The GM industry’s latest PR drive includes a new website aimed at combating mounting opposition to GM foods.

You need to register to be able to post comments. Go to www.GMOAnswers.com to do so and challenge each of their misleading entries, so members of the public who check out the site get a better picture of reality. (e.g., include links to studies like Jack Heinemann’s recent one, etc.) Time to match their PR and outreach! A good resource for doing this:http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/gmo-myths-and-truths

1.’GMO Answers’ Website Launched By Monsanto, DuPont, More
2.GMO Re-Education: Monsanto, Dow and Biotech Firms Unite to Launch Disinformation Site

EXTRACT: Biotech is on the defensive now – they have been backed into a corner by activists who insist that the GMOs in our food supply, at the very least, be labeled, so that we can make an informed decision about what we feed our families. This false transparency is their last ditch effort to head off pro-labeling legislation and to keep their toxins hidden in our food supply.

…they’ve invited us to “Be skeptical. Be open. We want to hear from you.” Let’s give them what they asked for, shall we? (item 2)
—
—
1.’GMO Answers’ Website Launched By Monsanto, DuPont, More
Carey Gillam
Reuters, 29 July 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/gmo-answers-website_n_3671483.html

A group of biotech seed companies on Monday launched an online forum to combat mounting opposition to genetically modified foods among consumer groups and activists.

The website, www.GMOAnswers.com, is designed as a “central online resource” for information on genetically modified organisms and their use in agriculture and food production, the Biotechnology Industry Organization said.

The website is backed in part by Monsanto Co, DuPont , Dow AgroSciences, a unit of Dow Chemical Co, and other companies whose products include seeds that have been genetically altered to improve food production.

The website is part of a broad campaign by the biotech industry to beat back growing calls for GMO food labeling and for tighter regulation of the biotech seed industry in the United States. European opposition to GMOs is so strong that Monsanto this month said it would withdraw all pending requests to grow new types of GMO crops.

As part of the multi-year, multimillion-dollar campaign, the biotech seed companies will also open some of their fields and offices to visitors and will host face-to-face forums around the country with consumers, according to Cathleen Enright, spokeswoman for the website.

Paul Schickler, president of DuPont Pioneer, the agricultural unit of DuPont, said anti-GMO forces have been using the Internet very effectively to get their message out, and industry wants to use the same strategy to combat what he said were notions “not always based in fact.”

“This … is an effort to increase the dialogue. That is all we want,” said Schickler. “Dialogue is good. Over time I think we’ll come to a common understanding.”

Critics predicted the industry effort to change consumer skepticism would fail, saying there is ample scientific evidence that GMO foods can contribute to health problems in animals and humans, and hurt the environment.

“This latest effort will likely do little to stop the consumer backlash against genetically engineered foods that has been brewing for years,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, a consumer organization.

The most popular gene-altered crops withstand dousings of weed-killing chemicals and produce their own insect-killing toxins. Biotech corn, canola, soybeans, and other crops are used in human food and animal feed around the world, and biotech companies say they are heavily regulated and thoroughly tested.

Last year, Monsanto and other industry members spent $40 million to defeat a ballot initiative in California to require labeling of GMO food. Similar initiatives are under way in several other U.S. states and at the federal level.

Grocery retailer Whole Foods said this year it would require suppliers to label any product made with genetically modified ingredients. And the Natural Products Association, which represents 1,900 food industry players, has called for a uniform national standard for GMO labeling.

Burrito chain Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc recently became the first major U.S. restaurant chain to disclose GMO ingredients and is moving to remove such products from its supply chain.
—
—
2.GMO Re-Education: Monsanto, Dow and Biotech Firms Unite to Launch Disinformation Site
Daisy Luther
The Organic Pepper, July 29 2013
http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/gmo-re-education-monsanto-dow-and-biotech-firms-unite-to-launch-disinformation-site-07292013

If you had a question about how to protect yourself from a criminal known to break into houses in your neighborhood, would you ask him how to protect your home and then take his suggestions, or would you be suspicious he might be answering them in a way that would make your home even easier to encroach?

If you had a question about the honesty and integrity of a person in an authority position, would you ask that person to investigate himself and then accept his findings? (I mean, if you were a normal person, not if your name is Barack or Eric.)

