Protesters threaten to destroy GMO crop 5/27/12 - Page 5

Roboramma · 18th May 2012, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

So your suggesting that opposition to GMO' s is ideological and no opposition isn't?

Or perhaps some opposition to GMOs is ideological and some (hers) lack of opposition to GMOs is not ideological.

That doesn't suggest that all opposition to GMOs is ideological. Some could be the product of well a reasoned and researched viewpoint.

Nor does it suggest that the lack of opposition to GMOs is not ideological, only that it's possible to not oppose GMOS from a non-ideological viewpoint.

quarky · 20th May 2012, 07:38 AM

That sounds right.

!Kaggen · 21st May 2012, 03:53 AM

Quote:

The study of combined effects of pesticides represents a challenge for toxicology. In the case of the new growing generation of genetically modified (GM) plants with stacked traits, glyphosate-based herbicides (like Roundup) residues are present in the Roundup-tolerant edible plants (especially corns) and mixed with modified Bt insecticidal toxins that are produced by the GM plants themselves. The potential side effects of these combined pesticides on human cells are investigated in this work. Here we have tested for the very first time Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt toxins (10 ppb to 100 ppm) on the human embryonic kidney cell line 293, as well as their combined actions with Roundup, within 24 h, on three biomarkers of cell death: measurements of mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase, adenylate kinase release by membrane alterations and caspase 3/7 inductions. Cry1Ab caused cell death from 100 ppm. For Cry1Ac, under such conditions, no effects were detected. The Roundup tested alone from 1 to 20 000 ppm is necrotic and apoptotic from 50 ppm, far below agricultural dilutions (50% lethal concentration 57.5 ppm). The only measured significant combined effect was that Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac reduced caspases 3/7 activations induced by Roundup; this could delay the activation of apoptosis. There was the same tendency for the other markers. In these results, we argue that modified Bt toxins are not inert on nontarget human cells, and that they can present combined side-effects with other residues of pesticides specific to GM plants.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....2712/abstract

Soymilk420 · 21st May 2012, 10:33 AM

That study you link to had numerous problems...pretty much anything from Séralini is suspect
https://plus.google.com/103991056864...ts/YZhJrCMpdb6

!Kaggen · 21st May 2012, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Soymilk420

That study you link to had numerous problems...pretty much anything from Séralini is suspect
https://plus.google.com/103991056864...ts/YZhJrCMpdb6

Which review where you reading?
The critique by Anastasia Bodnar was well written and objective, highlighting the concerns and the interesting points the study brings up.
Nothing about problems or that anything from Seralini is suspect.
She does raise the issue of Seralini being funded by Greenpeace but does admit that "any paper must be judged on its own merits".

Yes the comments and the press publications like your comment above were more dramatic, but is this how science is done now? Through social networks and news media? Why not submit comments to the journal that published the work or better still repeat the experiment taking into account the issues Bodnar mentions ?

sophia8 · 21st May 2012, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by BravesFan

I really really, don't understand why someone would destroy a GMO test crop.

Because it's NOT NATURAL and they don't understand it. That's all the reason they need.

Anyway, the research station website has a very extensive section on this particular wheat trial - not too technical and worth a read.

ETA: And Monsanto has nothing to do with it btw.

ThunderChunky · 21st May 2012, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Which review where you reading?
The critique by Anastasia Bodnar was well written and objective, highlighting the concerns and the interesting points the study brings up.
Nothing about problems or that anything from Seralini is suspect.
She does raise the issue of Seralini being funded by Greenpeace but does admit that "any paper must be judged on its own merits".

Well Seralini's work has been repeatedly trashed in the past by scientific organizations, so yeah, I would take any paper form that group with a large grain of salt.

geni · 27th May 2012, 03:15 PM

Hmm protest was stopped from damaging the [s]crops[/s] [s]abominations against nature[/s] insufficiently cool use of GM without much in the way of worthwhile drama.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18224637

As Biopunk dystopias go it needs work.

