Scientists supporting the republication of Séralini´s paper on transgenic maize and tumor in rats expose the weakness of their position and jeopardize the scientific community

Sustainable Pulse published the opinions of two scientists, welcoming the republication of Seralini´s  zombie paper.  The analysis of their opinions sheds some light on the strategy used by those opposing biotechnology. As you will see from the examples below, the scientific content of the paper is not really mentioned, but rather the circumstances involved in its retraction and rebirth in a new journal. The strategy is to disguise the truth. Moreover, their opinions are heavily laden with a historical prejudice against the science main trend, cleverly disguised in a “neutral” analysis. My comments are in red italics.

Comments from scientists

Dr. Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist based in London, commented on the criticisms evoked after the first publication of the paper:, “Few studies would survive such intensive scrutiny by fellow scientists. It did not survive! The scientific community killed it, as well as the editor. The republication of the study after three expert reviews is a testament to its rigour, as well as to the integrity of the researchers . Not at all! The reviewers did not check for scientific quality, but just if the “new” contents were similar to those previously present in the retracted paper (see Nature news http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463?WT.mc_id=FBK_NatureNews). Besides, in what way a republication would confirm a supposed “integrity of the researchers”?

“If anyone still doubts the quality of this study, they should simply read the republished paper. The science speaks for itself. Absolutely! Sience speaks for itself. Therefore, the reader must read the paper and will consequently  see again why it was retracted: it is just a hoax.

“If even then they refuse to accept the results, they should launch their own research study on these two toxic products that have now been in the human food and animal feed chain for many years.” These studies exist, hundreds of them, and they don’t follow Seralini´s methodology. Why? Because his methodology is fully inadequate and this is the main cause of the paper retraction.

Dr Jack A Heinemann, Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics, University of Canterbury New Zealand, called the republication “an important demonstration of the resilience of the scientific community”. Not at all: the scientific community was against Séralini´s methods and conclusions, as demonstrated by the many statements from scientific societies and academies, risk assessment agencies and prominent researchers, as well as by the  journal editor himself. Dr Heinemann continued, “The first publication of these results revealed some of the viciousness that can be unleashed on researchers presenting uncomfortable findings.  He is referring to the supposed influence of Monsanto on the editor´s decision to retract the paper and to the immediate and large opposition from the most diverse scientific sectors to the publication. The opposition, as well as the retraction, was a response to the publication of one of the most unethical, biased and clearly fraudulent paper ever. I applaud Environmental Sciences Europe for submitting the work to yet another round of rigorous blind peer review (as I said before, there was absolutely no peer review from Environmental Sciences Europe) and then bravely standing by the process and the recommendations of its reviewers, especially after witnessing the events surrounding the first publication. No recommendations at all, since no peer review was done; Seralini did an extensive make up of the paper trying to reduce the weak points of its publication, but the results were still far from acceptable.

“This study has arguably prevailed through the most comprehensive and independent review process to which any scientific study on GMOs has ever been subjected. Completely false, as commented before: the first – and only – reviewing process was weak and missed to point the flaws that were later subject to severe criticism. These flaws ultimately led to the retraction of the paper.

“The work provides important new knowledge that must be taken into account by the community that evaluates and reports upon the risks of genetically modified organisms (the results do not allow a comprehensive conclusion and therefore do not even shed some doubts on previous risk assessments of the transgenic maize used in Seralini´s experiments), indeed upon all sources of pesticide in our food and feed chains. In time these findings must be verified by repetition (not at all! What is the use to repeat a flawed experiment?! Moreover, there is a large set of data showing the opposite of those produced by Séralini) or challenged by superior experimentation (any experiment will be superior to the trash produced by Séralini). In my view, nothing constructive for risk assessment or promotion of GM biotechnology has been achieved by attempting to expunge these data from the public record.” On the contrary: the paper should have been rejected from the very beginning and it was a major mistake of the former FCT editor to be lured by the reviewers and to have accepted the faked paper.

