Slashdot Mirror
Suppressed Report Shows Cancer Link to GM Potatoes
Doc Ruby writes "After an 8-year-long court battle, Welsh activists have finally been allowed to released a Russian study showing an increased cancer risk linked to eating genetically modified potatoes. While the victory of the Welsh Greenpeace members in the courtroom would seem to vindicate the work of the Russian scientists that did the original research, there are still serious questions to be answered. The trials involved rats being fed several types of potatoes as feed. The rats who were fed GM potatoes suffered much more extensive damage to their organs than with any other type; just the same, serious questions remain about the validity of the findings. The Welsh group wants to use this information to stop the testing of GM crops in the UK, tests currently slated for the spring of this year."
"Those in the "control groups" that were fed non-GM potatoes suffered ill-effects"
Maybe pototoes are bad for rats. Doesn't mean they will be harmfull to humans.
It showed that the potatoes did considerable damage to the rats' organs. Those in the "control groups" that were fed non-GM potatoes suffered ill-effects, but those fed GM potatoes suffered more serious organ and tissue damage.
Hold on... the non-GM potatoes still caused ill-effects? How much potato were they feeding these rats? Did they even cook them first?
It seems like the only conclusion one can draw from this study is that "if you're eating so much potato that you get sick, GM potatoes will get you even sicker!"
"A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
Given the suggestion that GM foods might be more harmful than old-school foods, wouldn't the sane thing be to *increase* testing? What's wrong with these idiots?
Software patents delenda est.
The findings of the study appear pretty conclusive: genetically modified potatoes are harmful to living beings, be they animals or humans. I'm not really sure where the questioning comes in. Raising questions won't change the fact that such foods do have very harmful effects.
From the article - "Greenpeace said the Russian trials were also badly flawed. Half of the rats in the trial died, and results were taken from those that survived, in breach of normal scientific practice."
Go sensationalism. These "findings" were probably "suppressed" because they weren't very valid and obtained under shifty premises.
You need a good case study for GM crops? GM crops have been in American markets for years now starting with the Flavr-savr tomato. It's not like the FDA hadn't done independent testing on their own before approving them. But a sample size like the entire US, a pattern would probably emerge.
But until the science of genetic manipulation is (close to)perfected, all they are doing is 'fooling' with it. Coupled with todays climate of unbridled corporate power, this stuff is very dangerous IMO. Please bear in mind, it's not the scientists who get to push 'products' to market. And, corporations will *always* be able to buy a scientist who supports claims of safety.
I file GM under "not worth the risks". (And _do not_ give me that old "it'll help starving people" crap. No. What will help starving people are governments that aren't run by evil shits).
Isn't it a little forward to assume that all "GM potatoes" are harmful, just because some genetic modifications result in plants that are mildly poisonous? Wouldn't it depend on the specific modifications?
Not that a little caution isn't in order. We shouldn't necessarily just blindly assume that every modification to some edible plant will also be perfectly safe to eat, and I'm aware that there are also potential problems with reducing genetic diversity in our food supply on a large scale, but a study showing that particular genetic modifications are harmful is not reason to abandon all genetic engineering in food; It's a reason to find out why those particular modifications create harmful substances.
http://outcampaign.org/
Hopefully never, because "don't fuck with nature" is a self-defeating position for a human being to hold. We have flourished as a species because of our ability and motivation to manipulate nature to improve our conditions. Vaccines and antibiotics come to mind. Hell, we'll probably be extinct within the next 1000 years unless we learn more about how to better "fuck with nature".
http://outcampaign.org/
(eg: Let's say that the rats were fed a GMed potato that had been GMed to be toxic to rodents. This proves what?)
Whether this is a problem of the research itself or merely the extremely bad reporting of it is hard to say. Personally, I am not keen on GM as it currently exists - we're barely at the point of understanding the functioning of genes, the interaction between genes and "junk DNA", and the interaction between different genes. We're also not very skilled at gene splicing - genetic therapies are rarely used due to their high risk and lack of proven benefit. This is not to say GM is bad, only that I have serious doubts that biotech companies are nearly as knowledgeable as they claim to be. This is one area that BSODs are definitely unwelcome and where we have the luxury to spend a little time on making sure that the bugs are ironed out.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
What the hell? What gave you the idea that we genetically modify crops in order to fix some sort of scarcity? They're genetically modified to create crops that have increased resistance to the elements (too much heat, too much cold, not enough water, too much water). So that farmers can have more of their product survive until sale, and make more money.