If a company came out with a new medication that promised to cure your ills overnight, would you ask the company that produced it whether it was safe and trust them to be honest, or would you feel that their answer might be colored by their urge to make a buck?
So why on earth would anyone possibly believe that the likes of Monsanto, Dow, and Dupont would be spreading anything but sales-driven propaganda on their new website GMOAnswers?

Are they serious or is this some kind of big public relations joke being played out on a national platform?  Are we being punked?

What kind of person would look up their answers on a website SPONSORED by the very people who are putting out the toxic garbage they’d like us to believe is food?
Welcome to the compendium of disinformation!

In the most outrageous, blatant case of the foxes being put in charge of the henhouse that I have ever seen, the big biotech companies got together and launched their propaganda site GMOAnswers today. It is run by the Council for Biotechnology Information, whose members include Monsanto, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer CropScience and BASF. The site contains a heavily moderated question and answer forum and a complete compendium of disinformation in the section called “Explore GMOs”.

They purport that the website is an acknowledgement that they need to change:

*Genetically modified organisms — GMOs — are a major topic of discussion today. Across our society, media and the Internet, a growing number of people have shared a wide range of questions and emotions on the topic – ranging from excitement and optimism to skepticism and even fear.

*GMO Answers was created to do a better job answering your questions — no matter what they are — about GMOs. The biotech industry stands 100 percent behind the health and safety of the GM crops on the market today, but we acknowledge that we haven’t done the best job communicating about them – what they are, how they are made, what the safety data says.

*This website is the beginning of a new conversation among everyone who cares about how our food is grown.

*Join us. Ask tough questions. Be skeptical. Be open. We look forward to sharing answers. (source)

And they tout these 5 principals:

*Respecting people around the world and their right to choose healthy food products that are best for themselves and their families;
*Welcoming and answering questions on all GMO topics;
*Making GMO information, research and data easy to access and evaluate and supporting safety testing of GM products;  including allowing independent safety testing of our products through validated science-based methods;
*Supporting farmers as they work to grow crops using precious resources more efficiently, with less impact on the environment and producing safe, nutritious food and feed products;
*Respecting farmers’ rights to choose the seeds that are best for their farms, businesses and communities and providing seed choices that include non-GM seeds based on market demands.

The most notable things that I saw about the “discussions” there is that the “experts” are all pro-GMO.  There is a very subtle bias against those with concerns, despite the fact that many of them are quoting real statistics and genuine peer-reviewed studies. How many “experts” that are anti-GMO are being moderated right out of the discussion using the “House Rules“?

This website, sadly, is nothing more than an indoctrination vehicle for furthering the myths that Monsanto wants you to believe.

Biotech is on the defensive now – they have been backed into a corner by activists who insist that the GMOs in our food supply, at the very least, be labeled, so that we can make an informed decision about what we feed our families. This false transparency is their last ditch effort to head off pro-labeling legislation and to keep their toxins hidden in our food supply.

What can we do?

I’ve created my own profile over there so that I can “join the discussion.” If you decide to join me, please follow the House Rules to the best of your ability and additionally, remember that you want to garner respect, not scorn, so:

*Be courteous – we are in the right and we should take the high road in conversations
*Don’t be threatening
*Don’t use foul language
*Don’t be abusive towards others, even when you disagree or when they are abusive towards you
*Use facts and cite sources
*If you are censored unfairly, take screen shots and let those tell your story

If other people who don’t know a lot about GMOs come to the forum and see anti-GMO activists scrapping it out in an uncivil fashion, it will close their eyes to the message we are trying to share. Don’t be afraid to be passionate, but please remember that you are representing all of us who say no to GMO.

Do you remember when Cheerios launched the Facebook App that allowed consumers to share what they really thought about the toxin-laden cereal? That was a PR move that backfired dramatically when users bombarded the company’s page with anti-GMO messages.

Biotech must have missed that, because they’ve invited us to “Be skeptical. Be open. We want to hear from you.”

Let’s give them what they asked for, shall we?

About the author:

Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor.  Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at<a ‘+path+’\”+prefix+’:'+addy43508+’\'=”">’);document.write(addy43508);document.write(‘<\/a>’);</SCRIPT>daisy@theorganicprepper.ca

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/14882-seralini-validated-by-new-efsa-guidelines-on-long-term-gmo-experiments

Food Safety Authority’s guidelines on long-term GM feeding studies validate Prof Seralini’s study, which found serious health effects from NK603 maize.

