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"
http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/a.pusztai/ is the site of the paper's author.
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.
that research causes cancer in rats.
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).
The paper being described in TFA can be found Here. Also, there are almost a dozen different citations of the paper on Google Scholar
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/
Potatoes Modify YOU!
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
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/
Genetic modification is the artificial changing of DNA... you can say that a specific DNA change is harmful, so that a specific type of engineered potato is bad... but that doesn't say anything about GM foods. The safety or danger of the foods would have to be evaluated on the specific genetic changes made. Even then, the GM products don't carry any more risk than plants created by mutation breeding (in fact, GM was concieved as a less risky version of mutation breeding).
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.
(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 reason for GM crops is only one: profit. Profit may come from improved appearance, from increased shelf-life, or from increased yields due to lower pest numbers. The agrochemical companies make two birds with one stone. They sell the GM seeds which usually are modified as to be pesticide-tolerant, and then they sell the pesticide to be used in excessive amounts to kill off everything else. Using vast amounts of chemicals is bad for the foodstuff as it leaves toxic residue inside, as well as for the environment that the toxic waste is released into. There is also increased risk of cross-pollination with other non-GM crops, which is the main reason of banning GM agriculture in Europe.
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)
When will people learn that an aphorism is a poor substitute for knowledge?
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.
There's a 98% chance you're an eleven year old dork in a ninja costume.
Take off every 'sig' !!
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
Take off every 'sig' !!
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.
Just because someone put words in a paper doesn't necessarily mean they're true. Even if there's no outright falsification, it's entirely possible that their statistical analyses could be off (for a silly example: they had a sample of only two rats, and one of them suffered more free radical damage than the other). There's the potential for them to have misinterpreted their results, or to have accidentally exposed the rats to a different--
Wait, wait. Wait. I just went to look in the article for where these folks had been published (i.e. what quality of peer review they had). Right at the bottom of the page, it says that Greenpeace _admits_ that the Russian studies had errors. So, they're admitting that they're using a poorly-designed study in order to try and scare the government into banning trials on GM foods? What is going on here?
Umm, seedlessness isn't a genetic modification. It's the result of intentionally selecting and breeding grape plants that produce grapes with less seeds than the average grape. This is done over several generations until no seeds are produced. Think Gregor Mendel and a Punnett square. It's the manipulation of pre-existing genetic information to achieve some desired end.
Genetic Modification is inserting (or deleting) pieces from the genome (DNA) of a certain whatever. Introducing pieces of new genetic material is certainly different from what you're talking about.
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.
That was my point. What many of the people replying don't get is that selective breeding is genetic manipulation. What you're talking about is the same thing with a new technological twist, and there's no reason why you should be afraid of it simply because we're better at it.
Genetic Modification is inserting (or deleting) pieces from the genome (DNA) of a certain whatever.Ok, no argument with your definition. In the past, that was done through selective breeding. Today we have more efficient methods to do the same thing quicker for more dramatic results. The end result is still the same. You get a breed with qualities that you want.
Introducing pieces of new genetic material is certainly different from what you're talking about.In what way? When you manipulate "pre-existing genetic information", you can do that because different plants of the same species have different qualities. They have different qualities because of random mutations and gene crossover combinations. Instead of waiting for random mutations, we add designed mutations to the mix. Usually purposefully damaging a gene that is responsible for undesired qualities. It's the same thing but now we have technology, so it's dangerous!
I don't dismiss the fact that it's possible to end up with something that causes ill effects through genetic manipulation, but treat those problems in a case-by-case basis. My problem with the grandparent was his "you have to be stupid to eat GM foods" tirade. That's a ridiculous attitude with no merit whatsoever. Mostly we just end up with better foods because we added features we want and removed features we don't.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
78% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Actually, more recent studies have shown that cigarettes are the leading cause of statistics.
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.
What stinks? The Independent is publishing an article about Greenpeace, who have published some research published by a contractor employed by them, based on 8-year old Russian research, and translated into English.
The Independent is currently loss-making and is seeking to carve out a section of Britain's left wing newspaper readership by being highly critical of the government and agressively pursuing an environmental agenda.
Greenpeace is a widely criticised environmental lobby group, who have made famously unfounded attacks on Shell and Apple among others
The new leaf potato which the fuss was put in production 8 years ago, eaten by many people, was found not to be profitable and is now defunct.
Articles like this are the reason that people are skeptical of global warming. I do not take advice from people like Greenpeace or the Independent, because they are self-serving scare-mongers.
I think the point is that this is FUD - no-one knows what it means, but it scares people. If you look at Microsoft press releases about Linux you might spot a similar pattern. Raising questions won't change the fact that such foods do have very harmful effects. Would any amount of evidence change your opinion that these foods have harmful effects, or is it more of a faith thing?
Im a biochemist who works in clinical trials and i can tell you right now that that study is terribly terribly flawed, and really shouldnt be given the weight it has been in the media. From the independant 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". Basically this russian group abused/neglected a large group of rats, and gathered data attempting to link their unfortunate conditions to a pretty charged topic. The worst thing about these kinds of reports and pseudoscience is that it takes away from serious studies to determine the health benefits of GM, or in fact any foods.
This is the paper in question.
52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
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 =~
It's rare to find so much misinformation at Slashdot, and that's saying something.
Humans and chimpanzee DNA are very similar, there are apparently about 40 million differences (out of about 3 billion positions) between chimp and human DNA; in protein coding regions, the number of differences is much smaller.
Humans and mice, on the other hand are far more evolutionarily distant (80 million years since the last common ancestor, compared with 5 million, or less for chimps). In protein coding regions, mouse and human DNA sequences are about 80% identical, on average, but outside protein coding regions, the level of sequence similarity is no higher than would be expected by chance. (This large difference was one of the reasons the mouse genome was sequenced after the human genome - sequences that were more similar than chance were expected to have a function.)
While plants and animals (and bacteria) share a large number of proteins that do similar things, their DNA sequences do not share any significant similarity except in protein coding regions for very highly conserved proteins.
What all of this has to do with unpublished Russian studies on genetically modified plants, I cannot imagine.