Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
#44 - bonnierock (05/17/2013) [-]
uh im going to go ahead and say i would like organic and GMO free thank you
< Rat expirement involving GMO http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm
User avatar #88 to #44 - SuitUp (05/17/2013) [-]
I've seen this before. The guy that did the experiment is well known to be anti-GM and his other works have been descreditted. What his report says is highly unlikely to be the process actually undertaken and the strain of rats he used is highly prone to tumours in the first place.

I would say that this is another case of a 'scientist' with an agenda fudging figures to shock people.
User avatar #89 to #88 - bonnierock (05/17/2013) [-]
do you have some evidence to back up that statement my ego and ideas aside i would honestly want to see some?
User avatar #90 to #89 - SuitUp (05/17/2013) [-]
www.nhs.uk/news/2012/09September/Pages/Claims-of-GM-foods-link-to-cancer- disputed-by-other-researchers.aspx

A nice NHS link that breaks down the story. It's worth taking into consideration as well that it seems to have first been reported by the Daily Mail, which isn't proof against it by itself but that always sets my alarm bells off.
#77 to #44 - hellfiazz (05/17/2013) [-]
GMO isn't a chemical you tool, it's just genetically changing an organism. The person who did this, clearly ****** up.
0
#92 to #77 - hellfiazz has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #86 to #77 - bonnierock (05/17/2013) [-]
huh where does it say "Chemical"?
#93 to #86 - hellfiazz (05/17/2013) [-]
You're very much implying it.
User avatar #66 to #44 - cthumoo ONLINE (05/17/2013) [-]
well it's a good thing I'm not a rat, 2 testicles is enough for me.
User avatar #49 to #44 - willindor (05/17/2013) [-]
GMO causes that? Awesome!
User avatar #53 to #49 - ruebezahl (05/17/2013) [-]
Many of the superheros that were invented in the 20th century have origin stories related to nuclear accidents and radioactivity, because that was the "mysterious power" that people were afraid of at the time. Perhaps superheroes (and villains) of the 21st century will be created through eating unforeseen combinations of GM food?
User avatar #48 to #44 - ruebezahl (05/17/2013) [-]
This doesn't mean that all GM food is automatically bad. You could probably find test results like this about new medications that were tested out on animals before being released. That also doesn't mean that every medicine you take is bad. On the contrary, the purpose of those tests is to weed out the stuff that is potentially dangerous.

However, I do believe that GM crops need to go through the same thorough testing and approval processes as pharmaceuticals. There's a middle ground to be found between "GM is bad! Kill it with fire!" and "No problem with GM! No risks at all!"
User avatar #52 to #48 - bonnierock (05/17/2013) [-]
its a bit late for that bit considering its already being used in products and is already being fed to people across the world they just rushed all this through and now tons of people are ingesting GMO made food and "at risk"
#54 to #52 - anonymous (05/17/2013) [-]
People have been eating GM foods for as long as we have been selectively breeding plants.

There is nothing magical or shady about GM foods, we're simply changing them in a more targetted way to produce faster results (which is saving lives worldwide by providing cheap, more nutritious strains of staple foods.)
User avatar #58 to #54 - ruebezahl (05/17/2013) [-]
Yes, and studies are only now beginning to find negative side effects of selectively bred plants. Just one example: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20664999

We have adapted through evolution to the naturally occuring plants on this planet. Introducing heavily modifed plants always carries a certain risk that must be recognized.

No, I am not saying that GM foods or selective breeding are bad - on the contrary, I am heavily advocating GM. I am just saying that both needs to be evaluated carefully.
#75 to #58 - anonymous (05/17/2013) [-]
It's true that selectively bred plants may have some effects which are undesireable however their usefulness has vastly outstripped the possible risk.

As with everything, there will be a risk/reward ratio. What GM fear-mongerers don't do is fairly assess the benefits of using GM products against the possible risk. They instead compare them to their imagined worst-case scenarios which have very little scientific backing - case in point being this study.
User avatar #63 to #58 - bonnierock (05/17/2013) [-]
i sat here and wrote out a big long ass essay to try and prove my point then realized that we are talking about the same thing i like the idea of GMO but i don't like their application i have no idea what exact effect GMO's will have on my body and no one has told me exactly if the effect will be positive there was no big news debate saying "GMO proven to cure _____" "GMO helps against _____ disease" there was none of this except for a single study saying purple tomato cure cancer my final point is that they needed to (past tense) do everything you said and didn't and know we may all live having no idea what we are sticking in our ******* mouth with GMO, Soybean, Artificial sweetners, and **** knows what else
User avatar #64 to #63 - bonnierock (05/17/2013) [-]
we could cure stuff we could get super powers but at the moment people and company arn't they just want to reduce their overheads
User avatar #55 to #54 - bonnierock (05/17/2013) [-]
yeah did you miss the bit above about the study showing the effects of GMO's on rats and then the bit in it about it already being used to feed HUMAN BEING"S around the world
#56 to #55 - anonymous (05/17/2013) [-]
That rat was given concentrations hundreds of times the amount which you are exposed to in food. Give a rat the same inflated amount of common substances - salt, calcium etc. and you will see equally horrific results. The study set out to deliberately find problems with GM foods and it's 'scientific' method is laughable.