*************************** 

What is the main strategy disclosed  here? 
The use of catchphrases and general ethical concerns to misconduct the discussion and to fill the text with lies (in this case, a non-existent peer review). Beware of those who use this strategy.

For a lot of new information and comments from scientists, see http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/06/24/scientists-react-to-republished-seralini-maize-rat-study/ 

Novamente o eucalipto transgênico: o “Mundo” se rebela, mas os danos ambientais e sobre a saúde não são diferentes dos que nos trazem os eucaliptos convencionais.

Começou circulando pelo Brasil, depois pela América Latina e agora circula pela Europa e pela América do Norte um abaixo assinado que  pede que a CTNBio não aprove o uso comercial de eucaliptos transgênicos. O texto em si já foi comentado em detalhe (http://genpeace.blogspot.com.br/2014/06/eucalipto-gm-e-perigoso-para-o-ambiente.html ). No site dos ativistas canadenses eles começam a história com alguns argumentos adicionais e citam, em seu apoio, as recomendações da COP – MOP (Convenção de Biodiversidade), como se o Brasil não cumprisse o que o Protocolo de Cartagena pede. Vejam o que os companheiros listam:

The Conference of the Parties, Urges Parties to:

(r) Reaffirm the need to take a precautionary approach when addressing the issue of genetically modified trees;

A aplicação do Princípio da Precaução é justamente o uso de uma avaliação de risco robusta e de uma legislação pertinente na aprovação do uso comercial de OGMs. O Brasil dispõe de uma legislação rigorosa e de uma comissão formada por 52 especialistas nas mais diversas áreas, cujas decisões têm sido sempre pautadas pelo uso da melhor ciência. Se o país decidisse sem avaliar riscos, usando este procedimento padrão internacional, aí, sim, não estaríamos usando o “Princípio da Precaução”, seja lá como ele for expresso (em

impresso) na cabeça de cada um.

(s) Authorize the release of genetically modified trees only after completion of studies in containment, including in greenhouse and confined field trials, in accordance with national legislation where existent, addressing long–term effects as well as thorough, comprehensive, science-based and transparent risk assessments to avoid possible negative environmental impacts on forest biological diversity; [1]/

Os estudos que pavimentaram o pedido de liberação comercial estendem-se pelos últimos 8 anos e incluem toda sorte de experimentos em laboratório,casa de vegetação e a campo. Portanto, o país está em completa conformidade com o que sugere a Conferência das Partes para o Protocolo de Cartagena.

(t) Also consider the potential socio-economic impacts of genetically modified trees as well as their potential impact on the livelihoods of indigenous and local communities;

O Brasil dispõe do Conselho Nacional de Biossegurança (instituído pela mesma lei que criou a CTNBio, em 2005), que se pronunciará oportunamente sobre isso, caso julgue necessário, uma vez que a CTNBio completa a avaliação de risco. A Comissão aguarda, agora, a audiência pública, onde serão ouvidas as preocupações sobre risco ambiental e à saúde dos vários setores da sociedade.

(u) Acknowledge the entitlement of Parties, in accordance with their domestic legislation, to suspend the release of genetically modified trees, in particular where risk assessment so advises or where adequate capacities to undertake such assessment is not available;

O que está dito neste item evidentemente não se aplica ao Brasil: nosso país tem uma larga experiência com avaliação de risco de OGM, em verdade maior do que maioria esmagadora das Partes do Protocolo, inclusive a Europa.

(v) Further engage to develop risk-assessment criteria specifically for genetically modified trees;

Nosso procedimento de avaliação de risco segue as diretrizes internacionalmente aceitas e é caso a caso. Portanto, estamos perfeitamente em conformidade com o que há de mais moderno e mais abrangente em avaliação de risco de OGMs. Embora este seja o primeiro evento de planta GM perene, o assunto já vem sendo aprofundadamente discutido ao longo dos últimos 8 anos a partir das avaliações a campo de eucalipto e laranja.

