Ed discusses GM foods on triple J radio

Scubascott

Apparently Ed made some comments about GM foods during his radio interview on triple J the other morning. I missed the interview (too busy nursing a hangover after the first show in Sydney) Did anyone hear it? I'm curious about his stance on this one.

Scubascott

Ok I found it. Here it is. He didn't get into in detail, so I'm not too sure what he's on about. I may have to track down the book that he's talking about. I just hope he isn't taking the old "its playing god and therefore its wrong" angle. I would expect more from a guy like Eddie. I'm a molecular biologist, so I understand the science pretty well, but I have to admit that I haven't kept up with the politics surrounding the issue lately.

Here's the interview.

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/jayandthedoctor/listen/mp3s/eddie_veder.mp3

Pearl Jam and toast

"I've started a 10 day fast.. so by about the sixth day I should be.. tripping..."

my2hands

eddie is one crazy dude! 10 day fast? i cant go 10 hours!

godpt3

Scubascott wrote:

Apparently Ed made some comments about GM foods during his radio interview on triple J the other morning.

Considering the fact that something like 80% of the world's soybeans are genetically modified, I sure hope Ed doesn't eat any tofu.

hippiemom

godpt3 wrote:

Considering the fact that something like 80% of the world's soybeans are genetically modified, I sure hope Ed doesn't eat any tofu.

If I can afford the organic stuff, I'm sure Ed can

Scubascott

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

"I've started a 10 day fast.. so by about the sixth day I should be.. tripping..."

I think he was just bullshitting. Its hard to tell with Eddie, he's always so sarcastic in interviews. They guy interviewing him is a clown anyway, so I think he was just joking with him. I saw them in Sydney and Brisbane, and there's no way Ed could have been so animated if he hadn't eaten anything for several days.

Re the GM foods, he didn't give any reasons to justify why he thinks they're so 'diabolical', and he's very much mistaken if he thinks that Hawaii is a pristine environment. Hawaii has so many introduced species that they don't even know which ones are native and which are introduced anymore.

E.K

I'm beginning to think our dear Mr Vedder is a first class bullshitter (and I thought this was only an Australian trait).

No-one in their right mind would start a 10-day fast when embarking on a tour .. especially in a foreign country.

Scubascott

hippiemom wrote:

If I can afford the organic stuff, I'm sure Ed can

'Organic' is just a bullshit marketing angle. Show me the peer-reviewed evidence that so called 'organic' food is better for you.

E.K wrote:

I'm beginning to think our dear Mr Vedder is a first class bullshitter (and I thought this was only an Australian trait).

Yep, I've been suspecting that for a long time. I think he has a very dry sense of humour, and you can never really tell when he's being serious. I'm pretty sure he was serious about these GM crops though, and I'd love it if someone that shares his views could explain to me why they're so 'diabolical'.

halv

Scubascott wrote:

'Organic' is just a bullshit marketing angle. Show me the peer-reviewed evidence that so called 'organic' food is better for you.

The worry for many people is what could potentially come of GMO food. It's still too early to tell, but there's worries of the potential health consequences from modifying foods from their original and natural state down the line.
Organic is better for the enviroment though, that's for sure. Your just killing the soil and surrounding nature by dousing crops with pesticides and insecticides.
A great book to read about this is "Mad Cowboy: Plain truth from the cattle rancher who won't eat meat" by Howard Lyman. He was a hardcore farmer and feedlot owner for years and was using every new chemical that came on the market. He talks in the book about the devastation done to his land, as well as himself in great detail.

E.K

Scubascott wrote:

Yep, I've been suspecting that for a long time. I think he has a very dry sense of humour, and you can never really tell when he's being serious. I'm pretty sure he was serious about these GM crops though, and I'd love it if someone that shares his views could explain to me why they're so 'diabolical'.

