Staunch Anti-GM Activist Now Embraces the Technology

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Carl Weathers, Jan 7, 2013.

  1. Mark Lynas, a once avid supporter of the anti-GMO movement and initiator of the movement in Europe has now turned completely around on his views, emphasized by a recent speech he made:

    More at: Mark Lynas » Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference, 3 January 2013
  2. Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
  3. #3 BoyMeetsPearled, Jan 11, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2013
    Monsanto gave him two options.. 1. Accept a large payment with the agreement that he switches his position and begins speak up for GMOs. 2. Death by mysterious car accident.

    i seriously have a clear image in my head of this guy getting handed a speech by some corporate thug. The speech goes against all his beliefs, they have him at gun point he begins to read it acting calm but sweating profusely. nervous. ---- maybe not what really happened but it would not surprise me
  4. The only.problem with genetic engineering is intilectual.copy.right laws.

    Its already established by law and.many court cases that gmos are essentially owned by the Creator.

    Unless laws change genetically modified humans will basically be slaves and need yo purchase the rights to have children without violating copy right laws
  5. They likely geneticly modified him, thats why he changed his opinion...they wrote those words straight into his DNA code they did...

  6. Seems legit.

    But probly cheaper just
  7. Ill always support gm crops.

    Greenpeace needs swift legal action against them.

    Plenty of high-yield strains were rejected by many famine-stricken regions.

    All because greenpeace members claimed the crops were poisoned and genetically created to destroy crops.

    every member of greenpeace should be arrested for thousands of counts of manslaughter!

    These cunts run around in cloud -9, causing confusion in 3rd world countries.

    Buncha worthless psuedo environmentalists, it pisses me off that theyre allowed to do this.
  8. It pisses me off that they are allowed to create these mutant crops and unleash them into natural environments. Genetically modified organisms wreak havoc on Systems that have taken millions of years to get the way they are.

  9. Can you cite any evidence for this?

    It seems like a rather bold claim to me.
  10. Lol the famine argument. How about instead of nonsensical/nonscientific claims of higher yielding crops being the problem, you blame the government?

    Subsidies on our agriculture in the US is not only inefficient and theivery to special interest mega-farms, but actually is the cause of famine in many 3rd world countries by decreasing their own country's ability to create a farming industry that is economically viable.

    And GM corn (Bt Toxin) has been found in fetal blood of 95% of women in the US. It has also been shown to create tumors in rats. GM is not necesarily bad though, and does have great potential. Having mega corps like Monsanto ruining farmer's lives via patents isn't helping anybody though.

    and contrary to popular belief, the justice system isn't for justice, it's made for big corporations that can pay the money in court.:D
  11. Cool thanks for the articles, I will check them out.
    Peace, DC

  12. You haven't actually cited any research for us here, instead you have opted for bold unsubstantiated claims. If you want your argument to be taken seriously, you should cite the research which you refer to.

    I'm going to take a guess here and assume that you are referring to the research undertaken by Séralini et al, Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. For anyone interested, here is the abstract,

    The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.

    Now this all looks very damning. Taken at face value, this study would lead us to believe that consumption of GMOs saw a statistically significant increase in tumor rates and liver necrosis within rat models. The problems with this study become apparent when you begin to examine their research methods.

    • Small sample size – each test group contained only 20 rats (10 male, 10 female), with a control also consisting of only 20 rats(10 male, 10 female). In practice, because the authors were examining both male and female rats, the sample size for each test and control group was 10 male rates and 10 female rats. A larger sample size would be expected for both control and test groups in this sort of study.

    • Inappropriate species of rat – The rat species used in this study (albino Sprague-Dawleyis rat) has an abnormally high predisposition to develop tumors, as outlined by Prejean et al. in Spontaneous Tumors in Sprague-Dawley Rats amd Swiss Mice. This means that the rats in the study are predisposed to tumor development as a baseline.

    • No blinding – There was no blinding incorporated into the experimental design.

    • Extraordinarily complex experimental design – The number of parameters being measured as well as array of time points selected to take the measurements is so great that a positive result is almost inevitable.

    • No confidence intervals for mortality data – A comprehensive analysis of the statistical flaws can be found here by Michael Grayer.

    All of these factors ring serious alarm bells as to the validity of any conclusions that this study draws. If you take the time to review the study, you will see that there are many subsequent publications calling into question the research methods employed. For instance,

    Schorsch, F. Serious inadequacies regarding the pathology data presented in the paper by Séralini et al. (2012)

    Panchin, A. Toxicity of roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize is not supported by statistical tests

    Here are some of the highlights of the responses Food and Chemical Toxicology received in response to this paper,

    Grunewald, W and Bury, J. – “…we conclude that there are fundamental flaws in the design, analysis and reporting of the Séralini et al. (2012) study, which make it impossible to draw any conclusion. This study should not have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The public debate about the health and safety of genetically modified crops is very sensitive and it is our opinion that the public has the right to be provided with correct scientific information and should not be submitted to unsubstantiated fear.”

    Trewavas, A – “…Science requires the dispassionate presentation of information-this paper and this journal have dealt the value of evidence-based knowledge a serious blow and it can only be rectified if the paper is withdrawn by the authors with an apology for misleading the public and the scientific community alike. I am seriously considering requesting my university library to no longer take Elsevier journals or this journal if this is the standard they operate on. Ideology and politics must be kept out of scientific study or we all suffer.”

    Feel free to read through the paper for yourself, as well as some of the criticism it has rightly garnered. If you have any questions, feel free to fire away.
  13. Hmmm I didn't know monsanto employees browsed these forums
  14. Are you joking? All I'm doing is offering a critical review of one particular study. Is it usual for you to meet reasoned argument with an ad hominem? Certainly takes a lot less time to prepare a response like that.
  15. Yeah I'm joking
  16. #17 TheWorst24, Jan 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2013
    GE Crops Destroy Our Soil and Food Supply

    And no, i didn't know about that previous study that you cited. It was actually done by a woman independently with no monetary incentive, i'll try to find the link to that study, it was done like a year or two ago.

    Edit: And I'm anticipating Dr. Mercola flames incoming, just don't.

    Edit edit: And i just wanted to mention how corrupt the FDA is (partnered with Monsanto and other big Pharm). If you don't agree that the FDA is an unconstitutional and corruptible agency there's no reason to continue with this conversation.
  17. That's the inevitable end to these conversations.

    We can't trust any information because it's obviously all fabricated by the evil government, who are in league with Monsanto (an evil corporation) and "Big Pharm" (apparently one big evil conglomerate), who get together over lunch and discuss various evil things.
  18. Yeah, there's a reason for this picture. And who said that they were going in dark, secret corners to discuss evil? They do it in the open! And not only do these lobbyists influence politicians, they become part of the political cabinets and part of the unconstitutional agencies created by fascistic, overreaching government.

  19. #20 ButchDriveshaft, Jan 15, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 15, 2013
    Do find the study, I would be very surprised if it wasn't the one I cited. This study was widely publicised as the 'tumors' study among science circles.

    So you recognise that is an inappropriate source and is likely not to be compelling to us, but you post it anyway? What are we to think of this, is this the best evidence you have for the negative health effects of GMOs?

Share This Page