You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new www.NationofChange.org.
Friday, October 31, 2014 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTION
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Chris Kanthan
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Wednesday 30 April 2014
Like Galileo, it’s time for the GMO movement to prove that the earth revolves around the sun. Period.

Let’s Crowdfund the Ultimate GMO Study

Article image

In the field of biotechnology, something happened that has surprised and shocked the scientific community -  an event with potentially dangerous consequences. Blatant corporate influence, reeking of conflict of interest, has succeeded in squashing a scientific study that exposed the dangers of GMOs. Science has not been under attack to such an extent since Galileo was arrested for claiming that the earth revolved around the sun. And there is something we can and should do about it.In late 2012, French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini published the results of a two-year study on GMOs. His results showed that rats that were fed Monsanto’s Roundup-ready corn (“NK603”) developed tumors and exhibited damages to kidney and liver. The study was peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal called Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT).

Few months later, the journal created a new position for an Associate Editor, specially for a Richard Goodman who had spent seven years at, you guessed it, Monsanto! Goodman’s job at Monsanto was to study toxicity of GMOs and, of course, he never found any health risks associated with GMOs. Now, with Goodman’s “able guidance,” FCT suddenly realized that the Seralini paper should never have been published in the first place and it retracted the paper. It’s as if the paper never existed; as if the rats never developed tumors.

This is déjà vu all over again. This is exactly how Monsanto got aspartame, rBGH and GMOs approved in the early 1990s. When the scientists at the FDA had rejected aspartame twice and had serious concerns about GMOs, Monsanto used their political influence to create a special position at the FDA, just for their lawyer/lobbyist Michael Taylor. Once Taylor got his foot inside the FDA, suddenly everything that came out of Monsanto’s labs got promptly approved.

Of course, none of this matters to the mainstream media who see no evil and hear no evil. Unless Monsanto comes out and puts out an ad saying, “Yes, we corrupted, bribed and coerced people,” the corporate media will regurgitate Monsanto’s public relations playbook.

As for the journal, the reasons they gave for the retraction of Seralini’s study are that:

1) The type of rats that were used (“Sprague-Dawley” or “SD”) are more prone to tumors

2) Not enough rats - 100 male and 100 female rats - were used in the study, and hence the results were “inconclusive.”

First of all, if these mattered so much, how come the journal accepted and published the paper? How come the study was peer reviewed by many other scientists and approved?

Of course, never mind that the rats used by Seralini were the same type that Monsanto itself used in its study to get GMOs approved. Never mind that Monsanto studied the rats for 90 days while Dr. Seralini and his group studied the rats for 2 years. Never mind that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has a National Toxicology Program that uses the same rats.

As for the argument about the size of the sample and the “inconclusive” nature of the study, one can just laugh out loud. Unlike other fields like physics or math, medicine often has studies that cannot prove or disprove something with 100% certainty. Can any pharmaceutical company claim that 100% of the patients will feel 100% better with a certain drug? No. Can a doctor assure a patient that chemotherapy or radiation will cure their cancer for sure? No.

It is extremely common for scientific studies in certain fields like medicine to be published on the basis that reasonable evidence for some phenomenon exists, and then conclude by saying that more extensive research needs to be done.

If there is one field of science that is very non-intuitive, it’s statistics.

Let’s take an example: smoking. Everybody “knows” that smoking causes lung cancer, right? If you look at all the materials on the web, the official line is that “80-90% of lung cancers are caused by smoking.” Very convincing. Now, the “other” statistics is rarely mentioned: only about 25% of heavy smokers get lung cancer. In other words, 75% of heavy smokers do not get lung cancer at all! But still, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year warning people about smoking (as we should).

In Seralini’s study, 30% of the normal rats developed tumors while 50-80% of the “GMO rats” developed tumors. Many had multiple tumors. So the GMO rats were 67% to 167% more likely to get cancer (50 is 67% larger than 30; 80 is 167% larger than 30). Compare this to the smoking-cancer relationship, the conclusions of Seralini’s study are obvious and mind-blowingly convincing.

Finally, according to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), of which FCT is a member, the only grounds for a journal to retract a paper are: clear evidence of misconduct, plagiarism or unethical research. None of these are true or were given as reasons by the journal. You can find more information on the study from a website organized by many scientists or from Seralini’s website itself.

As for this matter, yes, Monsanto won this battle. However, they are losing the war. Their overreach in this matter shows clearly that this study really scared them.