I guess we won't know until the day comes that we all start growing an extra head or something.
Check out this Greenpeace link if you want to know more about it.

http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/issues/GE/overview

Scubascott

halv wrote:

there's worries of the potential health consequences from modifying foods from their original and natural state down the line.
Organic is better for the enviroment though, that's for sure. Your just killing the soil and surrounding nature by dousing crops with pesticides and insecticides.

Ok, I'm molecular biologist from a farming background. My research is concerned with bacterial ecology, not GM foods, but I do have a sound understanding of the principles involved in both the creation of GE organisms and farming techniques.

Three points:

1) None of the foods we eat come from organisms in their 'original and natural states'. Virtually every single one of the food crops and farmed animals that we eat has been been selectively bred for many, many generations to produce organisms that only vaguely resemble their wild ancestors. Their genetic makeup has already been modified through a sort of anthropogenically directed evolution.

2) Traditional and organic farming techniques are not neccessarily better for the environment. GM crops like BT cotton allow the plants to be grown while using much, much LESS pesticides than are required to grow the unmodified strains. Crops containing roundup resistance genes allow farmers to use much better soil conservation techniques by allowing them to control weeds with chemicals rather than by plowing.

3) Greenpeace is not a scientific society. They do not publish a peer-reviewed journal, and they use sensationalist language and propoganda to scare people into taking up their causes.

Now having said all that, I'm still not going to take a strong side on this issue, because I don't feel that I'm up to date on the current research, but I guess its already clear which way I'm leaning. I'd just really like to see someone give me some real arguments for either side, backed up by real science, not greenpeace propoganda or the testimonials of a farmer who possibly didn't know what he was doing (although I'll reserve judgment for now).

E.K

Scubascott wrote:

Now having said all that, I'm still not going to take a strong side on this issue, because I don't feel that I'm up to date on the current research, but I guess its already clear which way I'm leaning. I'd just really like to see someone give me some real arguments for either side, backed up by real science, not greenpeace propoganda or the testimonials of a farmer who possibly didn't know what he was doing (although I'll reserve judgment for now).

I never said I shared Ed's views about GM food, I don't think I really have any opinion on it at present. I have worked at Greenpeace though and thought they were a great organisation. They're basically just a group of dedicated, hard working, mellow, nice people who want the earth to be a healthy and happy place to live in, and there's nothing wrong with that...

Scubascott

E.K wrote:

I never said I shared Ed's views about GM food, I don't think I really have any opinion on it at present. I have worked at Greenpeace though and thought they were a great organisation. They're basically just a group of dedicated, hard working, mellow, nice people who want the earth to be a healthy and happy place to live in, and there's nothing wrong with that...

Sorry mate, didn't mean to sound agressive. Greenpeace just pisses me off sometimes. I respect their ideals, but the way they go about some of the things they do is nothing short of vandalism, or sometimes even terrorism.

As for GM foods, I just want to hear someone make a scientific argument against them. . . . I think I'm already aware of most of the pros and cons, and I think the pros far outweigh the cons, but as I said I haven't kept up with the latest research, so I'd love to hear from anyone who has.

Eva7

Scubascott wrote:

Ok, I'm molecular biologist from a farming background. My research is concerned with bacterial ecology, not GM foods, but I do have a sound understanding of the principles involved in both the creation of GE organisms and farming techniques.

Three points:

1) None of the foods we eat come from organisms in their 'original and natural states'. Virtually every single one of the food crops and farmed animals that we eat has been been selectively bred for many, many generations to produce organisms that only vaguely resemble their wild ancestors. Their genetic makeup has already been modified through a sort of anthropogenically directed evolution.

2) Traditional and organic farming techniques are not neccessarily better for the environment. GM crops like BT cotton allow the plants to be grown while using much, much LESS pesticides than are required to grow the unmodified strains. Crops containing roundup resistance genes allow farmers to use much better soil conservation techniques by allowing them to control weeds with chemicals rather than by plowing.

3) Greenpeace is not a scientific society. They do not publish a peer-reviewed journal, and they use sensationalist language and propoganda to scare people into taking up their causes.

