Slashdot Mirror

There are two major reasons why people incorrectly think aspartame causes cancer:

1. In 1975 a bad study was released saying aspartame caused brain and other cancers. This study became “legend”, and is what everyone thinks about aspartame, but it is not true. There is even an article on Wikipedia specifically about this controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy
2. In 1998, a hoax was released saying aspartame caused all sorts of serious diseases, and people believed it: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blasp.htm. It’s also on snopes http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

Due to the 1975 study, studies were launched and FDA officials describing aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut" (http://web.archive.org/web/20071214170430/www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1999/699_sugar.html)

1. The European Food Safety Authority concluded in its 2013 re-evaluation that aspartame and its breakdown products are safe for human consumption at current levels of exposure (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3496.htm)
2. As do other independent studies (http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408440701516184)
3. The national cancer institute has cleared aspartame as having no links to cancer (http://web.archive.org/web/20090212130028/http://cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/AspartameQandA)

There are many more scientific studies on it by national governments showing it’s safe as well:

• UK https://www.food.gov.uk/science/additives/aspartame/
• Canada http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/addit/sweeten-edulcor/aspartame-eng.php
• Australia / New Zealand http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/additives/aspartame/pages/default.aspx

Can you tell me how much testing is done to verify these things are safe?

A lot.

How long and how numerous are the human trials?

Why don't you tell me why they are necessary. Okay, a corn has a cspB gene, or a cotton has a Cry1Ab gene, or a soy has C4 epsps gene, or a papaya has prsv cp gene, or an apple has an antisense PPO gene. Why should that bother me, especially considering all the other mandatory testing?

I would be suspicious that anything developed in the past ten years or less is completely guaranteed to be safe for the duration of a human life.

You should be suspicious of things that you have reason to be suspicious of, not things that could potentially have an unknown unknown, which is pretty much everything. You can't prove that something won't be dangerous because you can't prove a negative, but there is neither reason to suspect that GE crops are dangerous nor is there evidence suggesting that GE crops are dangerous, unless you count Wakefield grade rubbish like the Séralini study. It irks me that when people say that some stuff about wifi or cell phones they are mocked but saying it about biotechnology is enlightened.

If you can convince me not to worry about that, I'm all ears!

Read these studies, and statements from various organizations like the WHO, FDA, EFSA, FSANZ,NAP, ANBIO, AAAS, ect. The scientific consensus on genetic engineering is pretty solid. You can hate on Monsanto all you want (although you should be aware that the business end, like the science end, is often fought with misconceptions, half truths, and downright FUD), and I'm not saying there are not nuances that should be rationally discussed (such as herbicide resistant weeds and resistance breakdown, although those are larger issues that have affected non-GE crops as well) but the science behind genetically engineered crops is solid. In many ways, the controversy over genetically engineered crops is the agricultural equivalent to the controversies surrounding evolution, climate change, and vaccines.

Looking voer your links, link one comes from a report by 'Coalition for GM-Free India,' which I suppose I'd have to look over, but given that those claims contradict data and those organizations with GMO Free in the title rarely have a reputation of honesty (which I know is a poor argument but giving their report a quick look over doesn't really blow me away), it isn't high on my to do list. Link two is about resistance, and that has more to do with cultivation issues, in not unique to any strain of resistant plant, GE or not, so to call it a failure is not very nuanced or accurate. Third links is the same source as the first, and the fourth mentions that there has been a downward trend from earlier years, and even mentions Bt cotton as a reason.

Huber's work was never published. He made some pretty extraordinary claims, then never published his data, so if you are calling that important research, well, that isn't good. I can't really comment on it besides pointing out some of the absurdity and inaccuracy of his claims because there is nothing but claims, no fact, to talk about. You can not disprove him because he has nothing solid to disprove. The CSMonitor link isn't too hot either, failing to consider a number of important details. The Séralini study in the next link has been widely criticized for shoddy methodology and unsupported conclusions, including by the EFSA, FSANA, and the French HCB. Citing him does not advance your position among those who closely follow this topic, nor does citing Huber.

As for the next two links, it would not hesitate to believe them. I do not mean to imply that Monsanto does no wrong, especially with some of the chemicals they have produced in the past. The EPA link looks like they made made a mistake (since companies don't normally not brand their premium products). The bribery link is bad, although hardly unique for a company, and usually is unfortunately required to do business in certain places (not that this excuses it, just that you are talking about big business, not solely Monsanto). As for the last link, biopiracy is a stupid crime designed to get money from companies, and IIRC (it would be akin to me saying that because I live in an area where mayapple naturally grows that I deserve a cut from the profits of a company using the podophyllotoxin in mayappe to produce cancer drugs), Monsanto filed the proper paperwork, and someone else made the mistake elsewhere. Not really damning. The link in you second post looks like a mix of fact, science by jury (and a French one at that), and hot air (and naturally doesn't mention them doing things like compensating farmers in South Africa for their wrongly hybridized corn seed).

So, I stand by what I said. Most of the things out there about Monsanto are baseless. If they are so bad, base the accusations on fact. Also, since you bring up biodiversity, GE is a way of improving plants, biodiversity is what you grow. Two different things, and while you could accuse companies of reducing biodiversity, that is what agri

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?

Yes, they have. The willingness of fear-mongering buffoons to engage in data-manipulation is a different topic altogether. These clowns have published multiple papers making the same claim, all of which make the same kind of methodological "mistakes". The FSANZ response is particularly devastating.

The fact of the matter is that the main reason Monsanto needs to be so draconian about enforcing IP rights is because of the billions of dollars that have to be spent on testing "the stuff" and then convincing international agencies that it's safe for general use. It's hilarious - you want better testing but bitch about them trying to recoup the insanely high investment that goes into it, and even after they jump through all the hoops, you pull out half-baked "studies" to try and prove that the stuff is unsafe.

Just be honest - no matter what the data shows, no matter how much testing is done, no matter what kind of business practices are used, you'll never be satisfied because someone has convinced you that ("frankenfoods" == "double plus ungood"). Why waste time arguing the details when you're not willing to be convinced?

Here is some good info. Plenty of information from just about every government and university in the world. Just need to look.

I'm not a person who generally subscribes to FUD

Sorry to tell you, but you just fell for it in both of those cases. The first one is kind of a wierd one. The person claiming to have linked GMOs to those things actually claimed to have linked glyphosate (not the GMO itself), an herbicide that some GMOs are resistant to, with, well, everything. This guy basically claimed that glyphosate somehow spontaniously created a fungal life form the size of a virus that caused pretty much every known disease in both animals and plants. Think about that for a few seconds. Spontanious generation, smallest eukaryote ever, ability to infect everything...if exprodinary claims require extrodinary evidence, then there better be something pretty good behind that one. But that guy hasn't released his data. He's getting his 15 minutes of fame, but no one can review his work. This hasn't stopped the anti-GMO people from trumpeting it as gospel, but from a scientific standpoint, his claims are meaningless.

As for the second one, like the first, that one was big news in the popular media, not so much among scientists. A few weeks ago I spoke with a fairly well known plant molecular biologist who had never even heard of that one. What should it tell you that something like that has made so little impact? Yeah, nothing good. The sources I read about that did review it, the French High Concil on Biotechnology, the Food Standards Australia New Zealand, and European Food Safety Authority didn't think too highly of it. Basically the study was some wierd statistics based on Monsanto's own data, and in the end they concluded that Monsanto's studies were insufficient to make any conclusions, while at the same time concluding based on the data that they were dangerous. Uh, what?

Basically, every time there's one of those 'GMOs gonna get you' stories out there, they never, at least that I know of, have much to them. The analogy I like to use is the vaccines-autism case. You are going to hear anti-vax nonsense for years to come, despite the fact that the science on it is very clear. To me, someone in plant science, this GMO thing is no different. You are going to hear GMOs associated with every health problem there is until the day you die. But if you look at it really good, there actually isn't much strong evidence to suggest that there is or will be and health problem with them. Of course I supposed it might happen, but without evidence to suggest that, you could make the same non-falsifiable statement about anything. And hey, if you really feel strongly about it that buying organic gives you peace of mind that whatever, that's cool to. But I would hope it isn't something you really lose any sleep over. I've heard of cases of mothers struggling to make ends meet, wondering if they should sacrifices even more to buy expensive non-GMO food, and that, I think, is just horrible, horrible that people (and by people I mean organic lobby groups like the Organic Consumer's Association) choose to use fear as a marketing tool. If you're that worried, call up the agricultural extension office of you're local land grant university. You really can't trust Monsanto, but those guys you can trust, and they're there to help you.

And I just realized I just replied to two of your posts on this. Oops.

Just so you know, first link, widely discredited. Bad methodology, cherrypicked data, and never once mentioned a scientific reason as to why GMOs would be dangerous (they never do). Second, I've heard of those, but never one endorsed by the scientific community, nor one that could point to a reasonable cause for the animals' behaviors. It would be a real surprise if animals could detect subtle genetic changes but would still eat everything else. Third, can't find the link right now, but I read that it is somewhere in the range of 1 out of 50,000 monarchs that would be affected by that pollen (given the range and spread and that sort of thing) even if we accept that report, which, again, I haven't heard overwhelming confirmation of, and keep in mind, even if we accept that, it is generally believed that Bt crops tend to increase nontarget insect biodiversity and reduce pesticide applications, so even if we accept the thing about the monarchs, it is a trade off situation, not a loss with no gain.

Genetic engineering is a very controversial area, don't be surprised if you read a lot bad science about it. I mean, there are dozens of studies 'proving' that homeopathy works, that doesn't mean it does. The general scientific consensus among biologists, botanists, horticulturists, zoologists, microbiologists, biochemists, geneticists, ect., is that they're safe and effective. Sure, there might be patent stuff to work out, but that doesn't effect the crops themselves, and there might even be environmental side effects (although, not using them could be worse), but it is generally beneficial.

Your last paragraph is way off though. Just because there is a dispute (largely between scientists and laymen, what should that tell you?) does not mean we should forgo them. There is an equally valid dispute over the safety and effectiveness of vaccination, and whether or not they cause autism, and pharma patents on them, and every now and again a bad batch makes minor headlines (or is used sensationally by bad or biased journalism); should we stop vaccinating too? Just because a small vocal group of scientifically illiterate cranks muddy the waters for people who don't closely follow the subject? There is a dispute, yes, but it is, by and large, a manufactured controversy, an ultimately popular debate but not a scientific one.

The Canola plant is a derivative of the Rapeseed plant. Rapeseed plants (the original source of canola oil) have high levels erucic acid, which is toxic in large amounts.

Erucic acid is not toxic. That's bunk science. Mustard oil is 42% erucic acid and it has been regularly consumed by Asian cultures for a long, long time with no ill effects.

"The effects of erucic acid from edible oils on human health are controversial. However no negative health effects have ever been documented in humans." from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_oil

Erucic acid in food : A Toxicological Review and Risk Assessment . Technical report series No. 21; Page 4 paragraph 1

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Erucic%20acid%20monograph.pdf

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.

As for the Brazil nut soybean, it should go without saying that you can use genetic engineering to make things like that. A known allergen in something else, it's not too surprising that it turned out that way. You might as well point out that you can put anthrax in an apple if you wanted. You can put arsenic in a cake, doesn't make baking bad. A better way to put that would be no commercially approved GMOs have been shown to be spontaneously harmful. The only example I know of where GMOs were potentially harmful was detected and discontinued long before it was put into use. I've seen the 'smoking gun' studies, they come and go every now and again, but no one has ever been able to find a reason for the alleged harm, no causative agent, no chemical pathways producing that agent, no genetic reasoning for it.

And yeah, the principles of genetic engineering are a lot like breeding. I didn't say it's the same thing, nor should they always be treated the same, but in both cases, you're still changing the genes. One is just a lot more precise with a wider range of options, and it doesn't really matter that it is less natural, what matters is the end result. Does it matter if you insert a gene from a fish or breed it for a million years for the plant to produce it itself?

