New book chapter. Spent a lot of time on this one.
The Guiding Force of Photons
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Natural News TV: Amazing Distortion of Real Science
If you ever wondered if the anti-GMO interests are dishonest, uninformed, or both, please read on.
This morning I sat down with a hot cup of coffee and began playing with email and Facebook. My anti-GMO friend Lilia posted a rather chippy comment:
"Just found another study, here is the video which I bet you won't want to watch"
Of course, being open to all information I certainly would be interested in another study. If one showed that transgenic crops were truly dangerous it would be a first. But a video? That's not a study!
But I'll play. Now before you watch this keep in mind that one of my transgenic-loathing friends here is sold on the dangers of GMO food and the cited study tells firmly why. Or does it?
Turn out that my anti-GMO friend and The Health Ranger at Natural News didn't even read the study. But you can!
But before you watch, download the original research report that they cite. It is in Cell Research from summer 2011 (22:107-126), a report by Zhang et al. on micro RNA from rice. If you don't have it, I can send it to you. It is a really cool paper that says that certain miRNAs (small regulatory molecules) found in plants survive digestion and may have specific physiological consequences.
What you will see is that the scientific study is completely misrepresented in the following video:
In the paper:
-- There is no mention of GMO/transgenic plants
-- There is no evidence of "How GMO foods alter organ function and pose a very real threat to humans"
As usual, Natural News uses fear mongering and deception, lying about the contents of a real scientific study from a peer-reviewed journal.
Plus, if they fear miRNA from GMOs they might rethink that position. In a transgenic plant we can predict and test for miRNA. Based on constructs in use, it likely is not even being made. However, plants make many different miRNAs!! Plants from different parts of the world make different ones, the sequences vary, etc. The paper shows that miRNA can survive digestion and get into the bloodstream where it has interaction targets That's remarkable! But if they are going to fear GMOs, they better fear the generic plant first!
The sad part is in the comments. Below the video you will find this:
That is just frightening. How dare those science teachers teach science! Then this idiot parent has the audacity to slam scientists and anoint their kids with pseudoscientific garbage.
If you have any questions about GMO food and the lies and distortions used by the anti-GMO crowd, please get this paper and watch this video. You'll find that the two have no concordance, and it is just more evidence that they use real science inappropriately to manipulate weak minds.
This morning I sat down with a hot cup of coffee and began playing with email and Facebook. My anti-GMO friend Lilia posted a rather chippy comment:
"Just found another study, here is the video which I bet you won't want to watch"
Of course, being open to all information I certainly would be interested in another study. If one showed that transgenic crops were truly dangerous it would be a first. But a video? That's not a study!
But I'll play. Now before you watch this keep in mind that one of my transgenic-loathing friends here is sold on the dangers of GMO food and the cited study tells firmly why. Or does it?
Turn out that my anti-GMO friend and The Health Ranger at Natural News didn't even read the study. But you can!
But before you watch, download the original research report that they cite. It is in Cell Research from summer 2011 (22:107-126), a report by Zhang et al. on micro RNA from rice. If you don't have it, I can send it to you. It is a really cool paper that says that certain miRNAs (small regulatory molecules) found in plants survive digestion and may have specific physiological consequences.
What you will see is that the scientific study is completely misrepresented in the following video:
In the paper:
-- There is no mention of GMO/transgenic plants
-- There is no evidence of "How GMO foods alter organ function and pose a very real threat to humans"
As usual, Natural News uses fear mongering and deception, lying about the contents of a real scientific study from a peer-reviewed journal.
Plus, if they fear miRNA from GMOs they might rethink that position. In a transgenic plant we can predict and test for miRNA. Based on constructs in use, it likely is not even being made. However, plants make many different miRNAs!! Plants from different parts of the world make different ones, the sequences vary, etc. The paper shows that miRNA can survive digestion and get into the bloodstream where it has interaction targets That's remarkable! But if they are going to fear GMOs, they better fear the generic plant first!
The sad part is in the comments. Below the video you will find this:
| KB Posted 2/6/2012 1:17:14 PM | Thank you for bringing us they science behind GMO's. My children attend the most prestigious private school in the area and their science teachers have been spouting how wonderful GMO products are for the world(to a classroom of children)! As a parent, I have been re-teaching my children just the opposite and now have the "science" for the "science teacher"! |
That is just frightening. How dare those science teachers teach science! Then this idiot parent has the audacity to slam scientists and anoint their kids with pseudoscientific garbage.
