Organ Damage In Rats From Monsanto GMO Corn

jenningsthecat writes "A study published in December 2009 in the International Journal of Biological Sciences found that three varieties of Monsanto genetically-modified corn caused damage to the liver, kidneys, and other organs of rats. One of the corn varieties was designed to tolerate broad-spectrum herbicides, (so-called 'Roundup-ready' corn), while the other two contain bacteria-derived proteins that have insecticide properties. The study made use of Monsanto's own raw data. Quoting from the study's 'Conclusions' section: 'Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.' Given the very high prevalence of corn in processed foods, this could be a real ticking time bomb. And with food manufacturers not being required by law to declare GMO content, I think I'll do my best to avoid corn altogether. Pass the puffed rice and pour me a glass of fizzy water!"

Comments

Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Doches]

If it's going to damage my liver, I'm switching to scotch. I'm sorry, Jack, but I just can't take the chance...

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[snowgirl]

If it's going to damage my liver, I'm switching to scotch. I'm sorry, Jack, but I just can't take the chance...

Unfortunately, your scotch and bourbon is likely fortified with a corn product.

The kind of "duh" think that I'm thinking about here is that, if this corn produces these insecticide-like chemicals, one should have to show that it is non-toxic in humans...

One could feasibly find a way to splice in genes that would make the product lethal to humans... so if you're "adding" something to the corn, it should be controlled the same as any other food additive.

Although, people wishing to avoid all GM foods, corn itself has been so selectively bred that it doesn't even resemble its nearest neighbors. It's even moribund if we ever disappear, because its seeds over compete and kill each other off. If you want to talk about crazy amounts of GM, take something that's essentially a grass, and turn it into corn.

Not like corn provides all its nutritional value unless its treated with a relatively strong-ish base anyways... lime is what's mostly used to break up the proteins on the kernel to produce vitamin B12...

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Wonko the Sane]

,

The kind of "duh" think that I'm thinking about here is that, if this corn produces these insecticide-like chemicals, one should have to show that it is non-toxic in humans...

That's the key: the problem is not the fact that this plant was genetically modified, but rather the specific proteins that it was engineered to produce.

This distinction will be lost on millions of reactionaries.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[flitty]

This distinction will be lost on millions of reactionaries.

And the distinction is unnecessary if you just make sure the food is safe for long term use.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[ArcherB]

That's the key: the problem is not the fact that this plant was genetically modified, but rather the specific proteins that it was engineered to produce.

This distinction will be lost on millions of reactionaries.

Sad that this was modded down because, unfortunately, it's true. The call will be "GM food kills", not "research has shown that some proteins that can be grown in highly modified corn caused organ damage in laboratory rats."

Actually, it sounds like the system worked to me.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Bullseye_blam]

Agreed. Mod parent/grand-parent up!

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Narpak]

Unfortunately, your scotch and bourbon is likely fortified with a corn product.

Bourbon is primarily made from maize corn, while scotch is primarily barley. This is why it is important to ensure that your scotch is pure single malt!

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[snowgirl]

That's the key: the problem is not the fact that this plant was genetically modified, but rather the specific proteins that it was engineered to produce.

This distinction will be lost on millions of reactionaries.

Sad that this was modded down because, unfortunately, it's true. The call will be "GM food kills", not "research has shown that some proteins that can be grown in highly modified corn caused organ damage in laboratory rats."

Actually, it sounds like the system worked to me.

"Research has shown that a protein in grapes and raisins causes kidney failure in dogs and cats."

or even, "Research has shown that chemical in hemlock can cause death in humans."

Nature is an asshole, everything is either trying to eat you or trying to keep you from eating it...

Imagine the headlines back in the day, "Research finds that eating Tomatoes will not kill you!"

Foods are found unsafe or safe all the time... we just care that we MADE the food unsafe.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[jonbryce]

If you get your Scotch from Scotland, then you can be sure it won't be a genetically modified corn product.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Truekaiser]

but due to monsanto's lobbying, they get to have their cake and eat it too. they lobby that their gm corn is 'different' enough that it requires patent protection, BUT they then turn around and lobby the fda(or have their former employee's that work there) declare it no different then normal corn so it gets the 'generally assumed as safe' status meaning it is exempt from special regulation and is treated by the fda as non-gma corn.

Selective breeding though is a different process, they took a already existing trait and only let the seeds from the plants that had it germinat, if the trait produced something else they did not want they either tried to select against it or started over. gm corn is taking a gene from a completely different organism, in this case gene's from Bactria that gained resistance to their weed killer or from a organism that produces natural(as in not artificially produced) insecticide and shoot it into the genome of the corn or another plant with micro gold spheres as well as chemical's that not only turn the gene on but smash the switch that turns the gene on and off in the on position.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[jedidiah]

Centuries of selective breeding by it's very nature also includes centuries
of testing on humans. The pace and nature of the tinkering is such that
everything is self-governing and self-correcting. Once you have a megacorp
that can buy entire national governments and generally push everyone else
accelerating the process you really have very little to keep the process from
running amok.

Earth is a production system with no backups.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[ArcherB]

This distinction will be lost on millions of reactionaries.

And the distinction is unnecessary if you just make sure the food is safe for long term use.

No. It won't matter. There are safe GM foods that have been feeding people for hundreds of years, but it only takes one to go wrong that will cause even the safe GM foods to banned. There was a case where an African country turned down free GM food and allowed their people to starve because some hippie-eco-group convinced the government that GM food was poison.

Also, note that the "pesticide" in question is Bt toxin. Bt stands for bacillus thuringiensis. Bt is used in mosquito dunks, pesticide sprays and several other applications. It is not just considered safe for humans, animals and beneficial insects, but is even considered to be ORGANIC! You can spray your crops all day and night with millions of gallons of Bt and not lose your organic certification.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[cixelsyd]

Scotch has to be made in Scotland, otherwise it can't be called "Scotch". See here

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[wall0159]

Maybe these "reactionaries" aren't as ill-informed as you think. Maybe at least some of them are aware that in an ideal world, with ethical and moral corporations performing proper testing on products prior to release (and with unbiased, independent regulatory bodies ensuring proper standards are met), there would be little to fear in GM foods. Maybe they aren't that naive...

Nah, I'm sure they're just a bunch of ignorant, tree-hugging hippies.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[jellomizer]

Over 75% of what americans eat is corn. Or has corn.

Beef are Corn Fed (while corn is not good for cattle we tend to slaughter them before they get the ill effects)
Chicken are cord fed.
Swine are corn fed.
Corn Sirup is almost all our food
A lot of the time wheat is replaced or supplemented with corn flower.

Giving up on corn isn't easy unless you have a very healthy natural diet with no processed foods, and no meats.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[tacarat]

There are safe GM foods that have been feeding people for hundreds of years, but it only takes one to go wrong that will cause even the safe GM foods to banned.

I think the issue is that the old fashion way of genetic modification, or selective breeding, is more tried, true and gradual. Gene splicing and such, however, has more potential for "now that's interesting" events. Given that we're always finding new things that are good or bad in our foods, this is an understandable concern.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Puff_Of_Hot_Air]

The distinction is irrelevant. The issue with GM modified crops is that it is exactly equivalent to adding a new chemical to a food stuff. The DNA is modified to produce a new protein that acts as an insecticide; which may or may not be dangerous to human health. It is a fair and reasonable response as a consumer, to be informed that the food-stuff I am consuming contains new chemicals. Traditional food-stuffs have passed the gamut of 1000's of years of trial and error. Just as various additives to food stuffs have been found to have detrimental health effects, so to may added proteins. Is adequate testing performed? Can the GM crops be isolated? What happens when we subsquently discover that some GM crop causes significant long-term harm, but has spread beyond the intended bounds? When it comes to the extrodinarily complexity of a plants genome, we are like in-experienced crackers trying to remove copy protection. Sometimes it works, and sometimes we screwed something that only pops up much further along.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[kent_eh]

If it's going to damage my liver, I'm switching to scotch. I'm sorry, Jack, but I just can't take the chance...

Unfortunately, your scotch and bourbon is likely fortified with a corn product.

Single Malt Scotch must (by Scottish law) be made exclusively from barley.

Now there's no saying if it's proper barley, or Monsanto patent encumbered, genetically mutated barley...


/farm kid who is annoyed at the existence of Monsanto

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you will find that proper Scotch (the stuff that comes from Scotland) WILL NOT be made with grain that includes GM.

GM crops are pretty much 'bad news' here in the UK. Supermarkets won't use GM stuff in their foods. People don't want it FULL STOP.
The US Beef Producers are angry at us for not importing their GM fed beef. A year or so ago, they were even threatening a trade war(buy our beef or we will stop Scotch imports)

This (IMHO) is just the sort of news that the anti GM brigade have been waiting for.

I buy only Organic meat. No GM grain can be fed to Orgainally Farmed animals in the UK.

F**k monsanto.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[flitty]

Nice Link, which explained that they turned down the Free GM food because they would lose 50% of the market they export to by having GM food (European Union) and feared the so called "terminator" seeds that give no seeds for replanting.

I'm not a GM food reactionary, I just think that as a policy, the only thing we can do to fix these sort of safety problems is regulate the safety of GM foods, regardless of what genes are modified.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[evilbessie]

Mostly as Scotch comes from Scotland (if it doesn't it's not Scotch but some other whisk(e)y), and in the UK and Europe as a whole we are not fans of GMOs made in labs so if you are drinking Scotch I would guess there is hardly any GMOs if any at all.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Fred_A]

with ethical and moral corporations performing proper testing on products prior to release (and with unbiased, independent regulatory bodies ensuring proper standards are met), there would be little to fear in GM foods

So you're saying that what we need is the exact opposite of what Monsanto is ?

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you aren't one of the reactionaries then the comment doesn't apply to you and you have no reason to be offended.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[berashith]

the question isnt is it safe, the question is how do we make it safe. Obviously, if the corn is modified to not be harmed by chemicals that kill plants, then the solution is to modify people to not be harmed by eating the corn. This way, the deer and other wild population that infiltrate our corn fields will be eliminated along with the weeds that interfere with our farms. Dominion is awesome!

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Simon80]

You have made the mistaken assumption that the techniques used to modify the corn and other plants works exactly as well in practice as it should in theory. The proteins that GMO foods are engineered to produce are already regulated as a food additive, but that's not enough to conclude that such products are safe. Unfortunately, Monsanto lobbied hard to ensure that they wouldn't have to prove the overall safety of the GM plants they were selling, just the safety of the specific proteins they were introducing. They've also done everything they can to ensure that studies that are critical of their products are suppressed. Without any new coverage of science specifically showing that their products are unsafe, they have successfully convinced the public (i.e. you) that their products should be safe in theory. "The World According to Monsanto" should be required viewing for people participating in this debate, it's a documentary about Monsanto's lobbying and litigation tactics, which have a history that goes further back than GM foods. For a much shorter read, see Árpád Pusztai

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[mcgrew]

There are safe GM foods that have been feeding people for hundreds of years

Genetic engineering is in its infancy. Genetic engineering is NOT the same as crossbreeding or selective breeding; with genetic engineering you directly insert parts of one DNA strand into another. They've only been able to do this for a decade or two.

You can't make one strain of corn toxic by breeding it with another strain of corn. You can make a strain of corn toxic by inserting DNA from a toxic species that corn couldn't mate with. They've inserted human DNA into pigs; that's genetic engineering. You couldn't mate with a pig, though. If you could it would be crossbreeding. Again, nothing similar at all.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[JoeMerchant]

tinfoil hat on

But, if the insecticide components increase crop yield per acre while reducing costs, and don't cause any provable human deaths in the current business quarter, then it's all good for the shareholders, many of whom are also heavily invested in the biomedical companies who are diligently working on treatments for the syndromes brought on by these foods.

tinfoil hat off

See also: Food, Inc. available on Netflix to watch instantly.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

But selective breeding is an entirely different beast than the GMO process. Selective breeding allows corn to vary according to the "natural" laws of the corn itself. In GMO corn, companies have actually found a way to break down the barriers that the corn would naturally have to prevent the type of variation introduced. The DNA is altered in such a way that could NEVER happen naturally even after 1,000 years of naturally occurring variation. This at the least is a major cause for concern. Even more concerning is that so little research has been done on the effects of various GMO foods on the human body. Maybe it just gives us more gas. But even, then it would be nice to know.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Exitar]

Companies must tell you if a food they sell contains grapes, raisins or hemlock, but if a food contains corn, they're not forced to tell you if it's "natural" or GM.
So, unless you're an ancient greek philosopher, you can choose to not introduce hemlock in your body but you haven't the choice to not introduce a possibly harmful GM substance but only the "natural" one.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[IndustrialComplex]

Scotch has to be made in Scotland, otherwise it can't be called "Scotch". See here [wikipedia.org]

In the UK.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[vegiVamp]

The system worked if the three relevant varieties have not been brought to market, yet, if none of the currently marketed varieties have similar conditions, and if similar and extremely thorough testing is done on any and all products.

Personally, I'm not into GM foods precisely because we still don't fully know what a given modification will do in the long term until it happens. Yes, this particular test showed up, but the effects weren't predicted, or the corn wouldn't have made it to this stage. How about effects that only manifest if the product is consumed in massive quantities over multiple years ? Will Monsanto or any other company bother to do decade-long testing of every product ?

I'm happily in the EU, where GM is still off-limits. I suspect these test results won't encourage any change in that policy.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[vegiVamp]

Also, if you go for Scottish malts, GM is prohibited in Europe :-)

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[wall0159]

To put it simply, maybe the "reactionaries" have nothing against GM in principle, but are reacting against it because of outcomes (eg. toxic foods, genetic pollution, etc) that are inevitable given our current state of economic and political corruption.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's going to damage my liver, I'm switching to scotch. I'm sorry, Jack, but I just can't take the chance...

Unfortunately, your scotch and bourbon is likely fortified with a corn product.

The kind of "duh" think that I'm thinking about here is that, if this corn produces these insecticide-like chemicals, one should have to show that it is non-toxic in humans...

One could feasibly find a way to splice in genes that would make the product lethal to humans... so if you're "adding" something to the corn, it should be controlled the same as any other food additive.

Although, people wishing to avoid all GM foods, corn itself has been so selectively bred that it doesn't even resemble its nearest neighbors. It's even moribund if we ever disappear, because its seeds over compete and kill each other off. If you want to talk about crazy amounts of GM, take something that's essentially a grass, and turn it into corn.

Not like corn provides all its nutritional value unless its treated with a relatively strong-ish base anyways... lime is what's mostly used to break up the proteins on the kernel to produce vitamin B12...

I think you're not understanding the goal of GM corn. The GM corn doesn't produce "insecticide-like chemicals"; it is resistant to certain pesticides.

Also, the study even admits that the health problems the rats experienced could be attributed to the pesticides used and not the genetic modification.

"This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded [42]."

That may be a small distinction on a practical level, but it is an important one. For instance, if it is the pesticide that is causing the health problems, they maybe able to use a different pesticide that is shown to be harmless to people (although that would most likely require a new type of GM corn).

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[chomsky68]

Also, note that the "pesticide" in question is Bt toxin. Bt stands for bacillus thuringiensis. Bt is used in mosquito dunks, pesticide sprays and several other applications. It is not just considered safe for humans, animals and beneficial insects, but is even considered to be ORGANIC! You can spray your crops all day and night with millions of gallons of Bt and not lose your organic certification.

I disagree with you. When Bt is sprayed it breaks down and that is why there is a 2 weeks 'cool down' period before it is allowed for human consumption. In this case Bt is delivered to your system as is therefore it is not the same as spraying your crops with it.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[daem0n1x]

I can't see the need for OGMs except to make a bunch of ultra-capitalist corporations ultra-rich. The public and the farmers don't need them at all. We've been feeding ourselves pretty well without them.

The world already produces enough food to feed everybody. It's a distribution dysfunction that causes people to die from obesity in one side of the world and from hunger in another. OGMs only make this worse as they promote the complete dependency of all mankind on a bunch of corporations that own the patents to the organisms and require royalties for their use.

OGM food is a solution waiting for a problem. Well, it's not even a solution, considering all the problems it causes.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Beale]

I note that among other failures noted in the introduction, the study does not include a sample fed on 'unaltered' corn plus an added dose of the proteins the different corns are supposed to be modified to produce.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[daem0n1x]

Dude, you deserve 5 Insightful. I wish I had mod points.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[conureman]

Scotch is made from Barley. No corn.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[oh_my_080980980]

Not Single Malt Whiskey!

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[mary_will_grow]

So "The System Worked", uhh, how?

1. If you RTFA you'd see that Greenpeace lawyers had to go to great lengths and fight a mess of court battles to get at the data that shows this problem.
2. This corn is out in the food supply, and its not impossible that cross-pollination/etc is causing it to spread to other food sources.
3. I have no way of determining in the supermarket if either of these 3 varieties, or varieties which include these proteins, are present in the package of corn I'm about to buy.

You GM fanboys are fighting a straw-man. Folks like me don't hate the idea. I'd like to end world hunger. I'd like my car to run off sugar made from some superplant. What I don't want is some corporation like Monsanto to have no oversight, conflicts of interest all around (HELLO? They _fought_ the release of this information. They'd rather you die from liver disease than see a negative impact on their profits. Why the hell are you coming to their defense?) poisoning our food supply because they didn't want to spend the money or the effort to do it RIGHT.

Doesn't it bug you that all those left wing GM-hating nutjobs were RIGHT? This is _exactly_ what we feared would happen. Its not the idea of GM we hate. Its Monsanto. And You. And all the other idiots who don't take a second to think about what MIGHT happen if poor oversight is mixed with singleminded financial motivation.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

But Scotch is commonly aged in bourbon barrels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_whisky#Maturation

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid it's lost on you that the big problem is that one big company is getting the monopoly on seed & feed production of the whole world, using very dubious tactics. Preventing farmers from reusing their seeds because of "patent protection", and a multitude of other problems GMO apologists like you don't seem to know about. I'm afraid *that* will be lost on you, just because an idea is science doesn't make it good necessarily in every possible realization of that idea.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[daem0n1x]

in an ideal world, with ethical and moral corporations

In this kind of world there would be no OGMs because there wouldn't be corporations inventing and pushing things that nobody needs.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[interploy]

This has bad and far-reaching implications. Just yesterday NPR ran a story about how Monsanto is like the Microsoft of the seed industry because the vast majority of farmers are using seeds with the round-up ready gene and they have complete proprietary control over those seeds (farmers aren't even allowed to harvest seeds from the existing crop and replant them, they have to buy new seed from Monsanto every new crop). And the gene isn't limited to corn; it's being inserted into as many types of crops it can be put into (the NPR story notes soybeans). Who knows how long it'll take to figure out how many other crops with the round-up ready gene have this side-effect, or how fast/well Monsanto's PR department will downplay the studies' results.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[jabuzz]

If only that where true. Unfortunately for you it is not. Natural transgenerational horizontal gene transfer from one completely separate species to another does indeed occur though the medium of DNA viruses.

As such your claims are without foundation and baseless. In fact the very DNA viruses that can cause this to happen are one of the vectors used for GMO gene insertion. You could simulated the GMO process by planting two crops next to one another, infecting with DNA viruses and doing mass genetic screening of the results, repeating till you get what you want.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[VShael]

This distinction will be lost on millions of reactionaries.

Maybe, but it's not lost on me or the people in my social circle who protested the so-called Frankenfoods.
Basically, it's not GM manipulation of a crop that I have a problem with. It's Monsanto.

In 1997, it was alleged a local FOX affiliate cooperated with Monsanto in suppressing an investigative report on the health risks associated with Monsanto's bovine growth hormone product, Posilac. Posilac, a synthetic hormone used to increase milk production in cows, while banned in many first-world countries, is used in the United States.

Steve Wilson and Jane Akre disagreed with the inclusion of material in the story they felt was slanted or misleading. Both reporters were eventually fired for not being pro-Monsanto in their reporting. Wilson and Akre sued. The court held that Fox News had no obligation to report truthfully, and the First Amendment protects their right to lie. Therefore, the court held that firing a reporter for refusing to lie is not actionable under the whistleblower statute. The story can be seen in the feature length documentary film The Corporation.

You show me a corporation that makes GM foods, ethically, and I'll support them to hell and back. But Monsanto? Not a chance.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[jabuzz]

Actually in the European Union and associated trading partners.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[mcgrew]

Although, people wishing to avoid all GM foods, corn itself has been so selectively bred that it doesn't even resemble its nearest neighbors.