As Gandhi said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Monsanto is fighting us now. We are close to winning this war and we have truth behind us.

Some people may say, “we are making progress in labeling of GMOs, as Vermont has recently done. Won’t that be enough?” Yes, that’s great and we should pursue the goal of labeling GMOs. However, labeling alone is not going to solve GMO problems unless the health risks of GMOs are clearly recognized.

What we need is the full support of the mainstream media and the average person who is not quite convinced about the health risks of GMOs. Rather than battling the biotech giants in the he-said-she-said fight, what we need is one indisputable study that decisively puts this matter to rest. Like Galileo, it’s time for the GMO movement to prove that the earth revolves around the sun. Period.

That’s why I propose that we crowdfund a massive, conclusive and collaborative GMO study.

This definitive study should be conducted in a way that the outcome is beyond any reasonable questions or doubts. The number of rats, for example, should be twice or three times the recommended figure. The study should use more than one type of rats, and should involve two or more generations. It should use a few different types of GMOs – RoundUp Ready, Bt and those with multiple traits (“stacked GMOs”). It should even include scientists from Monsanto or other biotech firms, right from the initial phase of designing the study. Journalists and scientists from all over the world should have access to the study while it’s being conducted. We can even have a live webcam of the lab to generate enthusiasm from people all over the world.

(By the way, I love rats – they are very intelligent beings and even exhibit empathy – and these experiments do sadden me, but hopefully this will end a lot of suffering in the future.)

Such a study will of course be quite expensive. Imagine a place with perhaps 1000 rats and all the people needed to feed the animals, monitor and record data, and not to mention the cost for such a laboratory. No university or a government is going to sponsor such a study. That’s why it has to be done by the grassroots movement.

If we can get a few thousand people who are willing to give maybe as little as $5 a month for two years, this study can be done. We can use crowdfunding sites such as Kickstarter or Indiegogo to fund this study. Such sites have become effective resources to fund many other expensive projects including a movie about GMOs.

If enough people respond positively to this article, we can contact Dr. Seralini and other organizations to make this happen!

We are at a critical junction in human history: this could be the inflexion point when corporations have taken over seeds and our food supply, when biodiversity has been dealt an irrecoverable blow, when rainforests have been destroyed beyond repair in order to grow GMOs, when our life-giving soil has been destroyed, when bees and butterflies and many other beneficial insects have become extinct; this could be the arc of history when a large portion of human population are doomed to lives crippled by chronic diseases.

It is up to us to determine how history evolves from here on. Are you in?



ABOUT Chris Kanthan

Chris Kanthan is the author of the e-book “Deconstructing Monsanto.” He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, has traveled to more than 30 countries, and deeply cares about (and writes about) politics, finance and food. His Twitter account is @GMOChannel and his YouTube channel is https://www.youtube.com/user/GMOChannel/videos.

The claim that there have

The claim that there have been many exhaustive studies done is simply false. "Exhaustive" can be used for Seralini's study because of the generational time length and the number of parameters studied. There are few studies that begin to approach that level of thoroughness. The pro-GMO criticism has focused on the tumors, saying the study was not designed properly for a carcigenicity study, which is disingenuous, since of course it wasn't designed to be a cancer study. It was designed as a toxicity study -- the tumors were unexpected and simply commented upon -- and as such it proved very clearly that there were toxic effects.

When Monsanto runs studies in which half their chickens die and they say that is not statistically significant, or where 50 biomarkers are significantly different from the controls and they say that is not biologically significant, or when they substitute pregnant cattle into a test group to prove that their feed doesn't affect fertility, we have to ask what it is about science that they don't get. As Jeffrey Smith ("Seeds of Deception") has appropriately said, "... it’s unbelievable how good they are at rigging their research. They have got bad science down to a science."

I'm in on the idea of crowd sourcing, although it would be helpful if one of the enthusiasts in this thread actually started one. My only quarrel with the article is the claim that "Science has not been under attack to such an extent since Galileo." Anyone who claims this has not been paying attention to RF radiation research (cellphones, smart meters, wifi) or water fluoridation, but particularly the former. If you want a hair-curling history of the former, read Dr. Devra Davis's "Disconnect"
(http://www.amazon.com/dp/0452297443).

Great idea Chris...I'm in!!!

Great idea Chris...I'm in!!!

Comment with your Facebook account



Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...