Niven

Dr.Robert Lucas Challenges Niven Wholesale

Submitted by Dr. Robert Lucas

NivenWholesale

Dr. Robert D. Lucas

Dun-Low lane

Bridgetown

Barbados, BB11157

robertd.lucas@gmail.com

 

2nd September, 2018

Barbados Underground

Bridgetown, Barbados

West Indies

Dear Sir/Madam,

On page 14 of the Nation newspaper of the 18th.August 2016, there was a paid advertisement by an entity called Niven Wholesale. The advertisement claimed that, the consumption of genetically modified (GM’s) foods have been linked to the development of cancers in humans and animals. It further stated” that Canaillou is GM free and has been formulated by Vets.

It appears that the advertisement refers to one study which was published in November 2012, by Gilles-Eric Seralini and others of the University of Caen, France, in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology. The study was entitled “Long Term toxicity of Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup Tolerant Genetically Modified Maize.” This study has been shown to be flawed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and Food Standard Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) to name a few regulatory organizations. The authors of the study used Sprague Dawley rats in their study. These rats are prone to develop cancers naturally; the numbers of cancers increase with increasing age. Secondly, the sample size (number of rats used 10) was found to be inadequate and therefore made statistical analysis of the data of limited value. In chemical risk analysis of suspected carcinogens, large doses of the suspected carcinogen are fed to animals at levels several orders of magnitude greater than any human can consume in one life time. In animal–model studies, two important parameters have to be established: the no observable effect level (NOEL) and the lowest observable effect level (LOEL). The LOEL is the lowest level at which a suspected carcinogen causes cancer. In animal-model studies of cancer, LOEL dose levels are very high. Another draw-back to the use of animal-model studies is the fact the researchers have to extrapolate animal results to fit human conditions. There are inherent difficulties when this is done; what causes cancer in rats may not cause cancers in humans’.

The EFSA, the Food and Drug Administration of the USA (FDA) have all stated that GM foods are safe. Indeed, GM foods undergo more food safety testing than other conventional foods. I wonder if Niven Whole Sale would advocate that Barbadians cease the use insulin derived from genetically modified E.coli bacteria. The advertisement is an example of the dissemination of incomplete data which is being used to influence consumer choice. The local regulatory body ought to deal with the matter.

Sincerely

 

Robert D. Lucas, PH.D., CFS.

Food Biotechnologist.

Tags: ,

19 Comments on “Dr.Robert Lucas Challenges Niven Wholesale”

  1. Georgie Porgie September 2, 2016 at 8:32 PM #

    MY GOD LUCAS!
    YOU REALLY EXPECT THE REGULAR SCIENCE ILLITERATE WHO COMES ON BU DAILY FOR THEIR DAILY DRIVEL TO DEAL WITH THE ABOVE
    CANT YOU POST SOMETHING SIMPLE OF THE ORDER OF “DAN IS THE MAN IN THE VAN”?

    Like

  2. Georgie Porgie September 2, 2016 at 8:38 PM #

    BUSH TEA
    YOU KNOW EVATING BOUT EVATING
    CAN YOU HELP OUT THE MAN HERE?
    LEH WE HEAR BOUT ENTROPY. MAN.

    Like

  3. Hopi September 2, 2016 at 9:06 PM #

    Does Dr. Robert Lucas have any studies proving that GM foods do NOT cause cancer or any other known illness?

    “Another draw-back to the use of animal-model studies is the fact the researchers have to extrapolate animal results to fit human conditions. There are inherent difficulties when this is done;”… Should they use humans then for these studies and given the track record on these medical institutions why should humans volunteer?

    Aren’t Sprague Dawley rats which are prone to cancer/tumors used in many other experiments which eventually get the approval of the USDA and other such Agencies?

    “Indeed, GM foods undergo more food safety testing than other conventional foods.” Does such testing make said GM foods safe or safer for human consumption?

    Like

  4. Well Well & Consequences September 2, 2016 at 9:18 PM #

    The problem with FDA, they would approve drugs, food etc this year, tell ya they are safe and how wonderful they are, but 5 years going down the road ya hear that ipsome are all were pulled from the market, because it causes this, that and the next, then ya hear all about the billion dollar law suits being settled in the US by the manufactures….to which people outside the US affected by the same products…cannot take part.

    When anything sounds too good to be true….it usually is.

    Like

  5. Well Well & Consequences September 2, 2016 at 9:20 PM #

    ………ya hear that some or all were pulled from the market…

    Like

  6. Donna September 2, 2016 at 9:51 PM #

    I understood it and can follow his reasoning. I even would have deduced by myself that experiments on rats are never conclusive with respect to humans as the human body may react differently but I wouldn’t be able to argue a case one way or the other. Scientists themselves would argue forever without reaching a conclusion. We also know that big business will often say whatever it takes to sell their products and the authorities can also be bought and paid for in every country. Getting to the bottom of this would not be easy for someone even if they are not scientifically illiterate. But a simple solution for me is to grow most of what I eat myself and that I have every intention of doing.