Crossbreding and selective breeding isn't anything like genetic engineering. You can't crossbreed fish so they glow in the dark, but you can genetically engineer them to. I can't see how selectively breeding a variety of corn could produce toxins, or even how crosbreeding with a non-toxic species similar enough to crossbreed could, either.

If I'm incorrect I hope a biologist or biochemist will explain what I've got wrong.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Will.Woodhull]

Actually, it sounds like the system worked to me.

And if you learn next year that you have some liver damage consistent with the Monsanto Syndrome, will you still feel the same way?

Since I have a mild intolerance to high fructose corn syrup (it, or something closely associated with it, contributes to my exercise induced asthma attacks which in turn make my bicycling much less fun), for several years I have been scanning ingredients labels for the word "corn". Some kind of processed corn is used in a surprisingly wide variety of foods, and is often near the top of the ingredients list. In the USA, much of this comes from the huge acreages of Monsanto owned agribusiness farms that would be growing one of Monsanto's GM corns, which would then be processed through one of Monsanto's operations before being sold in railroad tanker lots to Kraft, General Foods, Coca Cola, Kellog, Pepsi, Tyson, Little Debby, Hostess, etc. Fortunately the problem that I know about is limited to just HFCS so I don't avoid all corn products and can still eat a lot of stuff from the shelves of Safeway. I'm just pickier about which brands of hamburger relish, salsa, and crackers I buy.

But if there is anything unhealthy about Monsanto's corn operations, it could potentially affect all USA citizens who were not zealous in avoiding corn (because of severe allergies). That would probably be more than 90% of the USA population. Considering the size of the potential public health problem, I don't think there is sufficient oversight of Monsanto's operations, including its GM corn.

BTW, Monsanto gets a nice chunk of cash from the Federal Guvmint as a subsidy for growing corn. Although to be fair it should be noted that through their lobbying and campaign contributions they do return a lot of that to the political process....

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

And can you site any specific examples of transgenerational horizontal gene transfer occurring in corn without humans specifically injecting a virus past the barriers of the cell wall?

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Bengie]

Corn has always been GM. That's how corn was made in the first place, corn is not naturally occurring. I felt this went along with your "GM corn" comment.. :p

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cross breeding is actually known as Mendelian Genetics nowadays and humans have been experimenting with it for over 4000 years. On the molecular level there is no real difference between an allele that was the result of cross breeding or modern engineering techniques. The only difference (which you claim makes them "not similar at all") is that modern genetic engineering can create new sequences to insert via DNA vector and Mendelian techniques pretty much rely on alleles that already exist in a population.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Azghoul]

"This is _exactly_ what we feared would happen."

And what "_exactly_" is that, exactly? Do you really think they want to kill humans?

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the key: the problem is not the fact that this plant was genetically modified, but rather the specific proteins that it was engineered to produce.

This distinction will be lost on millions of reactionaries.

Actually not even that. The problem in one case is that because the corn was resistant to a pesticide, the crops had been treated with said pesticide and residues of that pesticide was in the final product.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Artuir]

Isn't the entire goal of crossbreeding or selective breeding to alter the genetics of the result in cases like these?

How is that not genetic engineering? It would seem to me it's just a crude form of a control method for doing just that.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[GooberToo]

So, unless you're an ancient greek philosopher, you can choose to not introduce hemlock in your body

Actually he had a choice. He chose to be true to they self and as such, chose to consume the hemlock. ...just being overly pedantic...

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[TeXMaster]

"This is _exactly_ what we feared would happen."

And what "_exactly_" is that, exactly? Do you really think they want to kill humans?

It's more like they don't care, to the point of criminally trying to withold the information that proves that their products are health hazards.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Pav]

...and there have been plenty of dangerous foods generated without GM. Of current interest are A1/A2 gene variants in dairy cows... the A1 milk is possibly linked to type 1 diabetes, heart disease and other illnesses : http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2008/2260411.htm . There are also potatoes produced from breeding programs which are too poisonous for human consumption, although this is expected because potatoes naturally contain glycoalkaloids. There is also evidence that ever sweeter fruit varieties (particularly in the form of fruit juice) are contributing to health problems due to fructose overload : http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/2104024.htm. What happens in the GMO world with the hugely increased recruitment of new varieties? It's just as easy, perhaps easier for a GM crop to have subtle but serious problems, and there's a whiff of corruption when Monsanto and our food regulators talk. Can we no longer place as much trust in brands such as "corn", "orange", "oats", "apple", "grape" etc?

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[pedestrian crossing]

Do you really think they want to kill humans?

With a corporation, it isn't a matter of wanting to kill humans. It is simply a matter of accounting.

If the cost of killing humans is much less than the expected profit, then it is the corporation's duty to kill humans, since it is the corporation's duty to maximize profits for the shareholders. That's the whole purpose of a corporation, to maximize profits for the shareholders.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[GargamelSpaceman]

Um, yes you can make a nontoxic species toxic by breeding. I'm thinking of the case of the insecitcide averse organic farmer who selected the best least insect damaged zucchinis each year for replanting until one year he had a quite pristine looking zuchinni crop. Except that when he ate them, they proved toxic. He'd been effectively breeding for insect resistance which meant breeding for higher and higher quantities of a toxin naturally present in zuchinni. Eventually it reached levels toxic to humans.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[happy_place]

meh. genetic engineering can't be any more difficult than programming a computer... so why should we worry or even regulate it? It's not like people ever make mistakes while programming, especially not with the new bug-resistant programming languages... err... oh wait... CRAP! We're screwed...

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Demonantis]

They don't care as long as it does not cut into their profits. That is all they are concerned about. The way you ask it makes it sound like they are selling guns knowing full outright that they will be used to commit crimes of terror. They are going out of the way to kill people. Whats interesting is that we don't know as much as we want to think we know about GMOs. It is all a lot of hand waving.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[ArcherB]

So "The System Worked", uhh, how?

1. If you RTFA you'd see that Greenpeace lawyers had to go to great lengths and fight a mess of court battles to get at the data that shows this problem.

Greenpeace and the court system are part of the system.

2. This corn is out in the food supply, and its not impossible that cross-pollination/etc is causing it to spread to other food sources.
3. I have no way of determining in the supermarket if either of these 3 varieties, or varieties which include these proteins, are present in the package of corn I'm about to buy. ...
Doesn't it bug you that all those left wing GM-hating nutjobs were RIGHT?

It's out in the food supply? I guess we've had hundreds of deaths due to organ failure over this then. No? Well surely someone, somewhere in the world has gotten at least a runny nose over this. No? Well, if no one died, and no one has gotten sick and tons of this stuff has been eaten by humans all over the world, then I'd guess that this product is safe. So, no. Those GM-hating nutjobs are NOT right.

However, PETA may have a case.

This is _exactly_ what we feared would happen. Its not the idea of GM we hate. Its Monsanto. And You. And all the other idiots who don't take a second to think about what MIGHT happen if poor oversight is mixed with singleminded financial motivation.

What did you fear would happen? Tests would show that rats can't eat corn that releases Bt toxin? (Bt, by the way, is considered organic and completely harmless to humans, pets and beneficial insects. The problem is either in the quantity of Bt toxin fed to the rats or something else in the corn.)

I agree that tests should be done by a neutral entity to anything sold as food and this is proof that more is needed. However, the problem is that groups will use this as an example as to why it's better to let your people starve than to take a chance on any GM foods. That's the tragedy. It doesn't matter how safe a GM food may be, groups like Greenpeace will do what they can to oppose it. Frankly, I'm glad they do as they are part of the checks and balances that make the system work. However, they should not get their way, just as companies like Monsanto shouldn't get their way. We need a balance.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[StuartHankins]

They seem more concerned with profits than the effects of their decisions on humans.

So maybe their goal isn't to kill humans, but if it's a side effect of a profitable product, they don't seem to care. Fighting the release of the information just makes it look like a cover-up.

Haven't we all seen movies where some misguided soul creates a monster, which has to be dealt with by some third party? Ergo this.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Runaway1956]

Scotch whisky, fortified with a CORN PRODUCT?

I don't think so. Citations needed.

http://www.lochlomonddistillery.com/making-scotch.htm

Now, if Monsanto is making genetically modified BARLEY, then we have something to worry about. FFS, I'll be might pissed if they start messing with one of life's few clean vices! How about lagers and ales? I won't drink American piss water - I could ferment dirty oily rags, and come up with something better than most American beers!

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the grandparent's summary is correct. It's a very specific problem in this case. But if there are no or inadequate regulations and testing protocols to determine whether inserted proteins will cause long-term health problems, then the safest thing is to avoid GM foods entirely, and give people the information they need to make such a decision, until such procedures are in place. The companies making these products are playing with fire here, especially at the inception of the application of these techniques. All it is going to take is one genuine health disaster -- one mistake in the testing procedure -- and people will sour on the whole thing regardless of the potential benefits.

While this study is far from implying a disaster is in progress (it's one paper and not a major journal), the study being described is real cause for concern and justifies further study. Why are rats apparently experiencing these effects? Do they have implications for human health? More importantly, why are we hearing this now after years of use of these particular GM strains? Is the study flawed in some way or is it ok? Time will tell.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[mcgrew]

Citation needed.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[geekoid]

Corn is a grass, moron.

There has yet to be a good study that shows any harm. This is NOT a good study.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[networkBoy]

FWIW I think the terminator seeds are a good thing.
Specifically I think that any other GMs (like BT) should *have* to be terminator seeds, such that if they escaped to the wild hopefully they would die out quickly. In theory the terminator gene should prevent escape to the wild, but we all know that in practice theory never holds out 100%.
-nB

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Hijacked Public]

If by Jack you mean Jack Daniels, Jack Daniels isn't bourbon.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[networkBoy]

you are correct.
hybridizing is genetic engineering at its most basic level. However, it is inherently safer as mother nature puts limits on how far you can go before you fail to get offspring (corn + poison ivy), or the offspring is sterile (horse + zebra).
-nB

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[tehcyder]

You can't crossbreed fish so they glow in the dark

No, you just have to keep feeding them that radium each morning.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Richy_T]

Definitely true. We've just started avoiding HFCS at home (I'm no left wing hippy, quite the opposite. I believe we are responsible for our own health and I believe there's enough question about its safety to make it worth avoiding) and it's extremely hard to make sure that the products you buy don't contain it. It seems to turn up in *everything*, including sausages.

If there's a problem with corn itself (I don't avoid corn particularly though I don't usually like it much. Too bland), it has the potential to have a *devastating* effect

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, your scotch and bourbon is likely fortified with a corn product.

Bourbon IS corn liquor, dear. Now, get off your Old Grand Dad's lawn.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Psion]

Any shareholder who would invest in a company that actually perceived a duty to kill humans in pursuit of profit is a fool of an investor. A company proven to willfully kill people will get torpedoed by lawsuits and face ruination. Google what happened to Union Carbide after the Bhopal disaster.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[BrokenHalo]

Selective breeding is certainly well tried and gradual, but "true" is misleading. All you are doing is leading evolution in a direction of your choosing, rather than allowing natural selection to take its course. But you're right in that no amount of evolutionary genetic recombination would result in the spontaneous production of Bt toxin in our lifetime.

It's worth noting that this is entirely different from the so-called "Roundup Ready" crops which by definition encourage the farmer to use potentially toxic doses of the herbicide. Bt toxin is a pesticide, and the degree of its expression in GM crops is not yet entirely predictable.

When I first started studying biotechnology 10 years ago, Roundup was commonly regarded as being no more toxic than coffee. We have since learned otherwise, and Monsanto's crude sledgehammer approach to farming practice has gone a long way towards discrediting the biotechnology industry in general.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Opyros]

lime is what's mostly used to break up the proteins on the kernel to produce vitamin B12

Did you mean vitamin B3 (niacin)? B12 doesn't have too many vegetable sources (although it does have microbial sources).

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[drsmithy]

Although, people wishing to avoid all GM foods, corn itself has been so selectively bred that it doesn't even resemble its nearest neighbors.

Selective Breeding is to Genetic Engineering as Evolution is to Creationism.

Ie: not the same thing.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[jedidiah]

What is missing from conventional selective breeding is the Microsoft of seed corn.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[GargamelSpaceman]

Well I couldn't find the site I read, but here's some additional info: http://extensionhorticulture.unl.edu/Articles/SJB/zucchini.shtml

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pusztai's rats ate /nothing/ but GM potatoes, and then became unhealthy. I suspect that if they had eaten nothing but regular old potatoes, they also would have become equally unhealthy.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Dishevel]

Name a food that I can consume in massive quantities, over a long period of time that will not have detrimental effects on me.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[ricosalomar]

If by "Jack" you mean Jack Daniel's, then worry not, you haven't been drinking Bourbon. But you might mean "Jack" in the way that some people use "Dude", or "Man" or something. In that case, carry on.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Disfnord]

This distinction will be lost on millions of reactionaries.

And let me guess, anyone who doesn't share your opinions is a "reactionary".

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Syntroxis]

So true about the corporatists. The corporation can do no wrong. Look at the suicide gene which has been developed in many food crops developed by Monsanto and other seed giants. "...Through natural pollination, their crop may now become partially pollinated by Monsanto's GM corn through no fault of their own. Now they are selling GM food without their knowledge. Furthermore, the crop seed that they may be holding bad to plant for next years crop may be completely sterile, which would have a devastating effect on the following years crop for that small farmer...." ahref=http://thegldc.com/blog/tag/monsanto/rel=url2html-26299http://thegldc.com/blog/tag/monsanto/>
Corporations like Monsanto are suing small farmers all over: "The odds are clearly stacked against the farmer: Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million dollars and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers. The largest recorded judgment made thus far in favor of Monsanto as a result of a farmer lawsuit is $3,052,800.00. Total recorded judgments granted to Monsanto for lawsuits amount to $15,253,602.82. Farmers have paid a mean of $412,259.54 for cases with recorded judgments". ahref=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goliath_and_David:_Monsanto's_Legal_Battles_against_Farmersrel=url2html-26299http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goliath_and_David:_Monsanto's_Legal_Battles_against_Farmers>
Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag and GMO has crossed over into non-gmo strains.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Darkmane]

You couldn't mate with a pig, though. If you could it would be crossbreeding.

It would also be ugly as hell.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Archangel Michael]

It isn't just leftwing nut jobs. Many view me as a right wing nutjob (okay, Libertarian nutjob), and I think this kind of thing (GM) is criminal. Nobody stops long enough to ask, whether we should do something, all they are concerned about is IF we can do something, and how fast can we monetize it.

The problem is, that this particular type of result should have been anticipated. We have NO idea what the crap we're actually doing, we just know we can do it. And screw the Luddites who are against "progress".

I'm not a Luddite, I'm not against progress, I'm against people who have no idea what the unintended consequences might be plowing ahead without regard the WPS (worst possible scenerio).

Take a moment and watch Resident Evil movies. Even after the truth is manifested (zombies) the stupid Corporation doesn't really care the consequences.

WE are already there.

Which is why I'm all for the Corporate Death Penalty for extreme cases such as this, where the Corporation involved is killing people. They are as bad or worse than Tim McVey, KSM, and the Panty Bomber, only they have a license from the state.

Let the stupid stakeholders supporting "Profits at any Cost" suffer the consequence. Kill the Corporation and sell off the assets, take ownership of all "intellectual propery" and release it all as Public Domain (ie Revoke all patents, copyrights, trademarks).

I'm deadly serious about using the Corporate Death Penalty (pun intended). It is clear that Corporations cannot act ethically or legally without some sort of threat. And the Laws aren't preventing this, as there is no consequence that scares them.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[LogicalError]

Any shareholder ... is a fool of an investor.

No it's not foolish, it's short term thinking. The same kind of short term thinking which is the norm in, oh, just about everything we've been doing the last 20 years or so. It gave us such wonderful things as the financial crisis, our addiction to oil and the continued destruction of the eco system we actually happen to live in. Okay.... I take that back, it IS foolish

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[supermegadope]

But he did not introduce the toxin to the plant, he just increased it by selective breeding.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[SixAndFiftyThree]

The plants we eat nowadays are not just the result of selective breeding as you think of it, i.e. crossing one ancient variety with another. Since the time when it first became clear that ionising radiation and certain chemicals could cause mutations that might result in changes to the daughter plant, seed companies have been trying it, throwing away the ones that turned out toxic, and keeping the ones that seemed to give an advantage. [Citation needed, sorry, lost it for the moment.] The difference between this and modern genetic engineering is that back then they had no idea what changes they were making; they just rolled the dice.

So to repeat what others have said above: the final product should be tested for safety, not the process that produced it.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[MarkvW]

How would any government, other than a big, powerful government, stop a large multinational company like Monsanto?

The only safe alternatives to big government necessitate breaking up big companies. Unfortunately international competition precludes this.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[gr8_phk]

The only difference (which you claim makes them "not similar at all") is that modern genetic engineering can create new sequences to insert via DNA vector and Mendelian techniques pretty much rely on alleles that already exist in a population.

Right, with the modern methods you can insert the gene from Ebola that codes something that damages blood vessels and kills people. Not only is the risk of that happening with Mendelian techniques very low, you couldn't do it if you tried. This is why genetic engineering/modification is fundamentally different than selective breeding and potentially much more dangerous. Don't try to pretend they're essentially the same thing.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[mariox19]

I know very little about this, but the term "gene splicing" calls to mind images of tiny scalpels. From my understanding that's not what's going on at all.

What I've heard is that Monsanto basically bombards produce with radiation in an effort to produce mutations. It then sifts through these mutations looking for something marketable. Again, to my understanding, to most people involved in recombinant gene technology (or whatever it's called) this technique is both primitive and absolutely horrifying. What happens is that all sorts of proteins and amino acids get damaged in the process.

I'm going to reach for a metaphor here, but I take it that, at the molecular level, eating this stuff is basically like swallowing shards of broken glass.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Logic and Reason]

Companies must tell you if a food they sell contains grapes, raisins or hemlock, but if a food contains corn, they're not forced to tell you if it's "natural" or GM.

Then buy products that do specify whether they contain GM components. If there's a product you want that isn't so labeled, try looking online or calling the company. If they won't say, chances are there's GM stuff in the product.

Yeah, that's a pain, but stop pretending that there's no way to avoid consuming something you don't want to consume just because producers aren't required by law to put it on the label. The nice thing about the market is that the more people become concerned about GM stuff, the more companies will start putting that info on their labels, even without being required to.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[gr8_phk]

Natural transgenerational horizontal gene transfer from one completely separate species to another does indeed occur though the medium of DNA viruses.

Viruses fall into the "natural variation" bucket, while most people prefer to distinguish the selective breeding and genetic engineering buckets. But lets run with this viral transfer of DNA thing for a moment. Sure it may move some DNA from plant to plant, possibly across species and even to a different genus. It seems exceptionally unlikely that it would transfer DNA across kingdoms - i.e. from bacteria (or animals) to plants. And even then, it would probably only transfer from bacteria that live on the plants - bacteria that we probably already eat with the plants.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[mcgrew]

A common problem found in zucchini and cucumber is bitterness, which can be very frustrating to the gardener who finds the vegetables too bitter to eat!

Bitterness usually is a warning of toxicity. So the plant is already toxic, albeit only a little toxic. The same goes for marijuana, selective breeding has increased THC levels fourfold from pot's heyday in the '70s. But you can't selectively breed corn to get you high, although you could genetically engineer corn with THC content.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[MarkvW]

Have you not read 'The Jungle'?
What about the bad food sold to Union soldiers in the Civil War?
Arthur Miller's 'All My Sons'?
The Ford Pinto?

Do you really think that corporations care about people?

They're like fucking Harry Lime, man!

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[blueskies]

There was a case where an African country turned down free GM food and allowed their people to starve because some hippie-eco-group convinced the government that GM [worldpress.org] food was poison

Yes. You nailed it. They are african and so much stupider than westerners that they thought the food was poison. You figured out their exact reasoning. Now i know that you know exactly nothing about GM foods.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Sique]

There are safe GM foods that have been feeding people for hundreds of years, but it only takes one to go wrong that will cause even the safe GM foods to banned.

No, those foods are not genetically modified, they are at most allelically modified. That is, they have the same genes than their wild ancestors, just the allel combination expressed by those genes is not found in the wild. Some of those domesticied crops also have a different number of chromosome sets, many domesticied crops are polyploid, which causes them to produce more proteins, but of the same kind that can also be found in the wild types. And then there is hybridization, the cross breeding of species from the same genus (e.g. most citrus fruits are hybrids).