And Monsanto, they're not your friends, that's fair to say, but saying that because they're bad GMOs are bad is like saying that because the RIAA are pricks you shouldn't listen to music. What the Monsanto does says nothing of the worth of the product, and it certainty says nothing about unrelated people, just like what the RIAA does says nothing of the actual pieces of music, and absolutely nothing about, say, indie bands.

Do we need GMOs? Do we really need agricultural improvements? We could get by without a lot of things, but that's no reason not to use them, and no small amount of people in relevant fields seem to think biotech will be pretty significant.

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.

Not the first time /. has put up crappy corn studies who's conclusions don't support the data.

Corn is a lot like how McDonalds is accused of having worm meat and other weird urban legends: the industry is really big, so people like to attack it. Not saying I support them and their bribing, er, I mean, lobbying, to get subsidies, but whenever you hear something that puts the corn industry in a negative light, be just a little skeptical, because while it may be perfectly valid, there's also a good chance it's bullshit.

I've never heard of it before, but I don't doubt that the journal is legit, just that I don't recall seeing any meaningful peer review process for that particular piece (although I could be wrong here). However, the only things I've read about if from others (such as the French High Council of Biotechnology, European Food Safety Authority, and the Food Standards Australia New Zealand, among some moderately well known individuals) had nothing good to say. Bad stuff does wind up in good journals (as I said, the Wakefield study is a prime example). What they propose is plausible, that the chemicals used cause damage, however, the study still wasn't too hot. I can accept Round-Up causing the problems, I can even accept certain GMOs causing problems (here's two that did), but it won't be this study that convinces me of either. Comparing the Monsanto corn with regular corn, not much of a difference. It reminds me of the Failure to Yield report, which based it's premise (that GMOs have lower yield than non-GMO counterparts) on data showing an increase in yield!

To be fair, apparently the guys who did the study had to fight and claw to get the data they used for it from Monsanto, and that does highlight a lack of transparency which is not very desirable at all, but nonetheless, that doesn't mean that there is enough information to support their premise, and as you say, there certainty isn't justification to have this applied to all the other genetically engineered rice, cassava, potatoes, tomatoes, alfalfa, soybeans, papayas, ect. out there, which it undoubtedly will be.

This is a highly politicized issue (alas), and these things seem to come and go. I know I've seen the 'proof' that GMOs are dangerous before that study, and I don't doubt I'll see it again. When one of them sticks, when the WHO takes notice, when there is some really good strong evidence, when my horticulture professors are running around going "Holy moly look at this!" I'll give it more heed. In the mean time, I remain unimpressed.

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

On /.? More seriously, if I'd taken the time to read it in detail, my comment would have been much later, and nobody would ever have read it. Considering the apparent credulity of /. readers on this issue, I wanted to get an oar in.

It does have some credible scientists on its editorial board. And I don't believe it's a bogus journal. But I do know a bit about how science works (being in it), and we consider the reputation of the journal, not just its editorial board. IJBS hardly has any reputation (acidfast7, posting above and below, agrees with me on this).

To back up my point, a bit of searching shows that this group of scientists has tried the same stunt before, and their methodology was and still is suspect (this is from Food Standards Australia/NZ, not Monsanto): FSANZ response

The article might be crap or might not but blond hair in Italian Renaissance art is portrayed in much greater proportions than the number of naturally blond women in italy.

A (single) example is http://paradoxplace.com/Perspectives/Italian%20Ima ges/Single%20frames/Portraits/Federico_di_Montefel tro.htm

Yes, Reubens did paint fat chicks but most women in paintings from the Renaissance are not fat. Babe-licious they be. Again an example: http://abm-enterprises.net/artgall1/botticelli-pri mavera.jpg

Yes, there are exceptions to every rule and time period, but looking at preponderances here. The number of blond, slender Madonnas is unmistakeable.

The lighter hair and eyes are part and parcel with the lighter skin of the people of the northern climes. There is an evolutionary advantage to such complexions that deal with the amount of vitamin-D (the sunshine vitamin) that people get in the regions with less sun. It has been found that Muslim women, especially veiled ones have these vitamin deficiences. See page 15 at http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/FINAL_Re port_Deakin_uni.pdf

P. Guin