Seralini validated by new EFSA guidelines on long-term GMO experiments
Comment by Claire Robinson of GMWatch and Earth Open Source, 31 July 2013

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has issued guidelines for two-year whole food feeding studies to assess the risk of long-term toxicity from GM foods.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3347.htm

This is a fascinating document which largely validates the methodology and choices of Prof GE Seralini in his 2012 study on GM maize NK603 – methodology and choices that EFSA and countless other critics previously attacked him for.

Particular points to note:

1. EFSA admits that “no standardised protocol or guidelines exist for this type of study and [industry] applicants have to adapt protocols” – as Seralini did, too.

2. EFSA says the same strain of rat that was used in the 90-day study on the GM food should be used in the longer study – thus vindicating Seralini’s use of the Sprague-Dawley rat, which Monsanto used in its 90-day study on the same maize.

3. EFSA says animals should be fed ad libitum, which Seralini did, but which critics complained made it impossible to measure individual food and water consumption.

4. EFSA admits that you do not necessarily need a narrow and fixed hypothesis and that such a study can be “exploratory”, in spite of its previous claim that Seralini’s experiment was flawed because it (according to EFSA) didn’t have a clear hypothesis or objective.

5. EFSA recommends against using the extra control or “reference diet” groups commonly included by Monsanto in its 90-day studies and fed a variety of supposedly non-GM diets, on the grounds that the concurrent controls are the valid controls AND what is being tested is the difference between the GM variety and the non-GM comparator. Seralini was criticised by many for not including these spurious extra control groups and for thus having “inadequate controls”.

6. EFSA cautions strongly AGAINST relying on historical control data and if it is used, restricts it to within 5 years of the current experiment and to the same testing facility. This is a much stricter requirement than industry ever applies; industry uses ancient data from a wide variety of sources.

EFSA says: “The use of historical control data should be considered with caution. The historical controls might not be useful because the incidences of neoplastic (or non-neoplastic) lesions would possibly be from control animals kept on different diets than the diet applied in whole food/feed study, and because the diet itself (high/low fat, type of fat, % of carbohydrate, type of carbohydrate, etc.) can influence the formation of neoplastic or non-neoplastic lesions. Where the diet formulation used in the experiment for the control groups cannot be demonstrated to be equivalent to that used for the generation of historical control data, the inclusion may be considered of an additional control group (as similar as possible to the historical controls), in addition to the concurrent control group(s).”

It’s unfortunate that in rightly condemning the use of historical control data, however, EFSA allows in those extra control or “reference” groups that it rightly condemned in point (5) above.

7. EFSA recommends a minimum of 10 animals per sex per group for the chronic toxicity phase, the same number that Seralini used.

8. EFSA recommends housing animals in pairs, as Seralini did, so individual food consumption cannot be measured.

9. EFSA requires an a priori power analysis to ensure appropriate sample size, depending on the effect size that is being looked for. We’ve never noticed the GM industry doing one of these, resulting in experiments that are virtually guaranteed not to find anything. For Seralini’s team’s comment on this, see:
http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm

Overall, we’re pleased to see EFSA taking on board our cautionary lessons on spurious “reference” control groups and historical control data (even if in the same document EFSA subsequently allows the use of both!), as well as validating the aspects of Seralini’s experiment that he was most criticised for.

 

We’ve compiled a list of the most common criticisms of Seralini’s study, which found increased tumours, mortality, and organ damage in rats fed GM maize NK603 over a 2-year period and similar results in rats fed Roundup in tiny amounts, less than levels permitted in food, feed, and drinking water. Our answers follow.

We’ll update this document as and when needed.

1. Seralini’s experiments do not conform to internationally accepted protocols.

No such protocols exist for GM food safety testing and industry and regulators have opposed attempts to establish them. So industry is free to design its own tests on its own products – or even to leave out inconvenient data from the dossier of tests it submits to regulators.

2. Groups of rats (sample size) are too small.

Seralini used the same number of rats as Monsanto analysed for blood and urine chemistry in its 90-day tests on GM foods and the same number as is recommended in OECD chronic toxicity protocol that Seralini mentioned in his paper. More rats are needed for a carcinogenicity study, but Seralini had no reason to embark on a carcinogenicity study, as no existing data from Monsanto or independent researchers indicated that NK603 GM maize or tiny amounts of Roundup might cause tumours or cancer.