    Like

  7. GreenMonkey September 3, 2016 at 12:33 AM #

    A biologist who used his research work on GMOs to obtain his PhD is apparently not as confident in the adequacy of the GMO safety testing as the learned Dr. Lucas:

    Jonathan R. Latham, PhD

    By training, I am a plant biologist. In the early 1990s I was busy making genetically modified plants (often called GMOs for Genetically Modified Organisms) as part of the research that led to my PhD. Into these plants we were putting DNA from various foreign organisms, such as viruses and bacteria.

    I was not, at the outset, concerned about the possible effects of GM plants on human health or the environment. One reason for this lack of concern was that I was still a very young scientist, feeling my way in the complex world of biology and of scientific research. Another reason was that we hardly imagined that GMOs like ours would be grown or eaten. So far as I was concerned, all GMOs were for research purposes only.

    SNIP

    I now believe, as a much more experienced scientist, that GMO crops still run far ahead of our understanding of their risks. In broad outline, the reasons for this belief are quite simple. I have become much more appreciative of the complexity of biological organisms and their capacity for benefits and harms. As a scientist I have become much more humble about the capacity of science to do more than scratch the surface in its understanding of the deep complexity and diversity of the natural world. To paraphrase a cliché, I more and more appreciate that as scientists we understand less and less.

    The Flawed Processes of GMO Risk Assessment

    Some of my concerns with GMOs are “just” practical ones. I have read numerous GMO risk assessment applications. These are the documents that governments rely on to ‘prove’ their safety. Though these documents are quite long and quite complex, their length is misleading in that they primarily ask (and answer) trivial questions. Furthermore, the experiments described within them are often very inadequate and sloppily executed. Scientific controls are often missing, procedures and reagents are badly described, and the results are often ambiguous or uninterpretable. I do not believe that this ambiguity and apparent incompetence is accidental. It is common, for example, for multinational corporations, whose labs have the latest equipment, to use outdated methodologies. When the results show what the applicants want, nothing is said. But when the results are inconvenient, and raise red flags, they blame the limitations of the antiquated method. This bulletproof logic, in which applicants claim safety no matter what the data shows, or how badly the experiment was performed, is routine in formal GMO risk assessment.

    To any honest observer, reading these applications is bound to raise profound and disturbing questions: about the trustworthiness of the applicants and equally of the regulators. They are impossible to reconcile with a functional regulatory system capable of protecting the public.

    https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/growing-doubt-a-scientists-experience-of-gmos/

    Like

  8. David September 3, 2016 at 6:42 AM #

    A problem we have in Barbados is that we don’t have trusted independent bodies to inform the public about these issues. One would think being the capital of the NCD’s world careful management of what we eat should have been a top priority.

    Like

  9. Pachamama September 3, 2016 at 9:16 AM #

    @ David

    Even if we had the bodies you mentioned they would be structurally compromised by the same vested interests such bodies have been elsewhere.

    Generally, the studies which people like Lucas depend upon tend to ignore results after 90 days because of the exponential defects seen thereafter from GMOs feed to subjects.

    For the likes of us, we could never understand why Georgie Porgie continues to believe that he alone, or the establishment he so fervently defends, has some unique understanding about these matters.

    No level of statistical reasoning is beyond the competencies of average people once the BS and unnecessary technical language is removed. Is this why average Bajans have struggled to pay taxes to educate these idiots, for these same fools to come and create a class to represent others while pretending there is some technical or scientific language the people who paid to educate them must not know.

    And let William Skinner talk his regular shiite! Poor fellow, he does not have a clue, and never will.

    Simply speaking and as a writer who has previously made a living generating statistically based materials, people like GP and Lucas represent what is wrong with Barbados. There are tooooo many people like them more interested in regurgitation shiite than transforming what they think they know for development.

    Like

  10. Georgie Porgie September 3, 2016 at 11:15 AM #

    really Pacha?
    have we not produced genetically modified sugar cane for time immemorial/
    did we not have the first sugar breeding stations in the world?

    Like

  11. Georgie Porgie September 3, 2016 at 11:23 AM #

    pacha
    i got run out of barbados for seeking to transform what I knew for development.
    where/when has georgie porgie ever defended the establishment, fervently or otherwise?
    now why dont you use your vast knowledge to advance a sane sensible systematic discusion of the topic?

    Like

  12. ac September 3, 2016 at 11:39 AM #

    There is enough information by which people can make decision towards having a healthy lifestyle .Already a vast amount of people are taking stock of what they eat. Whether or not it is a proven fact that GMO’s are causing cancer is still opened for debate. However with the popularity of whole food stores the evidence suggest people are not taking a chance of risk.

    Like

  13. Pachamama September 3, 2016 at 11:52 AM #

    @ GP

    There surely must be a seismic difference between budding and grafting and GMO intervention.