The main difference with genetic modification is that a GM living has genes which come from different species and from different groups of livings. There are animal genes in plants or bacterial genes in an animal. This can also happen in nature (for instance after an infection with a retro virus), but those livings, if they breed at all, often separate and form a new species. And this is not part of the traditional breeding technologies.

To use a programming analogy (because cars are so dangerous to the climate): Breeding changes the parameters hard coded into a program, but genetical modification changes the program logic.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[blueskies]

Do you really think they want to kill humans?

If it ends up with them making shit tons more money? YES. Of course.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[vtcodger]

***meh. genetic engineering can't be any more difficult than programming a computer...***

Sure. If the operation performed every poorly documented op code depended on the adjacent op codes and what had just been executed. Think x86 instruction set but deliberately obsfucated instead of merely being created by several generations of lunatics.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Mab_Mass]

That's the key: the problem is not the fact that this plant was genetically modified, but rather the specific proteins that it was engineered to produce.

Actually, if you read the article carefully, the probable source of toxicity is the set of new pesticides that are applied to the GM corn. In other words, the corn isn't toxic until it gets sprayed by toxic chemicals.

In my mind, the real duh moment is that if we have to engineer to corn to tolerate something toxic, why are we surprised that the residue of this toxic material is bad for rats?

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[blackraven14250]

Nobody would ever invest in any weapon manufacturing or defense research company if your logic held true.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation required]

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[couchslug]

"This distinction will be lost on millions of reactionaries."

The political mass to stop the enemy comes from reactionaries. Corporations like Monsanto have established long ago that they have no ethics, and the only way to get amoral entities to behave themselves is to master them with oversight and punishment.

Genetic engineering is fine, but corporations are inherently untrustworthy and should be viewed as "tolerated, necessary enemies". The default should be to restrict them as they are incapable of innocence.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[poobahtim]

Once again, truth is stranger than fiction: http://www.biotechknowledge.monsanto.com/biotech/knowcenter.nsf/ID/AE2560ABE94F03B786256B90007E14F2?OpenDocument

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[blackraven14250]

It's out in the food supply? I guess we've had hundreds of deaths due to organ failure over this then. No? Well surely someone, somewhere in the world has gotten at least a runny nose over this. No? Well, if no one died, and no one has gotten sick and tons of this stuff has been eaten by humans all over the world, then I'd guess that this product is safe. So, no. Those GM-hating nutjobs are NOT right.

You have no idea about the validity of any of these statements. Someone may very well have died due to this, but you don't know it because nobody bothered to check the person's diet over the past 20 years to see if that's a likely cause for their liver failure. The lack of direct attribution doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

(Bt, by the way, is considered organic and completely harmless to humans, pets and beneficial insects. The problem is either in the quantity of Bt toxin fed to the rats or something else in the corn.)

What you neglect to mention is that products sprayed with Bt have a period of 2 weeks before they can be eaten by people, as the toxin itself then breaks down into byproducts that aren't harmful. If it's inside of the corn and not exposed to air, it may slow down said breakdown, and it can also mean that by law, there is nothing preventing companies from selling it within that 2 week period.

However, they should not get their way, just as companies like Monsanto shouldn't get their way. We need a balance.

Monsanto had their way, apparently for years, in that they had this information and had no obligation until now to release it to the public. The same public, mind you, that is nearly forced into eating their foods containing these products. Go look for non-GM labeled foods in a supermarket in the US. It's just a bit hard to find them, considering there's no requirement to label either way.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[DwySteve]

It's worth noting that this is entirely different from the so-called "Roundup Ready" crops which by definition encourage the farmer to use potentially toxic doses of the herbicide.

That's odd, I have heard the exact opposite from farmers. I grew up on a farm and my father still farms. He and many other use GM corn that is 'Roundup Ready'. They love it because it lets them use less herbicide. Before, they had to pick and choose herbicides so that they didn't kill the corn. Got milkweed? Use this one. Water hemp? Sorry, use a different one. This could lead to multiple applications and lots of herbicide being used overall. Even if you use just a little, having to reapply different herbicide several times increases the overall amount.

Now, they apply Roundup once and use much less herbicide than before. It's also much more effective. It's so effective in fact that many farmers have switched to no-till farming methods. This is a tremendous gain because it saves a lot of topsoil. Tilling helps to eliminate weeds so most people practiced it so they could avoid herbicides (they're expensive!). But it didn't quite deliver good yields. My dad used to say 'No-till is easy. No-till, no-crop, no check!'. Now he uses it and swears by it. You used to see so much dust kicked up on a windy day that you thought you'd suffocate. Whenever there was a flood the runoff was black - that was our topsoil going away.

But thanks to no-till and Roundup-ready corn we are saving the topsoil and using overall fewer chemicals to grow our food. This is a tremendous win for environmentalists. It's too bad they got caught up in anti-GMO fever.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are missing his subtle implication that Bourbon and Jack would have GMO corn, because they are US based, but Scotch is from England, so would not... He probably doesn't realize that Monsanto sells GMO corn seed globally, and it is the defacto standard everywhere... Doesn't matter where your whiskey is from, it's probably derived from GMO corn.

Not to mention his subtle jab at the irony of drinking whiskey to begin with being bad for your liver... Overall, a pretty amusing fast first quip to snag the top comment slot.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[TheoMurpse]

And in the United States, you can only label something "scotch" if it is made in Scotland.

(7) “Scotch whisky” is whisky which is a distinctive product of Scotland, manufactured in Scotland in compliance with the laws of the United Kingdom regulating the manufacture of Scotch whisky for consumption in the United Kingdom: Provided, That if such product is a mixture of whiskies, such mixture is “blended Scotch whisky” (Scotch whisky—a blend).

27 C.F.R. 5.22(b)(7).

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Rich.Miller.6]

With a corporation, it isn't a matter of wanting to kill humans. It is simply a matter of accounting.

If the cost of killing humans is much less than the expected profit, then it is the corporation's duty to kill humans, since it is the corporation's duty to maximize profits for the shareholders. That's the whole purpose of a corporation, to maximize profits for the shareholders.

You are being ironic, I hope. The idea that "corporations exist solely to maximize shareholder value" isn't a Given Truth - it's just another idea about how society can organize a (big) part of its activities. As such, it should be evaluated like any other idea: see what it leads to. One direct consequence is the argument that if something is legal and maximizes return to shareholders, a corporation has a fiduciary duty to do it. This argument was made in defense of British ships participating in the slave trade until 1807, even though chattel slavery was declared unlawful in England in 1772 and Scotland in 1776, and slavery itself in 1799. Another consequence is the idea that corporations have no social obligations - that maximizing shareholder return is required, regardless of other consequences such as, say, global economic meltdown and huge government transfers of money to banks and Wall St. firms during the last year or so.

These aren't the only ways for corporations to behave, nor do they appear socially desirable. Here's a reference for those interested in examining this further: http://www.allaboutbranding.com/index.lasso?article=373

Books such as Marjorie Kelly's The Divine Right of Capital: Dethroning the Corporate Aristocracy already point out the inhumane way corporations have departed from serving the public, even though the roots of corporate duty were in the public good. Maximizing returns to shareholders was the obsession at Enron and Andersen

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Plekto]

Vodka. Check. :)

On a more serious note, you all remember the pet food scare a couple of years ago? Some pet foods were still causing symptoms without having any of the tainted gluten in them. The only source that could be found that might be causing liver and kidney damage in pets besides the gluten was a major pet food producer that had switched to GMO corn as to save money. This has been well-known in the pet food industry for several years now - to stay away from GMO products. Though, it appears to be fairly safe to eat animals fed it, as long as you don't eat the livers or kidneys(read - so much for sausage or animal byproducts or the like)

It's also well known in the beef industry. There are two reasons they have to pump commercial cows full of antibiotics. The first is lack of exercise. The second is that the corn they feed them(more than half of their entire diet for the last few months) destroys their immune system and they'd be literally dead on their feet if the antibiotics weren't keeping them alive for a few more weeks to finish fattening up.

It used to be that all of that GMO corn was going to feed lots and it wasn't a big issue. But now that times are tougher, the stuff is being used for human consumption more and more in order to save money.

So, things not to eat:
Animal by-products including sausage for anything fed this corn(organic or grass fed is the key here) - The meat is fine. Their organs aren't and should be avoided at all costs. This of course is aside from the quality and ethical issues and so on of commercial meat.

Any corn that's not organic. More than 95% of the U.S. corn market is now ADM and Monsanto GMO corn. This is a huge time-bomb waiting to happen. As such, all corn has to be suspect unless it's from Europe where they won't allow GMO corn to be grown, or a similar country(IIRC, Japan also doesn't allow GMO grains, but I don't think they crow corn there) This limits your diet greatly, since cheap GMO corn is in literally everything, but some stores like Trader Joes(as an example) offer good alternatives without killing your wallet.

Obviously no corn syrup or other products. Thankfully the recent upswing in ethanol use has helped. One of my uncles in fact grows GMO corn because it's cheap and easy and sends 100% of it to the ethanol refinery. For this sort of use, GMO corn is perfect. This of course has made corn syrup more expensive than sugar again so it's being slowly replaced in soft drinks and other foods.

And of course, as mentioned above, pet food. Make sure it has no corn, since cats and dogs are also mildly allergic to corn and it(and most grains) have zero nutrition for cats anyways. Yes, this means virtually no canned foods and nothing from the grocery store's pet isle, but the difference is immediately noticeable. note - or just make your own food if you have a dog. It's pretty easy, in fact.

One other thing to avoid is Canola Oil. It used to be only a mild problem for your body to handle, and wasn't found in many things, but nearly 100% of all Canola Oil is now GMO in the last decade, and the combination of an already not so healthy oil with GMO tinkering has resulted in a very unhealthy product. If course, since it's subsidized and the cheapest oil out there, it's in everything. (note - it's even worse to burn - so don't use it in your bio-diesel powered car)

I know, though, that just getting rid of corn and canola oil in my diet resulted in a change of my having to take my allergy medicine every other day and getting sick once every other month to once or twice a month and twice a year. Just removing these two things from my diet had an immediate effect on my well-being and energy levels. And it's a very easy thing to try as well. Even two weeks without either is a noticeable improvement(as well as getting rid of the processed junk and fast food it's usually part of, of course).

P.S. removing both also caused my weight gain to reverse itself. I've lost 25lbs in a year by just getting rid of the garbage in my diet.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Znork]

that will cause even the safe GM foods to banned.

Personally, I don't really mind GM foods, but I'd feel much safer if anything Monsanto touched was banned. Considering their track record of deliberate contamination and knowingly poisoning employees and residents in areas they've operated I certainly wouldn't expect them to warn anyone should they discover their products were hazardous to health. In fact, I'd expect them to try to cover it up any way they could, and attempt to silence any whistle blowers or outside researchers, and probably bribe officials to let them continue to operate if they can.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Half-pint HAL]

(Bt, by the way, is considered organic and completely harmless to humans, pets and beneficial insects. The problem is either in the quantity of Bt toxin fed to the rats or something else in the corn.)

Go ahead and muddy the waters, Taco. There is a significant logical leap between the two sentences I quote above.

First, you seem to accept that there's no absolutes -- considered organic, not is organic -- then you say with absolute certainty that it's not the chemical that's the problem.

The problem here is that there are three possibilities that needed investigating (earlier assessment of Bt was incorrect; apparent toxicity was due to unrealistically high dose in trials; toxicity was from some element other than Bt), and no evidence that this investigation was actually carried out.

However, the problem is that groups will use this as an example as to why it's better to let your people starve than to take a chance on any GM foods.

Is the problem that people cry "Frankstein" on seeing a genuine Frankenstein food, or is the problem that the Frankenstein exists.

It's not only the anti-GM guys who overreact, but also the pro-GM guys. You don't seem to intend to do it, but you too are shouting down people with the usual "won't somebody think of the African children" line.

The system needs balances, yes, and while there is a balance of sorts, it's extremists on both sides. A dual party system ruled by Stalin and Mussolini would be balanced, but it would be hardly a good state of affairs. The current system is a joke, because while GM is sold to the public as a way to stop starvation, in reality the majority of GM crops are designed first and foremost as a means to sell a proprietary weedkiller or pesticide. The alternative, to make plants that are more resistant to pest attack, or sprout a bit quicker so that the weeds can't crowd them out, is not down for reasons of pure profitability. This is vendor lock-in, pure and simple, and just as with Microsoft, economic pressures make it a bad deal for people in the worst-off countries. Monsanto aren't daft: they know that it only takes a 1 or 2% reduction in the cost of production for someone to migrate to a new technology, so regardless of the efficiency of their technology, they'll set the price only a couple of percent below the alternative and retain the rest as profit.

In the end, does this increase the economic strength of the developing nations? No, because a larger amount of their income goes back out to richer nations, and economic strength will always be relative.

But stuff economics -- it's more important people get fed, right? Well, as I understand it, the biggest threat to the third world is not low crop yield, but excessive export to serve the developed countries' overconsumption: coffee, cocoa, sugar and banana plantations -- heck, even flower farms -- on land that would otherwise feed the local population. If third world countries worsen their economic standing globally, this keeps the price of their produce down and encourages the continuation of the cash crop culture.

Regulation of the GM market is required. At the very least, no company should be allowed to produce GM crops that are tied into their own agricultural chemicals. I'd personally prefer it if GM was restricted to academic labs and non-commercial foundations, but I doubt that this will ever happen.

HAL.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[syousef]

You couldn't mate with a pig, though.

I think you'll find a lot of mid western farmers disagree and can prove you wrong by contradiction. What you can't do is produce viable offspring.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[crmarvin42]

I'm what many here would call an "appologist". I've argued against a lot of the FUD that people post here about GM crops in general and Monsanto's "Round-up Ready" crops specifically. I avoid the emotional rhetoric and focus on my understanding of the underlying science and the current evidence when discussing this topic.

Witht that being said, this report is very frightening. They did a very good job ensuring that their conclusions are supported by the data (analyzed correctly!), but that they did not over-reach. Their data is highly suggestive of chronic toxicity, but they admit it is not enough by itself, and I agree with them on both counts. However, my concerns will not allow me to let uneducated FUD slip by.

...the so-called "Roundup Ready" crops which by definition encourage the farmer to use potentially toxic doses of the herbicide.

This is a common misperception. "Round-up Ready" crops require fewer applications of herbicide than their un-modified isolines for similar yields. By adding resistance to an herbicide that would normally kill the plant of interest (Corn, Soybean, etc.) they can use a more effective herbicide than those that the plant of interest was previously resistant to. Otherwise you need to use lower doses (so as not to kill the corn) more frequently, thus resulting in a net increase in overall herbicide application per acre or per bushel produced.

I want to be clear, I'm not arguing with the validity of the analysis in the paper that this thread is supposed to be discussing. I'm just informing you of your error in understanding the net effect "Round-up Ready" crops have on total herbicide use in agriculture.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[fritsd]

And because such retroviral infections are so common, we can see our farm animals better in the dark..
oh wait.. never mind...

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[eoeoe]

This is very interesting to me. Just last year I discovered that I have 'high liver enzymes' and went through a bunch of tests, and came up with no reason. The doctors just say I have a 'naturally high level' of liver enzymes in my blood.

And then about 2-3 months ago I started having sporadic asthma attacks -- having never had them before. And then they went away just about the time I started eating a little better and eating cooked food more. I wonder if there's a connection between the liver problems, the asthma, and the corn.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[sjames]

The distinction is meaningless when nobody is bothering to do the safety testing until the product is already on the market.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Ubi_NL]

No, if you would actually read the article their conclusion states that it is probably remainders of the toxin itself rather than the modified protein inside the plant that is responsible for the effects.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[sjames]

Simple difference, do you EAT mosquito dunks? Sprayed on food is one thing. Food is washed before eating. Grown IN food is another. Cow manure is organic, but I don't eat it.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Psion]

You're from Digg, aren't you?

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

The key problem is that safety studies (real safety studies) have not been undertaken on these corporate products before being released into our environment. This study, and others like it, should have taken place before any of these products were approved.

Anther problem is that trespass law is not applied to GMO contamination of neighboring fields. These genes are hopping to neighboring fields where farmers are _trying_ to grow non-gmo crops, and contaminating their seed (http://corporatecrime.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/gmo-contamination-is-no-problem-%E2%80%93-unless-you-want-to-grow-sell-or-eat-safe-food/).

Worse, intellectual property laws, especially in North America, are so broken that the corporate entities controlling the gmo seed are able to, successfully, bring suit, for IP infringement, to the poor farmer who wanted nothing to do with gmo crops in the first place, but gmo pollen trespassed on his land, and contaminated his seed (http://www.percyschmeiser.com/).

GMO crops also contaminate wild species (http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/oilseed_rape/environment/242.docu.html).

There are a lot of problems that need to be solved before this stuff should be allowed into the environment. The folks with their reactionary pro-corporate blinders on, are the irrational ones in this argument.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Wonko the Sane]

if you would actually read the article their conclusion states

It's a theoretical discussion anyway since the article doesn't actually demonstrate organ damage, contrary to the headline.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[number11]

It's worth noting that this is entirely different from the so-called "Roundup Ready" crops which by definition encourage the farmer to use potentially toxic doses of the herbicide.

I have heard the exact opposite from farmers. I grew up on a farm and my father still farms. He and many other use GM corn that is 'Roundup Ready'. They love it because it lets them use less herbicide. Before, they had to pick and choose herbicides so that they didn't kill the corn.

Please read for comprehension. Note that the article "the" (in "the herbicide") makes the line refer specifically to Roundup, not herbicides in general. Farmers who use "Roundup Ready" corn do not use less Roundup, although they may (or may not) use less of other herbicides.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[sjames]

Considering that the corn is already commercialized, the horse has run away and the system is sitting in it's recliner wondering if it's perhaps time to think about considering closing the barn door. Brilliant!

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[PCM2]

Actually in the European Union and associated trading partners.

Whatever that means. Pretty sure the United States is an EU trading partner, but "scotch" is not a protected trade name here.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[sjames]

I think that if there was a billion dollars and nothing but a human baby standing between them and it, they'd smash it's skull in without even a second thought.

They don't WANT to kill humans in the sense that that would take time and energy away from their primary goal of profit and in the sense that humans might try to kill them in return. Otherwise, I doubt it matters much to them who lives or dies.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[ArsonSmith]

Corn doesn't want to be farmed, it wants to be hunted!

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[sjames]

There's a serious difference between a plant being harmful since day one and a formerly safe staple food that is absolutely necessary to avoid mass famine suddenly becoming unsafe.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't like about "Roundup-ready" GM (and similar) is the "IP" and lawsuit stuff.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[waterford0069]

Yes you can - in both directions.

Example, Canola was traditionally bread from rapeseed to remove/reduce its toxin, glucosinolates (still found in cauliflower and Brussels sprouts). Of course the tin-foil-hat crowd will jump on this over the evils of Canola - but that's not germane to this line of thought.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't been following the thread, I see.

The point is, such a development's probability increases with time as we/everything incorporate exponentially more transgenes, actuators, enhancers... and such.

This is just an example, although not really a novelty.

Merely a 'foretaste', eh ?

Now, relax, and go watch some quiet little Vincent Price / Cushing / Lee / Lorre movie.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[shutdown -p now]

You can do anything with selective breeding that evolution is otherwise capable to produce on its own. It's pretty obvious considering that selective breeding is nothing but faster (and directed) evolution.

The only issue is time. But possibilities are endless.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[benjamindees]

I agree with you 100%. I've developed an intolerance to crappy food. And, believe me, it's nearly impossible to avoid corn syrup. It's in everything. It's in every single type of salad dressing. It's in mustard. Mustard. The recipe for mustard didn't change for a thousand years. Mustard seeds, vinegar, salt. Now it needs corn syrup too, for some reason.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[PalmKiller]

Not if its single malt scotch. He should avoid the single grain, blended or vat whiskey/scotch though as they will likely contain corn. Of course its probably GM grain in there in single malt anyway.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

You DO have a choice. For now the definition of organic Doeant allow for GMOs. So if you are buying organic corn or organic products containing corn you are not only avoiding the GMO but supporting more sustainable agriculture and sticking it to monsanto.
My only fear is that monsanto has enough power to force the FDA to redefine organic to allow for gmo products. Something they've been trying to do for years. If they succeed then we lose our only way to know if it's GMO!!!!!

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[QRDeNameland]

The same goes for marijuana, selective breeding has increased THC levels fourfold from pot's heyday in the '70s.