Now having said all that, I'm still not going to take a strong side on this issue, because I don't feel that I'm up to date on the current research, but I guess its already clear which way I'm leaning. I'd just really like to see someone give me some real arguments for either side, backed up by real science, not greenpeace propoganda or the testimonials of a farmer who possibly didn't know what he was doing (although I'll reserve judgment for now).

The main problems with GM foods are one scientific and one ethical.
The scientific one is that DNA modification in species takes to unexpected and still unknown outcomes to their impact on human health and the environmental chain. There are plenty of studies that show how GM food causes cancer, increase of allergic reactions (deadly in some cases) and allergy epidemic, reactivation of dormant viruses. The impact on the environmental chain is even more scary, since such modification causes the exctinction of "useful" insects, distorting all the chain in unexpected ways.
As far as the "ethical" side, the "domination" of GM seeds by corporations like Monsanto on the third world is causing more poverty, since the local farmers can't usually afford to compete with such giants, can't afford to buy these seeds and mainly don't have the right knowledge to use them, and this all have taken a majority of these farmers in the third world to lose their lands.
By the way, since you said yourself that you are not too much familiar with these issues, I highly reccomend you the book Seeds of deception, which shows all the scientific studies made about this issues, most of them being censored thanks to the pressure of Monsanto and other pharmaceutical giants towards the governments.
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Home/index.cfm

NCfan

Eva7 wrote:

The main problems with GM foods are one scientific and one ethical.
The scientific one is that DNA modification in species takes to unexpected and still unknown outcomes to their impact on human health and the environmental chain. There are plenty of studies that show how GM food causes cancer, increase of allergic reactions (deadly in some cases) and allergy epidemic, reactivation of dormant viruses. The impact on the environmental chain is even more scary, since such modification causes the exctinction of "useful" insects, distorting all the chain in unexpected ways.
As far as the "ethical" side, the "domination" of GM seeds by corporations like Monsanto on the third world is causing more poverty, since the local farmers can't usually afford to compete with such giants, can't afford to buy these seeds and mainly don't have the right knowledge to use them, and this all have taken a majority of these farmers in the third world to lose their lands.
By the way, since you said yourself that you are not too much familiar with these issues, I highly reccomend you the book Seeds of deception, which shows all the scientific studies made about this issues, most of them being censored thanks to the pressure of Monsanto and other pharmaceutical giants towards the governments.
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Home/index.cfm

I certainly agree with the ethical issues you raise. I find Monsanto to be a very unethical company. But, I don't see the scientific issues. GM crops save more insects than conventional crops do. They are called "beneficials", and crops such as BT corn or cotton have natural defenses against certain insect pests - which takes away the need to spray them with non-selective pesticides that wipe out all kinds of insects, not just the ones that are causing crop damage.

Also, think about organic crops. I would much rather have artificial fertilizers, etc. used on my food than chicken litter, or cow manure - that carry all sorts of bacteria (including E coli). Look at all the people who recently got sick from eating spinach that was carrying E coli that was traced back to cow fertilizer. Organic is mainly a marketing gimic for sure. I'm not saying it is bad at all. If you want to eat organic, then great. I think some organix IS better than regular food.

But, none-the-less, it is truly are marketing ploy that plays off of people's fears and is another way to feed people's emotions and make them feel good about themselves.

Ms. Haiku

I'd challenge Ed to a 10-day fast. I've never even done a 1 day fast. However, in some religious groups it seems to be a first step towards clearing the background noise that interrupts communication with the higher power. I'm all for a concerted chance to communication on a different level with my higher power.

I guess, though, that to challenge someone to a fast, really negates the entire purpose of it - it's not suppose to be a competition, eh?

Maybe a 5-day fast

hippiemom

Scubascott wrote:

Sorry mate, didn't mean to sound agressive. Greenpeace just pisses me off sometimes. I respect their ideals, but the way they go about some of the things they do is nothing short of vandalism, or sometimes even terrorism.

As for GM foods, I just want to hear someone make a scientific argument against them. . . . I think I'm already aware of most of the pros and cons, and I think the pros far outweigh the cons, but as I said I haven't kept up with the latest research, so I'd love to hear from anyone who has.

I'll post a few things that I was able to find quickly. I'd be very interested in what you or anyone else with a science background has to say on this. Thanks

Roundup Ready®* soybeans are engineered to withstand the normally fatal effects of Monsanto's herbicide called Roundup®*. In 1996, Monsanto scientists published a feeding study in the Journal of Nutrition that purported to test their soybeans' effect on rats, catfish, chicken, and cows. It has been used by the biotech industry as their primary scientific validation for safety claims. According to Arpad Pusztai, however, "It was obvious that the study had been designed to avoid finding any problems. Everybody in our consortium knew this." Pusztai, who had published several studies in that same nutrition journal, said the Monsanto paper was "not really up to the normal journal standards." Pusztai says that if he had been asked to referee the paper for publication, "it would never have passed." He's confident that even his graduate assistants would have taken the study apart in short order. Some of the flaws include:

Researchers tested GM soy on mature animals, not young ones. Young animals use protein to build their muscles, tissues, and organs. Problems with GM food could therefore show up in organ and body weight. But adult animals use the protein for tissue renewal and energy. "With a nutritional study on mature animals," says Pusztai, "you would never see any difference in organ weights even if the food turned out to be anti-nutritional. The animals would have to be emaciated or poisoned to show anything."

Even if there were an organ development problem, the study wouldn't have picked it up since the researchers didn't even weigh the organs.

In one of the trials, researchers substituted only one tenth of the natural protein with GM soy protein. In two others, they diluted their GM soy six- and twelve-fold. Scientists Ian Pryme of Norway and Rolf Lembcke of Denmark wrote, the "level of the GM soy was too low, and would probably ensure that any possible undesirable GM effects did not occur."

Pryme and Lembcke, who published a paper in Nutrition and Health that analyzed all peer-reviewed feeding studies on GM foods, also pointed out that the percentage of protein in the feed used in the Roundup Ready study was "artificially too high." This "would almost certainly mask, or at least effectively reduce, any possible effect of the [GM soy]." They concluded, "It is therefore highly likely that all GM effects would have been diluted out."

In spite of the authors' claims that GM soy was equivalent to natural soy, their own data revealed significant differences in the ash, fat, and carbohydrate content. Roundup Ready soy meal also contained more trypsin inhibitor, a potential allergen, which might explain the sudden jump in soy allergies in the UK beginning right after Roundup Ready soy was introduced. Also, cows fed GM soy produced milk with a higher fat content, further demonstrating a disparity between the two types of soy.

Years after the study appeared, medical writer Barbara Keeler discovered data from the original research that hade been omitted from the published paper. It showed that Monsanto's GM soy had significantly lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid. Also, toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin-one that may interfere with the body's ability to assimilate other nutrients.

The study also omitted many details normally part of a published paper. According to Pryme and Lembcke "No data were given for most of the parameters."

Researchers tested the effects of protein derived from bacteria, not from Roundup Ready soybeans, claiming the two were equivalent. There are more than a dozen ways, however, in which soy-derived protein might create health problems that would not be detected in protein produced from bacteria.

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/AboutGeneticallyModifiedFoods/CaseStudyonIndustryResearchSoyStu/index.cfm

angelica

Fasting and energy actually go hand in hand. I know this from years of anorexic behaviour via regular self-starvation with limits.

