out how much is too much. In the case of aspartame, it's important to know how much 50 milligrams is, and the easiest way to do that is to equate it to things people are already familiar with, like cans of diet soda. It's also important to know the potential effects, and testing mega doses is the scientific method of doing that. Scientists do mega dose testing on nearly everything, including water, to find out the potential effects.
I understand all you say, and somewhat agree. I just have seen too many "false profits" in the science world. Far too many are blinded by their religion, just like some religious people.
When it involves government science or company sponsored science, I trust it even less. Far too much "agenda" and not enough "serendipity".
When it involves government science or company sponsored science, I trust it even less. Far too much "agenda" and not enough "serendipity".
I go for the real scientific tests. I go to Mc Donalds. 
No need for GMO's or bunny food.
Eat McDonald's for 3 months, lose 37 pounds?
No need for GMO's or bunny food.
Eat McDonald's for 3 months, lose 37 pounds?
Fortunately, the scientific method weeds out the junk science and the junk scientists. Once the studies are peer reviewed and replicated, that's when the validity comes out.
One or even a handful of studies, especially those which are commissioned by someone, needs to be looked at carefully and not relied on too heavily, because of the obvious bias and conflict of interest of the researchers. It's only when additional independent studies are done that a clearer picture emerges. I mean, an aspartame study funded by the sugar industry should be looked at with high skepticism. A GMO study funded by Monsanto, or one funded by the Non-GMO Project should each be looked at with much skepticism.
KickStarter6
Veteran Expediter
Turtle you are very passionate on this topic, and well informed
KickStarter6
Veteran Expediter
Ask him something about batteries.
Lol that bad or good?
Very good. He is the resident expert on such matters.
Yeah, you will get a charge out of what he has to say on the subject!
Now, as far as GMO goes, if you crossed a Turtle with a tree it would be FAR easier for him to "leave" if he got a load! (Dang gum I am in rare form tonight!)
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
You're sure about that? Then why would Congress make Monsanto immune to any "mistakes"?
Fact is, we are their guinea pigs. They don't have a clue what this may or may not do to us.