From my research and experience, that is not true. While law enforcement agencies have constantly bandied about statistics that marijuana is much more potent than "the pot you remember from your youth" in order to prop up support for increasingly unpopular laws, the best research suggests that the most potent marijuana of today is no more potent than the most potent marijuana of the '70s. The pot available today may be more potent on average, but that is more due to better access to known strains, better care taken in cultivation, and better storage and transport (i.e., compare the mass harvesting of outdoor fields in Colombia or Mexico vs. the careful handling of indoor grown hydro).

Not to detract from your overall point, which I agree with, but the really significant selective breeding for high potency cannabis likely happened in prehistory, not since the '70s.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[PalmKiller]

Field corn is natuaral corn. Sweet corn on the other hand has a naturally-occurring recessive mutation in the corn genes. So yes they are both naturally occurring, but sweet corn is a mutant.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[TooMuchToDo]

"A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

Welcome to how a corporation performs accounting.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[shutdown -p now]

To put it simply, maybe the "reactionaries" have nothing against GM in principle

I have no doubt that some are. However, considering how many in the same category throw a hissy fit as soon as they hear the word "nuclear", I suspect most of them react to GM in a similar way - no reasoning involved, just conditioned irrational hate.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

There weren't any plants on day one. That's when God divided the light and the dark. Plants didn't show up until day three.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

You couldn't mate with a pig, though.

You insensitive clod.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[SendBot]

a quick look over at northrup grumman and aerovironment's stock would challenge your observation. I mean, killing people isn't exactly the main focus of their efforts, but it's probably up there.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

"They" can't care -- they are are a legal construct, the Immortal, Soulless Corporation.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[hackerjoe]

But selective breeding is an entirely different beast than the GMO process. Selective breeding allows corn to vary according to the "natural" laws of the corn itself.

The other responses are also correct, but I really wonder why you think that this is meaningful, even if it were true. Lots of completely "natural" things are incredibly toxic and dangerous to us, either by coincidence or so we wouldn't eat them. Just because something is natural doesn't mean you can assume it's safe.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[dissy]

And what "_exactly_" is that, exactly? Do you really think they want to kill humans?

That IS what they said, yes.

It doesn't at all matter if they WANT to. It matters that THEY ARE.

And yes, even only one set of research is showing it is deadly. 1 > 0 no matter how hard you try to argue otherwise.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[mcgrew]

Example, Canola was traditionally bread from rapeseed to remove/reduce its toxin

They don't make bread from canola (I think you meant "bred"). And rapeseed and canola are the same thing; rapeseed was renamed because they couldn't sell it with a name like that.

Breeding to remove toxins is possible, at least to lessen toxicity if not remove it, but you can't breed a nontoxic plant to become toxic.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

And spending lots of money lobbying governments to look the other way. And in cases where their pollen has contaminated non-Montesanto crops, and somebody complains - they also go after the victims with the contaminated crops using patent laws as their weapon.

They're such a really nice bunch of guys.

(And they're one of the reasons why the industry needs some real and effective oversight, and not just the 2-bit lip service the FDA thinks is ok.)

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also not just the gene manipulation, it's the methods of manipulation. GMO is not "clean", "just put some new genes". One popular method involves using a virus to somehow artificially attach the new genes to the DNA. That virus can have effects on the modified cells, stressing it, etc.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like it is time to go to Rain Water and Grain Alcohol

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[waterford0069]

Actually many bread recipes include oil. Canola oil in many such cases would be an acceptable form of oil. In any case, a typo-get over it.

You are right, Canola is a specific cultivar of rapeseed and its name was chosen to make it more market friendly.

Toxicity is generally a matter of how much, not a yes/no. Your garden variety tomato contains lots of compounds (if taken in sufficient doses) will make you sick or kill you. In principal, you could use selective breeding to create a tomato that was so full of them that they are in effect toxic/poisonous.

Now perhaps you are talking about a novel toxin in the plant. Well we know, that through natural random mutations, eventually some of your field of tomato plants will develop a mutation that that produces a toxin that is harmful to its pests, but not to the plant it self. Through the wonders of natural selection (or we could use artificial selection) and sexual reproduction (and more random mutations) the gene that produces this toxin will get amplified to the point that it becomes very toxic to the pest, but not to the plant.

It takes a long time, it may take many individual plants, and (if you are using artificial selection) it may be very expensive, but it can happen.

Or do you reject the facts of evolution and centuries of plant breeding.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[mcgrew]

PS - did a tiny bit of research and you are correct about the Canadians breeding rapeseed to have less toxicity. But the toxin in it doesn't sound very toxic to humans; it appears from the linked Cornell University page that it can be dangerous to livestock, but not people:

Plants involved

Some common plants that contain glucosinolates include:

Amoracia lapathifolia, Horseradish
Brassica campestris, Turnips, yellow-hulled rape
Brassica chinensis, Pak-choi
Brassica napus, Rutabaga, brown-hulled rape
Brassica nigra, Black mustard
Brassica oleracea, Cabbage, brusselssprouts, brocolli, cauliflower, kale, kohlrabi
Crambe abyssinica, Crambe
Limnanthes alba, Meadowfoam
Nasturtium officinalis, Watercress
Raphanus sativus, Radish
Thiaspi arvense, Stinkweed

Symptoms of poisoning

Glucosinolates are found in several oil meals that have been used traditionally in the northern states, Canada, and Europe as protein supplements for livestock. Some examples include crambe, mustard, and meadowfoam meal, and most importantly, rapeseed meal. Rapeseed meal contains several glucosinolates and produces not only oxazolidine-2-thiones but also isothiocyanates, nitriles and thiocyanates.

Poultry and swine and other nonruminants can tolerate 5-10% rapeseed meal in their diets. Symptoms of poisoning in poultry may include depressed growth , goiters, perosis, poor egg production, off-flavored eggs, enlarged thyroid in chick embryos, and liver damage. Symptoms of poisoning in swine include growth depression, goiters, and enlarged livers.

Although rumen enzymes break down glucosinolate aglucones to their toxic derivatives, other rumen enzymes are able to metabolize these toxicants into less toxic compounds. Hence, ruminants can generally tolerate diets of 10% rapeseed meal. More than this canl cause antithyroid symptoms.

Glucosinolates and their derivatives can be transferred through milk and placenta to the young of female animals.

Prevention of poisoning

Addition of extra iodine to diets can help to counteract the antithyroid effects of thiocyanates but not of oxazolidine-2-thiones.

Canadian plant breeders have developed low-glucosinolate cultivars of rapeweed. These cultivars are referred to as canola rather than rapeweed. Meal from them can be used in high enough quantities to provide all the protein supplementation demanded in livestock diets that require high levels of protein.

Benefits of glucosinolates

Glucosinolates are responsilble for the unique taste of many of the condiments that make our foods more interesting to taste.

Research indicates that glucosinolates and their derivatives may have potential in fighting human cancers. Inclusion of Brassica vegetables appear to help protect against rectal and colon cancer. These vegetables aid in the detoxification of carcinogens such as aflatoxins and polybromobiphenyl. They enhance the activity of several hepatic enzymes used in detoxification processes. Benzyl isothiocyanate and thiocyanate have been shown in the lab to inhibit tumor development in animals exposed to carcinogens. Indole-3- carbinol, a product of glucosinolates, is a compound with promise in anticancer research.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[chromas]

Especially when the child is crossbred with a bear...

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[h4rr4r]

This is why you must insist on single malt scotch. No corn to damage your liver.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[tbuskey]

If it's going to damage my liver, I'm switching to scotch. I'm sorry, Jack, but I just can't take the chance...

Unfortunately, your scotch and bourbon is likely fortified with a corn product.

If it has corn in it or any liquor made with a grain other then malted barley, it's not scotch. Bourbon is made with corn. Scotch is made with malted barley. If you're really concerned with the origins of your whisky, drink single malt scotch

Although, people wishing to avoid all GM foods, corn itself has been so selectively bred that it doesn't even resemble its nearest neighbors. It's even moribund if we ever disappear, because its seeds over compete and kill each other off. If you want to talk about crazy amounts of GM, take something that's essentially a grass, and turn it into corn.

Corn is probably more the result of selective human breeding then any other plant we eat. This is before anyone thought of gene modification. The ancestor of corn, tesonite, produced a mutant with larger kernels. Humans noticed this & kept planting it (like they have done with any other crop through the centruries). Corn (& tesonite) is promiscuous. It cross breeds very easily and can be easly controlled by humans. I think tesonite is rare or was wiped out by corn eventually.

Today's corn cannot survive if left to go native like an apple tree will. By today's corn, I mean even the corn seed that Columbus brought back to Europe. If humans don't plant it and cultivate it, it will out compete itself and die off

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[mcgrew]

Well the Thai Stick I had in Thailand in the USAF in 1974 was sure potent, but I've run across American strains lately that has been better. Law Enforcement's "20% more potent" is indeed pure bunk, mostly because the way they measure it, which is to dump the baggie into a grinder before testing. Pot in the '70s was seedy and stemmy and contained leaves, while today's pot is usually seedless bud grown indoors. But it's still better than '70s buds with the seeds removed, although not nearly so much as the cops would have you think.

It's still being selectively bred; I've know people who bred it. I imagine folks have been breeding it for potency since prehistoric times, but they're still at it.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're dumping selective breading and other old methods in with modern methods, you're an idiot. When most people talk about GMO, they're talking about the latter.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

How is patent encumbered food products a win for environmentalism? And you're talking about how silly anti-GMO fever is in an article saying how some of these products may actually be harmful?

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[mcgrew]

I think the applicable sentence here is "it takes a long time." A long, LONG time.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have a real source for this story? Or you just making stuff up like Fox News and The RNC.
Doesn't have the "ring of truth" to me.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[QRDeNameland]

Oh, I don't deny selective breeding is still going on, I know most certainly there is. (I "know people", too. ;-) ) My nit was the "increased THC levels fourfold from pot's heyday in the '70s" clause, where breeders have most certainly not bred the most potent strains of the '70s into 4x more potent strains today, which is how I would interpret that statement. In fact, I would argue that the last 30 years of cannabis breeding has pushed the envelope much more on yield than potency.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Golddess]

Until the GM plant is different enough from the non-GM plant such that cross-fertilization is impossible, terminator genes are inherently bad.

Remember, corn grows as such:
1) Plant 2 corn kernels, one with a terminator gene and one without. The terminator gene is _not_ intended to keep this kernel from growing and producing seeds. If it were, there would be nothing to eat on the resulting plant.
2) Fertilize each corn plant with the other. IANABotanist, but I hear that corn plants cannot self-fertilize. Even if they can, the likely-hood that _no_ pollen from the terminator crop would get on the non-terminator crop is probably very small.
3) Ears of corn grow on each. Because of the terminator gene on the GM corn, neither plant has produced viable seeds for planting (though they can still be eaten).

Obviously it's going to be fields of plants instead of just two, but if your neighbor is using seeds with a terminator gene and you're not, you're now fucked come next season.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[poopdeville]

If only that where true. Unfortunately for you it is not. Natural transgenerational horizontal gene transfer from one completely separate species to another does indeed occur though the medium of DNA viruses.

What you describe happens to be relatively rare. And usually does not produce viable offspring. Certainly, the selective breeder is not counting on a viral infection, or gamma rays, or anything in particular to introduce variation. The selective breeder profits from harnessing the millions of years of natural genetic variation, in order to find more fit (for a purpose) combinations of ancient genes.

Monsanto is infecting plants with genetically modified viruses on an industrial scale.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

He who smelt it dealt it, pal!

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Culture20]

Centuries of selective breeding by it's very nature also includes centuries of testing on humans. The pace and nature of the tinkering is such that everything is self-governing and self-correcting. Once you have a megacorp that can buy entire national governments and generally push everyone else accelerating the process you really have very little to keep the process from running amok.

Anyone remember Starlink GM corn in Taco shells? Imagine that happening with Doritos or other corn chips just before a Super Bowl. The country can't handle that much diarrhea.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[ArcherB]

First, you seem to accept that there's no absolutes -- considered organic, not is organic -- then you say with absolute certainty that it's not the chemical that's the problem.

What I meant is that it meets the standards set forth by whatever body determines what may and may not be labeled as organic as being organic. Using Bt to kill tomato hornworms will not make a farmer lose is "organic" credentials. Using something like Sevin will.

The system needs balances, yes, and while there is a balance of sorts, it's extremists on both sides.

Of course. The problem is that I can't tell who's winning. I'm pretty middle of the road here to slightly pro-GM (although, everything in my garden is 100% natural, planted from seeds from last year's crop). I have no problem eating GM foods as long as it's been tested. In this case it appears that Monsanto is in the wrong here, but I assume that this was tested on humans. The problem is that I can only assume as this article did not link to any (that I found while skimming).

I think we can both agree that we need a neutral independent body to test any food that we eat to ensure its safety. One that does neither assumes that GM is safe, nor assumes that it's poison.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[ArcherB]

What you neglect to mention is that products sprayed with Bt have a period of 2 weeks before they can be eaten by people, as the toxin itself then breaks down into byproducts that aren't harmful. If it's inside of the corn and not exposed to air, it may slow down said breakdown, and it can also mean that by law, there is nothing preventing companies from selling it within that 2 week period.

Not true. Crops can be sprayed with Bt and harvested same day.
From HERE:

Bonide Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) is a bacterium which is selectively toxic to many moth and butterfly larvae (caterpillars). The insects stop feeding and die within 2 to 3 days of ingestion. There is no residue problem, and being exempt from tolerance requirements, this product may be applied at the recommended amounts up to the day of harvest.

More can be found in this PDF:
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/BTgen.pdf

Monsanto had their way, apparently for years, in that they had this information and had no obligation until now to release it to the public. The same public, mind you, that is nearly forced into eating their foods containing these products. Go look for non-GM labeled foods in a supermarket in the US. It's just a bit hard to find them, considering there's no requirement to label either way.

I agree that these foods should be heavily tested by a neutral, independent body and labeled as such. The problem is that GM food gets lumped together. People do not protest against Monsanto GM foods. The protest against GM food altogether and hand out pamphlets that will describe this corn as "GM foods"

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Socrates did have the choice, but he chose to be true to himself and his thinking instead of becoming a sheep of the collective mentality of that time being forced to think inside the box or cease doing so at all.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[wolfemi1]

That's ridiculous. What if he can't find anything? Does he starve to death? Is this really a better outcome than making companies properly label their damn food? How can you be an intelligent, rational consumer if you don't have information about what you're buying?

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[snowgirl]

Earth is a production system with no backups.

If this is true, then God is the shittiest sysadmin ever!

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[snowgirl]

If there's a problem with corn itself (I don't avoid corn particularly though I don't usually like it much. Too bland), it has the potential to have a *devastating* effect

Corn products are used as anti-caking agents.

They also fortify almost all alcohol in the US with a corn product.

The question is rather HOW toxic the problems are with corn. If it's not so bad that the minimal levels present in nearly everything is dangerous, then there is little concern... however if it is so toxic that those minimal levels are dangerous, then the regular corn itself would be extremely hazardous, and it would be pretty much impossible for Monsato to cover it up.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[bmecoli]

You couldn't mate with a pig, though. If you could it would be crossbreeding. Again, nothing similar at all.

That doesn't stop some people from trying. ;p

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[wraithnot]

So "The System Worked", uhh, how?

1. If you RTFA you'd see that Greenpeace lawyers had to go to great lengths and fight a mess of court battles to get at the data that shows this problem.

As many of the more scientifically inclined folks have already mentioned, I don't think the data in the paper actually demonstrates that there is a 'problem'. They mention some reasonable criticisms of the original analysis (most notably testing too few rats for too short a period of time), but then go on a data mining expedition with some very sophisticated statistical methods. They look for correlations between 80 or 90 different parameters and the type of diet the rats ate. The best they can come up with are a few correlations that are only present in certain subgroups (i.e. some only occur in male rats, some only occur in female rats, some only occur in the low dose group of male rats, some only occur in the high dose group of female rats). Unless I completely misread the paper, they found NOTHING that was statistically different for the combined group of ALL rats that were fed genetically engineered corn as compared to the controls. Their reported results have all the hallmarks of statistical noise rather than a real effect. Even if they repeat the experiment and find exactly the same correlations in one sex of rats, but not the other, are male rats or female rats more like human beings?

Here are some telling quotes:

"Clearly, the statistically significant effects observed here for all three GM maize varieties investigated are signs of toxicity rather than proofs of toxicity".

"An identical effect in both sexes would have been exceptional, like with strong or acute toxicity. This is obviously not the case here."

"Overall, no kidney parameters in male animals are disrupted in the MON 810 feeding group, even though sensitivity to toxics appears in general to be greater in this sex [37, 38]." (they use this last bit to support the fact that findings in the other bt corn variety are real and then follow up with some creative handwaiving about why the two varieties of bt corn would yield such different results).

Why are companies reluctant to give out their raw data? Part of the reason is that anyone with some good statistics software can go on a subgroup data mining expedition and find all sorts of dire looking correlations that are actually statistical noise and then claim that it indicates 'organ damage'.

The only proposed mechanism for their observed 'signs of toxicity' that I find plausible is the higher amount of pesticides observed in the roundup-ready corn. But this would be an issue with the pesticides sprayed on the crops- not the genetically engineered corn itself. The human digestive system does a fantastic job of digesting any and all proteins made of L-amino acids so other than an allergic reaction I'm not sure how the EPSP synthase protein introduced into the first strain of corn or the bt proteins introduced into the second and third strain could cause issues in humans. They also propose a 'novel unintended toxic effect caused by the inherent mutagenic effect of the GM technology', but I thought that these sort of genetically engineered traits are isolated away from any unlinked traits by conventional breeding. The crazier the mechanism you have to propose to explain your findings, the less likely they are real. Gotta love Occam's razor.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[zooblethorpe]

Ah, if only for some mod points! :D

Cheers,

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[snowgirl]

I said most alcohols, not necessarily scotch itself.

I found: https://www.jeftech.net/Alcohol___B_Vitamins.html which talks about how alcoholics tend to get Pellagra from lack of Vitamin B, and that the US instituted a program in WW2 to start fortifying grains and cereals in order to ensure that vitamin deficiencies were kept down, even if people's diet consisted mostly of alcohol (this likely wasn't the REASON, but it was an effect).

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[snowgirl]

lime is what's mostly used to break up the proteins on the kernel to produce vitamin B12

Did you mean vitamin B3 (niacin)? B12 doesn't have too many vegetable sources (although it does have microbial sources).

Someone pointed that out earlier, but yes, you're correct. :)

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[snowgirl]

And of course, as mentioned above, pet food. Make sure it has no corn, since cats and dogs are also mildly allergic to corn and it(and most grains) have zero nutrition for cats anyways. Yes, this means virtually no canned foods and nothing from the grocery store's pet isle, but the difference is immediately noticeable. note - or just make your own food if you have a dog. It's pretty easy, in fact.

It's not that it has zero nutritional value, but rather that cats just aren't evolved to get the nutritional value from it from it, but rather from a secondary source (the animals that do eat them).

There's a lot of diabetes type II in cats, and it's most likely caused primarily by people feeding cats too much grain... it's essentially like feeding us a high-carb, high-sugar diet.

There are a lot of people who have corrected the type II diabetes in their cats by feeding them raw meat.

That's right, cooking for your cat is as easy as buying a steak and setting it out for them to nom.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[snowgirl]

I think you are missing his subtle implication that Bourbon and Jack would have GMO corn, because they are US based, but Scotch is from England, so would not... He probably doesn't realize that Monsanto sells GMO corn seed globally, and it is the defacto standard everywhere... Doesn't matter where your whiskey is from, it's probably derived from GMO corn.

Not to mention his subtle jab at the irony of drinking whiskey to begin with being bad for your liver... Overall, a pretty amusing fast first quip to snag the top comment slot.

Scotch can't come from England, it has to come from Scotland (according to what has been stated above). Of course, most people don't understand that England is not the UK and Holland is not the Netherlands... so, we'll just gloss over that.

The best info I got from this was that Scotch is made from barley, and not corn.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[snowgirl]

From what I've read, teosinte is still around.

I read an interesting piece that suggested that primitive man started off by popping the teosinte kernels like popcorn, although I think something like how hominy is treated and cooked is a little more likely... but then hominy is usually just boiled popcorn anyways, so...

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[snowgirl]

There weren't any plants on day one. That's when God divided the light and the dark. Plants didn't show up until day three.

Where is the +1, Humorous asshole mod points?

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been on the 'STOP MONSANTO' bandwagon since 1998 when I found out that GM crops infiltrate and neuter the reproductive systems in non-GM crops, making EVERYONE dependent on Monsanto for food! Antichrist in da house!

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how you slipped from "local FOX affiliate" to "Fox News" because "everyone" knows "Fox News" "lies." I'm not biting.

I'm not saying Monsanto isn't creepy because they are by suing neighboring farms who don't buy their patented seeds but get their seeds mixing in with their crops via accidents or winds.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

...naturally occurring variation.

Naturally occurring variation? We've used artificial mutagens to increase the mutation rate for conventional selective breeding for quite a while now.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't make one strain of corn toxic by breeding it with another strain of corn.

Sure you can. There are gazillions of different chemicals present in any living organism, most of which are toxic in a sufficient dose. If one strain of corn produces a toxic chemical, but in trivially low levels; and another strain of corn has a promoter region that just happens to get bound to the gene producing that chemical in the first strain (through the completely naturally process of conventional crossbreeding) - hey presto, toxic corn.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Philip_the_physicist]

The patent issue is my biggest objection to GMOs but one solution would be legislation stating that inserting a gene is not a novel invention, because any expert in the field would consider that obvious once its function is known, and the function is a discovery and hence not patentable.One could then still patent a technique for performing the modification, but that wouldn't affect the end-users directly, because the actual seeds would not be patentable.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[BrokenHalo]

I'm just informing you of your error in understanding the net effect "Round-up Ready" crops have on total herbicide use in agriculture.

I don't have an error of understanding. I have what most would consider a good amount of in-depth knowledge of biotechnology. I don't argue that Roundup Ready crops allow for fewer applications of herbicide. But those applications are quite heavy, and as I pointed out previously, we now know that Roundup is nowhere near as non-toxic as Monsanto used to claim. In fact, they got slapped down a few years ago for exactly those claims. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has caught Monsanto's scientists deliberately falsifying test results on at least two occasions.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Meski]

Did the levels that they used cause diabetes (like ordinary corn syrup does), or didn't they look for that? (hold the inconvenient truths!)

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Meski]

If it's going to damage my liver, I'm switching to scotch. I'm sorry, Jack, but I just can't take the chance...

Unfortunately, your scotch and bourbon is likely fortified with a corn product.

If you ferment GM corn, and then distill it, is the alcohol obtained from the distillation process different to alcohol from non-GM corn? Or is it like canola oil, which is structurally identical in GM and non GM forms?

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[hardwarefreak]

It's worth noting that this is entirely different from the so-called "Roundup Ready" crops which by definition encourage the farmer to use potentially toxic doses of the herbicide.

Obviously you have zero experience with crop production. Herbicides are *expensive*. The more one uses, the lower the profit per bushel and per acre. Crop farming is all about profit per bushel and per acre. Because of this, farmers choose to use *as little as possible* of Roundup, Prowl, Pursuit, Buctril, etc and still get the desired weed killing result.

Contrary to your flawed, uneducated viewpoint, a farmer who over treats with herbicides and pesticides for more than a season or few is no longer a farmer, as he's bankrupt. I grew up in a rural farming community of ~2000 people. I worked in an AG spraying business for two summers during college. I invoiced the chemicals coming in. Dealer cost on the "elite" herbicides was something like $800/gallon and we sold it for $1300/gallon, IIRC. The "cheap" stuff was $50/gallon. Some of it would treat 1 acre/gallon, some a few acres. Typically the more expensive stuff did more acres. Even with the $50/gallon "cheap" stuff at 1 gallon/acre that's $100,000 for just one chemical to treat 2,000 acres. That's just the herbicide. Add in a pesticide at the same cost and you're at $200,000. And that doesn't include application fees, which can run anywhere from $50/acre to well over $100/acre depending on whether you choose aerial crop dusting or spraying via ground vehicles such as TerraGators.

Calling seed "Roundup ready" is not an invitation to over treat one's crops. Pull your nose outta your books and your head outta your ass city boy. :-)

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[IonOtter]

It's too bad they got caught up in anti-GMO fever.

Yeah, having your liver and kidneys dying while inside your body does cause a fever. Yes it does.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[uninformedLuddite]

let's not forget that in the 'old way' of genetic modification it wasn't possible to make your potatoes part moth

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[uninformedLuddite]

You couldn't mate with a pig, though.

If you had been me last saturday morning when I awoke hungover you would eat those words

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[okmijnuhb]

Yeah sure.
Normal corn of any type will not damage your organs.
Unlike Monsanto corn.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[cas2000]

Monsanto's crude sledgehammer approach to farming practice has gone a long way towards discrediting the biotechnology industry in general.

Monsanto in particular and agri-business in general are the ONLY reason why I'm against genetic engineering.

it's not that there's anything wrong with genetic engineering of plants, animals, or even humans (i *want* more efficient lungs, heart, kidneys, muscles, etc). there's lots of things that just evolved through natural selection that could be vastly improved by some intelligent design :)

the problem with GE is that you can't trust evil bastards like Monsanto or any other corporation. You can't trust them not to poison you (or even the entire world) by taking short-cuts in the engineering or in the testing and/or ignoring warning signs if they get in the way of profit, and you especially can't trust them not to attempt to own the entire food supply of the planet by claiming patents on every single gene they can possibly get away with...and eventually, *inevitably*, the release of engineered organisms to wipe out "natural" competing crops that they don't control.

here's what it would take to gain my support for genetic engineering:

1. abolish all gene patents
2. outlaw and completely destroy Monsanto. start by hanging the board and senior management. the bastards
deserve it.

if there is such a thing as actual malevolent "evil" in this world, then Monsanto is the paragon.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[adamchou]

Any shareholder who would invest in a company that actually perceived a duty to kill humans in pursuit of profit is a fool of an investor.

Considering 4 of the 7 major tobacco producers are part of the S&P 500 and 2 of them are part of the S&P 100, I'd have to say you're WAY off

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Plekto]

That's right, cooking for your cat is as easy as buying a steak and setting it out for them to nom.

It's not quite that simple as you will also need to give them supplements of taurine and vitamins since you can't really safely feed raw meat these days. But that's quite easy to do. Seems crazy? Well almost every professional dog breeder makes their own food(and quite a few cat breeders as well), so why NOT also do the same for your pets? It's not much harder than making food for your toddler. (same argument applies to people who spend a fortune on baby food)

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Glock27]

How is patent encumbered food products a win for environmentalism?

One of the craziest aspects of all this is patented genomes.

I saw an incredibly sad documentary on GM crops where a farmer was forced to give up his family's seed bank developed over decades because the crops had been contaminated with Monsanto GM pollen from an adjacent farm (wind pollination).

If you think software patents are bad, genome patents are far worse. They are corporatism incarnate. The practical aspect for farmers is that instead of planting their own seed season after season, they're forced to buy new seed each year from the megacorps.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[tacarat]

let's not forget that in the 'old way' of genetic modification it wasn't possible to make your potatoes part moth

Oh, well, that sucks then.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Half-pint HAL]

What I meant is that it meets the standards set forth by whatever body determines what may and may not be labeled as organic as being organic. Using Bt to kill tomato hornworms will not make a farmer lose is "organic" credentials. Using something like Sevin will.

"whatever body" -- why should you trust someone if you don't even know who they are?

There was some concern a few years ago about the organic movement here in the UK. One of their most controversial policies was the selective approval of human-toxic chemicals, and simultaneous rejection of non-human-toxic chemicals.

The reason for this was driven by a green agenda, not a human-health one: a chemical that is toxic to humans will be heavily regulated and used in lower volumes than one that is not toxic to humans, and will therefore create less environmental pollution.

This is the danger in a system based on extremes: on one side we have multinational companies who value profit over human health, and on the other we have the greenies who value nature over human health. Any apparent "balance" ignores the fact that no-one involved is genuinely interested in human health.

HAL.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's going to damage my liver, I'm switching to scotch. I'm sorry, Jack, but I just can't take the chance...

Makers Mark

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[DwySteve]

How is patent encumbered food products a win for environmentalism? And you're talking about how silly anti-GMO fever is in an article saying how some of these products may actually be harmful?

Well, everyone has their own hotbutton issues. Organ damage is obviously one I would empathize with, but for as long as I can remember there have been people wailing and gnashing teeth about how our topsoil is disappearing and Iowa will become a desert in 50 years. Then, when something comes along to help that, queue the wailing and gnashing of teeth again over herbicies and GMO.

I guess it depends what you've been raised with as important. Being a farm kids the land is pretty important to me, and turning the lush farmlands of Iowa into a desert hits me emotionally as well as logically. I'm terribly happy that the chances of it are lessened now due to advances in science. Organ failure is bad, but I'll wait for corroborating studies before the gnashing ensues. But I've already seen firsthand topsoil NOT being washed away in droves from flooded farmland and that makes me very happy.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[TeXMaster]

"They" can't care -- they are are a legal construct, the Immortal, Soulless Corporation.

Uh, no, they are the human beings taking the decisions and ultimately responsible for _everything_ enacted by the company they manage.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[DwySteve]

Please read for comprehension. Note that the article "the" (in "the herbicide") makes the line refer specifically to Roundup, not herbicides in general. Farmers who use "Roundup Ready" corn do not use less Roundup, although they may (or may not) use less of other herbicides.

Indeed, they use much more Roundup because they use Roundup, period. It will kill non-Roundup ready corn just as readily as weeds, so it was NEVER used before. Now only it is used.

I can't imagine why any farmer would use Roundup and then other herbicides because simply but, it gets the job done. Plants die, and how! No sane farmer would waste his money applying multiple other herbicides, especially since there will simply be no weeds after using Roundup once. And by the time weeds might roll around again, the corn has grown a nice shady canopy over the field so there's no light for them anyhow. Problem solved. Amount of herbicide used much reduced, and limited to a time well before the corn is even remotely ready to be harvested.

Bottom line: if you care about overuse of herbicide Roundup-ready corn is a win-win situation.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a note - everyone complains about terminator seeds that gives no seeds for replanting. But if you want to sell on the Japanese or European markets, you need to plant seeds that are certified to not be GMO. And the only way to get certified seeds is to buy them new every year. So terminator or not, you're buying seeds.

And besides, corn that is planted is almost always hybrid. That means the seed companies cross AA x aa to sell you Aa seeds to sow. If you save them for next year, only half your crop will be hybrid and there is a tremendous loss of yield. So you still need to buy seeds.

(my experience is that my parents and many uncles all farm)

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[berbo]

So "The System Worked", uhh, how?

1. If you RTFA you'd see that Greenpeace lawyers had to go to great lengths and fight a mess of court battles to get at the data that shows this problem.

Exactly, the system did work - for the lawyers.

You know, the ones who created the system.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[number11]

Bottom line: if you care about overuse of herbicide Roundup-ready corn is a win-win situation.

Well, so long as you don't mind your corn being toxic.

(That's IF the studies finding toxicity are correct.)

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[AK Marc]

Maybe these "reactionaries" aren't as ill-informed as you think.

Either they are aware that it's "chemical additives" that are the problem, and are lying to change the debate to the manner in which these chemical additives are added, or they are ignorant that the issue is about chemical additives and think it's about "touching genes causes humans harm."

Either they are ignorant, or liars. Either way, I dismiss people that run around using things like this as arguments against genetic modifications.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Any shareholder who would invest in a company that actually perceived a duty to kill humans in pursuit of profit is a fool of an investor.

Considering 4 of the 7 major tobacco producers are part of the S&P 500 and 2 of them are part of the S&P 100, I'd have to say you're WAY off

That's because tobacco is addictive, people will buy it whatever the costs, just like the defense industry, so long as there is an army and investments in it, those corporations will make money. There is a certain amount of guarantee of ROI in these businesses.

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Then, when something comes along to help that, queue the wailing and gnashing of teeth again over herbicies and GMO.

Because maybe the real solution is not herbicides or GMO, but moving away from monocultures?

Re:Oh God, not the bourbon.

[YourExperiment]

What you can't do is produce viable offspring.

I think you'll find a lot of mid western farmers' sons disagree and can prove you wrong by contradiction.

forbes magazine's company of the year

[fl!ptop]

what's most disturbing about this is forbes magazine just named monsanto company of the year.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[snowgirl]

what's most disturbing about this is forbes magazine just named monsanto company of the year.

"Company of the year" has everything to do with business model, and not the quality of the product offered.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not disturbing at all. They are all in this together. It's not outright collusion but they all play this game of one hand washing the other in the name of corporate profits. Under eight years of a Republican President nothing was done that might get in the way of businesses making money, and it probably started a lot sooner than that. People may just love their little gadgets and such, but huge multinational corporations, based in a country whose government has an unbridled addiction to money, are really cultural poison. In the coming decades this will begin to come to light.

You don't have to be "organic". Just eating "natural" is not that expensive. And much healthier.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[Wonko the Sane]

Under eight years of a Republican President nothing was done that might get in the way of businesses making money, and it probably started a lot sooner than that.

So... one year under a Democratic president with a Democratic congress exactly how many corporate abuses have been curtailed?

If you believe that any substantial difference exists between the two parties you are nothing more than a useful idiot.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[mcgrew]

what's most disturbing about this is ferengi magazine just named monsanto company of the year.

Why would a Ferengi care about your liver? Monsanto has always been evil. Before the Clean Air Act you couldn't drive through Sauget, IL with your windows down; you couldn't breathe and the air burned your lungs. Very toxic. These sociopaths don't give a rat's ass (or liver) about your health, your well being, anything at all about you except how much money they can extract from your wallet and how best to exploit you.

This is why we need regulations. Now, to you "free marketers" out there, how am I supposed to make an informed decision when there are no data showing what products have GM corn and what products have normal, non GM corn? Your god of commerce fails here, and we need "socialist" regulations badly.

GM anything should be required to be clearly marked on the container.

This bothers me; I eat a lot of corn, and a lot of stuff that has corn in it (anything sweetened these days uses corn syrup). I like to drink a bit, which is one reason I stay away from Tylenol. Now I guess I'll have to stop drinking soda and stop eating corn, or stop drinking.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[Bartles]

Is that truly what you see as the role of the president? Personally preventing businesses from making money? Good luck with that strategy in 3 years.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[jonbryce]

A free market requires full information about the product to be available. So what you need is free market regulations, like in the EU. Here, products containing genetically modified material are required to be labelled as such, and that guarantees that nobody will buy it.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[MickyTheIdiot]

Sing "If I only had a brain," strawman.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[biryokumaru]

As noted above, genetically modified produce is quite possibly the very definition of agriculture. Please inform yourself.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[Anonymous Coward]

A bit above the top I'm guessing :-)

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] and a lot of stuff that has corn in it (anything sweetened these days uses corn syrup) [...]

Just to be clear here: sweetening with corn syrup is mostly a US thing. If I pop out and buy myself a can of locally bottled Coke or Pepsi over here (Scandinavia), it's sweetened with old fashioned sugar. Same goes for european chocolates. On the other hand, there's sugar/sweetening in bloody everything now, so who knows how much of these evil proteins are in circulation.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[darthnoodles]

I guess Monster is a shoe-in then.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[Waffle Iron]

Please spare us the silly technicalities. We're not talking about crossbreeding an orange and a grapefruit here.

We're talking about crossbreeding our food with toxic microbes. That has never been remotely possible in agriculture until they started directly fiddling with DNA.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[Anonymusing]

"Roundup Green is People!"

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[daem0n1x]

Not disturbing at all, just business as usual.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care that it's GM, I care that it damages my liver.
The lesson here seems to be in requiring strict testing for GM on line with what is mandated for other ways of introducing chemicals into our food.
We should focus on the end product and develop procedures and regulations for dealing with the diversity that GM enables.
Possibly a new lineage should be required to document that it's at least as safe, healthy and nutritious as the original product before you're allowed to sell it as e.g. "maize". This would affect naturally bred lineages, too, but presumably anything on the market today would be grandfathered in.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[Anonymous Coward]

So... one year under a Democratic president with a Democratic congress exactly how many corporate abuses have been curtailed?

(re)Regulating banks is going to be the next big fight after healthcare.
It'll be between free market ideologues (aka Republicans) and anyone with two braincells to rub together.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[locallyunscene]

Because 8 years ago when this was approved both the congressional majority and the president were Democrat...

We'll see how they handle this situation. And while I agree it's not likely to be much better than the original Republican oversight, give "credit" where it's due.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[jfengel]

Well, off the top of my head, there's the Credit CARD Act of 2009:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_CARD_Act_of_2009

And the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act

And a big act for managing public lands:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Public_Land_Management_Act

Plus a bunch of other legislation that didn't make it past the filibuster, a rather high bar that has now become de rigeur. And a lot of regulatory redesign that doesn't require the Congress, like the EPA deciding to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.

So yeah, I'd say there is a difference in the two parties. Maybe not as big as you'd like, but if you don't see any difference, you're not looking.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[StuartHankins]

Unfortunately I agree the 2 parties are more similar than different. That's why we need more parties. But first there has to be a change in the way Americans think -- in the current situation, too many people blindly inherit the party of their parents which is typically one of the 2 major parties. Independents aren't given any real chance, let alone any of the other possibilities.

We are ruled by corporations instead of ruling ourselves. Some of us want a real change, real choices, and while Obama's on the right path in some ways, the widespread corruption we've seen IN BOTH PARTIES since Reagan is sickening.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[StuartHankins]

Pedantry will get you nowhere... oh right, this is Slashdot. You'll probably be modded insightful or something.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[Richy_T]

HFCS is not Kosher. Become Jewish.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[neurophil12]

So... one year under a Democratic president with a Democratic congress exactly how many corporate abuses have been curtailed?

If you believe that any substantial difference exists between the two parties you are nothing more than a useful idiot.

A little specificity would be nice rather than throwing about ignorance. There are substantial differences between the two parties as a number of recent policy and political battles have shown. On the issue of corporate responsibility and oversight the differences appear to be vanishingly small. The distinction is important. Another important distinction is that while the Democratic party as a whole is not pushing for change on this or associated issues, there are members that can be persuaded to take up these issues given sufficient grassroots political will. That cannot be said of Republicans simply due to their constituency. I will admit I have not researched in depth the efforts of anyone in the political system on this topic (other than being on the mailing list of Food Democracy Now and reading relevant articles now and then), so if anyone has further details I would appreciate reading them.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[Anonymous Coward]

"Company of the year" has everything to do with business model, and not the quality of the product offered.

And yet Forbes likes to talk about "social responsibility".
http://www.google.com/search?q=forbes+social+responsibility

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[cain]

If you believe that any substantial difference exists between the two parties with respect to corporate profits you are nothing more than a useful idiot.

There, fixed that for you. There are many differences between the parties as long as you're not discussing corporate profits. On topics like like abortion, support for gay rights, foreign policy, gun control, etc the parties do differ. But they are both the same when talking about the campaign finance and the corporations that line thier pockets. Both Sarah Palin and Barack Obama supported the first round of bank bailouts. That should tell you something.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[Wonko the Sane]

On topics like like abortion, support for gay rights, foreign policy, gun control

Funny how if you ignore the speeches and focus on their actions the current president is practicaly a clone of the previous president on these issues.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[Anonymous Coward]

The reps have Palin, I'd call that substantial.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[Favonius Cornelius]

Under eight years of a Republican President nothing was done that might get in the way of businesses making money, and it probably started a lot sooner than that.

So... one year under a Democratic president with a Democratic congress exactly how many corporate abuses have been curtailed?

If you believe that any substantial difference exists between the two parties you are nothing more than a useful idiot.

Poor comparison. In those 8 years Bush and co. had plenty of time to do things, Obama has had *1* strife filled year to fix the entire earth. I think those who expect change in a few months or a year are an idiot. Republican politicians are corrupt people who have lost their souls.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[shutdown -p now]

The problem is that GM doesn't need to be harmful, so there is a need to distinguish stuff that's simply GM, from stuff that's GM and harmful for your health.

In cases like this, I really wish the executives of the company could be sued, as persons, for negligence causing death, rather than the company itself.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[bussdriver]

Result: SAME. I will not disagree. The blabbing differs; but the actions don't much.

It does at least feel better when some minority gets slapped down by the system - it shows there are some people trying to do something.... although it also shows the majority don't want anything good to happen. Perhaps someday people will notice and defend the few surviving decent reps while replacing the vast majority the reps? Nah... people can't tell the talkers from the doers; and that is just the few who bother to listen at all.

Makes me think of good cop vs bad cop - similar ends; different method - but why do some people like the bad cop more?

Turn off the TV.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[snowgirl]

"Company of the year" has everything to do with business model, and not the quality of the product offered.

And yet Forbes likes to talk about "social responsibility".
http://www.google.com/search?q=forbes+social+responsibility

Of course... it's part of their successful business model... to mention it... not necessarily to practice it.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[bill_mcgonigle]

This is why we need regulations. Now, to you "free marketers" out there, how am I supposed to make an informed decision when there are no data showing what products have GM corn and what products have normal, non GM corn? Your god of commerce fails here, and we need "socialist" regulations badly.

Stop patching government-created problems with government-created problems.

Who is it that created this Monsanto mega-corporation monster, a fictional superhuman with 'natural' rights and no consequences?

Hint: corporations were effectively banned in the first nearly 100 years of the USA, except for limited times and for public benefit. John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil got corrupt politicians to 'fix' that.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[okmijnuhb]

That's because Monsanto only makes one thing;
MONEY.
If it was profitable to feed you rat poison, after fighting litigation, do you think they would do it?

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[left00coaster]

A useful idiot is better than a useless one.

So, I guess you haven't noticed the OTHER THINGS that are going on? Oh, I don't know . . . maybe the ECONOMY, for one: While we were being robbed by Wall Street, et al, the robbery was actually deliberately ignored (or even deliberately abetted) by Bush/Cheney and their cronies. They knew they were bankrupting us, and they kept at it, because they knew they would profit from the chaos they caused . . . and that the Dems wouldn't be able to do anything progressive, because they would be busy trying to fix the Bush/Cheney mess.

Of course, what's saddest of all, some -- the useless idiots -- will swallow the 2012 GOP campaign slogan: "Four years is enough."

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[Wonko the Sane]

You are absolutely right about how the Bush administration allowed the country to be looted.

What you are missing is that Obama hasn't done one damn thing to stop it.

Face the facts - the banksters own both parties. If Obama wasn't their lapdog then we would have seen this speech already, but we haven't.

My Fellow Americans.

The last three decades have been marked by outrageous scams and frauds throughout our financial system. This is not a partisan political issue and has consumed both Democrat and Republican administrations and Congresses alike.

As of today, that era has ended.

To those who believe that blowing bubbles, making homes unaffordable for the common man in this country or driving stock prices to ridiculous levels based on hype and false claims is a means to become wealthy, your days of being able to strip the wealth of the common American have come to an end.

Those federally-chartered institutions that promote a "bubble economy" based on unreasonable and unsustainable levels of debt will find that this administration will do everything in our power to revoke those charters. This includes but is not limited to The Federal Reserve.

To those who have ripped people off, including those who marketed and sold worthless securities, those who claimed to have "protection" against market events when they knew the person they bought from had no money to pay, or who worked together to make loans and sales to people through the use of various lies, such as falsely overstating incomes, you will soon be facing a jury of your peers.

I am today directing the FBI and Department of Justice to open and begin investigations, starting at the top. Each and every one of the large financial institutions in this country, including the banks, GSEs and their officials that operate under a federal charter or banking license will face a forensic audit. We will identify and bring to justice all of those who have robbed this economy of its vitality and stolen your futures. Where possible we will claw back every penny of these individuals and firms' wealth so as to provide you with whatever compensation we can recover. Those firms who have committed wrongdoing will be broken up and their officials barred from serving in the banking or securities industries in the future.

Our own administration and the people in it will be subject to this investigation, as will all members of Congress, the lobbying firms and interests that interact with our government. There will be no sacred cows and no rocks that will be left unturned.

We will investigate homebuilders, realtors, appraisers and mortgage brokers. We will look into the FHA, Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and determine exactly how all of these loss-producing loans came to be made. Where we can identify persons or corporate procedures that led investors, firms or people to be misled, we will bring charges.

The days of theft and fraud from the American public, followed by demands to be bailed out when these scams and schemes reach the end of their rope, are over. Civil and criminal penalties have and do exist for these offenses, and they will be enforced to the fullest extent of the law.

All Americans deserve to be able to invest with confidence and rely on the statements and publications put forward to them. Americans deserve to be told the truth. When Americans are ripped off, they deserve justice. Beginning today, every American will receive exactly that.

The days of the "Wild West" on Wall Street and K Street alike are over.

Thank you.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[left00coaster]

If you're going to measure Obama's performance by adherence to campaign speeches, of course you're going to be disappointed. Sad as I am to say so, I, too, am disappointed in Obama (healthcare, Gitmo, Don't Ask/Don't Tell, etc.).

But the real problem is expecting him to change things by himself. Speeches are given to rally the electorate. Governing requires honest cooperation of BOTH parties. And, to date, I think you'd have to agree that the GOP has only been obstructionist. They are seeing to it that nothing gets done. That way, they can say the Dems did nothing.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[Wonko the Sane]

If you're going to measure Obama's performance by adherence to campaign speeches, of course you're going to be disappointed. Sad as I am to say so, I, too, am disappointed in Obama (healthcare, Gitmo, Don't Ask/Don't Tell, etc.).

So you are basically saying that anything that a politician should be expected to be a pretty lie for the unwashed masses so there's no reason for us lowly peasants to demand more? Fuck that.

But the real problem is expecting him to change things by himself

Bullshit. The president of the United States needs neither permission nor cooperation from anyone to direct the FBI and Department of Justice to arrest, charge and ultimately incarcerate the criminals who have looted this country. The fact that he hasn't chosen to do so simply means that he is complicit with the criminals, just like the presidents who came before him.

Governing requires honest cooperation of BOTH parties. And, to date, I think you'd have to agree that the GOP has only been obstructionist. They are seeing to it that nothing gets done. That way, they can say the Dems did nothing.

Please. The democratic party has enough votes to do whatever they want no matter what the republicans try. Their failure to get anything done is entirely their own fault.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[mcgrew]

John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil got corrupt politicians to 'fix' that.

So there is no true free market. So why do the corporate Ferengis keep blathering on about the free market?

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[bill_mcgonigle]

So there is no true free market. So why do the corporate Ferengis keep blathering on about the free market?

Surely the Ferengi must have a Rule of Commerce about 'useful idiots'?

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[left00coaster]

Sorry, Wonko, a President is constrained by the laws of the land. He absolutely needs cooperation, from many individuals and organizations, to arrest, charge and incarcerate anyone. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee it. Despite what Bush/Cheney may have thought, the POTUS is not a fucking KING!

I do agree that some fault does lie with the Democrats for not driving their agenda more forcefully. But I still think you're talking out your ass about the rest of it. Sorry, it's my opinion. Nice talking with you though.

Re:forbes magazine's company of the year

[mcgrew]

I would think so.

Yummy Roundup!

[zenaida_valdez]

Eat enough corn and... Roundup Ready people!! Mmmm Yummy Roundup.

Re:Yummy Roundup!

[KevetS]

Does this mean I won't have to use bug spray anymore if I go camping? AWESOME! Thanks, Monsanto!

Re:Yummy Roundup!

[Ozlanthos]

Cool, maybe the mosquitoes will quit eating me alive every summer!

-Oz

Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this info?

[plover]

Monsanto did the research in 2000 and 2001, and obviously knew the outcome. So how did they manage to suppress the data and results for 8 years?

government protection

[geniepoo]

Isn't there some person or group in government that will step in and protect us?

Re:government protection

[Anonymous Coward]

We need less government regulation, not more. Let the free market decide what is good for us. Just think how many people would have died if we had lost all that corn to pests!

Re:government protection

[gnud]

you see people would rather have a toothless "small government"

Re:government protection

[captainpanic]

Even Monsanto wouldn't be so stupid to wipe out their own customers and their own employees, right?

I still believe that the governments must protect:
1. the use of GMO should be explicitely mentioned on any product.
2. any government has the obligation to protect its citizens - through control, regulation, and if necessary, closure of businesses.

Re:government protection

[Jinjuku]

The explicit statement of GMO corn as an ingredient is fine. What happens when you get an 'in nature' cross breed? Who does the testing on what is thought to be 'normal, generic, corn'?

Re:government protection

[schizix]

Isn't there some person or group in government that will step in and protect us?

uh oh, the government cares about us?

Re:government protection

[jedidiah]

Yes. We need less "government regulation". That way anyone that feels that they have been wronged by Monsanto can just form a nice lynch mob and start hanging senior executives.

Re:government protection

[Wonko the Sane]

That way anyone that feels that they have been wronged by Monsanto can just form a nice lynch mob and start hanging senior executives.

If too many citizens feel that the government is protecting criminals rather than prosecuting them then eventually it will come to this, but I suspect that bankers may be first in line.

Re:government protection

[JWW]

You are actually claiming that the US government is small and toothless.....

Unbelievable.....

Remember when you ask the big government to do what you want, that may be great for you, until they start doing what you don't want.

Re:government protection

[Anonymous Coward]

Even Monsanto wouldn't be so stupid to wipe out their own customers and their own employees, right?

If they were insanely rich after the fact, why not? Ethics, sustainability and the environment is, after all, left wing, communist, tree-hugger, la-la-land propaganda. Never mind King Midas and all that.
But with the ubiquity of corn (by-)products, the Monsanto executives are probably no better off than the rest of us.

Re:government protection

[Anonymous Coward]

Just what government are you implying is small? The US Government hardly qualifies as small.

Re:government protection

[gnud]

It was actually more meant as a comment on how every time a problem arises, "the government" should really have taken care of it 5 years ago, but otherwise, "the government" is just after your hard-earned cash.

Re:government protection

[xirusmom]

That would work perfectly if we had an educated population and honest ways of communicating information. Well, we don't. And it is only getting worse.

Re:government protection

[zoney_ie]

The answer nevertheless is not small government, but rather to reform government so it works properly (or rather "reasonably" as a more realistic goal). The US has not I think had the same amount of reform of government over the centuries as European governments, many of whom have had to radically change at times.

Re:government protection

[Richy_T]

Even Monsanto wouldn't be so stupid to wipe out their own customers and their own employees, right?

At least, not *this* quarter. If it takes longer than 3 months, that's a problem for another day.

Re:government protection

[ilsaloving]

That's what TV is for.

"OMG we're being abused by the people of power! We have to stop them!"

"We do! Right after American Idol is over..."

Re:government protection

[jecblackpepper]

"Even tobacco companies wouldn't be so stupid to wipe out their own customers and their own employees, right?"

There is a long history of companies who were completely willing to sell products that end up killing their customers, provided that they made a profit from them first.

Re:government protection

[rajafarian]

Well, it does appear to be small and toothless when it comes to corporations.

Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck

[pyster]

Corn is in every-fucken-thing. You cant avoid it.

Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck

[snowgirl]

Corn is in every-fucken-thing. You cant avoid it.

My mother's side of my family has a genetic disposition to allergy to corn. Yeah, when she found out she had it, it really limited her ability to just buy whatever.

Although, since she stopped consuming HFCS, she started losing weight.

Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck

[Pictish Prince]

To be fair you only need to avoid yellow corn. Blue corn is all right. Corn syrup shouldn't contain genetic material or plant-produced pesticides but it has high levels of mercury anyway. Buying organic is the best you can do. Incidentally, Monsanto & the rest have lobbied to prevent food producers from labeling their product "GMO-free".

Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck

[Lumpy]

Yes you can, you actually have to put forth effort.

Dont buy products with it in it. My lettuce and fresh veggies dont have it, my meat does not have it, The flour I bake with does not have it.

It means switching from Insta-fake-food they sell in a box to actually getting off your butt and cooking.

Your general health will increase nearly 3 fold if you do.

Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck

[vegiVamp]

Well, on the plus side, the world *is* overpopulated.

Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us cook from scratch

Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck

[Bigbutt]

Oh yea, we know that. My wife discovered her sinus issues over the years were caused by a slight allergy to corn. She cut out corn (gluten free) and for the past couple of years she's been lots happier.

[John]

Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck

[Joe Snipe]

Your meat almost certainly has it as most animals are raised on corn

Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck

[tonyreadsnews]

my meat does not have it

Are you sure? What did you 'meat' eat?

After watching Food, Inc. I've started looking for grass fed beef, and free range chicken meat.
Its a little tougher to find (not at the supermarket) and a can be quite bit more expensive.

Also this same issue can come up in products other then corn. Round up ready is also in Soy. I couldn't find much on other Round up Ready products, but a short google search showed Round up ready lettuce is on the way.

Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck

[pyster]

You might want to see the documentary "King of Corn". Think of it as a primer and then continue your research. ITS IN EVERYTHING. You're wearing it now I bet.

Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Sure you can. I'm allergic to milk protein. Do you have any idea how many products where I live contain milk solids? It's a huge amount ... at least until you walk out of the isles upon isles of highly-processed food and into the meat and produce sections. Yes, it will mean you'll have to learn how to actually cook a meal, unless you're into raw food.

Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck

[mgblst]

Your meat probably does have it in, since they feed corn to animals.

Re:Avoid Corn? Bahahahahahaha good luck

[True Grit]

to actually getting off your butt and cooking

Dude, you're talking to Slashdot geeks, our idea of 'cooking' is 30 seconds in a microwave...

(Except for the lucky ones who live in their Mom's basement.. Mom probably takes pity on them once in awhile and feeds them decent food.)

Cheap food not good for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Noooooooo really?

I thought everything made from corn would be good for you...

You want health... pay for it.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd wager the answer to that is probably $$$.

A shame that it only seems to count as a crime against the community to knowingly poison the water supply. Any other type of community poisoning seems to be A-OK.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[PopeRatzo]

Monsanto did the research in 2000 and 2001, and obviously knew the outcome. So how did they manage to suppress the data and results for 8 years?

The invisible hand of the free market made the data and research invisible.

Here's the movie about it

[iCantSpell]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4867493254318912106&ei=QMpNS4XwGIa-wgP24rnvDg&q=world+according+to+monsanto&hl=en&view=3&dur=3#

Could american law please...

[carlhaagen]

...put these filthy pigs behind bars already?

Re:Could american law please...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was rats, and they are already dead :(

Re:Could american law please...

[MickyTheIdiot]

One of the main goals of corporations is to make sure owners, stockholders, and employees don't have personal liability. Who do you put in jail?

We're still in the age of no personal accountability due to the last administration. I don't see Obama doing all that much to untie that knot.

Re:Could american law please...

[mcgrew]

Nope; this is the United States of Ferengenar. Our national religion is the worship of money. here's our national prayer:

Our gold, who art in the bank, hallowed be thy name.
My kingdom come, my will be done on earth as it is in orbit.
Give me today my gourmet food and cocaine and fast cars and mansions and deliver me from socialism.
For money is the power and the glory forever.
I'm in.

An effect of pesticides?

[Sockatume]

From their conclusions:

This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown

It sounds to me like the issue isn't the GM itself, but the over-use of novel pesticides that it permits.

Re:An effect of pesticides?

[rhsanborn]

It sounds like that may be a possibility, but just as much as it may be a possibility that it's the corn itself. Other researchers need to replicate these results and do a couple of controls to try and isolate just the pesticides, just Monsanto corn, etc.

Re:An effect of pesticides?

[Pedrito]

It sounds to me like the issue isn't the GM itself, but the over-use of novel pesticides that it permits.

No, you're misunderstanding. They don't allow the use of pesticides, the pesticides have been inserted into their genome. The pesticides are derived from bacterial DNA that is naturally herbicidal. Unfortunately, it's also a rodenticide, which means it's probably pretty poisonous to us as well..

Re:An effect of pesticides?

[Blakey Rat]

But how am I going to be SCARED of GM corn if it's due to something else?

Big science-y words like "genetic" and "nuclear" are supposed to scare the pants off me for no reason!! You can't take that away from me, it's all I have!

Re:An effect of pesticides?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point, but I wonder if we can really decouple these two things. The whole point of most of these modifications is to allow farmers to spray the crops heavily without damaging them.

Re:An effect of pesticides?

[ceoyoyo]

Having food crops suffused with poorly tested pesticides sounds like overuse to me.

It does sound like the GP might have been referring to the roundup resistance, but his statement is accurate regarding built in pesticide production as well.

Re:An effect of pesticides?

[MrMr]

That sounds more plausible to me than any hidden GM effect; but the ability to drastically increase the amount of pesticides dumped on the fields was the very reason why 'roundup ready' crops were designed in the first place by the pesticide producer in question.

Re:An effect of pesticides?

[geekoid]

wrong, but keep on milking your sacred cow.

Re:An effect of pesticides?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ding ding ding ding ding!!!

Finally, someone who actually read the first few sentences of the article!

(Not that permitting the over-use of the pesticides could not be considered an intrinsic problem).

Re:An effect of pesticides?

[transami]

Exactly. The problem with GM is not the tech itself. The tech can certainly be used for good --increased vitamin content for instance. But we were lied to. Instead of using GM to produce better food, all those government/taxpayer research dollars went to produce lower quality food for the sake of higher yields and thus higher profits. We already know that pesticides are bad for us. Now they use GM's to allow 10x more to be used. It's criminal really. But that seems to be the way of everything today.

Re:An effect of pesticides?

[bucolic]

I believe the pesticides/insecticides are produced within the corn itself, due to GM.

Re:An effect of pesticides?

[okmijnuhb]

Don't be scared, enjoy some Roundup with all your meals.

High Fructose Corn Syrup

[Dr_Barnowl]

I think the majority of "high prevalence of corn in processed foods" is HFCS - does this contain significant fractions of the proteins involved.

Not that I think HFCS is a health food. I'm so glad that Iowa corn lobby influence can't reach over here to the UK.

Re:High Fructose Corn Syrup

[zimtmaxl]

No other industry has as much freedom as the food industry when it comes to the ingredients of their products! WORLDWIDE! There are laws, but they only cover a tiny fraction of the possible substances the industry can put into their "food".

Re:High Fructose Corn Syrup

[vlm]

I think the majority of "high prevalence of corn in processed foods" is HFCS - does this contain significant fractions of the proteins involved.

Ideally it would contain approximately none, as the proteins would mess with the taste, odor, and color. HFCS is a very highly refined product... I would vaguely guess that there is about as much protein from random contaminants like rodent hair as protein from the corn.

Generally speaking HFCS syrups are sold with nutritional information for 100g of the stuff, and the nutritional info always lists 0g of protein. Now that doesn't mean 0, it means rounded to 0. So, if scientists write the nutritional data, that means less than 500 mg protein per 100 grams, or if marketing wrote it, it means 999.99999999 mg or less per 100 grams. However marketing doesn't care about protein content of HFCS at this time, so I'd feel confident that its well under 0.5% by weight.

I'd worry more about, say, frozen creamed corn, corn chips, or corn tortillas.

Re:High Fructose Corn Syrup

[JoeMerchant]

I'm so glad that Iowa corn lobby influence can't reach over here to the UK.

Does anyone in the UK drink Coke? Are you sure they don't import the HFCS? At current subsidy and tariff rates (and fuel costs), I'd bet it's cheaper to ship US sourced HFCS to the UK than it is to make it locally.

Re:High Fructose Corn Syrup

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so glad that Iowa corn lobby influence can't reach over here to the UK.

Perhaps you should be a bit more concerned about knife crime, sharia law and Islamic extremism than the Iowa corn lobby? I've not heard of the Iowa corn lobby cutting off people's heads, but that maybe information that gets suppressed.

Re:High Fructose Corn Syrup

[blackchiney]

You would think so but you'd be incorrect. The reason of why the US uses HFCS and other countries don't is because of the sugar lobby and the corn lobby. Sugar is cheap to produce so the sugar lobby had the Gov't slap a tariff on it for sugar imports. Great for US sugar producers, not so great for everyone else including you, me, and Coca-Cola. Corn produces got the government to subsidize the price of corn. So the price you pay for corn is cheaper than it costs to grow. Now farmers are producing lots of corn because they know they'll be getting paid by the government no matter what it costs them. They've been getting more inventive with it too. Alternative fuel, alternative polymers, and alternative sugars like HFCS. Unfortunately these subsidies only work in the US. So while the UK pays the real price for corn, they also pay the real (inexpensive) price of sugar. Hence, this is why Coca-Cola in the UK won't be turning to HFCS anytime soon.

Re:High Fructose Corn Syrup

[Richy_T]

If things haven't changed, UK coke uses cane sugar, not HFCS.

US coke would too probably if corn weren't so heavily subsidised with taxpayer money.

Re:High Fructose Corn Syrup

[Richy_T]

Also, go to the Mexican section at the grocery store. They may well have cane sugar coke there. Also, kosher coke for passover is made with cane sugar, not HFCS.

