December 2014
A 2014 review of the "Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations" seems to have come up with an animal version of the trillions of GM meals which 'prove' safety [1].
The stated purpose of the study is three fold.
GM feed 'prevalence' is described in a "summary of the suppliers of GE and non-GE feed in global trade".
Showing posts with label Denmark. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Denmark. Show all posts
Real-world data on Glyphosate
October 2014
When new antiviral drugs came on the
markets, many governments thought it prudent to stock-pile them in
case of any major new viral epidemic.
![]() |
| A healthy pig. CC photo by thornypup on Flickr. |
Accordingly, the UK government forked
out £500 million and the US government $1.3 billion largely on the
Roche version of antiviral sold as 'Tamiflu'.
The Cochrane Foundation, a global
not-for-profit organisation whose aim is “to produce accessible
health information free from commercial sponsorship and other
commercial interest”, conducted their own review of 46
pharmaceutical company-sponsored Randomised Control Trials* on the
effectiveness of Tamiflu. Such Trials are carried out routinely as
part of the drug's licensing procedure. Its conclusion was that the
benefits of this class of drug had been exaggerated. In short, the
money paid to pharmaceutical companies for such flu-treatments had
been largely wasted and could have been much better spent on other
health measures.
*Randomised
Control Trials are considered the gold standard for assessing drug
efficacy. They involve a random selection of subjects half of whom
are given the test drug and half of whom are given a placebo.
Neither the subjects nor the researchers know who has been given what
until the data on the drug's effects have been collected.
Roche, governments, health-workers and
scientists swiftly responded that Tamiflu is effective in alleviating
symptoms and saving lives.
A counter-review was then produced by
Roche: this wasn't based on scientific investigation, but on
observational evidence from 78 studies of patients admitted to
hospital. The Company claims that these “real-world” data are
more relevant to judging the efficacy of a drug than Randomised
Control Trials.
So, what happens if
you apply Roche's emphasis on real-world data to GM?
First ever long-term GM feeding study on pigs
August 2013
“ ... more than 150 scientific studies have been done on animals fed biotech crops and to date, there is no scientific evidence of any detrimental impact” (biotech representative, CropLife International).
With a bit of cherry-picking of what
constitutes appropriate scientific evidence this may be true.
However, it's easy to see why no 'detrimental impact' has emerged.
The 'scientific studies' has been largely based on animal models with
little relevance to humans, on diets restricted to single GMOs, on
very short time-scales, and on superficial data relevant only to
commercial livestock production.
When a team of Australian and American
scientists, led by Dr. Judy Carman, carried out an experiment which
avoided the above short-comings, it raised concerns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
