The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Join Atheist Nexus
I already commented on the risk factors for breast cancer.
The estrogen that your own body makes is itself a risk factor for breast cancer. Very likely it's a much bigger risk than any Roundup that ends up in your food - and to some extent, you can minimize that risk from your own estrogen.
The latest study you linked to, is very preliminary. It's in vitro for one thing. I looked for rebuttals - Monsanto linked to a couple of review articles that didn't find problems with glyphosate.
Of course Monsanto is biased, but they did cite review articles, meaning the authors are giving an overview of the available research, not just one study. It's the total picture that counts.
Are you looking at articles on Medline that question your negative take on GMO's - or just looking at "alternative" websites that have the same negative attitude? The "alternative" websites are very biased in the opposite direction. Have you looked at the criticisms I linked to?
I typed "glyphosate" into Medline, and the most recent study that popped up, showed anticancer properties to glyphosate! They say
This study provides the first evidence that glyphosate and AMPA can inhibit proliferation and promote apoptosis of cancer cells but not normal cells, suggesting that they have potentials to be developed into a new anticancer therapy.
Believe it or not, they might be giving cancer patients the active ingredient in Roundup as therapy!
One also has to weigh costs vs benefits. The costs of not using pesticides are very high.
I agree there are legitimate concerns with Roundup - but I've seen nothing so far to convince me that it, or GMO's in general, are a terrible thing.
One problem with GM products that are sprayed on fields, or that have GM injected into seed stock is the pollen those crops develop inherit GM features that contaminate other plants because of the wind, birds, insects and rodents. A neighbor farm may have non-GM plants growing, but at pollination time, the whole crop can be exposed, leaving the farmer with not knowing what kind of seed he or she has.
Vandana Shiva, Vandana Shiva: Justice Begins With Seeds, a physicist from India, realized this was impoverishing and depleting the native seeds of her nation, farmers could not raise the next season's crop using contaminated seeds, and the native varieties were disappearing. Of particular and earliest concern was rice. As farmers seeds did not reproduce, and not knowing their seeds would not germinate, they lost a full season's crop. Suicide rates of farmers grew, slowly at first, and then exponentially.
We don't know enough about these new "improvements" as to whether they can sustain the seed stock of native species, and whether they cause problems over time to the humans and animals they eat.
Why are the waiting rooms of Cancer Care North West full? Why are there so many bald headed women appearing in public? Why are so many family members and loved ones holding emesis basins as patients on chemo-pumps vomit into them? Why is it that one sees people with terribly haggard faces sitting in wait for more poison to be pumped into their bodies? Why is it that one treatment costs $6,000 per pumping session, and the other is $3,000 per pump?
I am incredibly fortunate that I have a loving, compassionate and caring family who are able and willing to hold my hand when I need it and take care of me when I can't get out of bed! And an incredible team of medical professionals, technicians, support staff, using the most modern and tested techniques to try to stem the tide of this epidemic! And neighbors and friends from around the world encouraging me and keeping my spirits up!
It is not my responsibility to demonstrate that GM products are safe, that is the seed company's job. My job is to impede the use of GM products until they are proven safe.
Are you surprised that many of us do not trust the government to monitor food safety, or distrust chemical companies. Their history is not perfect. If GM products prove to be safe for human and animal consumption, and that native seeds will not be contaminated, I will be the first to champion their cause,
One thing is clear - the culprit isn't GMO's in general.
Building Roundup into corn and other crops may or may not be a good idea. It's a complicated situation and there are many pros and cons.
Apparently there's a Drug War tie-in: Roundup is sprayed, likely in large amounts and sloppily, by airplane on coca crops, to try to exterminate them.
But one GMO doesn't say anything about other ways to genetically modify organisms, and splicing in genes sounds like an extremely promising area for research. It could have medical applications for example.
I think you need to look at the other side of the question, the rebuttals. There must be responses to the criticisms.
Also, people tend to look outside themselves for harm, and ignore the harm they do to themselves. It's more acceptable to be harmed by one's own choices - probably this is an attitude that evolved.
I responded today to a comment Ruth made, Cancer research FAIL, that may interest you.
I appreciate your words of caution about research reliability and validity. I didn't find any research that reported problems with studies conducted for 90 days. The longer studies reported tumors of different kinds.