If you have any questions about GMO food and the lies and distortions used by the anti-GMO crowd, please get this paper and watch this video. You'll find that the two have no concordance, and it is just more evidence that they use real science inappropriately to manipulate weak minds.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Why We Should Not Label GMO Food
Information is always good. But it has to be based on evidence, established facts, truth and transparency.
Evidence, facts, truth and transparency are not the tools of those that loathe GMO (transgenic plant) technology.
A food label is an amalgam of marketing and facts. The marketing comes from clever minds that probe public sentiment in an attempt to influence their buying decisions. They influence the smaller minds among us to desire products that might not be nutritionally sound. They also provide marketing claims that may not be scientifically vetted.
The label also contains facts. The panel on nutrition content provides critical information about the number of servings per unit, the calories the sugars, fats, fiber and vitamins. It provides information about many aspects of a product's nutritional content, along with a list of ingredients.
The marketing and the facts must never mix. The facts are scientifically derived and provide important health information that can base a life-or-death decision for a diabetic or someone with allergies.
Advocates for transgenic-product labeling say that more information about food is good, and I agree. I like knowing country of origin or in some cases the variety of fruits and veggies I buy. But we should not label foods containing transgenic crops.
Here's the problem. Labeling only works if we have honesty and transparency. Anti GMO interests know the power of a label in marketing, and want to manipulate consumers with a label based on bogus information. They know how to market fear. The anti-GMO interests are some of the most adept alarmist fact deniers, their claims are largely scientifically bankrupt, and they lack sophistication necessary to differentiate between something that is dangerous and something that is helpful. That's a pretty wide chasm!
Couple this to an extensive network of anti-GMO propaganda (like Natural News, Seeds of Deception, GMO Watch and others) that seeks to scare, yet is wrapped in a patina of education.
Add this to the fact that Americans lack sophistication to digest scientific information and you have a perfect storm of influence. Here are some real results from the 2012 National Science Foundation Report on Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding. I wish these were not real, but they are.
This is just an excerpt from the report. Here 73% of Americans are confident that the Earth goes around the Sun. Seems like an okay statistic until we consider that 27% do not. The next question shows that 53% of Americans do not accept that human being evolved from earlier species.
The next question is the central reason why we can't label transgenic food. The survey reveals that 47% of Americans say that "ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes, while genetically modified tomatoes do."
The lack of scientific understanding is laughable. Worse, it opens the know-nothing consumer to manipulation by anti-transgenic interests. Whether they hate Monsanto or just scientists, these folks clearly distort the truth and look the other way on factual evidence that does not support their conclusion that frankenfoods are deadly and should be banned.
You can read more about this in one of my previous posts on how they are either liars, they don't know what they are talking about, or both.
Anti-GMO interests can use their platform of fear and disinformation to frighten and malign. Does it work? Sure does! Even though there is not a shred of reproducible evidence of harm from independent laboratories on GMO danger, they skillful rhetoric of the anti-scientists works. Here are the attitudes from another leg of the survey, asked to Americans in 2000 and 2010.
In this survey, 58% of people think modifying genes in crops is dangerous. Another 16% don't know. Only 26% understands that manipulating genes in crops has been the norm since before there were crops, as human domestication of wild weeds, crossing and selection have been the most extensive genetic modifications in history!
Most unfortunately, 58% have succumbed to the disinformation machine and project harm on a technology where none has been established by science.
This is why we can't label. Such information needs to be factual, and until the information campaigns against GMO technology start working in facts, the conversation must end there. If labeling succeeds you will see a massive outpouring of disinformation about the danger of GMO food on websites and opinion-based resources. Consumers (that clearly know nothing) will be swayed by fear and a safe technology will be further sullied in public perception.
I'm all for labeling if the factual part is based on science. At this point, there is no danger, no harm, and no need for specific labeling.
Evidence, facts, truth and transparency are not the tools of those that loathe GMO (transgenic plant) technology.
A food label is an amalgam of marketing and facts. The marketing comes from clever minds that probe public sentiment in an attempt to influence their buying decisions. They influence the smaller minds among us to desire products that might not be nutritionally sound. They also provide marketing claims that may not be scientifically vetted.
The label also contains facts. The panel on nutrition content provides critical information about the number of servings per unit, the calories the sugars, fats, fiber and vitamins. It provides information about many aspects of a product's nutritional content, along with a list of ingredients.
The marketing and the facts must never mix. The facts are scientifically derived and provide important health information that can base a life-or-death decision for a diabetic or someone with allergies.
Advocates for transgenic-product labeling say that more information about food is good, and I agree. I like knowing country of origin or in some cases the variety of fruits and veggies I buy. But we should not label foods containing transgenic crops.
Here's the problem. Labeling only works if we have honesty and transparency. Anti GMO interests know the power of a label in marketing, and want to manipulate consumers with a label based on bogus information. They know how to market fear. The anti-GMO interests are some of the most adept alarmist fact deniers, their claims are largely scientifically bankrupt, and they lack sophistication necessary to differentiate between something that is dangerous and something that is helpful. That's a pretty wide chasm!
Couple this to an extensive network of anti-GMO propaganda (like Natural News, Seeds of Deception, GMO Watch and others) that seeks to scare, yet is wrapped in a patina of education.
Add this to the fact that Americans lack sophistication to digest scientific information and you have a perfect storm of influence. Here are some real results from the 2012 National Science Foundation Report on Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding. I wish these were not real, but they are.
Americans don't understand science, so they are easily manipulated by those with an agenda,
such as the anti-plan biotechnolgy interests. The numbers represent the percent of responses that were correct. Remember, these are true-false, so the numbers are likely inflated from those that guessed and got it right.
This is just an excerpt from the report. Here 73% of Americans are confident that the Earth goes around the Sun. Seems like an okay statistic until we consider that 27% do not. The next question shows that 53% of Americans do not accept that human being evolved from earlier species.
The next question is the central reason why we can't label transgenic food. The survey reveals that 47% of Americans say that "ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes, while genetically modified tomatoes do."
The lack of scientific understanding is laughable. Worse, it opens the know-nothing consumer to manipulation by anti-transgenic interests. Whether they hate Monsanto or just scientists, these folks clearly distort the truth and look the other way on factual evidence that does not support their conclusion that frankenfoods are deadly and should be banned.
You can read more about this in one of my previous posts on how they are either liars, they don't know what they are talking about, or both.
Anti-GMO interests can use their platform of fear and disinformation to frighten and malign. Does it work? Sure does! Even though there is not a shred of reproducible evidence of harm from independent laboratories on GMO danger, they skillful rhetoric of the anti-scientists works. Here are the attitudes from another leg of the survey, asked to Americans in 2000 and 2010.
The last two columns show data from 2000 and 2010 in the same NSF survey. The number represents the percent of people surveyed that agree with the statement.
In this survey, 58% of people think modifying genes in crops is dangerous. Another 16% don't know. Only 26% understands that manipulating genes in crops has been the norm since before there were crops, as human domestication of wild weeds, crossing and selection have been the most extensive genetic modifications in history!
Most unfortunately, 58% have succumbed to the disinformation machine and project harm on a technology where none has been established by science.
This is why we can't label. Such information needs to be factual, and until the information campaigns against GMO technology start working in facts, the conversation must end there. If labeling succeeds you will see a massive outpouring of disinformation about the danger of GMO food on websites and opinion-based resources. Consumers (that clearly know nothing) will be swayed by fear and a safe technology will be further sullied in public perception.
I'm all for labeling if the factual part is based on science. At this point, there is no danger, no harm, and no need for specific labeling.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Indiana to Teach about Xenu's Creation as Science
I absolutely claim 100% that I can be wrong. I'm open. Teach me. But don't tell me. Convince me. Show me the evidence.
This is not just my dumb idea. This is the attitude of science.
However, in our effort to be sensitive and gooey to all ideas and opinions, we've now seen the pendulum swing too far the other way. As a society we have now gone so far as to expect that every established scientific dictum now has to have a comparable and equal flip side. Flip sides usually suck. Anyone that took the time to listen to the flip side of "Seasons in the Sun" by Terry Jacks knows that "Put the Bone In" was probably the most awful recording ever.
Nowadays the trend is sad. We are expected to respect, and even teach that alternative view-- even if it is nutso.
Eff-dat-ess.
Science is not a democracy. It is a meritocracy. The best ideas with the most evidence win. Period.
So off to
Are you kidding me? In science class?
As most of us with a high-school science education know, science is based on testing a hypothesis, then determining if the data support, or do not support it. How do you test the hypothesis that Xenu created a vast underworld where aliens will one day arise from volcanoes?
Well Hoosier kids, if the religious types in your state get their way, you just might get to ponder this.
While other children around the world are being immersed in the scientific method, gaining exposure to the best hypotheses and the evidence gathered,
Clearly, this is a way for religious nuts to get their personal myths promoted as an equal alternative to the scientific evidence that says that the earth is 4.3 billion years old, life has been there for most of it, evolution is the way that organisms change through time and that natural selection is the mechanism by which it happens. Let's not play games here, the teaching of evolution is the target.
