I also have no specifics as to the approval process (in ANY jurisdiction) of GM crops, but I DO know that testing IS done, and documented. I’m pretty sure this IS part of the regulatory process and also mandatory. I changed your deregulatory to regulatory because rest assured, it IS still highly regulated, even after a specific technology has been approved for commercial release.

Dr. Dan alludes to this also in “How Safe is Your Food?”

Perhaps we can implore Dr. Dan to give us more details on the approval process itself, like timelines and data that must be collected and submitted. Likely he can point us to any published studies of Monsanto data as well. Would you like to make that “Topic Suggestion”, or shall I?

June 1, 2009 at 9:43 am

What (in MY opinion) Monsanto’s CRITICS do (in many but not all cases) is only take the data that SUPPORTS their position, and IGNORE any data that contradicts their position.

Taking that approach, I could easily “prove” that all women in the US are over 6 feet tall and have blue eyes, because those that aren’t are statistical anomolies that don’t matter. And my “proof” is just as meaningful as anyone else’s who takes this approach.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Look, this is clearly not what I am advocating. I’m not sure why you keep saying this sort of thing. Here is what I have asked for over and over. Some examples from this thread alone. I think you are purposefully ignoring this fact:

Deborah Rubin Says:

May 30, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I also ask for unbiased and objective studies and analysis. That is exactly what I want

Deborah Rubin Says:

May 21, 2009 at 10:11 am
I would like to see Monsanto’s safety studies, data and all, publicly reviewed. The whole ball of wax.

Deborah Rubin Says:

May 15, 2009 at 8:11 am
John, I’m not saying I have any data. Monsanto is the one who needs to prove their product is safe and says they have done. So as a consumer, I am asking for that proof. Several times the PR people here have said we must be scientific in our approach to GM foods and not hysterical or anti-science, so let’s go for it. Any independent studies out there will most likely come up in the conversation, or Monsanto could list them as well, as they are on some of the links from Kate. Their findings and criticisms could be reviewed publicly as well. It’s only fair…..
******************************
The problem is so much directly contradictory information and a lack of studies. I would like public peer review. You go on to say, “I do not, have not, and will in all likelihood never speak for Monsanto. But my understanding, from the outside, is that if Monsanto conducts a study as part of an investigation for some government “process”, ALL of that data had to be included in the study documentation provided to the government. PRESUMABLY the government has that data peer-reviewed, a point to which I will get back shortly.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
I do not believe this is the case, but would be glad for Monsanto to set the Record Straight. I hope the information is peer-reviewed by independent scientists before a crop is released, but do not believe this is part of the deregulatory process or mandatory.

“Monsanto also refutes all work that does not support their position. That is the problem.”

No, that is the SOLUTION you are asking for. Refuting work is done by collecting ALL data, and then seeing where it takes us. That is the approach that Monsanto takes. And others can try to take ALL of that data and refute Monsanto’s position.

What (in MY opinion) Monsanto’s CRITICS do (in many but not all cases) is only take the data that SUPPORTS their position, and IGNORE any data that contradicts their position.

Taking that approach, I could easily “prove” that all women in the US are over 6 feet tall and have blue eyes, because those that aren’t are statistical anomolies that don’t matter. And my “proof” is just as meaningful as anyone else’s who takes this approach.

Deborah said:

“Do you mean to say that all of Monsanto’s safety studies done prior to deregulation of crops are published in peer-reviewed journals?”

I do not, have not, and will in all likelihood never speak for Monsanto. But my understanding, from the outside, is that if Monsanto conducts a study as part of an investigation for some government “process”, ALL of that data had to be included in the study documentation provided to the government. PRESUMABLY the government has that data peer-reviewed, a point to which I will get back shortly. And any studies which Monsanto DOES publicly publish SHOULD be in peer-reviewed journals, postings on the various Monsanto website notwithstanding.

This is NOT a practice I have observed the various detractors of Monsanto following. “They” make accusations and publish NO data behind them, peer reviewed or not. THAT is not science, nor is it a discussion, or even a debate.

Back to my deferred point. I do not, have not, and will in all likelihood never speak for the US government, either. But some will argue the US government actually DOESN’T review, peer or otherwise, Monsanto (or anyone else’s) data. I can nether speak for or against this. But if one doesn’t trust this activity, why then call for ANOTHER agency to certify and label food as “GM” (or non-GM). In my viewpoint, adding another layer CAN’T make the problem (if it exists) better, it can only make it worse.

To me, you could easily turn any of the statements you made above right back around on Monsanto. Monsanto also refutes all work that does not support their position. That is the problem.

What I would like to see is those conflicting studies done publicly in conjuction with independent scientists-including those who oppose gmo’s-with agreed upon methodology, etc, in public view, under governmental or some other agreed upon oversight. That way we can see an objective, unbiased conclusion. It is a sound scientific principle to repeat studies until you have a consistent outcome.

One other point you made interests me as well. Do you mean to say that all of Monsanto’s safety studies done prior to deregulation of crops are published in peer-reviewed journals? If so, would you please direct me to that link?

“Certainly many people in NGO’s and at least some in the FDA/EPA have decided against gmo’s.”

Yes, certainly they have. MY question is, have they decided based on EVIDENCE, or personal conviction? Because I just don’t see the evidence to support their decision, so I am suspicious they decided on personal conviction, and then started collecting (only) data to support their position, rather than taking an objective approach without prior bias.

“And people have been known to make mistakes and to do wrong for gain.”

Exactly. So, are “you” (as in is some random person) more or less prone to making mistakes than trained investigators? And how does having more studies and more regulatory agencies make this better?

“the non-choice of eating 3 meals a day, 7 days a week for the rest of my life.”