GM pesticide linked to breast cancer as residues found in people ac... 14 June, 2013,
Natural Health News —" A new in vitro study in human cells shows that glyphosate, the main chemical ingredient of Roundup herbicide, has an estrogenic effect that triggers the growth of human breast cancer cells.
The study, just published in the Journal of Food Chemical Toxicology, found that “low and environmentally relevant concentrations of glyphosate possessed estrogenic activity.”
As the researchers pointed out “Glyphosate-based herbicides are widely used for soybean cultivation, and our results also found that there was an additive estrogenic effect between glyphosate and genistein, a phytoestrogen in soybeans.
However, these additive effects of glyphosate contamination in soybeans “need further animal study.”
This research adds to the mounting evidence of adverse health impacts associated with glyphosate and the weed killer Roundup.
Regulators ignore evidence
It also adds to concerns about the failure of the regulatory authorities in the US and the EU to make a more robust and impartial assessment of the evidence.
Last year a damning review of this failure, was published in the Journal of Environmental and Analytical Toxicology.
One of the authors of that review, Claire Robinson, finds this latest study especially interesting because “the German government’s report on the industry dossier of tests on glyphosate submitted for its 2002 EU approval showed that treatment with glyphosate, including at the lower doses tested, increased tumour incidence in lab animals.”
However the report dismissed the findings on the grounds that the tumours did not increase in a straight line as the dose increased (linear dose-response).
This conclusion was based on outdated scientific concepts, or put more simply ‘bad science’, but which the industry and regulators seem conveniently wedded to.
If someone has cancer, or a loved one has cancer, they often want to DO something about it. They want - a lot - to control it somehow - they would like to find a cause in diet or something they have control over. They want to find something to blame, something they can avoid.
A whole industry of "alternative" cancer clinics has sprung up around this wish. They take people's money and give only hope in return.
But the reality is, a lot of the causes of cancer are not in our control. A lot of it is just genetics and aging.
I don't know what is the atheist equivalent of "Let go and let God" - something like "Do what you can - and then relax about it and hope for the best"?
That study was widely criticized, the criticisms all agreed and they seem valid to me. As I remember the authors didn't release all the data. That is extremely suspicious. If you pick and choose your data you can "prove" anything.
It was also funded by a an anti-GMO group.
There are science papers that are propaganda, this is one of them.
Marion Nestle, who's a nutrition professor who I respect, said she knew of no reason why GMO foods would cause cancer. I agree. I also respect Marion Nestle, and she does criticize the food industry extensively. She is certainly not some kind of corporate shill.
Orac is a breast cancer doctor, he knows what he's talking about when he criticizes this study.
There are many known risk factors for breast cancer, but eating GMO foods is not one of them!
Some lifestyle factors that raise the risk of breast cancer:
Obesity is a noteworthy risk factor, and drinking alcohol regularly -- particularly more than one drink a day -- may promote the disease. Many studies have shown that women whose diets are high in fat are more likely to get the disease. Researchers suspect that if a woman lowers her daily calories from fat -- to less than 20%-30% -- her diet may help protect her from developing breast cancer.
You've probably been told whether your cancer is estrogen-sensitive or not. Women who are overweight tend to have higher levels of estrogen, that is probably why obesity raises the risk of breast cancer.
Exercise may reduce the risk of breast cancer.
Also make sure you're getting enough vitamin D.
The Nurses Health Study found a relationship between low levels of vitamin D and breast cancer incidence. It is not known yet if taking vitamin D supplements after breast cancer will reduce your chances of recurrences in the future.
If you take more than 2000 IU of vitamin D per day, you should get regular blood tests for vitamin D, because too much vitamin D can cause serious harm.
And it's important to get regular mammograms and check for breast lumps.
The advice for reducing the recurrence of breast cancer is similar.
If I had breast cancer, I might be looking for things I could do that have some justification in the medical research, but not enough to find their way into the publications of mainstream organizations like the American Cancer Society etc.
But. I would not do possibly-helpful things that might also be harmful, except if a doctor I respected said it was medically justified.
That study was extensively criticized, for example in Nature. Orac wrote a typically sarcastic criticsm soon after it appeared in 2012.
Welcome toAtheist Nexus
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.