I have come to understand that the reason for this is that processes of food digestion take more energy than anything we do in each day. A reason to partake of occasional or regular fasting is to give the body a break from the taxing energetic processes of eating and digesting. Especially when many of us eat unnatural processed foods and cooked or otherwise modified foods that are more taxing than nature herself intended for food to be digested by our systems. The idea with fasting is that when we are not taxing/overtaxing our body with digestion, immense energy is freed up. Therefore more energy can be utilized by the body in healing, repair, and clearing out backed up toxins, etc. It's a process of rejuvenation for the body and for it's defense system, which in turn is a preventative measure for staying healthy, rather than treating an illness when it starts by lopping it out, and dousing ourselves with chemicals as is the "acceptable" norm at this time.

I'm not sure what Ed refers to as "fasting". The long term (one or two week) fasts I am familiar with entail eating raw fruits, vegetables and their juices, which are very simple for the body to digest, therefore leaving ample opportunity for deep inner rejuvenation to take place. As well, by eating such nutrient packed fruits, vegetables and juices, not only is one energetic, but one feels electrically buzzing with vibrant life and awareness that IS otherworldly, compared to the processed, dulling, mind numbing poor nutrition many of us currently ingest. The energy/otherworldy spiritual effect of such fasting processes is why fasting has been attached to shamanic or other disciplinary fasts through the centuries.

Ms. Haiku

angelica wrote:

The long term (one or two week) fasts I am familiar with entail eating raw fruits, vegetables and their juices, which are very simple for the body to digest, therefore leaving ample opportunity for deep inner rejuvenation to take place. As well, by eating such nutrient packed fruits, vegetables and juices, not only is one energetic, but one feels electrically buzzing with vibrant life and awareness that IS otherworldly, compared to the processed, dulling, mind numbing poor nutrition many of us currently ingest. The energy/otherworldy spiritual effect of such fasting processes is why fasting has been attached to shamanic or other disciplinary fasts through the centuries.

I could see myself trying this type of fast with raw fruit/vegetables (no coffee )to gain the otherwordly experience. I may try it for the new year, just to get things on a contemplative plane for the rest of the year. I love taking time to reflect, and maybe the process of fasting would be such an intense focus that it would nullify the experiences outside of it. I doubt I would do a week though. Maybe 3-5 days. We'll see, eh.

Actually, the most contemplaitive time of year for me is from December 21st to the beginning of the new year. In fact, December 21st or the winter solstice is my favorite day because it is a time of stillness and reflection. Maybe I'll try then.

Eva7

NCfan wrote:

I certainly agree with the ethical issues you raise. I find Monsanto to be a very unethical company. But, I don't see the scientific issues. GM crops save more insects than conventional crops do. They are called "beneficials", and crops such as BT corn or cotton have natural defenses against certain insect pests - which takes away the need to spray them with non-selective pesticides that wipe out all kinds of insects, not just the ones that are causing crop damage.

Also, think about organic crops. I would much rather have artificial fertilizers, etc. used on my food than chicken litter, or cow manure - that carry all sorts of bacteria (including E coli). Look at all the people who recently got sick from eating spinach that was carrying E coli that was traced back to cow fertilizer. Organic is mainly a marketing gimic for sure. I'm not saying it is bad at all. If you want to eat organic, then great. I think some organix IS better than regular food.

But, none-the-less, it is truly are marketing ploy that plays off of people's fears and is another way to feed people's emotions and make them feel good about themselves.

Haven't you ever heard of the monarch buttrfly death caused by the pollen of bt crops? also other species of insects have had the same problem. It is not a problem with the pesticides, but with the modified chemical structure of GM crops.

You make the exemple of E. coli, but in some researches for exemple they showed that GM crops have more ability to develope bacterias, not specifically the E. coli, but it is possible though. the book I have linked explains all these evidences very well.... I am not an expert, but I read that book and I recommend it.

angelica

Ms. Haiku wrote:

I could see myself trying this type of fast with raw fruit/vegetables (no coffee )to gain the otherwordly experience. I may try it for the new year, just to get things on a contemplative plane for the rest of the year. I love taking time to reflect, and maybe the process of fasting would be such an intense focus that it would nullify the experiences outside of it. I doubt I would do a week though. Maybe 3-5 days. We'll see, eh.

