x

AgProfessional Magazine

AgProfessional magazine is a monthly magazine that provides editorial and advertising for agronomic and business management solutions specifically to agricultural retailers/distributors, professional farm managers and crop consultants.

View Current Issue/Archives | Subscribe to the Magazine
AgProfessional Magazine
x

The latest news and information of specific interest to farm managers, crop consultants, ag retailers and the ag industry professionals serving them is delivered weekly on Monday in this e-newsletter.

View Current Issue | Subscribe Now | View Archives

News specific to inform, educate and assist ag retailers is delivered in this e-newsletter weekly each Thursday. Circulation is limited to only ag retailer/distributor management and employees.

View Current Issue | Subscribe Now | View Archives
Newsletters
Decision Engine Logo
  Search Term:
  Crop:

Quick Search Clear


Advertise on this site


Home > Newsroom > Anti-biotech study and corn ban is a mockery

Anti-biotech study and corn ban is a mockery

Rich Keller, Editor, Ag Professional  |   September 27, 2012
decrease font size resize text increase font size
The audio player requires a newer version of Flash to play this clip. Please update your version of Flash by clicking below.
Get Adobe Flash player

Bruce Chassy, Ph.D., professor emeritus, University of Illinois Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, was a guest of Mike Adams on AgriTalk. Chassy said a French study released last week claiming health concerns from biotech corn is a mockery of science and was designed by an anti-GMO activist scientist who has an open agenda to find fault with everything biotech.

Chassy further suggested that Russia banning the import of biotech corn previously approved for import because of questions about food safety based on this French study is ridiculous. He said Russian scientists cannot be scientifically naïve enough to truly believe the French study will hold up to scrutiny. His thought is that the Russians have another agenda for banning the corn.

Comments (5) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

Daniel    
Report Abuse
Ohio  |  October, 01, 2012 at 09:09 PM

The only way anyone will believe you is for you do pay at least three independent
labs to duplicate the study and honestly report the findings. The Journal it was
reported in is one of the hardest to get papers published and everything is submitted
to review before publishing. Your response leaves a lot to be desired. Or do we have
another University of Maryland and their discovery of the dangers of trans fats case
here?

bob streit    
Report Abuse
Midwest  |  October, 01, 2012 at 11:00 PM

When we visited USDA headquarters last summer we met with a group including the Under Secretary of Ag for Research. In our conversation after our presentations we kindly asked for a list of published, long term, peer-reviewed studies documenting the safety of consumption of GM food. They could not do that. There are many good studies that have been conducted in other countries or done here but published in recognized foreign journals.
Any editor or member of any producer group need to recognize this lack of transparency and recognize that any further denials of such contrary information will only galvanize the consumers, who buy what Ag produces. There are many millions of acres in this world that could (and are) be developed to produce what the consumers want.
Observant U.S. producers are being educated in this matter and more are asking very good questions. In the end they will do what they have to to maintain consumer acceptance of their grain.
Daniel is correct in the journal that published is one with a high level of impact. Don't shoot or denigrate the messenger. In the science of debate such action is the acknowledgment of having an indefensible position.

Deputy Stumpy    
Report Abuse
Iowa  |  October, 02, 2012 at 01:03 PM

University of Illinois is owned by big agribusiness. Why would you listen to
anything they say. In my opinion University of Illinois is just a mouthpiece puppet
for the big agribusiness concerns. They are totally unobjective because their
research is all paid for by the big agribusiness companies. That is why you will
NEVER see ANY research out of land grant universities like University of Illinois or
Purdue that is critical of modern production ag. Never seen it in 25 years of
reading and watching their published research -- its totally biased. Wouldn't listen
to a word they say.

Rod    
Report Abuse
Minnesota  |  October, 02, 2012 at 09:13 PM

Come on folks. The proof is in the pudding. We have been consuming GM grain for how many years and have no proof of harm? How long could we continue to "study" to satisfy everyone? The truth is without continued development of technology of all kinds, tested adequately as required by U.S. regulations, we will not be continued abundant supplies of food for the long haul.

John Wagoner    
Report Abuse
Davis CA  |  October, 03, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Attempting to dismiss the French corn study on the basis of the variety of rat they used is nothing buy disingenuous propaganda, considering Monsanto used the same strain of rat in their 90 feeding trials. Since both studies share the same protocol , then if Monsanto's are valid, then the results of the life long studies are valid to. The French studies compared feeding this strain of rats with either Monsanto roundup ready corn or a control. The Monsanto corn fed rats had cancer rates three to five times the rate of the control. Think about that next time you have your Kellogg's corn flakes. Remember, if its not labeled organic, then its secretly GMO !!

Should this study be replicated ? Absolutely, as a the demonstration of repeatability is the foundation of science.

The real question is why isn't the idea that our food may be unsafe not headline news all over this country ?

Feedback Form
Feedback Form