Re:High Fructose Corn Syrup

[JoeMerchant]

If things haven't changed, UK coke uses cane sugar, not HFCS.

US coke would too probably if corn weren't so heavily subsidised with taxpayer money.

And so, I'm just a little bit sadder to be living in the U.S. after knowing this. I thought by now we would have corrupted the whole world with our "cheap corn" output, glad that we haven't.

Re:High Fructose Corn Syrup

[mooncrow]

Many products contain material derived from processed corn: A Zillion Uses for Corn. Just avoiding actual corn products and products with HFCS won't necessarily ensure that you avoid eating something that comes from from corn. It is used so widely now, it is almost unavoidable.

Hey, I like puffed rice!

[FooAtWFU]

And you health dweebs are making it too expensive!

(I tell you, when I was about 1-2, that was the big treat: rice cakes. mmmm. we couldn't afford much else.)

Re:Hey, I like puffed rice!

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that was just me. When we were kids, Puffed rice was like the cheapest of the cheap stuff. Now all "the yogurt, sprout-eating motherfuckers" (--Denis Leary) make it cost more than Lucky Charms and CocoPuffs and "Sugar-Frosted Cocaine Bombs" that were "too expensive" back then.

Ah, irony. Oh Well. Marshmallow bits FTW.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[MrMr]

I have no idea.

Riddle me this

[PopeRatzo]

All you "free market" enthusiasts out there, answer this question for me:

How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this? Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto's GM corn?

Tell us how getting government out of business is going to prevent a little thing like people dying from organ failure for eating Monsanto's frankencorn?

Re:Riddle me this

[thepooh81]

We probably wouldn't have had the government subsidized corn so much that it turned into our main source of food.

Re:Riddle me this

[cbope]

Mod parent up.

Re:Riddle me this

[Wonko the Sane]

How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this? Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto's GM corn?

People would stop eating corn products.

Those who were damaged by the defective product would seek damages in a civil court.

If the courts declined to provide relief then the injured parties would all get together, storm the Monsanto headquarters and lynch all the executives.

Re:Riddle me this

[snaz555]

All you "free market" enthusiasts out there, answer this question for me:

How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this?

I'm not a free market enthusiast, but even I can answer this: you take your business to a store that doesn't carry GM produce or products that contain it. My local Whole Foods store, for instance, is GM-free and predominantly organic.

Re:Riddle me this

[Jinjuku]

And when your 'Organic Only' store is carrying a hybrid/cross breed that occurred in nature (that no one is testing for) you still have consumed a GMO crop.

People, please you need to understand what the end game is in all of this...

Re:Riddle me this

[cartzworth]

Correct. The free market assumes perfect access to information (information wants to be free, no?). We just got more information on this product. Thus we can make decisions based on this new information (it gets "priced in"). We then return to an equilibrium after the use of this GM corn falls in disfavor. Of course, I'd also like to see more studies confirming this before any conclusions are drawn. How about a simple comparison of how widespread this GM corn is, when it was released, and national rates of organ failure over a long period of time?

Re:Riddle me this

[vvaduva]

Yeah, I was out sick during that meeting where Monstanto's board of directors issued the "we need to kill all our customers" directive.

This thing called "the legal system," where someone could sue someone else for damages, trespassing, etc. is amazing from what I hear. People from everywhere can come in, fill out paperwork and ask for these things called "damages," but hell..what do I know? I am just a free market enthusiast.

Re:Riddle me this

[JasterBobaMereel]

Require the food producers to label the source of their ingredients and let the customer decide ... ...when people avoid Monsanto's corn then the food companies will stop buying corn from farmers using GM Corn ....

Regulation of the market should always be like this ... require business to give the customer (at all levels) the information to make informed decisions and the market will self regulate, the only reason Monsanto's GM crops are used in the US is because people don't know which food they are in ... in Europe many are labelled GM Free and many customers choose based on this ...

Re:Riddle me this

[Anonymous Coward]

How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this?

This was covered in my Microeconomics class, and is generally ignored everywhere I see people invoke free market principles:

In a properly functioning free market, information is perfect and freely available to all parties. So, if the market were truly free, you could inspect the products you could purchase and you would know exactly where they came from. I.e. you would know, from labeling, an Internet lookup of lot numbers, or other means, exactly how much GM material and which varieties were in the product you are buying. And you would have a means of verifying that this information is accurate and not simply fabricated. From this, you could research the studies on the effects of these GM products. This, of course, assumes that you're smart enough to understand this information when you get it.

The problem is not that the free market is failing. The problem is that the market is not actually free, since you have no means to make an informed decision. The solution is to have a consumer-accessible, independently-verifiable audit trail of the history of any food product you can buy. How you can do that without government intervention is a separate issue needing further development.

There is also the fact that such a system will increase the cost of food you buy. So then it becomes a question of whether you like your food cheap or verified. History suggests that cheap will win every time.

Re:Riddle me this

[Blakey Rat]

Well, it's kind of an unfair question, because in a truly free market the corn wouldn't have the ridiculous subsidies attached to it that we have. The reason candies and sodas use corn syrup instead of sugar is, because of the fucked up way we handle corn, it's actually cheaper that way.

Besides that, the answer is: if you believe it harms your liver, don't buy it. If enough people don't buy it, it becomes unprofitable and farmers stop growing it. It's really simple.

The answer to most of these "I'm so outraged" posts is usually, "then don't buy it." For example:
"Google double-dips on the ETF for their Nexus One phone!" "Ok, so don't buy it."
"Modern video games are really expensive and the gameplay isn't as good as older games!" "Ok, so don't buy them."
"Windows is a crummy OS and it crashes all the time!" "Ok, so don't buy it."

You see, once you learn the "then don't buy it" secret, all of Slashdot becomes redundant.

Re:Riddle me this

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a simple comparison of how widespread this GM corn is, when it was released, and national rates of organ failure over a long period of time?

Consider that, as was pointed out earlier, food manufacturers have zero requirement to indicate that they've used GM corn (or other GM products), how do you propose we find out how widespread it is?

Re:Riddle me this

[Rogerborg]

In a free market, what's to stop them just buying Monsanto slop, throwing some grit in it, and selling it for twice the price as "GM-free organic"?

Actually, what's to stop them from doing that right now?

Re:Riddle me this

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. The best way to make money is a monopoly. Specialise in one product and get rid of all competing products.

Even without the subsidy, agricultural corporations would specialise in one crop to increase profits. That is exactly THE reason why everybody grows corn in the first place: it has the best ROI. If there were no subsidies, the next cheaper single crop would replace corn.

Don't pretend "free market" would mean diversity, sunshine and rainbows. Diversity cuts into profits.

Re:Riddle me this

[vlm]

How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this? Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto's GM corn?

In a free market, you wouldn't have patents, trademarks, copyrights, so I highly doubt the genitive case of "Monsanto's GM corn".

Also without the federal govt collecting our income taxes, skimming off quite a percentage for salaries and corruption, and then distributing money to politically connected corn farmers, I really don't think we'd be growing much corn.

Finally, if we had a free market, that would imply informed consumers making intelligent choices, so I think we'd simply not buy the bad stuff.

If the above is "not possible", which I believe, then I guess a free market is not possible, so we need to have the govt control it and regulate the hell out of it, in my opinion, just like health care.

Re:Riddle me this

[lorsungcu]

And what would replace it? It isn't like we just eat corn when we've finished eating other things and are no longer hungry, we eat it because there's a ton of it and it's really dynamic. Whatever would replace it would likely be similarly modified.

Re:Riddle me this

[forand]

So your solution is to not let anything gain enough power to unfairly manipulate the market for their benefit? I can agree with that. How pray tell can we get to such an Utopia?

Re:Riddle me this

[7n7]

We can't even get enough people together to storm DC and lynch all the politicians there who have been screwing us royally for decades. What makes you think anyone would storm Monsanto headquarters over some bad corn?

TNT

Re:Riddle me this

[sznupi]

The word you were looking for is "oligarchy", not socialism.

Re:Riddle me this

[Anonymous Coward]

"How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this?"

Customers would die and the company would lose profits due to the loss of customers.

All that "informed decision" talk in other replies is nonsense. Even with our regulations, companies try to hide, cheat and lie as much as they can get away with.

I find it hilarious how "free market" people think everything would be better, when with all the existing regulations so much crap happens. Makes me wonder if they are just repeating that gospel out of greed.

Re:Riddle me this

[sznupi]

Oh, so you want to force producers by regulation to do something in this "free market" of yours, I see...

Re:Riddle me this

[sznupi]

It's even more amazing then you think; at certain point, thanks to your hard work over the years, you are one of the very few entities being able to afford expensive lawyers and long legal case!

Re:Riddle me this

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention, Monsanto wouldn't be the giant super nearly untouchable megacorporation it is if it weren't for government-granted patent monopolies.

Re:Riddle me this

[sznupi]

So your solution is to not let anything gain enough power to unfairly manipulate the market for their benefit? I can agree with that. How pray tell can we get to such an Utopia?

More of free market!!!

Re:Riddle me this

[maxume]

A consumers union would form and certify that foods passed certain safety standards.

For example, there is the Forest Stewardship Council; they don't exist in a regulatory void, but the FSC is out ahead of lots of governments:

http://www.fsc.org/

Re:Riddle me this

[vvaduva]

Pickup the revised code in your state and read it. That's what I did. You don't need an expensive lawyer to sue and win against a company like Monstanto, not to mention that a judge will almost always nudge you and guide you along the way in a pro se case. What costs you a few hours of your time a week can cost Monstanto hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees.

Re:Riddle me this

[Hurricane78]

Yeah, because Monsanto would be your government (think corporate feudalism).

The free market is another way to say “the law of the jungle”. Which as you know, is quite the opposite of democracy and equality. So which one is it? Democracy or the free market. Cause you can’t have both. Ever.

The law of the jungle means that the strongest one wins. If he is stronger he will grow until he got everything under his control.
What do you think how our countries were created in the first place?
At least for all European countries it went like this: Strong men became knights, with castles, who then became kings and queens. And those empires then created groups of “noblemen” around them. Some of those were jealous, there was a revolution, and those “noblemen” became what we call the “parliament”.

But the common people also wanted power. So the upper class created the illusion of choice, by letting the people choose, which one of their own gets a seat in the parliament.

Everything still is under control by the same small group. Just that now, the upper levels of companies have become the “noblemen“.

Re:Riddle me this

[jburroug]

Since there is no good way to tell with processed foods where the raw ingredients come from or what was done to it at the factory I by and large eschew eating processed, packaged foods. Over the past few years I've given up eating fast food, drinking sodas and have ditched all the standard "junk food" I grew up with. I threw out my microwave a few years ago as part of this effort to remove TV dinners as an option for nights I was feeling lazy. Right now I'm fortunate enough to have access to three different Saturday farmer's markets a short drive from my home so in any given week about 25-50% of my calories come from local farmers that I've come to know and trust over the past year. It's not just bean sprouts and granola either - I get fresh wild caught gulf shrimp, grass fed beef, free range chickens and eggs, farm raised hog and the richest, creamiest freshest goat cheeses in addition to the wonderful seasonal fruits and vegetables. I know everyone involved in the whole chain of sowing, growing and harvesting what I buy at these markets. That's how I found a free market solution to the problem.

Of course it's not as though the government has actually made this free market solution easy - none of these small farmers qualify for the kind of subsidies bigger farmers growing industrial crops get. Not to mention new regulations being written to solve food contamination issues caused solely by industrial farming are putting a huge squeeze on these small farmers that don't have the vulnerabilities to contamination that the industrial farms have in the first place. It's kind of hard to get E.Coli in your spinach if your supply chain consists of pulling it out of the ground and driving it thirty miles into town the next day unless you detour to a feedlot on the way and wash it in the waste pond first. Likewise it's kind of impossible to get dangerous E.Coli in your beef when you avoid putting your cattle in an overcrowded feedlot on an unnatural diet of subsidized (GM?) corn and antibiotics.

Of course I know I'm lucky - I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford to pay a premium for better food though I've certianly made cuts to other parts of the budget to afford this and to live in a large enough city (Houston) that's also close to a lot of agriculture so the supply and demand works out for my farmers to keep selling to me. I've also had to make some big adjustments to how I live - I've really had to make food a hobby and part of my social life in a much bigger way than it is for most Americans. I spend two or three hours nearly every Saturday morning hitting up the markets, chatting with farmers, ranchers and fishermen buying up what looks good and fresh. I've had to learn our local growing seasons so I know what to expect from month to month. I'm learning all about home food preservation, canning and charcuterie so I can buy my favorite produce in bulk at the peak of the season and enjoy it all year. It is a lot of work, easily 15-20 hours a week, but I eat better than I used too and both my GF and I have lost quite a bit of weight once we dumped all processed foods from our diet starting about two years ago. Side bonus is avoiding organ failure due to Monsanto products.

Like I said it's a lot of work just to eat but we've only had access to cheap and easy food year round for what the last 50-60 years or so? My food routine isn't any more onerous or expensive than what my grandparents generation and earlier grew up with and they seemed to manage just fine.

If the .gov were going to do anything to actually help our food system first we'd end subsidies and price supports, ban the import of foodstuffs from countries with even worse food safety records than our own (looking at you China) require that all packaged and processed foods clearly list not only the ingredients but the source of said ingredients down to the name of the farm or ranch it came from. Likewise all packaged animal products should be required to have a picture of the actual farm the animal was living on at the time of slaughter (or milking or egging or whatever) Then consumers can really make a choice about what they are eating and where it came from. Until then we're stuck paying a hefty premium for actual food from actual farms .

Cheers,

Re:Riddle me this

[Gothmolly]

Your premise fails because the market isn't free.

When you accurately describe the market, come back and troll some more.

Re:Riddle me this

[sznupi]

Oh, I see...

But...why is that? Could it be because of...central regulations?

Re:Riddle me this

[Shotgun]

From your analysis, I see a clear direction for the purpose of government. Instead of instituting prohibition laws (drink this..not that, you can have breast implants...but steroids aren't allowed, you can smoke tobacco..but not hemp, etc), the government should be about disseminating information. (alcohol does this to your liver, (why the hell are steroids outlawed), marijauna has this effect on your brain). Then leave adults alone to make their own decisions.

-The "War on Drugs" goes away.
-Real science benefits, because people will be forced to learn it or die, making the gene pool a little cleaner.
-Responsibility for oneself will once again be seen as a requirement for being considered a mature adult.
-Government power will decrease (which is why it will never happen)

Re:Riddle me this

[vvaduva]

Why is what? I am not getting your question. There is no central regulation in the legal system...there is the law, and that's it. The law allows that if a company's product causes damages to an individual, you can sue the manufacturer.

Re:Riddle me this

[maztuhblastah]

How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this? Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto's GM corn?

Well, for starters, we wouldn't have paid massive subsidies to farmers to grow corn. This subsidization has artificially distorted the supply and demand curves thereby making the profitability of the crop far less dependant on the market demand than it should be. Since farmers will grow more corn to get more subsidy money (as the subsidies are dependent on crop ratios and output), many farms will have a monoculture, thereby necessitating the use of more pesticides, etc. (Just as with operating systems, monocultures are *bad* when it comes to farming.) Due to the increased use of said pesticides, and the increased vulnerability of the crops, there will be an increased demand for plants engineered to withstand both the pesticides and the pests -- thereby creating Monsanto's market.

Simple, when you get right down to it.

Tell us how getting government out of business is going to prevent a little thing like people dying from organ failure for eating Monsanto's frankencorn?

Sorry, but I don't have a good answer. If I had to guess, I'd say that it would have no impact on the human death toll due to genetically-engineered food. Now admittedly, that's because (to the best of my knowledge) there isn't actually such a death toll, but still...

Also, just a tip: try to steer clear of those "clever" terms like "frankencorn". They don't make you sound witty -- they make you sound like a juvenile zealot who's more concerned about ranting against the opposition than actually discussing the issue at hand.

Love the smug, "I've got ya now!" attitude you've got going there though. It *did* succeed at getting some responses.

Re:Riddle me this

[Alinabi]

Yes, people would stop eating GM corn products. And GM wheat products. And GM soy products. And meat and dairy products from cattle fed with GM feed. But that's ok, 'cuz Monsanto can just GM the people, so they can survive through photosynthesis.

I don't know about you, but once my liver and kidneys have been damaged by a defective product, there is no redress civil courts can provide. Lynching the Monsanto executives wouldn't make me feel any better either.

Re:Riddle me this

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer is simple...

GeneCo!

Have you not seen Repo: The Genetic Rock Opera?

Re:Riddle me this

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't buy that.

Re:Riddle me this

[JasterBobaMereel]

This just the same as forcing them to list the ingredients so customers can choose to buy based on them and check they are not allergic to any of them

The free market works both ways, I am free to not buy your product, the same as you are free to sell me anything

The reason they have to be forced is that if no-one lists ingredients then no-one has any incentive to... if no-one lists the source then no-one has any incentive to ... in the EU a few companies started to (for their own reasons) and now many have GM information on them, the only role of the government should be to break monopolies or cartels (in this case a cartel of silence)

Re:Riddle me this

[WalkingBear]

In a pure free market system, the most valuable item on a company's portfolio is it's reputation. A company deliberately misleading the consumers of their product would quickly find themselves without consumers.

How do the consumers find out? I answer that by pointing you to the very top of this discussion. Either someone inside the company lets it out (wikileaks?), a competitor takes a good look at the product (normal business practice: study your competition) and lets the word out, or some other curious person looks at their food and says "um, something's fishy here".

Word gets out and that companies reputation goes into the toilet. No one would sell their product because no one would want to buy it. Their competitors would, rightly, expound greatly upon such a scandal.

It's a self correcting problem.

Re:Riddle me this

[hamburger lady]

yes and no. in a free market system we'd still end up seeing GMO crops. maybe not corn due to subsidies, but others such as wheat instead. a free market does not stop the creation of large-scale agriculture or monocultures.

to me the question is a bit misplaced. this stuff is a symptom of technological progress which would happen irrespective of the system.

Re:Riddle me this

[sznupi]

"There is no central regulation in the legal system...there is the law, and that's it."

^uhm, yeah, and that's why people shake their heads when hearing logic of free market evangelists :)

Re:Riddle me this

[hamburger lady]

pretty much everything we eat has some form or another of corn in it. either corn syrup or some food chemical extracted from corn.

in a country that takes food seriously i'd agree, then again in a country that takes food seriously we would never have gotten to this point. but in america at least 'people would stop eating corn products' is about as unrealistic as saying people would stop watching TV.

Re:Riddle me this

[rbrander]

Jeez...I'm not a free-market conservative because I pretty much agree with the GP: there are problems it isn't good at solving.

But now that the parent post has three replies, not one of which is "Ummm, hey, the lynching thing, that isn't part of free-market conservatism, it's pure anarchy. Free-market conservatives do support the rule of law when they lose a court case."

Please, "free-market conservatives", somebody say that.

I like a good political argument, but the lynching thing, even for Monsanto execs I think are rotten, that makes me equate "I am a free-market conservative" with "Please put me on a terrorist watch-list".

Re:Riddle me this

[vvaduva]

So when you run out of substance, you poke fun and walk away? That's what I thought - people love to bitch about how the free market screws them...when I give them a way to deal with the problems, they still bitch that's too hard. So we have an entire nation of bitches who can't wait to wear their gimp suits on election day.

Re:Riddle me this

[Anonymous Coward]

except that what really happens is lawyers and corporate-friendly media supress the information or warp the conclusions and nothing changes

Re:Riddle me this

[Hurricane78]

Except that access to information is rather the opposite of perfect. Companies prevernt what they can, everybody tries to handle information the way that brings him the biggest advantages, and if it happens that people get the information, they choose to ignore it because “it’s so cheap!” or because ‘Brangelina’ did some irrelevant shit.

Re:Riddle me this

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a civilised country after all...

Re:Riddle me this

[Wonko the Sane]

Lynching the Monsanto executives wouldn't make me feel any better either.

No, but it might make other executives think twice about selling defective food.

Re:Riddle me this

[Anonymous Coward]

What an absurd question. Checking for poisoned foods (whether it's via spraying or GM) has pretty much nothing to do with it being a "free market" or not.

Besides, I think most people understand that there is a difference between "free market" and unregulated anarchy. The problem comes in when regulations are put in place not to provide a level playing field, but to artificially prop up companies/industries that would have otherwise failed on said level playing field.

Re:Riddle me this

[Wonko the Sane]

What I posted is not what I want to happen but rather what will happen sooner or later if a population continually gets abused. They'll take it and take it until all of a sudden they don't any more.

