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)."
And we're surprised at this?
There are two sides to this:
(1) GM is bad, and this corn is a good example - see the potential damage
(2) GM is new, some food are bad for you, this is an example where some people are sensitive to...(blah blah blah)
GM peanuts would be pretty toxic to a small percentage of the population, and might even have a (small but barely significant) increase in reaction from those sensitive.
TFA is light on detail, and I'm not a biogeneticist. I think I'll pass on judgement here right now. I don't trust Monsanto to tell the truth, but I also don't trust GreenPeace to not have an agenda.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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.
Here is all the data I need:
the variety of GM maze in question, has been authorized for markets in the US, EU, Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines.
So this corn has been eaten in all these places and no one has gotten sick yet? Now here comes Greenpeace, who has proven that they would rather see populations starve to death than have them eat GM foods, claiming that these foods caused liver problems in rats, and therefor should be banned, even though in all these countries, no one has gotten sick off this corn. I call Bullshit!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You need to educate thyself. I am in ag (and you aren't so pay attention please), and I'll tell you right now Monsanto is NO friend of health, farmers or consumers. Not even close. There is *so* much evidence out there it is astounding. Spend an evening doing some research on their past history. Any place they can be complete jerks, as long as they can squeeze a buck out of it, they do it. And they are really trying to come up with some way to get a global monopoly on food, try their scam with the terminator gene for starters. Look into how they have screwed over farmers with their disgusting canola/rapeseed weed that is spreading all over and infecting other's fields, so they get to *own* those new fields then and sue farmers for "IP" theft.. Look into how they are trying to patent strains of crops that farmers have been using for thousands of years in India. And so on. They make Enron and Haliburton look like upstanding corporate citizens. They've been caught bribing off foreign ag bureaucrats n numerous foreign nations, they are getting away with running OPEN AIR hidden secret test fields where the pollen from their patented crap will escape and keep infecting other fields. And so on.
They need to have their incorporation charters pulled at a minimum, IMO. Just a bad news company all in all. Buying up outside seed companies then stopping production on various strains, to further eliminate competition. I mean, this list goes on and on and on. It is NOT a good idea to reduce biodiversity, that's REAL science. Trying to impose monopolies on food is just pure damn evil, stupid and retarded, no two ways about it. In fact, just from a strictly scientific viewpoint, it is *insane*.
Greenpeace is not driven by a fear of technology. Some new technologies are actively supported by Greenpeace, others are not. Greenpeace is motivated by conservation of our natural habitat, and that sometimes leads them to speak out against certain technologies they see as damaging. I tend to believe that if Greenpeace had existed when Tesla wanted to broadcast electricity instead of running it through a wired grid, they would have opposed that too. That's what they do.
This is a method I agree with wholeheartedly, and I think any sane and rational person with a modicum of intelligence would also agree with. They have a well publicized political position, and they assess technologies from that position and advocate or oppose accordingly.
Whether or not you agree with their political position, it's not wise to endorse or discount what they say on the basis of who they are and your prejudice about their support base; rather read their argument and make an assesment based on and limited to the case at hand.
In some cases I have disagreed with them, in particular their opposition to high temperature incineration of toxic waste, but as in this case I think it is best to keep an open mind, listen to their point of view and wait until I have read the studies and can make an informed decision. They have alerted me to a potential danger here and I need to find out more. I am thankful that someone with a vested interest is taking an opposing view to Monsanto, which also has a vested interest, because I feel it makes for a more balanced debate.
Knee jerk reactionaries have no useful place in public debate, except of course in tabloids, mainstream biased media and trolling on /.
;-P
I don't therefore I'm not.