When trying to understand science, being able to pick out which studies have actual merit and what assumptions or methodical erros have been made is far more useful than trying and failing the understand the actual mechanisms involved.
User avatar #57 to #56 - bonnierock (05/17/2013) [-]
following your understanding of science would you care to go through the study where the rat's where given "concentrations hundreds of times the amount which you are exposed to in food" and show us where exactly it says this? i can only find this bit regarding the feeding regime for these rate:
" For each type of GM maize, only two feeding doses were tested per sex. This consisted of either 11 or 33% GM maize in an otherwise equivalent equilibrated diet; that is when the diet contained only 11% GM maize, the difference was made up by adding 22% non-GM maize (varieties not indicated). "
#73 to #57 - anonymous (05/17/2013) [-]
The picture you posted is not from the report linked. Notably however the report linked describes, in detail, the statistical failure of this study and why essentially it is worthless.

Following your understanding of science, as long as I make some effort at doing an 'experiment' I can then draw any conclusions I would like from it.
User avatar #80 to #73 - bonnierock (05/17/2013) [-]
firstly i thought i asked you to find the area within the study claiming "concentrations hundreds of times the amount which you are exposed to in food" nice way to change the subject suddenly that photo is all across the internet linked to this study and various others secondly on the "statistical failure" the study states " In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops" care to find the extract your talking about or are you looking at a different study?
#84 to #80 - anonymous (05/17/2013) [-]
Also you are talking ******** about this study and that image being linked. The two are linked only by the fact that fear-mongerers have used it in conjunction with this study to try and peddle their ignorence.
User avatar #85 to #84 - bonnierock (05/17/2013) [-]
Ignorance is a state of being uninformed how does this study and my defence of it show a lack of infomation? and i'm still waiting for the bit about "concentrations hundreds of times the amount which you are exposed to in food" you going to find that bit or what?
#81 to #80 - anonymous (05/17/2013) [-]
Section 2.3: Statistical power related to the experimental design
"The most fundamental point to bear in mind from the outset is that a sample size of 10 for biochemical parameters measured two times in 90 days is largely insufficient to ensure an acceptable degree of power to the statistical analysis performed and presented by Monsanto. For example, concerning the statistical power in a t test at 5%, with the comparison of 2 samples of 10 rats, there is 44% chance to miss a significant effect of 1 standard deviation (SD; power 56%). In this case to have a power of 80% would necessitate a sample size of 17 rats. Therefore, the statistical power is insufficient in these studies to allow an a priori dismissal of all significant effects."

In short, the experiment sucks. They really ought to teach how to analyse experiments in school these days, I'm fed up of people having terrible understanding of what good science is.
User avatar #83 to #81 - bonnierock (05/17/2013) [-]
"Consequently, based on the clear inadequacy of the statistical power used to refute toxic effects (for instance the unquestionable large size effects in this study), knowing also that billions of people and animals can consume these products prior to the performance of appropriate in vivo safety evaluation, we applied an appropriate, experimentally validated statistical analytical methodology [5], elements of which are described below."
User avatar #87 to #83 - bonnierock (05/17/2013) [-]
missed this bit did you or are you purposely taking bits out of context?
User avatar #47 to #44 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (05/17/2013) [-]
Whatever they pumped directly into that rat, I don't think we're just directly eating it. Not saying everything we eat is great for us, but it seems like they injected/fed the rat with the chemical/stuff that's not good, not anything else that allows us to eat certain things without ending up like that rat.
User avatar #50 to #47 - bonnierock (05/17/2013) [-]
"We present for the first time a comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are present in food and feed in the world" so that means that its the "genetically modified (GM) maize" that they were fed and this is the bit where they try to feed it to humans http://cera-gmc.org/index.php?action=gmcropdatabase&mode=ShowProd&data=MON863+ x+MON810+x+NK603
User avatar #96 to #50 - thedudeistheman ONLINE (05/17/2013) [-]
Oh, I didn't know that. Yeah, we should probably put less **** in our food.
 Friends (0)