Remember those mistake-making people from the previous paragraph? They grow, store, and transport your food. The only way around it is to grow your own food, and then still you have to trust the seed-providers. There’s no way around it.

“Who collects and interprets the data now? Who pays for that data and interpretation? Who is interpreting the data for us? I would like to see a much wider range of data collection and interpretation. Since when is advocating for independent analysis of data considered anarchy?”

As far as I know, all of Monsanto’s studies are published in peer-reviewed journals, which is enough to satisfy me. And the data behind those studies is available to the “peers”, who are in the best position to judge it.

The impression I have of most of Monsanto’s detractors is they DON’T publish peer-reviewed studies, and they are NOT objective and unbiased. They publish misleading, biased interpretations that ignore data which don’t support their pre-determined agenda. The way I read Dr. Dan in the other discussion, this is his contention, also. But I don’t want to put words in his mouth.

You ask for independent analysis. I’d add to that unbiased and objective. Because as I showed above, it is very easy to present data in a way that leads people to come to the wrong conclusion.

John, you say that, “People in governmental and NGO agencies spend their LIVES learning and applying how to make these informed decisions. And they have decided, rightly or wrongly, that GMO’s are worth the risk.” What percentage of people does that represent? And people have been known to make mistakes and to do wrong for gain. Certainly many people in NGO’s and at least some in the FDA/EPA have decided against gmo’s. And so have many individual citizens, you may know us as consumers.

Once again, the revolving door between Biotech and Government comes to mind; who decided? People pushing through that door decided.

I don’t find any of your other examples of choices the least bit relevant to the non-choice of eating 3 meals a day, 7 days a week for the rest of my life.

Is asking for information with the risk of dissenting opinion anarchy? Or democracy? I think it’s a whole lot easier to confuse people with a LACK of information. And to control them as well.

Could that be Monsanto’s intention?

I do believe you hit the nail on the head when you said that, “The distinction I am trying to make is the INFORMATION is in how that DATA is interpreted by the people who collected the data, and I guess their detractors, too.” Who collects and interprets the data now? Who pays for that data and interpretation? Who is interpreting the data for us? I would like to see a much wider range of data collection and interpretation. Since when is advocating for independent analysis of data considered anarchy?

“Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.”

“How can you say you feel that more information will only confuse the public? Information is what we need more of to make an informed decision. Without it, we are only speculating or assuming. I trust that people have the wherewithal to sort things out their confusion for themselves. How can we be objective without data and discussion?”

Deborah, do you want information, or (raw) data? You use the two term interchangeably, but I do not think they are interchangeable.

Actually, what I SAID was: “I don’t think the majority of the people are qualified to adequately REVIEW the data behind these studies. I know I am not.”

So, perhaps YOU can tell us what sample size you need to get a 1% margin of error with a 95% confidence interval, but I dare say the average reader cannot. That is where the raw data comes in.

The distinction I am trying to make is the INFORMATION is in how that DATA is interpreted by the people who collected the data, and I guess their detractors, too. This interpretation is also a science, but after the data has been digested into information, I think the general public has a better (but not assured) chance of understanding it.

As an example of this, look above in this tread for
John Q Says:

May 5, 2009 at 1:34 pm

What Christa gave us was data. What I gave us was information. It is VERY easy to misinform people with data, by allowing the people to draw erroneous conclusions, like Monsanto is using 84% of the water on the island.

You argue for informed decisions. People in governmental and NGO agencies spend their LIVES learning and applying how to make these informed decisions. And they have decided, rightly or wrongly, that GMO’s are worth the risk. I think it is extreme hubris to believe that my decision, with my limited training, would be somehow better than theirs. Or are you advocating anarchy along with informed decisions?

Again, I have to ask, would you subject automobiles to the same level of scrutiny? Or do you take the various governmental agencies word for their interpretation of the data derived from various research studies?

For example, would you put a 6 month old in a rear-facing carseat in the front seat of a car with airbags, just because you hadn’t seen the data on the reaction velocity of the explosives used in airbags?

What about helmets for motorcycle riders? There have been LOTS of studies that show that not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcyle is VERY dangerous, WAY more dangerous that you imply GM crops could be, and yet people are still allowed to ride in most jurisdictions without them.

I know some of these examples may appear to contradict some of my positions, I’m just trying to determine where on the “risk scale” you fall. If you want more GM food testing but don’t support requiring motorcycle helmets, I have to admit I find that hypocritical. On the other hand, if you stray too far the other direction, you risk turning the state into a nanny, where EVERYTHING is regulated, because life is, after all, dangerous.

How can you say you feel that more information will only confuse the public? Information is what we need more of to make an informed decision. Without it, we are only speculating or assuming. I trust that people have the wherewithal to sort things out their confusion for themselves. How can we be objective without data and discussion?

If Monsanto is so confident in their safety data, what do they have to worry about? They have all of their scientists their to deal with any questions and back up their positions.

I did make the request some time ago to the suggestions blog when you let me know about it.

I clicked through on several of Kate’s links, and the links on those pages, and most reference articles from peer-reviewed journals.

Frankly, and this is NOT a Monsanto opinion, but I don’t think the majority of the people are qualified to adequately REVIEW the data behind these studies. I know I am not. Perhaps you are, but I feel exposing the details to the general public will just result in MORE confusion, rather than less.

As for a place for a back and forth discussion, I’m pretty sure this has been linked to you (or at least someone more “your side” than “ours”), but each page here has a “Topic Suggestions” link, which points to

http://blog.monsantoblog.com/monsanto-according-to-monsanto/suggestion-box/

My understanding is requests of this nature are more likely to get acted upon if they are submitted there.

But I feel obligated to make the same request to you. Can you provide us with “peer reviewed” data, and a place to have back and forth discussion and questions about YOUR data? And I’d rather they were serious studies and not anecdotal, if you don’t mind.