# Glyphosate classified carcinogenic ... finally !



## Nikita (Jan 6, 2015)

Main reason why I stay away from pet food with corn, soy, canola. Humans have been consuming derivatives of GM crops since the '90s, GM canola, soy, corn oils/starches,syrups,vitamins are all over our food but animal feed & pet pood is direct consumption of these toxic GMOs. I wouldn't be surprised if the allergies on the rise are a result of GMOs/Roundup. Soy protein was detected in egg yolk & chicken tissues in this study Soy protein present in egg yolks and chicken tissues and the gluten intolerance epidemic has been linked to wheat sprayed with Roundup Glyphosate + Wheat linked to gluten intolerance, celiac disease, and irritable bowel syndrome | GMO Awareness


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

As for GM corn (used in pet food) the Seralini study was finally republished


----------



## Nikita (Jan 6, 2015)

Hope this petition goes viral https://secure.avaaz.org/en/monsanto_dont_silence_science_loc/?slideshow 
Expert Dr Hubert has been warning the world about glyphosate / GMOs for years Dr. Don Huber Talks about Genetically-Engineered Foods


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

Nikita said:


> Hope this petition goes viral https://secure.avaaz.org/en/monsanto_dont_silence_science_loc/?slideshow
> Expert Dr Hubert has been warning the world about glyphosate / GMOs for years Dr. Don Huber Talks about Genetically-Engineered Foods


Signed & share
Seems like it HAS gone viral ! 
Already 650,000 + signatures, with more coming in every second, worldwide


----------



## Nikita (Jan 6, 2015)

Wow, petition soon to reach one million signatures. I'm surprised there are no comments from pet owners since glyphosate/GMOs are all over pet foods


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

T&T said:


> As for GM corn (used in pet food) the Seralini study was finally republished



I've looked into this study and subsequent republishing. It is widely held across the scientific community that the Seralini study was and still is fatally flawed. And no, this is not just coming from Monsanto backed scientists. 

" Unfortunately such studies, and the associated publicity, may lead to more serious public health consequences than those purported to be found in the studies themselves, as illustrated by the vandalism of field trials of Golden Rice in the Philippines, a crop being developed to alleviate the chronic disease and premature death of some of the worlds most desperate and disadvantaged children, suffering chronic vitamin A deficiency."

The reason is not because it's controversial, it's because it's bad Science


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

Chritty said:


> I've looked into this study and subsequent republishing. *It is widely held across the scientific community that the* *Seralini study was and still is fatally flawed.* And no, this is not just coming from Monsanto backed scientists.
> 
> " Unfortunately such studies, and the associated publicity, may lead to more serious public health consequences than those purported to be found in the studies themselves, as illustrated by the vandalism of field trials of Golden Rice in the Philippines, a crop being developed to alleviate the chronic disease and premature death of some of the worlds most desperate and disadvantaged children, suffering chronic vitamin A deficiency."
> 
> The reason is not because it's controversial, it's because it's bad Science


 
Pls provide links to these sources. How does a "fatally flawed" study under so much scrutiny get republished ? Monsanto conducted same study with same type rats to get his GM corn approved, a 90 day study vs Seralini 2 year study ... Reminds me of the Arpad Pusztai study ... http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2011/10/10/gmo-scientists-under-attack-film-trailer/

As per the minister of agriculture the approval of GMOs was a political decision ... not a scientific one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJiIuQyStr4

About Golden Rice, last I read, the IRRI had not yet determined whether daily consumption does improve the vitamin A status & had not been subjected to basic toxocological testing yet


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

T&T said:


> Pls provide links to these sources. How does a "fatally flawed" study under so much scrutiny get republished ?


Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudoscience: an in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. study claiming that Roundup™ Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup™ cause cancer in rats

Why the postmodern attitude towards science should be denounced

Assessment of GE food safety using ‘-omics’ techniques and long-term animal feeding studies

A comprehensive review of the Seralini affair (including why the paper was retracted by the original journal because of its fatal flaws) This link is particularly helpful in breaking down exactly why the Seralini study is statistically meaningless (only 10 rats per sex/group). It also details the deeply unethical treatment of the study animals.

A letter from Erio Barale-Thomas, Président of the Conseil d’Administration of the SFPT (French Society of Toxicologic Pathology) pointing out the Seralini study's critical failures

And FYI the study was republished in _Environmental Sciences Europe_ with *no further peer review*. It is not hard to get a bad piece of science published or republished if you shop it around to enough journals. The fact that it was forcibly retracted by the original journal and then republished with no further review is incredibly telling.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

Interesting how a new position was created at the FCT, appointing an ex-Monsanto (Richard E Goodman), right before the retraction of the Seralini paper ... 
Monsanto does have a history of "safe" products later banned ... Monsanto’s Dirty Dozen | GMO Awareness

So much for studies


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

T&T said:


> So much for studies


You mean so much for studies that contradict what you believe. You're perfectly happy to cite ones that support your beliefs, regardless of their quality. That's not science: that's cognitive bias. Science means going where the evidence leads, regardless of what you already think.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> You mean so much for studies that contradict what you believe. You're perfectly happy to cite ones that support your beliefs, regardless of their quality. That's not science: that's cognitive bias. Science means going where the evidence leads, regardless of what you already think.