Actually, the most contemplaitive time of year for me is from December 21st to the beginning of the new year. In fact, December 21st or the winter solstice is my favorite day because it is a time of stillness and reflection. Maybe I'll try then.

Sounds great! I'd love to hear how the experience is for you. I hear you about the 3-5 days, though. The longest I've gone is I think 7 days, years back. Two weeks ago, I went for 3-5. I felt great on the 3rd day and continued, but by the fifth, I was becoming obsessed with "real" food! I made it, but had a little backlash of craving bad-for-me stuff for a few days. I've read that the longer periods are good once or twice a year, and then it's a good idea to do it once a week to give the body a replenishing break. Although I am not yet that disciplined.

The time I did a long one a few years back, I literally had lightbulbs burning out around my house, and I had a spiritual experience that helped me to, ironically, get into treatement for eating disorders. (whereupon I was required to give up the ethereal highs of fasting until I reached the other side of healing)

he still stands

Many people have died from eating organic food, either due to excess levels of nitrogen or e-coli (raw sewage is used as fertilizer).

Not a single person has ever died from eating GM food.

Ms. Haiku

he still stands wrote:

Many people have died from eating organic food, either due to excess levels of nitrogen or e-coli (raw sewage is used as fertilizer).

Has anyone ever died from e-coli from non-organic foods? I've done a little backyard gardening, actually I was a gardener in a community garden plot, but I'm wondering if the level of nitrogen in non-organic foods is just as high. Or rather what would make the level of nitrogen in organic foods an issue compared to non-organic foods?

Could you show me the article which states that raw sewage is used in organic gardening? Also, when I mean organic I don't just mean non-GM, I mean non-chemical, and that the practice of farming is respectful of the soil with crop rotation etc.

hippiemom

he still stands wrote:

Many people have died from eating organic food, either due to excess levels of nitrogen or e-coli (raw sewage is used as fertilizer).

Not a single person has ever died from eating GM food.

I'd be very interested to see the reports detailing the deaths caused by organic foods with too much nitrogen. Link, please?

Pearl Jam and toast

Scubascott wrote:

'Organic' is just a bullshit marketing angle. Show me the peer-reviewed evidence that so called 'organic' food is better for you.



Yep, I've been suspecting that for a long time. I think he has a very dry sense of humour, and you can never really tell when he's being serious. I'm pretty sure he was serious about these GM crops though, and I'd love it if someone that shares his views could explain to me why they're so 'diabolical'.

"Organic" food is so much better for you it's rediculous the difference it can make in how you feel.

Here's a bit of an example..

Stop drinking soda. Completely. You might go through weird sugar cravings but once all that nastiness is out of your system you'll feel a million times better. Same concept with how we grow and manufacture food.

I smoke Natural American Spirits (same as Ed). Partly because they're delicious, and also because the tobacco is grown without pesticides or chemicals, only full-leaf tobacco is processed - no stems either, etc etc. It's additive free. I smoked a swisher sweet once and got violently ill for a day or so. *shudders*

I understand what he's saying about it being "diabolical" but I have to disagree in general terms.. genetic engineering can and is doing so much positive for us.

Scubascott

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

I smoke Natural American Spirits (same as Ed). Partly because they're delicious, and also because the tobacco is grown without pesticides or chemicals, only full-leaf tobacco is processed - no stems either, etc etc. It's additive free. I smoked a swisher sweet once and got violently ill for a day or so. *shudders*

Ok. . . . and you believe that smoking organic tobacco is good for you????

E.K

angelica wrote:

I'm not sure what Ed refers to as "fasting". The long term (one or two week) fasts I am familiar with entail eating raw fruits, vegetables and their juices, which are very simple for the body to digest, therefore leaving ample opportunity for deep inner rejuvenation to take place. As well, by eating such nutrient packed fruits, vegetables and juices, not only is one energetic, but one feels electrically buzzing with vibrant life and awareness that IS otherworldly, compared to the processed, dulling, mind numbing poor nutrition many of us currently ingest. The energy/otherworldy spiritual effect of such fasting processes is why fasting has been attached to shamanic or other disciplinary fasts through the centuries.