The legislators of
"Academic freedom" ends when someone wants to promote their evidence-less point of view in science class. That's not freedom. That's freedumb.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Remembering Jessie- A Labmate Leaves Us
Goodbye to Our Friend, Jessica Rodean Justice
Late in January, 2012, a flurry of emails circulated among laboratory alumni from the Folta Lab. Each post brought sadness and questions, as it became clear that we lost a beloved member of our laboratory family, a contributor to our scientific history, and a friend that remembered to visit whenever she passed through town.
Jessica Rodean Justice joined our group as an undergraduate lab aide, probably in 2004. She worked hard at her job, taking seriously even mundane chores with great care. After a short while, it was clear that we had to get real science into her careful hands. Sure, she was a rookie, still learning; but she had a spark that we recognized as great aptitude and talent.
Jessie was outgoing and personable. She dressed, looked and acted like a University of Florida 19 year old, complete with wild stories (that would make me roll my eyes and run to my office) and tales of strange predicaments. Luckily the graduate student women in my lab always were willing to give her attention, correction and guidance.
She would always refer to herself as a 'dumb blonde' but despite this, she had an unusually developed streak of competence. I could show her something one time and she could repeat it. I would give her explicit direction and she could complete the task with great precision. I trusted Jessie, more than Jessie trusted Jessie. I remember so many occasions where she would underestimate her capacities. If there was one thing I found truly frustrating about her, it was that she had a gift that she didn't think she possessed.
She continued research in analyzing stem growth in the laboratory plant Arabidopsis thaliana, and how different wavelengths of light contributed to growth inhibition. She grew accustomed to using our LED arrays and specialized equipment that she'd use to measure the tiny seedlings. She was taking the laboratory time for credit and had to prepare a report of her research work.
While I always thought she was gifted, the report she handed me was incredibly impressive beyond expectations. She prepared a graduate-level treatment of the current state of the literature and how her work related. Turns out that I underestimated her too.
Later, I knew that she was pursuing a MS degree in occupational therapy here at UF. She'd still come by and visit here and there. It was great to see her grow up even more and gain confidence in her chosen field and blossom into a professional.
Even though she was gaining credibility in her field, she didn't shed the wild and weird streak that seemed to follow her everywhere. She'd tell me about working at Bike Week in Daytona and drift into other endeavors that were entirely Jessie-esque. Her funny edge was part of her charm.
One April I received a card in my work mailbox. It was from Jessie. She invited me to her graduation. This confidence-lacking and unsure student had achieved an academic and life milestone. On the blank side of the card she wrote, "Thank you for teaching me to think critically." It was her graduation-- but I got the best gift.
Since then I've written her reference letters for jobs, gave her interview advice and spoke to potential employers. It was great to hear that she was doing well.
---
The news of her death hit hard. Jessie is the first member of my lab to pass away. In an academic laboratory we work like a family. We help each other, teach each other, care for each other and foster each other's growth. We share stress, failure and triumph. We all get very close, meet each other's families, and know each other personally as well as professionally. I'm heartbroken that she won't come visit us anymore, comment about my sloppy bench and ask when she can start in the lab again.
We will all miss you Jessie. Thank you for adding something special to our little part of our science, and a big part of our lives.
-- Kevin Folta, January 2012
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Jump the Gun Before Shooting Oneself in the Foot with It?
Last week in a discussion with one of my anti-GMO friends, she presented me with what she believed was more evidence of GMO danger from a peer-reviewed journal. She sent me the following:
Here is another one from a few days ago out of Germany
http://www.criigen.org/
There is contact info at the bottom for the researchers.
Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide
Authors: Mesnage R., Clair E., Gress S., Then C., Székács A. and Séralini G.-E.
Journal of Applied Toxicology. 2011; (accepted)
http://www.criigen.org/
There is contact info at the bottom for the researchers.
Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide
Authors: Mesnage R., Clair E., Gress S., Then C., Székács A. and Séralini G.-E.
Journal of Applied Toxicology. 2011; (accepted)
At the time the link worked swimmingly and I read a press release at the Criigen website that presented the results of this work. Details were few, but as I recall the group used cells in culture and mixed them with increasing amounts of Bt protein and/or glyphosate. They found effects on the cells at high dosages.
The reason I can’t recall specifics is because I tried to find the actual paper in the Journal of Applied Toxicology. It was not in the New Papers Online section either, which is where it would be if it was accepted and ready for publication.