    Even an esteemed scientific novice like you must know this.

    We seem to recall that gene sequencing only appeared in the 1990’s.

    Nobody in the sugar industry in Barbados 200 hundred years ago had the ability to use genes from and animal to modify plants.

    If we are right, ………………………………

    Like

  14. Pachamama September 3, 2016 at 12:09 PM #

    @GP

    David would tell you that we have already provided a simplified explanation of statistical methods.

    We did that because our interests are to destroy this artificial construction on which Barbados is based.

    Meaning, that because a few people have some insight in, population studies, in that case, they should not demand anymore respect than our garbage man.

    And all the methods follow the same path, whether in the hard or soft sciences.

    But the aim of some ‘semi-illiterate’ people is to cloak they arguments in all kinds of fanciful BS to impress those unfamiliar.

    Our argument is that there should not be any difference between the schooled and unschooled.

    Unfortunately there is a paradox, one now has to go through all these schooling systems to return to this fundamental truism.

    Having done that, people like you and Lucas, sellers of snake oil, must be exposed for the charlatans, sell-outs, you are.

    Like

  15. Pachamama September 3, 2016 at 12:20 PM #

    Niven Wholesale is right and this Lucas boy is merely carrying water for the bio-engineering industry.

    These are the same people responsible for the deaths of 100 thousand Indian farmers every year.

    We wonder what GP and Lucas have to say about that.

    We have all the EU countries, Russia and more banning these things, but lapdogs in Barbados for other peoples’ business somewhere else, would have our children fed this shiite.

    Then people object to our consistent calls for the implementation of the guillotine as a response.

    Like

  16. Bush Tea September 3, 2016 at 12:48 PM #

    Thank you Pacha.
    …and Bushie has no problem with the guillotine…
    Only wondering how effective it will be against brass…

    Like

  17. Georgie Porgie September 3, 2016 at 4:47 PM #

    PACHA

    RE Nobody in the sugar industry in Barbados 200 hundred years ago had the ability to use genes from and animal to modify plants.

    ARE SAYING THAT BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT SEQUENCE GENES AND DO PCR AND DEAL WITH TRANSPOSOMES ETC THAT GENES WERE NOT MODIFIED AT THE CANE BREEDING STATIONS?

    ARE YOU SAYING THAT ONLY GENES FROM ANIMALS CAN BE MODIFIED

    RE There surely must be a seismic difference between budding and grafting and GMO intervention.

    BUT NEVERTHELESS WE weRE producING genetically modified sugar cane for time immemorial THIS STATEMENT CAN NOT BE REFUTED BECAUSE IT IS SOUND DOCTRINE

    ARE YOU SAYING THAT ONLY GENES FROM ANIMALS CAN BE MODIFIED

    IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DR LUCAS AND HIS BIOENGINEERING ADDRESS HIM

    IF I COME HERE AND QUOTE A SCRIPTURE YOU HAVE SHITE TO TALK

    IF I TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO MODIFY GENES IN CANES, YOU HAVING SHITE TO TALK

    JACKASS I TEACH MEDICAL STUDENTS ABOUT GENETIC ENGINEERING

    I TALK ABOUT THINGS ABOUT WHICH I KNOW

    RE These are the same people responsible for the deaths of 100 thousand Indian farmers every year.

    We wonder what GP and Lucas have to say about that. I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT……..ARE YOU HAPPY NOW? THAT IS NOT IMPORTANT TO ME

    We have all the EU countries, Russia and more banning these things, but lapdogs in Barbados for other peoples’ business somewhere else, would have our children fed this shiite. I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT……..ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?THAT IS NOT IMPORTANT TO ME

    /
    MY INTEREST IS IN WHEN WILL THE RAPTURE OCCUR. THAT IS IMPORTANT TO ME

    WUNNAH DOES COME HERE DAILY WID LOTS OF LONG TALK TRYING TO SOUND INTELLIGENT BUT NONE OF WUNNAH CAN NOT SOLVE ANY PROBLEMS HERE THERE OR ANYWHERE

    MY MOM OK MY SONS OK I DONT HAVE NO PROBLEMS TO SOLVE OR PRETEND TO SOLVE
    I CARRY ANY PROBLEMS I HAVE TO THE LORD
    I COME IN THE RUM SHOP TO JOKE AROUND AND MOCK BECAUSE I HAVE LONG DISCOVERED THAT IS ALL THAT CAN BE ACHIEVED HERE

    Like

  18. are-we-there-yet September 3, 2016 at 5:22 PM #

    I think the following is the article to which Dr Robert Lucas referred above. Just google canaillou niven barbados.

    http://www.nivenwholesale.bb/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Canailloupresentation.pdf

    If that was indeed the article I can’t understand what all the fuss is about.

    Like

  19. Simple Simon September 4, 2016 at 11:21 PM #

    Who cares what Rover eats or does not eat. Rover is only a dog.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: