Slashdot Mirror

You claim (in the subject of your post):

> 10 mice was all that Monsato used to pass.

Unfortunately, in actuality, it was 20 groups of 10 mice each. The researchers who published the flawed study you are trying to defend reviewed, in a paper published in 2009, the Monsanto study and wholly criticized the use of groups containing only 10 mice. Yet instead of doing a better study, they chose to merely return tit for tat. Oh, and they released the results to the media in a totally manipulative fashion.

If they really were interested in discovering the actual truth about this strain of GM corn, one would assume they would have done the study in a better fashion.

It's not all about poisoning insects, or killing weeds, some of the GMO stuff is done to, you know, help people eat.

Could be, but you'll forgive me if I'm wary of Monsanto's relentless pursuit of profit and monopoly via GMO, with it's track record in other pursuits and with other products. I'm sure they would never short-circuit research efforts that focus on safety of some of their GMO "stuff"; after all their own rigorous studies, much like this one have shown the "stuff" is safe, no? I'm sure that Monsanto would take the same care to ensure other GMO stuff it sells is safe, too, even the stuff expressing traits other than those that poison insects and kill weeds. I'm also sure it gives C-level management and major shareholders at Monsanto a warm fuzzy thinking about all those people they're feeding, which is the reason they exhaustively research the safety of their products.

1) The FDA does not regulate GMO's http://environmentalcommons.org/RegulatoryDeficiencies.html So the FDA never approved or disaproved it. Neither did NASA, the CIA, or Treasury department. Whether GMO's should be regulated by the FDA or another agency is a good discussion, but stating there is some sort coverup concerning the FDA is bullshit.

2) rBGH is chemically the same as BGH, which cow produce naturally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin. Using rBGH has effects on the health of the animals, which has caused it to be banned in many countries. But if rBGH harmful, so is natural BGH.

3) I read http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm. It states that there were signs of toxicity, but not proof. A very interesting study that should inspire more studies, just as the authors state. Lots of organic foods will produce the same effects on kidneys and liver, but we don't panic. This study is not definitive proof and should not be interpreted as such.

4) It's all about risk assessment. There is not such thing as zero risk (not doing something carries risk too). If you took a bath recently, you probably exposed yourself to a high level of risk of injury or death. 400 people a year die from using natural gas. These are judgement calls. Please don't state risks as absolutes.

I'm not against all GMO. There are plenty of "natural" plants that will kill you instantly if you ate them. There is plenty of âoenaturalâ mutagenic insecticides nature invented that are not so good for you either. In the end it is the final product and its nutritional value that matters rather than means of production.

Having said this there seems to be evidence for issues concerning several popular GM products:
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

We simply don't have the technology to understand the first, second and nth order effects of cutting and pasting DNA from other species on the food and repercussions of complex interactions with ecosystem of the planet.

If you want to produce a new drug you need to spend years in testing and trials. People then have knowledge of and a choice over what drugs they are consuming.

If you want to produce a new GM product you have to give 120 days (voluntary?) notice with FDA and fill out a little bit of paper work. Hundreds of millions of people have no knowledge or choice over their consumption of this new GM product. How the hell is this reasonable or tolerated by anyone?

There are a few problems with Monsanto as I see it.

Monsanto contractually offloads responsibility for their products to farmers.. If their seeds go ape and pollute other fields or turns the world into grey goo. The farmer not Monsanto is on the hook.

The IP protection regime especially in the face of invasive species is fundamentally insane and unfair. Knowingly going after farmers for using their IP when they must have known in advance their seed would contaminate other fields is a blatant abuse of the law.

A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

Differential Effects of Glyphosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells and Aromatase

Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling

You may notice that people are not dying from this, we haven't had an epidemic of many people becoming ill or dying because a genetically engineered food was introduced...

Not yet, at least.

Even though testing could not reveal whether 51 people were legitimately sickened by Starlink corn, the news left a lingering thought it could.

Even earlier this year when a report found that GM corn may cause organ damage in rats, it only showed 'signs of toxicity' (not proof). http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11

We probably won't know the true effects for decades or maybe longer. Perhaps livestock will develop reactions to GM feed that we won't know about until we have an adverse reaction to eating them. Too many what-ifs, but it's nice to think about them.

The EU has some of the strictest laws regarding labeling of GMOs on food products... And, apparently there were some folks in the FDA that saw a clear danger from using GMO in the food chain. Hmm...

FTA: "Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried "serious health hazards," and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html

And "KEY FDA DOCUMENTS REVEALING (1) HAZARDS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS--AND (2) FLAWS WITH HOW THE AGENCY MADE ITS POLICY"

http://biointegrity.org/list.html

Having said that, we really don't know enough to be certain of the long-term effects. Much more research needs to be done, but companies like Monsanto are forging ahead now, and from what I can tell, with little regard for consequence.

I gotta disagree with that one, because there has been quite a lot of research on GMO crops that have found no significant difference between them and normal crops. They are not known to produce any compounds that they're not supposed to, and the idea that the gene itself will hurt you (which is an argument I have actually seen) is just silly, considering that normal breeding and mutagenesis produces far more altered genes than GM, and besides, your body can handle everything from kepel fruit to kangaroo, and that's a lot more new genes than simple genetic modification. One could make the argument that the Bt protein used in insect resistant GMOs (also used in organic farming) is harmful, but I've never seen a shred of evidence to indicate it.

Could there be long term consequences of eating GMOs? Absolutely. They could kill us all tomorrow for all I know. I can't disprove the possibility that there is some sort of complex interaction via presently unknown mechanisms that will ultimately hurt us. But as Stephen Gould said, 'Apples may start rising tomorrow but such a possibility doesn't merit equal time in physics classrooms.' The smallpox vaccine might have some sort of sort of long term effect, so could cell phone and wifi radiation, but, like GMOs, we have no evidence to indicate that they do, and until there is, I wouldn't really worry about it. Yeah, there have been those 'smoking gun' type studies, they always turn out to be baloney. And keep in mind, when you reject scientific consensus to hastily over a single study, bad things can happen (remember the Wakefield study?). And of course, there is no reason to assume that all GMOs are good, they can be pretty complex when you're running a gene that produces a certain compound in one plant through entirely different pathways, as this potentially harmful GMO demonstrates, but notice that the problem was found and explained. No one has ever found, let alone provided a science based reason for the existence of, and causative agent for the harm that GMOs are occasionally claimed to cause.

Now, had you said ecological long term consequences, that is a much more complex issue, but there, if we use GURTs, genetic use restriction technology, which we are not currently using due to protests from the anti-GMO crowd, that can be kept to a minimum. And of course, there they do not need to be perfect, only a net positive over agriculture without them. For example, they currently provide known ecological benefits, so in the case of this escaped canola, it is not a matter of 'How bad is the canola' but of 'Is this worse than the damage that would be caused to the soil and water and local flora/fauna without GMOs.' I think we still come out ahead, as it isn't like this canola is some sort of 'superweed' or whatever just because it has an extra human inserted gene.

I agree with your first paragraph, just pointing out that human health is one of the least likely areas for GMOs to come back and bite us in the rear.

THIS STUDY published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences shows liver and kidney toxicity in rats due to 3 different varieties of Monsanto GM corn. And before anybody jumps in and says the study "cherry picked" data or anything of the sort, be aware that the study used Monsanto's own data, from its own experiments that were performed in order to get USDA approval for the products.

And this is not some "fly-by-night" outfit. IJBS is a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal.

If you can stomach reading scientific papers, this is an interesting read.

In recent studies researchers have found that BT maize (corn) can cause serious health problems in mammals.

Government scientists also read these things. See what the Australian & NZ Food Standards agency said about it. To paraphrase: "Oh, those guys again. Still using the suspect statistics that were criticised the last time they used them. This isn't evidence for any harmful effect."

Please don't confuse some of the evil things Monsanto does with the safety of GM as a whole.

It's a little terrifying how much power Monsanto has in the US and really, the world. They have farmers all over the world under their thumb through royalty payments and the patents they hold on certain traits. There are plenty of cases where farmers have legitimately planted NON-GMO soy and corn only to find that pollen from their neighbors farms has drifted into their field and GMO'ed their crops. These farmers now have to supply the burden of evidence to show their innocence if Monsanto chooses to chase them into court over patent infringement. Monsanto has single-handedly, in a single generation of farmers, cut out seed saving. This is the single most important advancement that allowed us as a species to move from casual, opportunistic farmers to the agrarian based society we enjoy today.

I don't begrudge Monsanto for trying something new, but I am concerned with their disregard for the wellbeing of farmers and for their consumers. Over the last twenty years there has been mounting evidence to show that pests are developing resistance to BT Toxin and that many other crops are inadvertently horizontally transferring BT genes. But wait! There's more!

In recent studies researchers have found that BT maize (corn) can cause serious health problems in mammals. A diet heavy in GMO corn caused rats to develop liver and kidney problems. Most of the corn raised in the US carries the BT gene, along with a few other, like the RoundUp Ready. I'm sure you're thinking to your self, "gee, I'm glad I don't eat very much corn!" Oh, but you do. Almost everything that isn't a vegetable or a fruit found in American grocery stores has some form of corn in it. From ascorbic acid, citric acid, corn starch, high fructose corn syrup, food colorings and ink, and even some waxes applied to fruit are all derived from corn.

I'm not a biochemist and I certainly don't have any idea how rat models scale (or don't scale) up to humans, but the study cited above suggests that a diet rich in BT corn (which most of us well-fed americans eat) might be bad for us. Perhaps some diversity and choice in our market would be a good thing. At least some public discussion about this subject, and less media schilling on behalf of giant multi-nationals would definitely be welcome.

First, an AC nailed you spot on while I was typing, but since I've already typed it up...

For example, some (but by no means all) of the "9/11 truthers" (a very derogatory phrase) have some good evidence to cite.

That's news to me. From the 'steel doesn't melt' to the 'No, thousands of tonnes of falling debris couldn't have made the WTC7 collapse' to the 'Aluminum powder can only be produced in labs, not by the destruction of thousands of electronics,' I've never seen anything from the truthers that didn't amount to baloney, or as the case may be, bias over evidence. Truther should be a derogatory label.

As for "anti-GMO guys", a recent peer-revieed study showed that 3 different varieties of Monsanto GMO corn caused liver and kidney damage in rats.

That wasn't peer-reviewed, and I doubt it ever will be, because it was garbage. It was playing with statistics. They cherry picked a few studies out of hundreds to get variations in organ size. It would be a miracle if they couldn't have gotten those results. Yet, I see it being drug all over the internet as the elusive 'proof' that genetic engineering is dangerous (nevermind that even the authors of that study themselves admitted that they were unable to pin down a causative agent for the alleged damage). Another case of bias over evidence.

Again, something that probably does not belong in your list. To compare these people with the moon-landing-deniers and astrologers is a mistake, since they are on a much more solid stance, evidence-wise.

They're able to make themselves sound more evidence based, but they're really not. Go look at a moon landing conspiracy site; I'll bet they've got plenty of half-truths and misinterpretations supporting their claim, much of which might even sound good, but just like everything else, it's bunk when you really examine it. You see this everywhere. Go look at Age of Autism or Vaclib and tell me they don't have loads of evidence backing their claims that vaccines cause autism, or go look at the Mercola site or whatever and see the evidence they've got proving homeopathy is an effective form of treating everything. They all have evidence, but when you really look at it, it's all either nonsense or a real stretch of the truth. Same with the truthers and anti-GMO guys. It's like Bigfoot vs Santa Claus.

Further, while flouride may not be a communist plot, there are some very serious ethical issues involved with putting it in drinking water.

Since the positives are stronger teeth, and the negatives are nil, I hardly see how is an ethical issue if a few people complain about imagined fears.

Which is precisely the point, and even the point you make: people let biases influence them. Including you. (I say that based on the evidence that you lumped a whole bunch of things into your list of "bullshit", even though from the scientific evidence, some of them probably do not belong in the list.)

Certainty I have biases, but what I like about being an ex-young earth creationist is that I'm fairly confident that I can change my mind if I have good reason to. I'll do a 180, because I can tell you I don't like any of those ideas as much as I did creationism. But first I must be shown the evidence, and that's why I hold those opinions. I didn't pick them based on the notion that the government is out to get me or that deviating from what is deemed natural is harmful. I base them on evidence, not anecdotes, not logical fallacies, not what-ifs, not possible conspiracies. You think the 9/11 truth movement and the anti-GMO movement aren't based on bias? I know those issues very well, and until they show, say, real proof of GMO harm from a reputable health organization, and a causative agent, and a genetic reaso

Your "examples" should not all be grouped together, since some of them are at vastly different levels of "known", compared to the others.

For example, some (but by no means all) of the "9/11 truthers" (a very derogatory phrase) have some good evidence to cite. This is hardly something an area that is "unequivocally known". As for "anti-GMO guys", a recent peer-revieed study showed that 3 different varieties of Monsanto GMO corn caused liver and kidney damage in rats. Again, something that probably does not belong in your list. To compare these people with the moon-landing-deniers and astrologers is a mistake, since they are on a much more solid stance, evidence-wise. Further, while flouride may not be a communist plot, there are some very serious ethical issues involved with putting it in drinking water.

Which is precisely the point, and even the point you make: people let biases influence them. Including you. (I say that based on the evidence that you lumped a whole bunch of things into your list of "bullshit", even though from the scientific evidence, some of them probably do not belong in the list.)

Yeah, their editor-in-chief is only the chief of mammalian genetics at NIH, and their editorial board is a bunch of slackers from the likes of Georgeton, UCLA school of medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Vancerbilt, Nortwestern, UC, etc.

actually he makes the point that I tried to make above ... the journal may have some big names on their editorial board (in fact, I worked in the past with some of them) ...

but how often do they publish in their own journal ... hint: almost never.

maybe, i should clarify, i'm a junior professor and i have never heard of this journal (nor has any of the 6 people in the office I am sitting in, all post-PhDs in biochem/chem/biophysics.)

why haven't they put it in a really major journal--Nature, Science, PNAS, or something like PlosONE if the whole publication really had to be open access?

Yeah, their editor-in-chief is only the chief of mammalian genetics at NIH, and their editorial board is a bunch of slackers from the likes of Georgeton, UCLA school of medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Vancerbilt, Nortwestern, UC, etc.

OK, I haven't read the paper in detail... Glancing at their results table, it doesn't seem clear cut overall. E.g. there are cases where rats fed 11% GM corn show a response, but rats fed 33% GM corn don't, cases where male rats are apparently affected, but not females, and vice versa. They also don't name the maize they used as a control, so we don't know how accurate it is. Maybe you should read it in detail. FTFA: The raw data have been obtained by European governments and made publically available for scrutiny and counter-evaluation. So, they didn't actually perform the experiments, they're using the results of experiments that others did. It doesn't invalidate your point, but if you read further, I think they realize this:Furthermore, groups of animals were also fed with diets containing one of six other normal (non-GM) reference maize lines; the same lines for the NK 603 and MON 810 tests, but different types for the MON 863 trials. We note that these unrelated, different non-GM maize types were not shown to be substantially equivalent to the GMOs. The quantity of some sugars, ions, salts, and pesticide residues, do in fact differ from line to line, for example in the non-GM reference groups. This not only introduced unnecessary sources of variability but also increased considerably the number of rats fed a normal non-GM diet (320) compared to the GM-fed groups (80) per transformation event, which considerably unbalances the experimental design.

Yeah, I know, actually reading the article before posting your critical analysis is pretty hard to avoid.

Wow.. someone that RTFA?! You must be new here.

Mod parent up.

For the ADHD, you can skip to this:
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA3
and
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA4

Wow.. someone that RTFA?! You must be new here.

Mod parent up.

For the ADHD, you can skip to this:
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA3
and
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA4