Slashdot Mirror
Genetically Modified Maize Is Toxic — Greenpeace
gandracu writes "It appears that a variety of genetically modified maize produced by Monsanto is toxic for the liver and kidneys. What's worse, Monsanto knew about it and tried to conceal the facts in its own publications. Greenpeace fought in court to obtain the data and had it analyzed by a team of experts. MON863, the variety of GM maze in question, has been authorized for markets in the US, EU, Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines. Here are Greenpeace's brief on the study and their account of how the story was unearthed (both PDFs)."
Summary?
Monsanto says "cases of liver and kedney damage not statistically significant."
greenpeace says "liver and kidney damage cases are statistically significant." Rats not fat.
No data is given.
Maybe judgement should be reserved until someone has seen this data. I believe both sides here would have no problem with manipulating data for thier own interests.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Nobody eats corn as it was created by nature: All the variaties of corn in use today are the result of a centuries-long selective-breeding program.
Genetic engenerring just speeds up the process a lot. Not that we shouldn't be careful: There are dangers in modifying foods, and the amount of change has a direct bearing on the amount of danger.
Just don't claim that 'non-GM' corn is 'as nature intended'. It just took humans longer to modify it.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
However, it is also apparent that no experiments have been carried out to investigate this product's effect on human subjects. The toxicity symptoms found in rats should have been a springboard for further investigation, but it seems it was not (unless this has been covered up).
Unfortunately these days corporate dishonesty is not seen as unusual or unacceptable in any way, so what we need is smoking gun evidence of toxicity in human beings, exceeding such toxicity as may be found naturally in other foodstuffs.
The sad part is that "genetic modification" is going to take the majority of the blame, not the individuals at Monsanto that actually caused the problem.
The difference is that the meddling now can occur on a deeper level and with more control than what we used to do.
We've been (trying to) improving nature as long as we exist. That corn you think was created by nature is already the result of careful breeding for centuries.
This is the first time I've ever read a news report that shows Greenpeace doing something besides political grandstanding. They actually went out and hired someone to do an analysis of the data. Maybe this is the start of a new trend - results-oriented activism, as opposed to the feel-good activism of the past.
I wouldn't call whaling "technological progress". Also, I haven't seen Greenpeace protest against technological progress in the field of, say, solar power.
Hi,
You would not recognize 'natural' corn if it slapped you in the face. It took thousands of years of humans messing with it's genetical makeup before it became what it is now.
Same for maize and other crops. The tomato you know is nothing like a 'natural' tomato. And don't get me started on cows.
Not saying GM is ok, just that humans have been messing with crops and cattle since the dawn of time and really only the technology used to mess around is new.
See the main problem I have here is that the report is from Greenpeace. To me, these wack jobs have ZERO credibility... especially when there's no empirical proof given and just a bunch of he-said she-said sort of chicken little arguements they always are making.
I'd go with an exclusive diet of GM foods before I'd trust the ramblings of Greenpeace.
This may or may not be true (I'm skeptical when it's just one single study that had some ambiguous questions), but Greenpeace is not the one that ought to report it. Yes, the messenger does matter. If this is really true, give it to a mainstream organization and let them figure it out.
Of course, we know Greenpeace won't do that, since they're all about the publicity.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I think you're looking for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamalization
that idiots will use this as an argument against gm food in general
gm food promises to put vitamin A in rice, develop crops that grow in the desert, etc.: a benefit for mankind
of course, like any technology, it can be abused and treated neglectfully in a way that might make... hepatotoxic corn for example
but this is an argument against IRRESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION, not an argument against a scientitic concept
but luddite idiots won't see it this way
they think they live in the plot of a bad hollywood movie
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What I want to know is can they possibly claim as the causative product of this toxicity.
Certainly it cannot be the modification process itself, since it uses natural enzymes.
Certainly it cannot be the carbohydrates and fats that cannot have changed.
Certainly it cannot be the proteins that were not altered.
^ What are they claiming is the cause of the toxicity? There has to be a biochemical basis for it, and while they can scream to the press and be believed by the sheep of the general population, I can hardly see a scientific basis for it.
It just seems to me that Greenpeace is following the formula of the religions - find something that is mysterious and unsettling to the average person, vilify it, then profit.
Genetic engineering is not a panacea, but nor is it a boogieman. Genetically modified foods still contain the same amino acids in their proteins as all the other foods, so unless you modify their biochemistry to an extent where they'll produce real toxins, they will be digested just the same.
Aspartame has some of the "smoking gun" evidence you mention, yet it is still on the market. The number of people actually poisoned by Aspartame are very low, and treated as "statistically insignificant", so the product continues to be used.
Even if the GMO corn is used by humans and someone is killed by it (not just poisoned), there would just be a number of studies and some finger pointing to show that it was actually something else that may have been responsible for the poisoning. As long as something else may be responsible, there is reasonable doubt and the GMO food would remain on the market.
You need a lot of "smoking guns" to get a product off the market after it's been established. It's much easier to keep such products off the market in the first place.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
And thus people grew accustomed to eating the variations over the centuries. When you modify something and it's vastly different than what the body can handle it can cause serious issues.
Corn and tomatoes are indigenous to the Americas. When the settlers from Europe or wherever arrived, they ate corn and tomatoes, that had been selectively grown for centuries. They were not accustomed to eating the variations over the centuries and yet they suffered no ill effects.
Have you ever eaten anything for the first time?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Genetic engenerring just speeds up the process a lot.
If that's the case, if it's nothing new, how can it be patented?
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
You seem to be implying that until we understand a mechanism in detail we should proceed as if there are no ill effects. That would maybe be OK if we understood a bigger fraction of the stunningly complex interrelationships at work in living things. But we don't so caution, even extreme caution is wise.
And I don't think Greenpeace has ever profited from anything.
Cool, where are the 50 others? I would like to see. Or are you just taking ad homoim shots because you have nothing better ?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Certainly it cannot be the modification process itself, since it uses natural enzymes.
Just because it's natural does not mean that its non-toxic. There are a lot of poisonous enzymes that occur naturally in the environment. For example, naturally occurring almonds have a poisonous enzyme. A quote from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almond):
Different tap water gives me the runs for days until I grow used to it (usually when I'm on vacation). Even cooking or bathing with the water can cause this for me. I grow used to the water in the new location and return home to sit in the bathroom again for several more days.
It's not the water that gives you the runs, it is the bacteria in the water. Small traces of bacteria are far more likely to cause illness than a new food, or even a food with small traces of chemical toxins, because bacteria are capable of reproducing within your body to large numbers. Over time, your intestinal bacteria reach a new balance and your body adjusts to them.
Recognising the fact that you are unaware of whether or not the studies he's referring to actually exist, aren't you just as guilty of attacking him because you have nothing better yourself?
I am a biogeneticist, and while I have not read the technical article (as it has not been published yet), I do have a few points. 1) According to TFA, this corn has been in use for a while. Remember the callifornia spinach ecoli thing? It took what, a couple dozen people getting sick for the authorities to track back to the source of the problem. Conspiricy theories aside, you will note that there have been no outbreaks of illness associated with this corn. On an acute level, it seems to be as safe as eating spinach (note that this is anecdotal rather than rigerous scientific work). 2) Most of the stuff that we eat can be shown to be toxic to the liver in rat studies under some conditions. I will be interested to see what their control groups are once the study is published. 3) Statistical significance is a useless word in these sort of situations. What we need to look at is the confidence interval, which is a hard number. Monsanto probably asserts that they aren't 95% certain that the effects were caused by corn toxicity, and Greenpeace probably asserts that they aren't 95% certain that the effects were not caused by corn toxicity. This dispute will eventually be resolved by the scientific community, which will promptly be ignored by the rest of the world at large. 4) "Natural" and "Nature" are nonsense words from a scientific perspective, used by people who would really like to use the word "God", but are too saphisticated or ashamed to actually use it. Nature is not an entity, does not intend, and encompasses humans and human creations as much as it encompasses beavers and beaver creations.
I won't disagree per say, but what makes you believe that new foods created by direct genetic manipulation are any more or less dangerous than new foods created by indirect genetic manipulation? Being "natural" doesn't make something safe. If you're going to require extensive testing and quarantine for directly manipulated foods why not require the same for new foods created through selective breeding?
There have been cases of selective breeding gone wrong, in both plants and animals -- I'm not sure any of those cases lead to toxicity in human foodstuffs (though I'm not sure they didn't either) but they have lead to inferior breeds of plants and animals. Take almost any breed of show dog, or hybrid African bees, or several varieties of plants we previously grew intentionally that are now considered non-native weeds.
I'm not saying we shouldn't test new foods, I just don't see why the method of creation is a significant influence in the diligence we should have in testing.
This is why, IMHO, these studies should be independent and any oversight at arms length. The FDA should ask the NIH to award the research to a qualified lab based on competence and independence, and the award should be funded through the NIH using the funds of the firm that needs the research. A second lab would in charge of reviewing the result. Though this would be add an unfortunate level of bureaucracy, it would also help improve the reputation of these firms, a reputation that has been tarnished over the past decade by an effort to put goods on the market that do not provide a net benefit, as defined by the FDA.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I think we need to clarify what we mean by the terms "natural" and "non-natural" before we can debate which of those categories Monsanto's GM food products fall into.
Ok. If I may gripe for a second: This is where the engineering mindset, which occupies probably around 99% of the /. community (IT guys, coders, physicists, engineers of all types), has trouble coming to grips with biological issues.
Assume for a second that Greenpeace is correct, and that rates of liver damage are statistically significant. That means that, all things being equal, eating this corn is harmful to the rats' livers. Case closed. Aside from figuring out what that reason is in order to fix it, there's no reason to go through all of that--it is a simple application of Occam's Razor.
It looks like you're going through troubleshooting steps..."It can't possibly be this...and it can't possibly be that either!" DO NOT make the mistake of discounting the study because you cannot come up with a root cause right away. First off, in biology it's typically a bad idea to conclude, a priori, that certain variables are not an issue: it's simply a more complex and less well-understood discipline than something as clean-cut as, say, orbital mechanics. Second, you have a much greater potential for interaction effects and emergent properties--stuff you can never predict, but which becomes blatantly obvious once you see it and characterize it...for example, ant colony behavior: if you get some huge number of ants together, the coordination and patterned behavior is fascinating, but it's not obvious from the random behavior of a single ant that such behavior would ever emerge. Once you see it, however, you can easily experiment and track it back to things like pheremones.
The mindset issue comes down to the difference between bottom-up and top-down analysis. Bottom-up analysis will tell you facts, but is poor for integrating those facts. That's what I think you're looking to do. At some point you have to look at the big picture--a view that doesn't tell you much aside from how the facts fit together, and where you should look next. Good analysts do both. Bad analysts either never research facts (this is in fact what you are accusing "religions" of doing) or they fall into the trap of extreme reductionism, wherein you discount observations if your radically simplistic understanding of the universe cannot explain them.
This last is what a friend of mine, who is an aero engineer, does all the time. He knows that physics informs chemistry informs biology informs psychology informs political science--but since he cannot explain election results in terms of the Newtonian motion of atoms, he dismisses any such study as bullshit, as well as the conclusions draw from that bullshit. But you don't have to explain things at the lowest level possible in order to draw meaningful conclusions, such as in this case: Better hold off on eating that Monsanto corn for the time being.
That doesn't seem too alarmist, nor am I trying to vilify genetic engineering. The fact that Monsanto apparently should have made that announcement and instead decided to gloss over it, and thereby profit from others' loss (what you accuse Greenpeace of doing), does tend to make them somewhat vile in my eyes, however.
I would go one step further and note that, when the West sells seed to starving African nations, it's "Terminator" seed.
:)
We don't give those nations a hand up, we put them on life support.
Just another example of how free enterprise and secular science benefit the poor by the innate goodness of their natures...
Ok, maybe that was a poor troll. But only for being obvious, not for being false
Suppose a particularly stubborn insect is endemic in your country, rendering most crops ungrowable.
You have a choice: Import food from outside or find a crop that does grow. Thanks to Monsanto, you can grow GM crops.
Now suppose the food-distribution system is a mess and you can't import enough food to feed all your people.
NOW you have a choice: Grow GM crops or let the people starve.
Disclaimer: Real life is a lot more complicated than this example. There are almost always other choices.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The real issue with genetic modification is the increases scope and speed of such changes. A person breeding corn might be able to breed to different strains to produce a new one and it could conceivable result in higher levels of some dangerous toxin corn naturally produces. But, given both strains of corn have existed for some time and have presumably been safe to eat, it is a lot less likely than if someone actually targets the genetic code that controls toxicity levels. GM opens up whole new avenues of change that selective breeding and random mutation are highly unlikely to ever touch and as such more caution is required.
Arguably there is no such thing as "natural corn" these days.When people go to the store and buy a corn, they have expectations. Those expectations include that the corn is from one of the many strains that have been being consumed for a long time, or a combination of those strains. They don't expect that corn to have significant changes to its genetic code, and unless it has been exposed to a significant mutagen they are right. I'd argue that passing of corn that has been genetically modified or heavily exposed to mutagens as "normal" corn is not in their best interests and is deceitful. There is a real difference in the risk posed between "natural" corn and GM corn, although to most people educated on the subject that delta is pretty small. By being honest, however, companies investing in such products are motivated both to produce benefits end users care about and to make sure the testing process is thorough so that GM foods earn/develop a reputation for safety.
And, apparently, poisonous. So really you don't need seeds that will grow more than on generation...I see the beautiful logic now!
Really, I'm not clear on what this has to do with whether or not it's a good thing to give people "Terminator" corn. You could give people seeds that grow golden Cadillacs, but if the cars all break down after a year you're not really addressing a transportation issue with them, are you? And while you're fielding questions, can you tell me what my own charitable donations have to do with whether or not it's ethical for Monsanto to sell Terminator seeds?
In reality, the seed most farmers get in Africa is subsidized by their government, meaning, they plant what they are given, which is what the government bought them. If you don't believe that the government officials involved are getting a payout, then I suspect you don't know much about how government works on this planet.
In any case, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. I do know that farmers in Africa consistently reject GM crops that have riders attached in favor of crops they can manage all on their own...so maybe both they and I know something you don't.
It's not the maze, it's the Minotaur.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Even worse, the Terminator genes are dominant. Which has a very devastating effect if introduced by a single farmer in places where farmers still use some of their harvest as seeds for the next year.
And even worse than that is when the seeds from a farm growing the monsanto crops gets carried (by wind/birds/whatever) over to a neighboring farmer's fields, who is NOT using Monsanto seeds to grow crops... The farmer is now violating the seed patent as his plants are partly from this other seed, and he cant get rid of them with the normal herbicide since they are resistant. Add to that, that if he is trying to re-use his seed for next year's crops, and happens to mix in some of the monsanto seeds, his whole seed crop is now violating the patent, and when Monsanto finds out, they will demand their fees for this "use" of their technology. Luckily with the terminator gene, the crops just wont grow. But then again, since pollen is spread in the wind as well, and carries the genetic info, and the pollen from the monsanto field blows across the other farmers, which then starts producing seeds with either the roundup resistance or terminator gene or both... well you see where Im going. Not that its happened or anything.
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
Don't worry. We all know that corn pollen could never be blown to neighboring fields and cross pollinate. And even if it did Monsanto would sue any farmer who had it growing in their field without a license, win-win!
Serious question: Is this GMO corn sterile?
Nah, I don't believe greenpeace does their research objectively. Their research is motivated, and they're just fishing for a hype. Every nature freak that's ignorant and scared of something technological and new is a potential donor of $$$ for them. They want to put a label on genetic engineering, as if it produces toxic food.
Mutations also occur at random in nature. Mutations produced in the lab could occur spontaneously in nature as well, although some may be unlikely. And **sigh** a mutation does not make a product radioactive.
"My main beef with the anti-GM crowd is that they single out genetic manipulation in the lab, and not other forms of genetic manipulation (like selective breeding)."
I'm afraid there is a monumental difference. Selective breeding of organisms that are, by nature, biologically compatible is hardly the equivalent of splicing fish genes into rose bushes. That's just my wild example, but it's exactly the sort of thing that's being done. I didn't get super concerned about GM foods until I did some research and found out the extent of the "genetic manipulation" that's going on. They are creating mutant species that couldn't possibly occur in nature on a time frame smaller than on the order of millennia.
Think of the problems we're seeing with invasive species all over the world. e.g. someone empties a fish tank in the Mediterranean and one of the plants ends up covering tens of thousands of acres of the sea floor choking off all life in its path. Now, we're introducing these GM species into the environment that have never even been seen anywhere in the world. It's insane.
There is a very delicate balance in the biosphere which was shaped over immense periods of time with the coexistence of slowly evolving species. Adding these mutant freak genes into the mix is a catastrophe waiting to happen. The risk of unintended consequences is simply too great.
And _you_ did your research then? From what I understand, the _whole_ mutation in this particular strain of corn is to make it produce a sort of a natural pesticide. I.e., yes, a toxin.
Now Monsanto basically says, "yeah, but it's not toxic to mammals." Greenpeace says, "whoa, actually that data says that it's somewhat toxic to rats."
Now both positions _could_ be true. It _is_ possible for something to be toxic to insects without being lethal to humans. (See coffeine. It really evolved as a paralyzing poison against insects. See why Robusta is a hardier crop than Arabica: the Robusta plant simply produces more of it. Yet a human can drink lots of it for decades without being too harmed in the process.) On the other hand, the opposite _can_ be true too. And without proper testing how would you know?
So, pray tell, without even seeing the research, how _do_ you know which side is right and which is wrong? Or are you just motivated enough to rant against Greenpeace even when you have no fucking clue what is it about? At least, even as motivated studies go, they did at least do and publish one. You did... what? to get your info on which to base such a swift judgment.
Hand-waving about mutations happening randomly in nature is at best brain-damaged too. Equally random mutations in plants include atropine (nightshade), ricin (deadly in 0.2mg doses and no antidote), solanine, cyanide (wild almonds), etc. And that's just the short list of the most known ones. We could go into a couple hundred other fun natural stuff, including such exotic effects as immuno-suppressors in some moulds. Just because something _could_ have occured naturally doesn't make it automatically safe. All the poisons in this paragraph occured naturally, yet _aren't_ safe at all.
Plus, it often is false as such anyway. Just because something was created via genetic engineering does _not_ automatically mean it could have occured as a natural mutation any day now. There's plenty of GM stuff, like renet-producing moulds or goats whose milk contains spider silk, which would _never_ evolve on their own, not even in another billion years. There's simply no natural advantage in producing those (wake me up when any plant needs to digest fresh milk, which is what it would take to make renet an advantage), and in fact it's a serious disadvantage to waste your energy and aminoacids on producing them.
So, you know, if you're going to go into a whole rant about who's ignorant or worse, it would be nice if you at least took the time to read a bit and have at least some minimal clue what you're talking about.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Change is the only constant.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
People like to think that large corporations are evil. so let me tell you something: Greenpeace is nothing different. What if Greenpeace is not objective? It doesn't matter, they don't have to. They just play on people's emotions and still get their donations.
And what's this modding me flamebait? Am I not allowed to point out my perspective on Greenpeace?
Farmers have NOT practiced CROSS SPECIES selective breeding for centuries. There is simply no comparison between what is being done now with "GM" and what has been done since farming began with just trying to develop more adapted and useful plants. We are getting crops introduced now that are chimeric basically, they would *never* occur in nature no matter what, and no one has any idea at all what the long term effects will be, just the corporations go on the default assumption anything they do with GM is "safe" and it is up to some bureaucrats (in the revolving door industry/government money shuffle) and consumers to do the long term testing.
I think that is pretty stupid.
The only "safety standards" that could apply and would work in the cases of cross species "products" would be generational long studies maintained in highly secure airtight labs, and even then it should be a default until hugely proven otherwise that they could possibly be as harmful as developed bioweapons.
And I am not a luddite, I have just been a gardener and farmer for now more than half a century, and I tell you, some of what they are doing is scarier to me than nuclear weapons proliferation to nutjob nations. because the potential for a mass "whoops" screw up is simply *huge*. Heck's windchimes, just the "normal" invasive species screwups humans have done, sometimes with the best of intentions, sometimes just accidentally, has been destructive enough. I spend enough of my time as it is now just trying to deal with multiflora rose, japanese privet and kudzu, let alone trying to deal with stuff that has been bred on purpose to be herbicide "resistant". To me, it is good science and common sense to be WAY skeptical of a lot of the GM production that is going on now, and I personally take it as a default that if it is laboratory manufactured it is suspect immediately. I save my own seeds, have done so for decades, and none of what I grow is harmful. Those guys can't make that claim with a straight face, because they don't know, this is all pretty much new science what is going on, and it is coming way too fast and hard and with too much "this quarter's profit" mentality behind it for there to be safety claims from their side of any true merit.
Under current law, prior to marketing a new GM food product, manufacturers are required to get FDA approval before selling to consumers, having demonstrated to the FDA's satisfaction its safety for human consumption. They are also required to get EPA and USDA approval that the production does not have adverse impact on agriculture, other plants, animals, humans, or other environmental quality issues. And all this despite the scientifically proven fact that engineered genetic modifications cause fewer adverse changes than traditional methods of mutate-and-crossbreed, which are not subjected to the same regulatory process.
So, if deliberate, selected changes and testing to meet government safety standards makes food safer, GM food is significantly safer than non-GM food. On the other hand, if blind chance mutation and no testing is a mark of safety, non-GM is safer than GM food.