I eat GM foods because I like my seedless grapes. Wouldn't eat them otherwise. And because I know genetic modification isn't some black magic that's going to wipe out humanity. We've been doing selective breeding of plants and animals for a very long time and there's nothing unusual or unnatural about it.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
The fought a legal battle for EIGHT YEARS!?!? That's HOW many generations of rats? Hell, anyone can raise rats in a controlled environment and observe the effect on feeding them potatoes, GM or otherwise. This doesn't sound like it's too difficult to replicate the results, so why fight for an obscure report for so long?
If it were really an issue, they could have found someone to write a grant proposal, do some research and publish in a peer-reviewed journal.
Something stinks....
America is probably not a good example to use. Estimates of autism have shot up in recent years, it is now classed as the second-worst contry in the Western world for children, education standards have fallen, creationists have become a major political force, obesity is sky-high and rising, something caused Britney Spears' hair to fall out, and 90% of all recent US news stories on legal and/or political issues can be best explained by some form of brain damage.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Unfortunately, our ability to cure diseases and stave off death has pretty much stopped the selection of the strong over the weak (and obviously, natural selection of disease-resistance).
But the real point here is that many of our decisions are made with such narrow foresight. We do not know the long-term consequences of many of the things we do, we only look out for the short term.
Here is an example: We can learn how to shelter ourselves from the cold, or we could manipulate the weather so that it no longer get excessively cold. If we do the latter, we may gain a temporary benefit and comfort, but what are the long term effects? Both are examples of manipulating nature, but obviously they are not equal manipulations with the same consequences.
So, my argument is that a balance must be struck. Unfortunately, most people do not have this sort of vision, so we will continue to destroy the environment and do possibly dangerous things with our food supply for the benefit of profit-seeking corporations.
When will people learn that an aphorism is a poor substitute for knowledge?
That, of course, is totally ignoring the fact that the guy conducting the research was a hardcore anti-GM activist before the research. It is like asking activist creationists to do an impartial study on evolution.
Pretty much every scientist has a side on GM. If you're going to ignore research by people with biases, you're going to ignore all research.
If you're capable (I'm not), take a look at his methods, rip them apart, or if they're sound, repeat them and see if the result is the same. Good science should work regardless of pre-existing notions. That's why there's experiments in the first place.
I say this as someone who really, really hopes this guy is full of it, 'cause GM is cool, and potatoes are delicious.
An equally valid conclusion is normal potatoes are harmful to living beings, be they animals or humans. As a human who has eaten potatoes all his life, I'm questioning this study.
we'll probably be extinct within the next 1000 years unless we learn more about how to better "fuck with nature".
I don't think it will take that long.
But that's beside the point and irrelevant anyway. I think what people need to start to realize is that everything we humans do is natural, whether it's clear-cutting a forest, nuking your enemy's cities, or creating a rainforest preserve, it's all natural (though the ethical status of these actions is another matter).
We're just the latest step life is taking to overcome a series of evolutionary humps leading to increased complexity. We made it past the most recent hump, the one separating genetic evolution and cultural evolution. Whether we can manage that for long enough to either get off this planet and start expanding exponentially much as we are now as a species, or we first become more civilized and then decide as a planetary civilization to expand more coherently, ultimately makes no difference to the universe.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the particlar version of GM potato studied was more damaging than a certain type of unmodified potato. Your generalization of "GM potato" is just too broad. For example, would you say that all condensed tree sap is dangerous after watching mice die from ingesting concentrated hemlock sap? Obviously, that would be quite erroneous and our pancakes would be rather plain fare.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
In other news, it has been found that nearly 100% of Heroin Addicts started out drinking milk.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Someone needs to explain to the general populace that GM food is still just food. If the genetic changes are bad, and cause the food to produce something dangerous, or more of something dangerous, that's one thing (and we should be weary of that of course). But there's nothing inherently dangerous about genetic alterations. I'm tired of the belief that the GM somehow gets into the food and makes it evil, explanation unneccassary. It's like people being convinced that irradiated food is radioactive or something. Sigh.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
There's two sides to the terminator gene, as I understand it, one of which you're overlooking. Suppose you engineer a crop which grows extremely well, much better than in its original form. This crop might spread wildly, and become a form of a weed, overcoming native plants and even other useful crops. The terminator gene is useful here because it prevents the crop from spreading into the wild. In this way it's a safeguard.
Suppose there is some series of studies confirming that a particular crop is statistically more correlated with the occurrence of some medical problem in humans who eat it. If that crop has already spread in the wild, and perhaps merged with non GM crops, then we'll still be eating it whether we like it or not. We need safeguards like the terminator gene.
Also, using it doesn't mean choosing the new business models it allows. They could sell seed to the same farmers at close to cost price for repeat customers, making it closer to the existing business models.
A few juicy points from the book (not in the order as they appear in the book, just the order it came out from my memory), though I knows too little to judge if their validity:
Oliver.
This should be +5, but funny not insightful.
America bashing != insightful.
~= scwizard =~