Prof Gil Seralini Runs Monsanto's numbers, liver/kidney damage from GMOs

As part of an upcoming documentary on the introduction of a genetically engineered chile pepper to New Mexico, I interviewed Professor Gil Seralini over Skype. Though technically this interview is plagued with problems, I wanted to get it up as soon as possible.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• monsanto
• gmo
• seralini
• university
• of
• caen
• genetically
• engineered
• modified
• organism
• corn
• bt
• biology
• food
• safety
• eat
• glyphosate
• roundup
• touchdown
• syngenta

[bedlymite]

You raise a lot of important points. An economic analysis is very complex, so I won't comment. I challenge you to find 3 known benefits of GMO. I will then post 3 serious drawbacks. As for nuclear power, the damage caused by fossil fuels is orders of magnitude greater if measured in deaths per terawatt-hours produced. Please critique both points.

Also, do you have a public presence? Attend conferences, etc. You seem very passionate.

[BullhornJournal]

@bedlymite only a local conference here and there. I am passionate, obviously! For me the patenting of genetic material is the natural end to the quantifying (and profit seeking from) of every single thing on earth by faceless, timeless, boundless corporate entities. It is the end of science done for the love of nature and human good. The drive to patent has sullied the nature of research at public universities, and on and on. google "scientific American gmo research" head: Do Seed Companies...

[BullhornJournal]

@bedlymite the fossil fuel system is very bad. Your argument seems to be that Nuclear is the alternative because it is less bad. Real world alternatives are problematic at best. Wind and solar backed by massive, MASSIVE, damn projects (to solve the storage problem)? We should have followed Tesla's advice and developed thermal energy systems, relying on the Earth's heat, from the beginning. Nuclear puts us further into the technology and concentration of power trap. an aargh issue, indeed.

[bedlymite]

@BullhornJournal Nuclear kills. But aging is the biggest risk factor for death and no one seems to care about fixing that (I do). So I have different priorities. I will read the summary of the report. I will not offer to list drawbacks but instead will research them more carefully.

[BullhornJournal]

@bedlymite Aging! fascinating subject. Telomeres? You've certainly picked my interest.

[BullhornJournal]

@bedlymite Some farmers in Texas just won a lawsuit against Bayer for GMO rice contamination crushing export values. Is your sister a scientist who actually works on the rice? I believe the vast majority of scientists and engineers would much rather be doing work that is important to humanity than making money for corporations. But how to make a living, right? The moment that patents are no longer given to genes, we'll see an end to the 'good works' being done by Monsanto, et al.

[BullhornJournal]

@bedlymite Please look into the IAASTD for economic analysis. It is a 2008 report done by the World Bank, World Health Organization, and the UN at the behest of Monsanto and Syngenta. I don't recall the exact numbers but the report quite clearly states that 95 percent of the world's farmers (over 60 percent women) derive no benefit from GMOs. It's enough for me to see that in every single country where they have been introduced (ex. communist) hunger, poverty and unemployment have increased.

[BullhornJournal]

@bedlymite Unnatural changes in nature are many. I fear only those that are uncontrollable and irretrievable (Seralini says, 'we can't know' if GMOs are safe because they have never been tested as one would test a drug). Scientists will tell you that gene's don't migrate. Utter hogwash. But they see the chaotic world through the glass on the laboratory door. They test one thing at a time. Nature does a billion, trillion migrations each second. Into this mix Monsanto wants to place a kill gene...

[BullhornJournal]

@bedlymite GMOs in the medical field hold great promise, clearly. As far as agricultural benefits that have accrued to the whole of humanity, rather than to the very top chemical corporations and large farming corporations, and defining a GMO as it is defined by the United Nations (built in a laboratory using the techniques of biotechnology) I can't come up with any, unless you want to argue over the Papaya in Hawaii (where at least I can see both sides of the argument).

[BullhornJournal]

@bedlymite Ah, the thesis of my next film... That is, why does everything have to be quantified and commoditized before it can be evaluated. When we are dealing with potential systemic effects, effects that may accrue globally and unremittingly, why can't caution be the order of the day rather than a wholesale belief in the efficacy of private, for-profit corporations? What happened to the Cautionary Principal?

[bedlymite]

@BullhornJournal

That is a very important piece of info. Thank you. I am going to put this info. to use. My sister used to work for a biotech firm, ricetech, near houston, tx. So I am going to call her and see what she says. However, there is one major flaw that I can see still. An unknown risk isn't quantifiable. You appear to believe any change to nature that is "unnatural" carries an unreasonably high risk because it isn't known what will happen. Is that correct?