Eddie's fast obviously includes red wine

Ms. Haiku

E.K wrote:

Eddie's fast obviously includes red wine

Just thinking of a fast based on fruit and vegetables . . . and wine. Hey, it was once fruit, you know.

E.K

Ms. Haiku wrote:

Just thinking of a fast based on fruit and vegetables . . . and wine. Hey, it was once fruit, you know.

Red wine actually gives me hives ... white wine is ok though.

Scubascott

hippiemom wrote:

I'll post a few things that I was able to find quickly. I'd be very interested in what you or anyone else with a science background has to say on this. Thanks

Roundup Ready®* soybeans are engineered to withstand the normally fatal effects of Monsanto's herbicide called Roundup®*. In 1996, Monsanto scientists published a feeding study in the Journal of Nutrition that purported to test their soybeans' effect on rats, catfish, chicken, and cows. It has been used by the biotech industry as their primary scientific validation for safety claims. According to Arpad Pusztai, however, "It was obvious that the study had been designed to avoid finding any problems. Everybody in our consortium knew this." Pusztai, who had published several studies in that same nutrition journal, said the Monsanto paper was "not really up to the normal journal standards." Pusztai says that if he had been asked to referee the paper for publication, "it would never have passed." He's confident that even his graduate assistants would have taken the study apart in short order. Some of the flaws include:

Researchers tested GM soy on mature animals, not young ones. Young animals use protein to build their muscles, tissues, and organs. Problems with GM food could therefore show up in organ and body weight. But adult animals use the protein for tissue renewal and energy. "With a nutritional study on mature animals," says Pusztai, "you would never see any difference in organ weights even if the food turned out to be anti-nutritional. The animals would have to be emaciated or poisoned to show anything."

Even if there were an organ development problem, the study wouldn't have picked it up since the researchers didn't even weigh the organs.

In one of the trials, researchers substituted only one tenth of the natural protein with GM soy protein. In two others, they diluted their GM soy six- and twelve-fold. Scientists Ian Pryme of Norway and Rolf Lembcke of Denmark wrote, the "level of the GM soy was too low, and would probably ensure that any possible undesirable GM effects did not occur."

Pryme and Lembcke, who published a paper in Nutrition and Health that analyzed all peer-reviewed feeding studies on GM foods, also pointed out that the percentage of protein in the feed used in the Roundup Ready study was "artificially too high." This "would almost certainly mask, or at least effectively reduce, any possible effect of the [GM soy]." They concluded, "It is therefore highly likely that all GM effects would have been diluted out."

In spite of the authors' claims that GM soy was equivalent to natural soy, their own data revealed significant differences in the ash, fat, and carbohydrate content. Roundup Ready soy meal also contained more trypsin inhibitor, a potential allergen, which might explain the sudden jump in soy allergies in the UK beginning right after Roundup Ready soy was introduced. Also, cows fed GM soy produced milk with a higher fat content, further demonstrating a disparity between the two types of soy.

Years after the study appeared, medical writer Barbara Keeler discovered data from the original research that hade been omitted from the published paper. It showed that Monsanto's GM soy had significantly lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid. Also, toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin-one that may interfere with the body's ability to assimilate other nutrients.

The study also omitted many details normally part of a published paper. According to Pryme and Lembcke "No data were given for most of the parameters."

Researchers tested the effects of protein derived from bacteria, not from Roundup Ready soybeans, claiming the two were equivalent. There are more than a dozen ways, however, in which soy-derived protein might create health problems that would not be detected in protein produced from bacteria.

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/AboutGeneticallyModifiedFoods/CaseStudyonIndustryResearchSoyStu/index.cfm

Interesting stuff. I'll have to do some reading and try to come back to this.