(w) Note the results of the Norway – Canada Workshops on Risk Assessment for emerging applications for Living Modified Organisms (UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/4/INF/13);

A CTNBio compila e analisa toda a literatura pertinente a cada caso avaliado e os documentos da CBD são, seguramente, importantes. Entretanto, mesmo as decisões da CBD nem sempre são mandatórias e muito menos as deste workshop. Aliás, o workshop observou, nem poderia deixar de fazê-lo, que “The general principles and methodologies for risk assessment contained in Annex III to the Cartagena Protocol also apply to transgenic fish, trees, viruses and pharmaplants”. O que se procurou na ocasião foi criar guias adicionais para alguns casos além das plantas anuais, já bem conhecidas. Mas a posição hiperpecaucionária dos noruegueses e sua absoluta falta de prática com avaliação de risco de OGM levou a um documento inútil na prática e recheado de preocupações irreais.

(x) Welcome the decision of the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol to establish an Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Risk Assessment and Risk Management that is also mandated to address the issue of genetically modified trees;

O AHTEG na verdade já se debruçou sobre a avaliação de risco de plantas perenes geneticamente modificadas e o resultado é um desastre. O desastre é fruto tanto da inexperiência de boa parte dos membros do AHTEG em avaliação de risco em geral, como de uma perigosa distorção da avaliação, habilmente executada por alguns de seus membros, totalmente contrários à biotecnologia agrícola. De toda forma, o país não tem qualquer obrigação de seguir o que sugere o AHTEG, que nem sequer ainda concluiu seu trabalho de produzir um guia de avaliação de riscos.

(y) Collaborate with relevant organizations on guidance for risk assessment of genetically modified trees and guidance addressing potential negative and positive environmental and socio - economic impacts on the conservation and sustainable use of forest biodiversity associated with the use of genetically modified trees;

A CTNBio troca sempre ideias com suas parceiras pelo Mundo.Em especial no caso dos eucaliptos, a fonte primaria de informação é o OGTR Australiano. Assim, mais uma vez, o país segue o Protocolo de Cartagena.

(z) Provide the available information and the scientific evidence regarding the overall effects of genetically modified trees on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity to the Executive Secretary for dissemination through the clearing-house mechanism;

Toda a documentação produzida durante as avaliações de risco está disponível no site da CTNBio. Particularmente em relação à avaliação de risco para liberação comercial, esta documentação é depositada na Biosafety Clearing House, em conformidade com o que manda o Protocolo. Nada é escondido.

Remark [1]/ Where applicable, risks such as cross-pollination and spreading of seeds should be specifically addressed.

Isso é mais do que óbvio e é sempre um dos pontos mais importantes de qualquer avaliação de risco de plantas com pólen ou que produzem sementes. Uma observação assim só pode vir de gente que nunca fez avaliação de risco para uma agência de governo.

Basta de argumentos baseados no Protocolo.

Seguramente, o tal abaixo assinado será trazido e lido na audiência pública. Ele não contém um grama de questões de risco ligadas ao ambiente ou à saúde, diretamente ocasionadas pelo OGM, que é o assunto da CTNBio. Todas as outras questões, embora pertinentes, também estão tremendamente mal abordadas, refletindo um sectarismo obtuso. Vamos ver se surgem dados sobre riscos reais ou se vão ficar sempre mordendo o osso dos “efeitos não antecipados” em nome de um princípio de precaução com uma redação só deles e prá lá de “precaucionário”. A filosofia desta turma continua sendo:

“Nós num come o ocalito, então nós corta o ocalito!”

Fonte: http://www.anarkismo.net/article/12399

Google– based translation of China Academy of Military Sciences ex-vice president´s text on the hypothetical correlation of transgenic soybeans/glyphosate and diseases in China. The translation was further reviewed and commented by GenPeace.