Worse, within two days the link was dead and I was unable to access the press release. Hmmm.
What does this possibly mean?
1. Someone in the CRIIGEN PR department was excite about getting their work out, so they pulled the trigger too soon on the release. That happened to us with the USDA and the strawberrygenome, so I completely understand. If that’s true, then the paper should agree with the claims in the press release.
2. The press release was intended to stir the runaway anti-GMO machine. They don’t read the papers and usually don’t critically read the press releases, so a sensational headline furthers the agenda. It does it in the absence of the actual report, so nobody can actually read and evaluate the science.
Time will tell what the real story is. The point is that in a discussion of transgenics someone provided me with this sterling new evidence that GMOs are dangerous, yet they clearly could not have read the paper and only gauged their opinion on a press release that has since been taken down.
The take home messages.
1. The anti-GMO interests don’t read or understand the science, they parrot the points they want to believe with no scrutiny of their own.
2. Authors potentially with an agenda (this group may be classified in that light) may use press releases to spread a non-story and do so in a way that the conclusions cannot be reviewed and validated by others in the field. That could stand for pro- or anti-transgenics too.
That last point is a pretty damning allegation and I put it out there only as speculation. I give these authors the benefit of the doubt. I could not find the original press release, but if the paper does not match what I read it will confirm that dark suspicion.
Monday, January 30, 2012
More Analysis of Anti-GMO Claims
A simple exercise. Open another tab in your browser and search "GMO fetus". Go ahead, I'll wait.
Pretty scary stuff, isn't it?!!! What you see is how our anti-GMO friends are interpreting a paper published in Reproductive Toxicology last year. By the way, according to anti-GMO interests this paper is regarded as one of the best papers in a peer reviewed journal that shows the dangers of transgenic crops.
Today I will now show you that they 1.) are either lying because they hate transgenic technologies and/or the companies that make them, or 2.) they don't know how to critically examine scientific literature. Either way, they freely overstep the data in the paper, the limitations of the controls, and even the authors' conclusions. For fun, let's just take a look at the first website. Read the headline of that article carefully, along with the subhead. Here it is:
Pretty scary stuff, isn't it?!!! What you see is how our anti-GMO friends are interpreting a paper published in Reproductive Toxicology last year. By the way, according to anti-GMO interests this paper is regarded as one of the best papers in a peer reviewed journal that shows the dangers of transgenic crops.
Today I will now show you that they 1.) are either lying because they hate transgenic technologies and/or the companies that make them, or 2.) they don't know how to critically examine scientific literature. Either way, they freely overstep the data in the paper, the limitations of the controls, and even the authors' conclusions. For fun, let's just take a look at the first website. Read the headline of that article carefully, along with the subhead. Here it is:
Gaia Health - Information for the welfare of you and your children.
Too bad they didn't read the report that they use
for the foundation of their claim...
According to Gaia Health "toxic elements can be found in nearly all pregnant women and children." The report they refer to is by Aris and Leblanc, and it was published in Reproductive Toxicology (impact factor 3.17, pretty good). I'll send you a copy of the original report if you'd like one.
The authors show several apparently reasonable conclusions. However, we have to interpret them carefully within the limitations of the experiment and the absence of controls. I'll examine each main conclusion.
Conclusion 1.
What the anti-GMO people read-- The Cry1Ab protein is present in the blood of all women and fetuses.
What it really says. That the Cry1Ab protein is detectable in vanishingly small amounts by ELISA, a super sensitive technique, in the majority of subjects (55/69). The protein was found at 40-190 pg/ml (yes, that's picograms, 10-12 grams, that's trillionths of a gram). Their standard curve measured 0.1 ng/ml to 10 ng/ml, and when the mean is considered along with their range and standard deviation, most of the data were likely near or below the lowest point in the standard curve, especially for "fetal cord" where the mean is reported 2.5x below the lowest end of the standard curve.
Critical evaluation: The commercial kit is very sensitive. Most of their data were likely at or below the lowest point on their standard curve. The authors did not measure the comparable sera from non-transgenic consuming women (e.g. organic diets), nor did they show negative controls or report background levels. It is necessary to include these controls as the amounts shown start to approach the limit of detection, and Bt toxin is a natural part of our environment. The Bt protein is used on organic crops and in gardens. The implication is that the Bt protein in the sera is from transgenics, but they did not include the non-transgenic control.
Plus, the Bt protein is just a fraction of the protein in a transgenic plant. Back of the envelope math says that you'd have to eat a lot of Bt corn to have any detectable level. I'll follow up on this later in a separate blog.
But let's assume that these levels are accurate. It is difficult to reconcile how the Bt protein could survive digestion and be localized to blood serum. Could be! Is that level of consequence biologically? Probably not to an insect larvae and certainly not to a primate. I'll follow up on this one too in a future blog. That's what the authors correctly conclude as well, if one takes the time to read the research paper.
Better controls and interpretations that do not overstep the data-- that's what this data point needs.
Conclusion 2.
What the anti-GMO people read- Herbicide levels from GMOs are high in all women and fetuses.
What it really says. A breakdown product of one kind of herbicide (glufosinate) was identified in their sera using GC/MS. It was detected in 56 of the 69 women in this study and in 24 of 30 umbilical cord blood samples.
Sounds scary, until you look a little deeper.
Critical Evaluation: The compound identified by the authors is 3-MPPA. It is a breakdown product of glufosinate, an herbicide used in conventional farming and at home. It is sold as Liberty, Basta, and other names. It is not Roundup (glyphosate), the one used on Roundup Ready transgenics. Still, its breakdown products are there, so that's scary, right?
It seems downright alarming until you read that the authors used a method of detection referenced as used by Motojyuku et al, (2008 ) J. Chromatography B, 875; 509-514. The authors in this paper state that you can't measure 3-MPPA using this method! Aris and Leblanc apparently are scoring an artifact. From the text on page 511, continuing to 512 in Motojyuku et al...
"Although this method could detect 3-MPPA, there existed an interfering peak derived from the endogenous components at the elution times of the 3-MPPA. Thus, 3-MPPA was not validated in this study."
D'oh!
So this "GMO-related toxin" that is first, not Roundup and then not correctly detected, and may not be present in "nearly all pregnant women and children" as the article claims. To be fair, it may be there. It may not be there. This method can't determine if it is or isn't.
3. What the anti-GMO people read- Roundup was found in women's blood in this study.
What it really says. Glyphosate (roundup) was not found in any of the pregnant women and was found in 2 of the non-pregnant subjects. So that's 2 out of 69. It was not found in the umbilical cord.
Critical Evaluation: Glyphosate (Roundup) was detected in two subjects and not in fetal cords. The authors may be picking up legitimate herbicide residues in these few women with this sensitive technique. It is probably more likely that they may be picking up non-food exposure, like if the non-pregnant women recently sprayed some weeds with Roundup. The range of detection must be huge too, with a substantial standard deviation (based on two data points, hmmm). It is hard to put any conclusion on this one, especially relating it directly to transgenic crops. Glufosinate (Liberty, Basta, etc) was detected in 7 women in the study.
Here's where it gets really fun. Glyphosate is regarded as "mildly toxic" on its MSDS. A quick look at that document shows acute oral toxicity (rat) at 4320 mg/kg. That's over four grams per kilogram of body weight. Holy cats, I don't know that I could eat that much in one sitting. According to women's BMI charts for 33 year old white women (as in the study) the mean weight is 64 kg. This means that they would have to ingest 275 g of Roundup to approach toxicity. That's about three candy bars of Roundup. What is reported to be detected is 73 ng/ml. The average woman in the study is 64,000 ml containing 73,000 ng of Roundup (assuming levels are equal throughout the body, actually must be much less). That's 73 micrograms or about one one-millionth of one of those candy bars!
Summary
So we looked at the first website that popped up on the screen and find that the sensational title and subsequent claims are scientifically unsupported. Even Aris and Leblanc conclude that their report simply illustrates detection and that all levels are significantly below any levels shown to have biological effects. They clearly state that it is a stepping off point for further studies and I agree with that. In my opinion, better controls would make the data much more compelling. It seems weird to detect the Bt protein in the blood, and if the test was done properly (transgenic eating vs. organic diet subjects) and the results were the same, it would have been of greater impact.
To conclude, this article is held up as some of the best evidence in anti-GMO circles as proof that the technology is dangerous. Look at some of the other websites from your original search and how they freely and incorrectly extrapolate the results in this scholarly paper. They use this flawed report to inflame their scientifically illiterate base, and it works. Pregnant women and fetuses tug at hearts and breed fear. Just continue down that first Google list and see how the anti-GMO interests are either lying, not critically reading, or both.
Once again science takes a back seat to the anti-GMO agenda. It is much easier to scare you than to educate you. Especially when it is important to scare you so they can advance their agendas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)