18th May 2012, 10:56 PM	#161
Roboramma Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 7,096	Originally Posted by !Kaggen So your suggesting that opposition to GMO' s is ideological and no opposition isn't? Or perhaps some opposition to GMOs is ideological and some (hers) lack of opposition to GMOs is not ideological. That doesn't suggest that all opposition to GMOs is ideological. Some could be the product of well a reasoned and researched viewpoint. Nor does it suggest that the lack of opposition to GMOs is not ideological, only that it's possible to not oppose GMOS from a non-ideological viewpoint.
	__________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov

20th May 2012, 07:38 AM	#162
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	That sounds right.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

21st May 2012, 03:53 AM	#163
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,442	Quote: The study of combined effects of pesticides represents a challenge for toxicology. In the case of the new growing generation of genetically modified (GM) plants with stacked traits, glyphosate-based herbicides (like Roundup) residues are present in the Roundup-tolerant edible plants (especially corns) and mixed with modified Bt insecticidal toxins that are produced by the GM plants themselves. The potential side effects of these combined pesticides on human cells are investigated in this work. Here we have tested for the very first time Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt toxins (10 ppb to 100 ppm) on the human embryonic kidney cell line 293, as well as their combined actions with Roundup, within 24 h, on three biomarkers of cell death: measurements of mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase, adenylate kinase release by membrane alterations and caspase 3/7 inductions. Cry1Ab caused cell death from 100 ppm. For Cry1Ac, under such conditions, no effects were detected. The Roundup tested alone from 1 to 20 000 ppm is necrotic and apoptotic from 50 ppm, far below agricultural dilutions (50% lethal concentration 57.5 ppm). The only measured significant combined effect was that Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac reduced caspases 3/7 activations induced by Roundup; this could delay the activation of apoptosis. There was the same tendency for the other markers. In these results, we argue that modified Bt toxins are not inert on nontarget human cells, and that they can present combined side-effects with other residues of pesticides specific to GM plants. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....2712/abstract
	__________________ "Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/

21st May 2012, 10:33 AM	#164
Soymilk420 Scholar Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 73	That study you link to had numerous problems...pretty much anything from Séralini is suspect https://plus.google.com/103991056864...ts/YZhJrCMpdb6
Soymilk420 Scholar Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 73

21st May 2012, 11:31 AM	#165
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,442	Originally Posted by Soymilk420 That study you link to had numerous problems...pretty much anything from Séralini is suspect https://plus.google.com/103991056864...ts/YZhJrCMpdb6 Which review where you reading? The critique by Anastasia Bodnar was well written and objective, highlighting the concerns and the interesting points the study brings up. Nothing about problems or that anything from Seralini is suspect. She does raise the issue of Seralini being funded by Greenpeace but does admit that "any paper must be judged on its own merits". Yes the comments and the press publications like your comment above were more dramatic, but is this how science is done now? Through social networks and news media? Why not submit comments to the journal that published the work or better still repeat the experiment taking into account the issues Bodnar mentions ?
	__________________ "Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/

21st May 2012, 11:36 AM	#166
sophia8 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In the dark, dark forest.... Posts: 2,257	Originally Posted by BravesFan I really really, don't understand why someone would destroy a GMO test crop. Because it's NOT NATURAL and they don't understand it. That's all the reason they need. Anyway, the research station website has a very extensive section on this particular wheat trial - not too technical and worth a read. ETA: And Monsanto has nothing to do with it btw.
	__________________ "Nature is floods and famines and earthquakes and viruses and little blue-footed booby babies getting their brains pecked out by their stronger siblings! ....Nature doesn't care about me, or about anybody in particular - nature can be terrifying! Why do they even put words like 'natural' on products like shampoo, like it's automatically a good thing? I mean, sulfuric acid is natural!" -Julia Sweeney Last edited by sophia8; 21st May 2012 at 11:37 AM.

21st May 2012, 01:55 PM	#167
ThunderChunky Muse Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 981	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Which review where you reading? The critique by Anastasia Bodnar was well written and objective, highlighting the concerns and the interesting points the study brings up. Nothing about problems or that anything from Seralini is suspect. She does raise the issue of Seralini being funded by Greenpeace but does admit that "any paper must be judged on its own merits". Well Seralini's work has been repeatedly trashed in the past by scientific organizations, so yeah, I would take any paper form that group with a large grain of salt.
ThunderChunky Muse Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 981

27th May 2012, 03:15 PM	#168
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,573	Hmm protest was stopped from damaging the [s]crops[/s] [s]abominations against nature[/s] insufficiently cool use of GM without much in the way of worthwhile drama. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18224637 As Biopunk dystopias go it needs work.