In the last two weeks a mess was created around an “article” published at the official “journal” of the Chinese “Military Academy of Sciences” by its vice-president. The “paper” “proved” that glyphosate was the cause of the sharp increase in the incidence of different diseases among Chinese people. However, the “paper” was just a communication, sort of personal report, by a retired military officer, containing a couple of speculative considerations on the origin of the abovementioned increase in disease rates. The image of the report is below and for those fluent in Chinese here is the link for the full text: blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102edhg.html 

As not many occidentals can read Chinese, GenPeace advanced a trial translation using Google and reviewing the product on the light of previous knowledge on the subject.

It is obvious that our good Lieutnan General was completely dominated by the GMO opposition, repeating as a parrot every non-sense that circulates in the internet and citing the trash literature that usually supports their claims. To those interested in a detailed analysis of the Lieutnan´s text, here is the translation from the Chinese original using Google translate, detailed commented.

Translation

Our country is the home of soybeans until 1994; before this date, the country was a net exporter of soybeans. Since 1995 China began to import soybeans; after a sharp rise in imports, in 2010 imports exceeded 50 million tons , in 2012 China imported 58.38 million tons of soybean , soybean imports reached 63.38 million tons in 2013 , accounting for 80 percent of China 's soybean market .

Imports of genetically modified soybeans were mainly U.S. multinational Monsanto developed genetically modified Roundup Ready soybeans. Monsanto Roundup, developed in the United States in the 70s of the last century, the introduction of the patented product herbicides, and then use the U.S. military in the Vietnam War as a defoliant ( Agent Orange )¹ have a special relationship: the main ingredient is glyphosate, which toxicity is increased by some polyethoxylated tallowamine adjuvants, such as POEA. In 1997, a glyphosate-resistant enzyme gene from Agrobacterium tumefaciens was isolated by Monsanto the United States, and the gene was transferred into soybeans and other crops. In crop management, spraying glyphosate-based herbicides can effectively eliminate weeds and non transgenic common crops, but will not kill glyphosate-resistant transgenic crops expressing the enzyme, thereby facilitating large-scale GM crop cultivation, saving labor costs. But as the result of spraying glyphosate , not only due to the lack of aromatic amino acids² , GM soybeans have serious nutritional deficiencies [ 1 ]³, and glyphosate residues can be found through the roots , stems and leaves in the plant, which can´t be removed by washing, ending up into the body after eating.

In April 2013 , an independent research institute⁴ in Germany , using the" Biological test technology" searched for glyphosate residues in genetically modified soybeans in Argentina. After sampling and analysis , seven out of 11 samples were found to contain of more than 20mg/kg glyphosate, with one of the reaching 97.36 mg / kg. [ 2 ]

Glyphosate is a toxic chemical and large doses of glyphosate are lethal; China and other countries recognize cases of glyphosate suicide case. In Japan, some studies show that Roundup lethal dose for an adult male is 250 ml⁵, while a lower dose and micro- doses of glyphosate can lead to chronic toxicity.

According to the research report by the U.S⁶ , France, Canada , Egypt, Brazil , Argentina, India, Thailand, China and many other scientific bodies showed that traces of glyphosate have mutagenic toxicity, tumor -induced toxicity , reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity , neurotoxicity , genetic toxicity and immune toxicity. April 18, 2013 , Prof. Stephanie and others⁷ from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology published a paper stating that glyphosate interfers with cytochrome P450 enzymes, and leads to amino acid biosynthesis inhibition among gut microbiome, in what was defines as The Road to Modern diseases; the meta analysis collected 286 papers worldwide in the scientific literature , from a statistical point of view , and biological mechanisms , elaborated glyphosate pollution and diabetes , infertility , cancer, fetal abnormalities , autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder , fatty liver , there is a causal relationship between cardiovascular disease , depression , Alzheimer's disease , Parkinson's disease , cerebral thrombosis , cerebral hemorrhage dozens of diseases. ⁸ [ 3 ]

In recent years , the EPA drinking water standards have been restricted to glyphosate content that glyphosate residue concentrations should not exceed 0.7mg / L, and explain the harm is caused by kidney damage and reproductive difficulties⁹. [ 4 ]

The Ministry of Health developed national standards G52763-2005 thereby " maximum residue limits for pesticides in food " were provided: glyphosate residues in fruits shall not exceed O.1mg / kg, corn glyphosate residues shall not exceed  1mg / kg. But I do not know why the above criteria for  glyphosate residue limits do not make provisions for soybeans.

2002 China's " genetically modified food and health management approach" has been clear stating that GM foods nutritional value and food safety shall not be less than the corresponding conventional food, and I do not know why the July 1, 2007 amendment just abolished the clause on genetically modified food nutritional value and safety requirements.

Because China's national standards for allowable residues of glyphosate soybeans have not been established so far have, and because the glyphosate content of imported genetically modified soybeans was not tested or reported by Ministry of Agriculture of China, it is difficult to accurately calculate China's soybean imports of glyphosate residues. 2013 China's imports of genetically modified soybeans from United States and other countries implied in a 6,338 tons of glyphosate; assuming the country population as 1,3 bi. people, the annual per capita imports of genetically modified soybean reaches about 50kg. Based on the detection of glyphosate residues in genetically modified soybeans in Argentina and assuming only a sample of the lowest level of glyphosate (20 mg/kg) for calculations, it is estimated for 2013 a per capita intake of glyphosate from ingestion of genetically modified soybeans of 1000 mg. It means a per person per day as high as 2.74mg¹⁰.

U.S. government to take on GM soybean production subsidies to $ 59.1 per ton in 2004 subsidy standard calculations, in 2013 the United States exported to China transgenic soybean 63.38 million tons , a total subsidy of $ 3.8 billion giant . U.S. soybean farmers through their huge subsidies , dumping of Chinese , a few years it destroyed the traditional Chinese soybean industry .

( Reprinted by Note : This paragraph contains an error , China in 2013 imports of " genetically modified soybean 63.38 million tons ," not all imports from the United States , however , the international trade of genetically modified soybean prices are directly affected by the U.S. agricultural subsidies . ) ¹¹

China's imports of genetically modified soybeans are mainly used to extract edible soybean oil ( the main brand is " Arowana ", etc.), not due to its quality , but because of its low price. GM soybeans quickly monopolized the Chinese soybean market, covering almost nationwide most of the restaurant industry and food units. Glyphosate in soybean oil form transgenic grains is uptake three meals a day in most of the country  and continues to penetrate into the human body. Consumers include children in kindergartens, schools, universities and students, the PLA (People´s Liberation Army) officers and agency personnel and other consumers in the school (except for special units ) .

The past 20 years , the health of our people deteriorated sharply , the incidence of some diseases straight up shocking. In 1996 , China's birth defects was 0.87% , in 2000 , rising to 1.09% in 2010 , rising to 1.53% ; [ 5 ]

According to the " Reference News" (June 2, 2013) , a survey reported by a site in the United States that 40% of the elderly over the age of 60  showed depression compared, significantly more than young people; [ 6 ] ¹²

November 22, 2011 "Xinmin Evening News " revealed that precocious puberty among Chinese girls was 10 times the rate of the last decade; 2010 the Beijing Municipal Government issued the first " White Paper on public health" and revealed an increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes increased by 11.7 times ;

April 2, 2013 " Zhengzhou Daily" reported that the number of diagnosed autistic children increased a hundred -fold in 20 years, February 20, 2013 " Sichuan News Net - Chengdu Daily " revealed : "In recent years , China Children's Oncology the incidence is rising, the average per 10,000 children, children with cancer will have a child in all tumors, leukemia, brain tumors , malignant lymphoma and neuroblastoma pathogenesis number in the top four . ¹³;

2012 China Population Association released the " 2012 China White Paper survey sperm quality ," the survey data show that China's infertility patients since before reached more than 50 million , accounting for 15.6% of the population at childbearing age . 10 years ago ( 2002 ) this figure was 8 %, 20 years ago ( 1972 ) , 3 % and 40 years ago ( in the 1970s ) , no more than 1%.

According to Xinhua reports , China 's incidence of Parkinson's disease in the past 20 years showed a growth of at least 20 times ; [ 7 ]

China's current incidence of cardiovascular disease more than 13% [ 8 ] ; chronic kidney disease population reached 10%. [ 9 ]

As low and micro- doses of glyphosate have progressive , stealth and long-term characteristics, the risks of genetically modified soybean oil , unlike other poisons, can´t get immediate direct proof. In recent years, China National health condition deteriorated sharply and despite the weather , pollution and other factors, the dangers of genetically modified soybeans can´t be ruled out. Ensure the absolute safety of food  is an unswerving policy of the country . On this issue of vital importance , we have no room for trial and error . According to the March 3 "Yangcheng Evening News" report, the U.S. Environmental Medicine Academy officially announced : genetically modified foods cause serious harm to human health¹⁴. Back in May 2009 , the hospital¹⁵ issued a research report saying : "Some animal studies suggest that eating GM foods have serious damage to health risks, including infertility, immune problems , accelerated aging , insulin regulation , and changes in major organs and stomach changes in the intestinal system, " Xinhua March 15 , Paris : French Ministry of Agriculture on March 15 announced the decision to ban the cultivation, use and sale of the U.S. Monsanto developed GM maize MON810 in France.

Now it is time to remove the artificial setting of genetically modified foods " information barrier". My recommendation is that the relevant departments should seriously carry out epidemiological surveys, face reality, control risk , and implement prevention as a priority, to take effective preventive measures to ensure the safety of people's lives and the health and safety of the bottom line.

(The author is a former vice president of the Academy of Military Sciences)

Expert Profile

Mi Zhenyu, former vice president of Academy of Military Sciences, doctoral tutor, the generals Street

Eighth National People's Congress, the Ninth CPPCC National Committee,

The second, third and fourth degree Committee of the State Council Convenor military discipline, Convenor of the military council doctoral disciplines, Fifth National Postdoctoral Professional Personnel Committee.

References:

[1] T. Bøhn et al, Compositional differences in soybeans on the market:. Glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans, Food Chemistry, online 18 December 2013

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201

In translation : http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102ebkd.html

[2] TestBiotech, High levels of residues from spraying with glyphosate found in soybeans in Argentina, 2013-10-22 http://www.testbiotech.de/en/node/926

In translation : http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4bb17e9d0102edgj.html

(direct link: http://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/TBT_Background_Glyphosate_Argentina_0.pdf)

[3] Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, Glyphosate's Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases, Entropy 2013, 15 (4), 1416-1463

http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416/pdf

In translation : http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_6e9914110101ec4d.html

[4] EPA, Technical Factsheet on: GLYPHOSATE

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/glyphosa.pdf

[ 5 ] Information Times , one hundred births 5.6 flawed , March 7, 2013

http://news.ifeng.com/gundong/detail_2013_03/07/22826084_0.shtml

[ 6 ] Reference News , Foreign media: Chinese elderly plagued by depression ,2013 -06-02

http://china.cankaoxiaoxi.com/2013/0602/218581.shtml

[ 7 ] Xinhua , the incidence of Parkinson's disease for at least the past 20 years, an increase of 20 times , 12 April 2007

http://news.xinhuanet.com/health/2007-04/12/content_5965118.htm

[ 8 ] Health News , " China Cardiovascular Disease Report 2012 " published every 10 seconds one person dies effort ,2013 -08-12

http://www.bj.xinhuanet.com/hbpd/health/yw/2013-08/12/c_116900727.htm

[ 9 ] Guangzhou Daily , Guangdong incidence of chronic kidney disease in the country ,2013 -11-04

http://news.southcn.com/d/2013-11/04/content_83567059.htm

Appendix: " Technology Digest News " April 25, 2014 Mi Zhenyu "face import of genetically modified soybeans for 1.3 billion Chinese people 's health and safety hazard" to scan items

******************

Comments by GenPeace

¹ The “Agent Orange” was a mixture of 2,4.D, 2,5-T and some other toxic residues, but no glyphosate at all. The very serious health problems caused by the “agent” were due to the presence of a contaminant, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), a very toxic component from the dioxin group.

² The text is not related to the context. It may be a mistranslation.

³The paper of Bohm and colleagues was produced by a group of activists dedicated to prove that GMOs are dangerous and that the associated technology also increases risks. The methodology is very flawed and it is astonishing how such a bad paper could be accepted by a traditional scientific, peer reviewd journal. It is, by no means, the first trash that is accepted by a good journal, the paradigmatic example being that of Séralini (http://genpeace.blogspot.com.br/2013/09/is-seralinis-paper-dead-horse-should-be.html )

⁴The “independent” NGO TestBiotech is not a research institute and the text cited is not a paper. It lacks controls and a clear methodology and is in sharp contrast to other real papers, like the one published by Arreguí et al. (2003): the authors found no soybean samples with residues above the internationally agreed limit. Soil and water samples were also either negative or at very low level. Samples were taken from crop areas during consecutive crop years (http://www.ask-force.org/web/HerbizideTol/Arregui-Monitoring-Glyphosate-Residues-in-Soybean-2004.pdf )

⁵If the reader swallows 250ml of pure alcohol, acetic acid, fuel, mustard or hot chili, he or she will almost certainly die or face serious health consequences. Lower doses, however, may have no direct impact on his/her health...

⁶No references...

⁷The paper mentioned here has a few claims that may be true, but the whole of it is very bad. See a full comment on http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/05/04/roundup-and-gut-bacteria/.What GenPeace really appreciates is the incisive approach Skeptoid has to unravel the truth: just have a look in the graph below, a Skeptoid contribution to the problem of “modern diseases”:

Useless to say, you can found a similar correlation to whatever food, drug or device whose adoption has seen a steady increase in the last 12 years...

⁸The translation is difficult here, but the main idea is clear: glyphosate leads to the increased incidence of all diseases listed in the paragraph.

⁹The numbers are false: a quick inspection of the EPA texts leads to the following information: Drinking water levels which are considered "safe" for short-term exposures: For a 10-kg (22 lb.) child consuming 1 liter of water per day, upto a ten-day exposure to 20 mg/L or up to a 7-year exposure to 1 mg/L. Moreover, the author mixes up acute and chronic effects: the latter could be renal and reproductive problems, but these remain as potential effects, not at all demonstrated or taken for granted.

¹⁰Our esteemed Lieutnan General Mi Zhen wrongly assumes in his calculations that all soybeans will be fed as grains to humans. Not at all! The vast majority of imported grains will be fed to pigs, chickens and other animals. The small fraction used for human consumption will be mostly transformed to oil, that has no glyphosate residues or only very small amounts of it. The final results will lower per capita intake to more than an order of magnitude!!

¹¹The two paragraphs are irrelevant for the discussion on glyphosate and GM soybean impacts on health.

¹²The increase in depression rates was reported by Bloomberg website (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-31/china-s-growing-ranks-of-elderly-beset-by-depression-study-says.html ) and has absolutely no correlation to glyphosate.

¹³The translation is confusing, but the message is clear: cancer cases of very different types and ehiologies are rapidly increasing in numbers among Chinese children.

¹⁴This Academy is indeed an assemblage of activists and has absolutely no relation to the true Academy of Medicine nor with any other serious academic or class agency in USA. The name is misleading, but anyone can easily check its origin and ideology: : just see what is in Wikipedia: Quackwatch lists the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) as a questionable organization, and its certifying board, the American Board of Environmental Medicine as a dubious certifying board.^[4] They are not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties.

¹⁵It is unclear what “hospital” could mean in the original text. As there are no references cited in this paragraph, it is not possible to track down the origin of this queer info.

GMO risk assessment and related issues

As an effort to offer previously posted texts on GMO risk assessment in the Brazilian context written in English to the readers, we listed them below.

1.       What is a LMO/GMO “not likely to have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health”? - http://genpeace.blogspot.com.br/2012/04/what-is-lmogmo-not-likely-to-have.html

2.       Brazil officially rejects Séralini´s results – no risk assessment revision is being suggested for NK603 maize - http://genpeace.blogspot.com.br/2012/10/brazil-officially-rejects-seralinis.html

3.       On Omics for GMO risk assessment - http://genpeace.blogspot.com.br/2013/04/on-omics-for-risk-assessment.html

4.       Comments on the AHTEG´S Guidance on risk assessment of living modified organisms (CBD/BCH, transgenic plants, LMO, GMO) - http://genpeace.blogspot.com.br/2012/06/comments-on-ahtegs-guidance-on-risk.html

5.       On the 'forgotten" gene that could be harmful in transgenic plants: regulators did not miss it - http://genpeace.blogspot.com.br/2013/03/on-forgotten-gene-that-could-be-harmful.html

6.       Basics on small RNAs: transgenic beans, papayas, tomatoes, etc. - http://genpeace.blogspot.com.br/2013/08/basics-on-small-rnas-transgenic-beans.html

7.       A clumsy attempt to discredit good papers in order to safeguard Séralini and other fake scientists. Comments on http://gmoseralini.org/lets-give-the-scientific-literature-a-good-clean-up/ - http://genpeace.blogspot.com.br/2014/01/a-clumsy-attempt-to-discredit-good.html

8.       No need for scientific consensus on GMO safety: how science is constructed and how risk assessment is made – http://genpeace.blogspot.com.br/2013/10/no-need-for-scientific-consensus-on-gmo.html

9.       The largest “experiment” with human beings and livestock, ever! Contrary to the alarmists´ opinions, GM food seems to be very safe - http://genpeace.blogspot.com.br/2012/10/the-largest-experiment-with-human.html

10.   Reply to GMWatch´s 10 reasons why we don´t need GM foods - http://genpeace.blogspot.com.br/2013/04/reply-to-gmwatchs-10-reasons-why-we.html

11.   Failure to demonstrate any harm from Cry proteins on mice: comments on Mezzomo et al., 2013 - http://genpeace.blogspot.com.br/2013/06/failure-to-demonstrate-any-harm-from.html

12.   Brazil´s new post release monitoring system for GMOs - http://genpeace.blogspot.com.br/2011/12/brazils-new-post-release-monitoring.html

13.   CTNBio: rigor and transparency on GMO biosafety assessment in Brazil - http://genpeace.blogspot.com.br/2013/09/ctnbio-rigor-and-transparency-on-gmo.html

14.   Is Seralini´s paper a dead horse? Should be, but now it is kind of a zombie, every time and again resurrected by the most stubborn GMO opposition - http://genpeace.blogspot.com.br/2013/09/is-seralinis-paper-dead-horse-should-be.html  

Identifying LMOs that pose no risks for either health or the environment: http://genpeace.blogspot.com.br/2012/04/identifying-living-modified-organisms.html

For a general view of the Brazilian regulatory scenario, see also:

The Brazilian GMO Regulatory Scenario and the Adoption of Agricultural Biotechnology http://worldfoodscience.com/article/brazilian-gmo-regulatory-scenario-and-adoption-agricultural-biotechnology

Transgenic Res. 2014 Mar 23. [Epub ahead of print]

Post-release monitoring: the Brazilian system, its aims and requirements for information.

Andrade PP1, Melo MA, Kido EA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24659218