3. Seralini used an insufficient number of controls.

Seralini’s control groups were the same size as each treatment dose group, in line with standard scientific practice. It is not good scientific practice to introduce extra irrelevant “reference” control groups, though Monsanto has routinely done this in its tests on GM foods. This practice only introduces data “noise” which hides any toxic effects of the genetic modification.

4. Seralini used a type of rat naturally prone to tumours.

The Sprague-Dawley (SD) rat is the standard for Monsanto’s 90-day tests on GMOs and for industry and independent 2-year chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity tests on chemicals. The “spontaneous” rate of tumours does not matter in a controlled experiment – what matters is the increase in tumours in treatment groups. In Seralini’s study, all treatments in both sexes increased large tumour incidence by 2–3-fold in comparison to controls.

However, Seralini’s study was for chronic toxicity, not carcinogenicity. In order to draw conclusions about the cancer-causing ability of NK603 GM maize and Roundup, proper carcinogenicity studies would have to be carried out with a 50 rats per sex per group (as compared with Seralini’s 10 rats per sex per group) over 2 years to test specifically for this effect. Nevertheless, the findings of tumours (increased number, lower age of onset, and greater aggressiveness) are so striking in the treatment groups that they demand further investigation through a full-scale carcinogenicity study.

5. The fact that 30% of controls got tumours shows this rat is an unreliable model.

Control groups developed some tumours, but treated rats developed more. By the end of the study, 50-80% of female animals had developed tumours in all treated groups, with up to 3 tumors per animal, as against only 30% of controls. Peer-reviewed data show that the SD rat is an excellent human-equivalent model for predicting cancer in humans in long-term (2-year) studies: it gets around the same number of tumours as humans do over its lifespan. However, it must be remembered that Seralini’s study was not a carcinogenicity study, not because of the type of rat used, but because of the relatively few numbers of rats per group.

6. SD rats get tumours when food intake is unrestricted.

The rats in Seralini’s study had unrestricted access to food and water, but so did the rats in Monsanto’s 90-day studies on GM foods, and so do most humans in real life, so this aspect of Seralini’s study reflects standard industry testing practices as well as realistic human exposures.

7. The effects seen in Seralini’s study are within the historical norms for this type of rat.

The only scientifically valid controls with which treatment groups of rats should be compared are the concurrent controls within the experiment. “Historical control data” drawn from a variety of sources should not be used, because in scientific experiments we only test one variable at a time.

In Seralini’s experiment, the variables, each of which was tested separately, were exposure to NK603 maize, Roundup, and a combination of the two. This excludes the possibility that effects could be due to irrelevant factors such as different environmental conditions in which crops used in the diets were grown (which can produce differences in toxins or nutritional content). Industry studies on GMOs and chemicals often invoke historical control data to mask significant effects of harm found from exposure to the tested substance, but the practice is unscientific and places public health at risk

8. No food intake data is presented, so we don’t know the dose of toxins ingested.

Seralini measured food intake more often than industry studies on GM foods and the absence of data in his published paper does not invalidate the findings observed.

9. The outcomes including tumour incidence did not follow a linear dose response pattern (where the toxic effect increases as the dose increases).

Many toxins, especially those that affect the hormonal system, have nonlinear dose-response patterns – Roundup is one. Scientists have published papers about nonlinear dose-response patterns since the 1990s, but industry and some risk assessment bodies cling to the outdated toxicological model of linear dose-response.

10. Outcomes were sex-specific, e.g. the majority of tumours were found in females.

Sex-specific toxic effects are well documented in the scientific literature, including in a study on Roundup toxicity in rats and in animal studies on GM foods. The sex-specificity of certain toxic effects found in animal feeding trials on GM foods is routinely used by industry and EFSA as an excuse to dismiss them, but this is scientifically unjustifiable, as sex-specific effects are to be expected when the hormonal system is involved.

11. No mechanism for the effects observed has been established.

There is no requirement in any regulatory system to establish mechanism of action for a toxin before regulatory action can be taken, and there is no burden of proof on scientists who find toxic effects to establish a mechanism before they report their findings. This is fortunate because it can take decades to establish mechanism, and sometimes a mechanism is never found.

12. Seralini’s study is flawed and should be dismissed.

No study is perfect. But Seralini’s is far stronger, in terms of study length, parameters examined, and carefulness of design (which enabled distinction between effects of the genetic modification and the herbicide it is grown with), than the 90-day studies carried out by industry for regulatory approval of GM foods.