When the Science Sucks, You Can Have it Both Ways!

Dear Howard Vleiger, which one is it?

Which one is correct?

You have stood by your (probably bogus) data from the "Stunning Corn Comparison" on Moms Across America.  Here GMO corn is compared to conventional corn-- but the GMO corn, by your data, has no nutritional value and is full of formaldehyde and glyphosate.  Everyone in the anti-GM world stands by these data as valid (even though they are adulterated soil data-- we don't do those tests on biological matter).

Now, you are second author on the "GM is bad for pig stomachs" study (Carman et al, 2013, Journal of Something Obscure).  In this study it is stated in Materials and Methods on page 41:

"The GM soy and corn used in this study have been determined to be compositionally and substantially equivalent to non-GM varieties of soy and corn ... which indicates that there should be no phenotypical variation between the GM and non-GM varieties used in this study that could influence the outcomes measured in this study."

Good 'Ol Howard somehow wants it both ways, depending on the results he wants the "study" to convey.  Stark inconsistencies between reports are suspicious.

Wait a minute! How can GM corn be full of formaldehyde and glyphosate, have no carbon in it and 1% Brix (none of which are close to reality) and be called "compositionally and substantially equivalent" to conventional corn?

Seems like one of your claims, or perhaps both, are not so reliable.  I'm going to go as far to say that overlooking such inconsistencies is not just potential evidence of unethical scientific behavior, it you guys can't even keep your own poor data straight.

Sorry to be so harsh, but this is getting crazy. It is annoying that those opposed to biotechnology don't notice, and don't care, but critical evaluation of science is not their strong suit.

Keep up the stunning work.  Your credibility, and the credibility of the fools that cling to it, will certainly be reflected in the future of this conversation.

******
UPDATE:  Earth Open Source is now backing away from the "Stunning Corn Comparison" saying "it is not a published study"!!!!!!  Get ready for Moms Across America to take that website down!

Collateral Damage of Tripe

To many in the anti-GMO movement the report on pig stomach inflammation could not have been more welcome.  In a time were generating public hysteria is job #1, a flurry of hazard claims based on scientifically bankrupt articles in obscure journals is the best thing that can happen.

Or is it?

The latest attack on science comes from a report from renowned anti-GM activist Judy Carman.  Number 2 on her 'science' team is Mr. Howard Vleiger, the guy that came up with the stunning corn data that likely are fabricated numbers. So his stellar credibility may follow him here.

Their paper has some nice points in that they finally start to use relevant numbers and measure lots of health parameters.  That's good.  What is atrocious is the statistical massage (beating) and the overstepping of the data, as long as some severe flaws in experimental design. These have been discussed elsewhere and I might fill in some of the gaps later.

Good Ol' Mike Adams continues his scholarly interpretation of the literature. 

My big complaint here is different.  You are screwing "organic" stuff.

The report was published in an online journal, the Journal of Organic Systems.  Hmm. JOS is an almost non-existent, web-based journal that does not even have an impact factor.  The JOS  has sponsors, one that is the Organic Federation of Australia.  They promote Seralini's work on their homepage.

This is the problem.  Right now the poor research is being used to manipulate the credulous and breed fear.  However, silently in the background there is a mounting discrediting of organic cultivation.  The legitimate science of organic production, a discipline built on low-input agriculture, is now becoming aligned with crackpot science, dubious reports, insane activists and politically-motivated manipulation of data.

I'm a fan of organic farming, a fan that understands its strengths and limitations.  Many small farms use these practices to reach niche markets and stay in business, and oftentimes produce a superior product to conventional.

I have colleagues that do great work in this area.

I fear that the continued hijacking of the organic label to vilify sound technology is only going to discredit a discipline that needs all the cred it can get.  A lot of people view organic ag as flaky and unscientific. That's just wrong and it is changing as good science makes that case.

My hope is that those that value organic produce and low-input agriculture, maybe even those that hate Big Ag, might realize that by hitching their wagon to horrible science their own interests are the ones that ultimately suffer.