Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Suppressed Report Shows Cancer Link to GM Potatoes

Posted by Zonk on from the politics-and-potatoes-and-science-mix-poorly dept.

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."

6 of 325 comments (clear)

  1. So...all potatoes are bad? by bwd234 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:So...all potatoes are bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People such as yourself, who don't have much of a biology background, have a hard time accepting this.

      What we have a hard time accepting is that 99.5% similarity means jack, when we have something like 90% DNA similarity with sunflowers. If we are only .5% different from rats, that means that .5% represents a hell of a lot of difference, not the other way around. It's relative just like any other amount. Would you want to eat something that was .5% cyanide, just because .5 is a really small number? Without a point of reference the number tells you nothing.

  2. Stop testing? Bury heads in sand? by Anomolous+Cowturd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  3. Just bad science... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. It's not nice to fool with mother nature... by STDOUBT · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm all in favor of scientific progress. In fact, I'm a big fan.

    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).

  5. Terminator gene useful by Lars512 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most of the GM foods being pushed have nothing to do with starving people - it's all about increasing corporate profits, as usual. The "terminator gene" was being pushed to prevent poor third-world farmers from saving their own seed after buying grain crops once.

    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.