It doesn't matter what *I* believe, fact is toxic products have been approved based on "quality" studies/science yet later banned ... 

Not interested in feeding GM bt corn with it's built in insecticide going thru every cell of the plant & engineered to be sprayed with Roundup/glyphosate.


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

Seralini's findings may hold up to be true, but you can't use bad science to prove something. In the years that Seralini's study has been refuted and criticised he and his team would have done better to redo his research with his methodology corrected rather than finding an Open Access Journal to republish the same flawed study. 

If his findings are true then proving them with good science shouldn't be a problem. 

"Republishing data that was faulty in the first place in study design and analysis does not provide redemption. Furthermore, it is now possible to publish almost anything in Open Access journals!"


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

T&T said:


> fact is toxic products have been approved based on "quality" studies/science yet later banned



That is science unfortunately. Testing methodology gets better, new information is found, science readjusts it's position. Science has to move with what it has at present.


----------



## Nikita (Jan 6, 2015)

Chritty said:


> Seralini's findings may hold up to be true, but you can't use bad science to prove something. In the years that Seralini's study has been refuted and criticised he and his team would have done better to redo his research with his methodology corrected rather than finding an Open Access Journal to republish the same flawed study.
> 
> If his findings are true then proving them with good science shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> "Republishing data that was faulty in the first place in study design and analysis does not provide redemption. Furthermore, it is now possible to publish almost anything in Open Access journals!"


I had read that the study Seralini conducted was same as Monsanto's study which got this GM corn approved, only difference being Monsanto's was a 90 day study vs Seralini's 2 years ? If so, does it invalidate Monsanto safety study as well ? GMO Seralini – Critics answered


----------



## Nikita (Jan 6, 2015)

They're finding traces of weedkiller in children's Kellogs 
KELLOGG’S FROOT LOOPS | GMO Free USA
And baby food 
GERBER LIL’ CRUNCHIES | GMO Free USA
Wonder how much of it is in a corn based pet food formula :doh:


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

Nikita said:


> I had read that the study Seralini conducted was same as Monsanto's study which got this GM corn approved



Was it only one study that got this GM corn approved?


----------



## Nikita (Jan 6, 2015)

Chritty said:


> Was it only one study that got this GM corn approved?


From what I understand this NK603 maize was approved based on Monsanto's own 90 day study
GMO Seralini – Why this study now?


----------



## SunnynSey (Jan 17, 2015)

Monsanto is pure evil any way you cut it


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Nikita said:


> I had read that the study Seralini conducted was same as Monsanto's study which got this GM corn approved, only difference being Monsanto's was a 90 day study vs Seralini's 2 years ? If so, does it invalidate Monsanto safety study as well ? GMO Seralini – Critics answered


Glyphosate is about 40 years old, so there have actually been hundreds of studies on its effects, and the large-scale ones appear to show no relationship to cancer. Your question conflates the issue from the Seralini study that started this thread (is glyphosate carcinogenic?) and a safety study of a particular GMO corn strain. The Seralini site you linked deliberately conflates the two in order to make it sound like Monsanto did one study one time, but that's not the case in reality.

Seralini's bad science really undermines an important issue in our use of pesticides and GMOs. By conducting bad science and an inflammatory PR campaign, that research team is distracting from the real work being done. I don't think we do ourselves a service by running off half-cocked when a mediocre researcher sends out scary pictures of rats with tumors. There are carcinogenic pesticides out there and legitimate concerns about glyphosate, but good science means rejecting bad studies, whether they support the conclusions you like or not.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

If Seralini's study is flawed/mediocre/bad science then so is Monsanto's which was the same study but 90 days vs 2 yrs .... and yet approved.

