More like, "I get to sit by with a little help from my friends," right?! Communists!
parboiled1
parboiled1
Now playing
I believe Dr. Seneff considers and mentions as much in her talk. But wheat protein itself undergoes considerable structural change when hybridized, and modern wheat (Triticum aestivum) is the result of super accelerated hybridization - like tens of thousands of hybridizations within the span of a few decades. And it…
A published response from Séralini et al.:
Classic mix-up! Yeah, your memory was correct - and people have used it as a point of criticism - I was just pointing out that Monsanto uses the same strain in studies those same people consider valid.
You said, "the rat strain selected for the study was one that was specifically bred to be prone to cancers."
They terminate their studies after 3-months, so go nuts.
On Having No Head - Douglas Harding
The rat strain was the exact same rat strain Monsanto uses in their 3-month studies to "prove" how safe their GMOs are.
You're not alone:
For Bt crops, the Bt pesticide is expressed in the crop.
Now playing
As far as GMOs in general, many of the current round of modifications are orientated towards increasing our food's resistance to pesticides. It's the kind Séralini tested, and it's the kind featured in this worthwhile talk from MIT's Dr. Stephanie Seneff (tried to cue it up, but video should start at 18:31 mark):
Now playing
Objectivity doesn't exist. I rather prefer Robert Anton Wilson's recognition of "reality tunnels":
I tried warnin' you sum'bitches 'bout them "unknown unknowns."
"...the journal's editorial appointment of biologist Richard Goodman, who previously worked for biotechnology giant Monsanto for seven years."
Yes! Why not even the faintest hint or suggestion of replication? They explicitly state it showed “no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data.” Hell, they could even tighten up and strengthen the protocols. I'm sure the money will just come flooding in to fund that study.
No one said they were making it dangerous "on purpose," but they're making it and are able to reap a huge profit from it being proprietary - it just might also happen to be dangerous. Cigarette companies don't make their product to kill their customers, they make it to make boatloads of money - it just happens to…
Transgenic modification is something entirely new/novel (blindly blasting genes attached to gold particles into other genes via a "gene gun"). As is the type of hyper-crossbreeding done with wheat strains (tens of thousands of times within a decade). Still, "genetic modification" or "genetically modified organism"…
"...but putting out there dangerous products that kills its customers always seemed a stupid premise."