"HANSEN: Well, basically what Dr. Séralini did was he did the same feeding study that Monsanto did and published in the same journal eight years prior, and in that study, they used the same number of rats, and the same strain of rats, and came to a conclusion there was no problem. So all of a sudden, eight years later, when somebody does that same experiment, only runs it for two years rather than just 90 days, and their data suggests there are problems, that all of a sudden the number of rats is too small? Well, if it’s too small to show that there’s a problem, wouldn’t it be too small to show there’s no problem? They already said there should be a larger study, and it turns out the *European Commission is spending 3 million Euros to actually do that Séralini study again, run it for two years, use 50 or more rats and look at the carcinogenicity. So they’re actually going to do the full-blown cancer study, which suggests that Séralini’s work was important, because you wouldn’t follow it up with a 3 million Euro study if it was a completely worthless study.
*

Dr Michael Hansen attacks scientific censorship


----------



## Nikita (Jan 6, 2015)

tippykayak said:


> Glyphosate is about 40 years old, so there have actually been hundreds of studies on its effects, and the large-scale ones appear to show no relationship to cancer. Your question conflates the issue from the Seralini study that started this thread (is glyphosate carcinogenic?) and a safety study of a particular GMO corn strain. The Seralini site you linked deliberately conflates the two in order to make it sound like Monsanto did one study one time, but that's not the case in reality.
> 
> Seralini's bad science really undermines an important issue in our use of pesticides and GMOs. By conducting bad science and an inflammatory PR campaign, that research team is distracting from the real work being done. I don't think we do ourselves a service by running off half-cocked when a mediocre researcher sends out scary pictures of rats with tumors. There are carcinogenic pesticides out there and legitimate concerns about glyphosate, but good science means rejecting bad studies, whether they support the conclusions you like or not.


Thank you for this, but it doesn't answer my question. I think I found the answer right here


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

Nikita,

Actually ... 

" Health Canada has not conducted any tests on NK603 (or on any other GM food). *In 2001, Health Canada approved Monsanto’s GM Roundup Ready Corn Line 603* for human consumption, based on a data package submitted by Monsanto. This data is not accessible to the public, so we cannot comment on its contents. Health Canada did, however, publish a 3-page summary of their 2001 decision. The summary makes no reference to a feeding trial, but does refer to a gavaging study (typically a few days long), in which mice were force-fed a high dose of the single purified protein coded for by the modified Roundup Ready gene.

*In 2004, 4 years after Health Canada approved their GM corn NK603 for human consumption*, Monsanto published a 90-day feeding trial. The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal _Food and Chemical Toxicology_. "
Séralini et al. GM corn safety study in context / Human Health Risks / Topics / Resources / Take Action - Canadian Biotechnology Action Network - CBAN

NK603 | global gm crop database regulatory approvals cera agbios

"Neither Monsanto nor the scientific committees consulted on the feeding trials disputed the differences found in the test animals compared to the control group. However, they dismissed the results as "not of biological significance" 
Reason why Seralini conducted his own study.

FDA neither does not carry out safety tests on GM foods.
Seems like Monsanto not only gets to design and conduct the safety tests of its own product, but also to analyse the results ... 
That's what we call good science ...


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

T&T said:


> That's what we call good science ...



This snarkiness aside....

Science is a method. One single study does not constitute scientific proof. No offense but I do not believe that you understand scientific method nor the peer review process. The reason why studies go to peer review is not to have your equals slap you on the back and say, "well done!" It is to find what is wrong with your methods, analysis, etc. Once the peer review process has been done you revisit your study and seek to correct your processes. You don't just stand in the mud stamping your feet. 

"the European Commission is spending 3 million Euros to actually do that Séralini study again, run it for two years, use 50 or more rats and look at the carcinogenicity. So they’re actually going to do the full-blown cancer study, which suggests that Séralini’s work was important, because you wouldn’t follow it up with a 3 million Euro study if it was a completely worthless study. "

This is what should happen. This is part of science. As I said before, one study is not proof. The amount of money being spent is irrelevant to proof of hypothesis. If they do not address the flaws found during peer review then the follow up study will be useless. 

As for the FDA and the Canadian body, their choices are not Science's fault. That is a regulation issue. Blaming Monsanto for doing only what the FDA requires is irrational. It's akin to hating on big companies using tax loopholes that the government provides for them within their tax system.


----------



## Nikita (Jan 6, 2015)

Chritty said:


> This snarkiness aside....
> 
> Science is a method. One single study does not constitute scientific proof. No offense but I do not believe that you understand scientific method nor the peer review process. The reason why studies go to peer review is not to have your equals slap you on the back and say, "well done!" It is to find what is wrong with your methods, analysis, etc. Once the peer review process has been done you revisit your study and seek to correct your processes. You don't just stand in the mud stamping your feet.
> 
> ...


I think the bigger issue here, at least for me, is that the GM corn/soy/canola we're feeding our pets every day, approved by regulatory agencies, was solely based on Monsanto's data submitted. And according to what I've come across, every independent research that linked GMOs to different health issues, has been trashed. Again I question what is it exactly about the Seralini study that makes it bad science ? Monsanto did the exact same study 8 years prior & published in the same journal.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Nikita said:


> Again I question what is it exactly about the Seralini study that makes it bad science ?


I literally posted like 6 links that discuss this issue in detail.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Nikita*  
_I think the bigger issue here, at least for me, is that the GM corn/soy/canola we're feeding our pets every day, approved by regulatory agencies, was solely based on Monsanto's data submitted. And according to what I've come across, every independent research that linked GMOs to different health issues, has been trashed. Again I question what is it exactly about the Seralini study that makes it bad science ? Monsanto did the exact same study 8 years prior & published in the same journal._

The Seralini 2 year study was about chronic toxicity NOT carcinogenicity, most of the critics refer to the strain of rat & # of rats used in his study which btw was the same Monsanto used for his 90 day "safety" study. (Monsanto actually used 20 rats but only revealed results of 10 ... )
To me this link pretty much sums it up Ratted out: Scientific journal bows to Monsanto over anti-GMO study ? RT Op-Edge

And it seems " There are signs that FCT is trying to clean up its reputation. Earlier this year Hayes was quietly replaced as editor-in-chief by Dr Jose L. Domingo, who has published papers showing that safety of GM crops is not an established fact. 
At the same time, Goodman disappeared from the journal’s editorial board


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

Class action suit filed last week.
Lawsuit Accuses Monsanto of Lying About Safety of Roundup.

March Against Monsanto | Lawsuit Accuses Monsanto of Lying About Safety of Roundup


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

Sharing test results 

Anthony Samsel: I just got the analysis from the lab technician and my suspicion has been confirmed. We used the ‪#‎EPA‬ accepted method of High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) and found glyphosate contamination of Purina cat and dog chow. Residues of both Glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA were found in their premium Complete Dog and cat chow. ….
They can advertise: Purina Dog and Cat chow NOW COMPLETE with GLYPHOSATE !
PURINA CAT AND DOG CHOW LABORATORY ANALYSIS BY HPLC (Samsel 2015)
Purina Cat Chow Complete
Glyphosate (mg/kg) 0.102
AMPA(mg/kg) 0.12
Purina Dog Chow Complete
Glyphosate (mg/kg) 0.098
AMPA(mg/kg) 0.076

Note: Minimum Detection Level for Glyphosate and AMPA MDL: 0.02 mg/kg (ppm)
Cost of pet food lab analysis: $620.00
The lab used glass equipment for this analysis. Glyphosate binds to glass and therefore the results maybe actually be lower than they really are.
Another lab analysis will be done using Teflon equipment that glyphosate does not bind.
Please donate to the "Glyphosate GMO Laboratory Research" campaign so we will all will know how much cancer causing chemicals are in our pets food: http://www.gofundme.com/xrp4h9g








Moms Across America

Don't want glyphosate (Roundup weedkiller) in your pet food? Call Nestle Purina Pet Care Customer Service Telephone number
1-(800) 778-7462 or email them. Our pets should not be eating poison!
https://profiles.purina.com/contact/…


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Google Anthony Samsel, and you will find out that he has no qualifications and engages in non-scientific assumptions that glyphosate causes any and every disease (despite not having done any direct research on glyphosate).


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

tippykayak said:


> Google Anthony Samsel, and you will find out that he has no qualifications and engages in non-scientific assumptions that glyphosate causes any and every disease (despite not having done any direct research on glyphosate).



It's hard when even the anti-GMO scientists aren't interested in engaging in scientific plausibility 

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-new-seralini-study/

Although the logic of their paper is sound, the devil is always in the details. How much pesticides and other contaminants did they find? They found 1-6 pesticides out of the 262 they tested for in each feed studied. This does not sound impressive. Further, they did not demonstrate that the small amounts detected were biologically relevant. The dose makes the toxin, and trace contaminants are almost ubiquitous, but are well below biologically active levels......consider that until 20 years ago there was no GMO feed. Therefore we have historical controls prior to the use of GMO, and any original GMO safety testing would by necessity have had no GMO in the control feed. There also does not appear to have been any significant change in the baseline rate of tumors and other effect from prior to the introduction of GMO varieties to after.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

Millions across the planet will walk again this year MAY 21st against Monsanto's toxic GMOs ... Find an event near you !!! 
March Against Monsanto | MAY 2016 EVENT LIST
And yes it's all over pet food too ... 
Herbicide Glyphosate found in Pet Foods – Truth about Pet Food


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

Update on the massive lawsuit against the Monsanto company regarding Roundup, its most popular herbicide. 

EPA May Have Been Too Close with Monsanto Even Before Scott Pruitt


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

For those who claimed I was sharing "bad science" ... jury doesn't seem to think so. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4382251/monsanto-lawsuit-roundup-glyphosate-cancer/


----------