It's much better to have a fair and equitable court system so that it never gets to that point but if the government ever loses legitimacy in the eyes of the citizens then it's just a matter of time.

Re:Riddle me this

[NewtonFan]

Regulation sounds like a better option.

Re:Riddle me this

[Rogerborg]

In a pure free market system, I could slap "Sony" on my goods and sell them as such. The problem with you Freebies is that your definition of "free" is always "just enough regulation to support my particular Utopian fantasy".

Re:Riddle me this

[sznupi]

Nah, I'm just laughing from my comfy place across the Pond.

Interesting that you didn't seem to take note of this (EN is my 3rd language after all, I'm rather horrible at it). Makes me really wonder about your daily environment...

Re:Riddle me this

[locallyunscene]

Piece of the puzzle to be sure. But GMO foods and agribusiness would exist without gov't subsidy.

I agree it's the reason corn is so heavy in American diets today.

Re:Riddle me this

[Wonko the Sane]

It sound better until all the regulators are captured or outright bribed. Then you're back to square one.

Re:Riddle me this

[Anonymous Coward]

One pre-condition of a "free market" scenario is that the consumers all know everything (IE they would know if a food is good or bad for them).

Re:Riddle me this

[Richy_T]

In a pure free market system, I could slap "Sony" on my strawmen and sell them as such.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Riddle me this

[Stradivarius]

Most "free market enthusiasts" do not define a free market as anarchy. Thus we would be perfectly fine with the government establishing an appropriate safety/testing regulation to cover things like this. There's a wide spectrum between having no police (bad), having the right amount of police (good), and having a police state (bad).

Please don't allow a vocal minority to redefine free markets as zero government intervention, rather than the minimum necessary intervention. As with most things in life, striking a balance is key.

Re:Riddle me this

[Mab_Mass]

People would stop eating corn products.

Good luck with that.

Unfortunately, a very high fraction of our foods have corn. Go to a supermarket and try to find anything in a package without corn syrup.

Now, go over to the meat and dairy aisle. Because it is cheap, cows eat corn. Almost all beef is fed on corn, and corn provides a supplement to dairy cows, which leads to all the milk that your kids are putting on their breakfast cereal (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!).

Truth be told, we're not getting rid of corn as a food source anytime soon. The only way to avoid it, as far as I can tell, is to cook most of your own food from scratch. Buy local veggies and grass fed beef.

For that to happen, we need a HUGE shift in the average American's diet.

Re:Riddle me this

[Wonko the Sane]

For that to happen, we need a HUGE shift in the average American's diet.

That shift will happen, or it won't, depending on how much the indviduals value their health.

Re:Riddle me this

[MobyDisk]

"free market" does not mean "no laws against poisons in food"

While there are probably people who believe in a a world with no laws, the term "free market" does not mean this.

Re:Riddle me this

[Alinabi]

Which would in no way fix my liver and kidneys.

Re:Riddle me this

[labradore]

There's a couple things to take note of here.

1. The argument for free market capitalism relies on some assumptions: 1) That you have a well-functioning society where those who do wrong are punishable and punished and 2) that the market and regulations on it are not rigged by the most powerful players to their advantage. We have endemic corruption and we have a broken society. Free markets cannot function here.
2. The big food growers control the legislature and the courts to the extent that they write their own ticket when it comes to subsidies and regulation. There has been almost no meaningful regulation of food safety beyond a certain low threshold of liability that the food producers must not allow their product to be tainted with externally harmful agents such as bacteria or very high levels of pesticides or contaminants. Anything intrinsic to the food such as proteins, hormones or fats are basically unregulated and there is no liability on the part of the manufacturers for their products. Producers work very hard to seal off all information about their foods from the public.

Monsanto is one of the most evil companies of our time in terms of profiting from directly poisoning the land and the people who ultimately consume its products, and bullying those who would stand up to it. However, the entire food production system is so flawed that you can't just look at regulating one aspect like GMOs to try to fix it. The larger and stronger the regulatory apparatus becomes, the more costly it is to operate, the more costly it is to operate under its regulation and the more incentive there is for those who are regulated to capture the regulators. Nearly all regulatory bodies of consequence have been captured by the industries that they regulate. This puts a bigger moat around the largest players and a higher barrier to entry for small business. It also raises the prices for everything and both allows and forces the big players to look for more ways to cut corners and reduce costs and fatten profits.

Why do you think we free market types rail against regulation? At this point regulation no longer means enforcing a set of rules to protect the public. It means enforcing a set of rules to protect the profits of the largest players (sometimes) in the guise of protecting the public. Regulation is not the way to win. Enforceable liability is the way to cause all parties to take responsibility for producing safe products, whether food, toys, cars, houses, or whatever. Simple, broad liabilities such as: your product must not do unnatural harm to those who would use or consume it. If someone eats too many sweet snacks its their own fault if they get diabetes but it's the producer's fault if the consumer is poisoned by carcinogenic chemicals in the cookies that are used as preservatives. This implies that companies cannot be given uber-citizenship status. They can't have the rights and privileges of a person and also the ability to hide in foreign countries or simply close up and die if they decide that future liabilities exceed future assets and income. Owners and management must be held accountable for their actions under the same timetables as statues of limitations, regardless of whether or not the company they worked for still exists or was based in the same country as its products or services were sold in. Why do you think free market types argue for tort reform? How can I operate a small business if I run the risk that someone is going to purposely slip on the wet floor in my store and break their knee and then sue me for all their lawyer can muster? We have to make sure that businesses are allowed to work in a sane and safe legal environment and that they are all held to the same standard of liability that any normal person would be. We have to make sure that the little guy (who, by the way, is responsible for the majority of the economic output in the developed world) is not hamstrung by regulation and artificial barriers to entry that are arranged by their bigger

Re:Riddle me this

[Idiomatick]

Declining to comment on the silly lynching plan... You've got no chance in hell winning a law suit. There is no way to PROVE the corn is what caused your liver failure w/e. It damages millions of people just a little bit. Like second hand smoke.... Or factory/power plant pollution... I can't go sue the local steel plant because I have asthma.. though it was likely a huge contributor.

What you would do if you got enough mad people is force a law to be made that shut them down.... Which is somehow socialist/evil. And no longer a 'free market'.

Capitalism is a great and powerful force. Competition is an amazing thing that makes companies very efficient. The goal should be for the government to point this power and wield it. That way the companies work to our advantage not against us for their own advantage. Set rules and frameworks in which capitalism can prosper in a way advantaging the populace, Simple.

Re:Riddle me this

[PopeRatzo]

We probably wouldn't have had the government subsidized corn so much that it turned into our main source of food.

Corn was a "main source of food" in the US long before the government got involved.

But let's assume that corn was only a lesser part of the food supply. Now tell me how the "invisible hand of the free market" would deal with a company like Monsanto with huge resources hiding research and data showing that their product could be deadly.

A good example is the tobacco industry, which existed before there was an FDA and government regulation. They also hid research showing that their product could hurt consumers.

How did the "free market" deal with that issue?

Re:Riddle me this

[PopeRatzo]

The free market is another way to say “the law of the jungle”.

Yes it is.

And that also means that the "weak get culled from the herd".

That's why I find it so surprising that there are as many big "free market" fanboys here on Slashdot.

You'd think they'd realize that if we start culling the weak from the herd that they're going to be looking at some very bad days.

Re:Riddle me this

[PopeRatzo]

How would the unencumbered "socialism" handle a problem like this?

Do you believe that "unencumbered socialism" is the only possible alternative to a "free market" fantasy?

That's a straw man argument.

Re:Riddle me this

[sjames]

That's a bit tenuous, don't you think? (by a bit tenuous, I mean a desperate leap) Monsanto sells the stuff all over, not just where it's subsidized, and it also messes with other staple foods like rice and canola that don't have those subsidies.

In addition, while threatening only a major portion of the food supply rather than the vast majority of it is somewhat less serious, it's not by much.

Re:Riddle me this

[PopeRatzo]

Ummm, hey, the lynching thing, that isn't part of free-market conservatism

You better tell the teabaggers.

Re:Riddle me this

[Kintanon]

One of the underpinnings of a free market is an informed population. Being informed is the first step.
The second free market issue here is that government regulation is what allows Monsanto to strong arm all of the other farmers and dominate the market.
In a free market system of informed consumers the situation should end up with multiple companies genetically modifying the corn which is used in the market and competing to sell it to the companies which process it. If people demand a safer genetically modified corn, they will get it. If they demand the cheapest possible corn, they'll get that. Those two might not be the same thing though.
In a scenario like that there is actually an industry available for people testing and rating genetically modified corn. A company might start that tests the corn of several companies that make it, all of whom pay for the privilege, and then rates them based on various criteria. Consumers could then avoid food which contains products from unrated companies at the very least.
The free market DOES have a solution for this kind of thing, but it requires that the government not protect large companies and in fact actively work to make their business transparent to the people.

Re:Riddle me this

[sjames]

Meanwhile, millions starve since their choice was corn or rocks. The liver damaged people die young anyway and somehow their loved ones don't find the dollar off corn syrup coupons to be much consolation. That's a GREAT "solution" there.

You could be on to something with the lynchings though. I'll support an unregulated market so long as the vital feedback mechanism of lynching executives is equally unregulated.

Re:Riddle me this

[Anonymous Coward]

So was yours, dumbass.

Re:Riddle me this

[shutdown -p now]

All you "socialism" enthusiasts out there, answer this question for me:

How would the unencumbered "socialism" handle a problem like this? Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually Party members in charge of corn production?

Judging by the "Party" reference, you 1) confuse socialism and authoritarianism, and 2) think that, if one stands against extreme forms of capitalism, one can only stand for extreme forms of socialism.

Re:Riddle me this

[shutdown -p now]

People from everywhere can come in, fill out paperwork and ask for these things called "damages"

What amount of damages could redress damaged organs that may prove to be impossible to replace? What about life?

Re:Riddle me this

[shutdown -p now]

Besides that, the answer is: if you believe it harms your liver, don't buy it. If enough people don't buy it, it becomes unprofitable and farmers stop growing it. It's really simple.

It's a good advice once the cat is out of the bag, but how many people get to be poisoned before that happens?

There's also the issue of disparity here. A large corp (or any sufficiently wealthy entity, really) can engage in massive propaganda campaigns, and drown anyone speaking out against it in noise. We see that happening in practice all the time. Thus, consumer has theoretical access to all relevant information - the problem is that he has to fish it out in a sea of rumors, lies, and FUD. Grassroots information spreading campaigns can counter that somewhat, but they are still no match for a propaganda machine oiled with $$$.

Re:Riddle me this

[vvaduva]

That's for a jury of your peers to decide, and the purpose of the legal system to make these decisions. What amount of damages could redress in any other civil case related to life and death? GM makes faulty breaks and causes people to get in accidents and die, tobacco companies kill their customers with their product, etc. The courts are filled with liability cases where a product caused serious injury or death. I don't see how this is any different.

Re:Riddle me this

[Rogerborg]

Purity ain't what it used to be. I miss Hitler. :(

Re:Riddle me this

[holmstar]

good luck with that... unless that GM-free food was grown many many miles away from any GM food, then it most likely is at least a little bit cross pollinated, such that at least some of the corn kernels, beans, rice, whatever are genetically modified, even if the field was planted with non-GM seeds.

Re:Riddle me this

[Jinjuku]

Ya, I mean look at Titanics reputation. Sure no one would ride it after that first trip. But what about all the people that went down with it. Is this just 'acceptable collateral'?

Re:Riddle me this

[snaz555]

And when your 'Organic Only' store is carrying a hybrid/cross breed that occurred in nature (that no one is testing for) you still have consumed a GMO crop.

They DO random genetic testing you know. There are independent labs that test for GM markers, and distributors and retail chains that sell GM-free products do use them. That's not to say that a GM strain can't accidentally make it into the pipeline, obviously it's bound to happen. However, I personally am not too concerned with the occasional accident as much as the regular daily stuff.

I'd expect a libertarian to hold the view that if you contaminate your neighbors' soybeans or corn you're liable for cleanup and replanting, as well as medical care to people who ate it. This in turn would force growing to be geographically separated so as to prevent cross-pollination - or if that's not possible GM crops would be a commercial dead end. The liability litigation would simply bankrupt anyone who tried to grow it.

However, in the real world as opposed to libertarian utopia the best is probably to simply restrict growth of GM strains to laboratory settings.

Re:Riddle me this

[bill_mcgonigle]

Tell us how getting government out of business is going to prevent a little thing like people dying from organ failure for eating Monsanto's frankencorn?

Partners (owners) would be personally liable for whatever ill Monsanto reigns down without Corporate protections. Hence they'd very likely not release a known-harmful product. See also big tobacco, asbestos, etc.

Government effectively gives them a license to kill.

Re:Riddle me this

[JBaustian]

Before you all jump on Monsanto, tell me how you know that all the other food you eat is safe?

And before you demand more government regulation, tell me how you know that you can trust your government?

If you've ever seen a chicken that just lost its head, that is how you are all acting.

Re:Riddle me this

[berbo]

How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this? Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto's GM corn?

People would stop eating corn products.

Those who were damaged by the defective product would seek damages in a civil court.

Dead people can sue?

Re:Riddle me this

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a woman, or a pussy?

Re:Riddle me this

[toddestan]

You're way ahead of yourself. You're assuming that in a unencumbered free market, that the victim would even know that it's GM corn that was making them sick, and that Monsanto is the company responsible. I don't see how would even arrive there without government sponsored research to study things like this.

Re:Riddle me this

[vvaduva]

God yes, we would never figure out that something kills us without the government's help! How in the hell did we ever figure out that eating led causes death!

Re:Riddle me this

[Anonymous Coward]

How much is your suit for damages worth when your child is going to die young because of a bad liver from consuming GMO corn? More money can't fix everything.

Re:Riddle me this

[toddestan]

Yes, how would we figure it out? It's not like you eat corn and immediately get sick, allowing you to quickly associate one with the other. It's something that acts slowly over long periods of time. How would you know it's corn and not one of the many thousands of things people normally come into contact with everyday? You might recall it took thousands of years for people to figure out that lead is bad for you.

the answer is american mindset.

[unity100]

you know, the 'hands off business', 'corporations regulate themselves better', 'trade secrets' shit.

now it has come to the point of damaging our kidneys, but there are still morons who are able to defend that kind of bullshit.

Re:the answer is american mindset.

[mea37]

Really?

You equate the failure of the FDA to properly deal with something they are tasked wtih regulating (safety of food) with an economic mindset regarding the proper regulation of comporate financial conduct?

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you there.

Why is it all or nothing with GMO

[ocularsinister]

I may be wrong here, but I think the current discussions regarding GMO are an 'all or nothing' approach - in other words, you can grow any GMO crop or GMO crops are all banned. This doesn't make sense to me - some GMO crops may be fine, others not so. In particular, I think some GMO should be banned, full stop:

• broad-spectrum herbicide tolerant species should be allowed ever: this is giving the farmer instructions to completely soak the countryside with lethal chemicals (and who is to say the rats were sick because of the GMO or the herbicide?)
• Genes that produce sterile crops: This is putting our food security at risk, if your business model can't cope with this - tough, find another model or another business - food security comes first.

There may be others, but those spring to mind...

Re:Why is it all or nothing with GMO

[vlm]

broad-spectrum herbicide tolerant species should be allowed ever: this is giving the farmer instructions to completely soak the countryside with lethal chemicals (and who is to say the rats were sick because of the GMO or the herbicide?)

Oh, theres a much worse outcome. Some folks have the strange idea that genes can only change in a lab... Imagine a crossbred weed that is literally unkillable. Or the nations entire corn crop, instead of being unable to process one specific herbicide which is sort of good, is now unable to adsorb phosphate or nitrogen fertilizers which is sort of bad.

Re:Why is it all or nothing with GMO

[maxume]

There is some concern that glyphosate (Roundup) is an endocrine analogue, but not much proof, and it is about 100x better than the stuff that was used before (mostly because the majority of it degrades very quickly, a little bit binds to the soil, but only a trace, a huge benefit is that it doesn't poison aquifers). It is also effective at relatively low concentrations (and you can bet that farmers are going to use the lowest effective concentration, they are trying to make money!).

Re:Why is it all or nothing with GMO

[Dr. Spork]

Your comment comes closest to what I also think about this issue. I am a rabid environmentalist and I have great hopes for genetic engineering. I'd be sad if we screwed it up as we did with nuclear fission - where a couple of greedy institutions didn't take universally understood precautions, and thus ruined a good thing for everyone.

And while I have great hope for GM crops, I have zero faith in the moral integrity of Monsanto. They very well could be what ruins the promise of GM for two generations.

The reason why, as an environmentalist, I support GM research is because it allows for a given area of land to feed more people. It's that simple: The more productive are our crops, the more of the Earth we can keep as wilderness. If we insist on using low-yield crops, we simply have to suck it up that more of the planet will be covered with agriculture. Because I want to keep as much wilderness as possible, while still keeping our population fed, the land we do cultivate should produce at its maximum. Many fellow environmentalists fail to understand that their insistence on low-yield agricultural species amounts to a demand to plow under huge swaths of what is now nature.

Having said that, I of course want the GM crops to be certifiably safe for consumers and for the environment. Businesses that rely on GM should want the same, because if they get caught with their pants down like the nuclear industry did, they're fucked. Sadly, I have no faith that Monsanto understands this. If they really have been selling a toxic product and knew this, no amount of government connections will save their asses. I wouldn't mind seeing them go down. But with them would go the whole GM industry, because people don't make distinctions like the ones you made. For example, many people still think that all nuclear plants are functionally copies of Chernobyl. If GM gets taken out, we would lose one of our most important tools for the prevention of environmental destruction.

We should realize that Monsanto GM crops are really the first products of an industry in its infancy. They are the equivalent of Netscape 1.0. We didn't give up on the internet just because the early browsers had serious defects. We fixed the defects and kept going. That's what we need to do with GM. But first and foremost, we need scientific openness in quickly discovering the defects, before they hurt people and cause a backlash.

Re:Why is it all or nothing with GMO

[Anonymous Coward]

Bahaha, you're joking right? Food security comes first? Christ, you must be new here. It's all about the MONEY, Lebowski!

Re:Why is it all or nothing with GMO

[Richy_T]

The reason why, as an environmentalist, I support GM research is because it allows for a given area of land to feed more people. It's that simple: The more productive are our crops, the more of the Earth we can keep as wilderness.

I'm sorry, I think you're wrong here. The more productive the crops, the more people can be supported. More people=less wilderness. I'm a bit agnostic as to whether it's a good or bad thing but I think that's the outcome that needs to be expected.

Re:Why is it all or nothing with GMO

[shutdown -p now]

I'm sorry, I think you're wrong here. The more productive the crops, the more people can be supported. More people=less wilderness.

However, living space needed for more people is dwarfed by the space that has to be used to produce food for those people. Cities are actually quite efficient in packing many people into very few square miles, but you can't get rid of farms (yet). So GP is right, reducing the amount of land needed for agriculture would have a net positive effect on environment.

Not completely surprising.

[SpazmodeusG]

What chemicals are in these plants that give them insecticide properties? Finding a chemical that harms insects but doesn't harm humans is a tricky problem and it's why fly spray companies and the like have R&D departments.
If they are releasing a new never before ingested product onto the market shouldn't they be forced into similar regulations as pharmaceuticals?

Re:Not completely surprising.

[Sockatume]

The plants don't have insecticide properties. They're modified to resist damage by specific pesticides. The article's a re-analysis of the data that was used to gain approval of the GM corn in the first place.

Re:Not completely surprising.

[Sockatume]

Actually I'm full of crap, two of them do have insecticide properties. That's what I get for reading the article and ignoring the summary.

Re:Not completely surprising.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fly sprays and other home-use insecticides are cancerigens.

Re:Not completely surprising.

[warpuck]

How ever it is used to produce E-85 alcohol fuel, will it damage my fuel injectors?

Re:Not completely surprising.

[vlm]

How ever it is used to produce E-85 alcohol fuel, will it damage my fuel injectors?

INSECTICIDE laced fuel damage your injectors? Only if you drive a volkswagon BUG !

Re:Not completely surprising.

[JoeMerchant]

If they are releasing a new never before ingested product onto the market shouldn't they be forced into similar regulations as pharmaceuticals?

Should? yes. Do? no.

Foods currently have a much lower regulatory scrutiny than drugs.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[yakumo.unr]

uggg, mod parent up..

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[eldavojohn]

Monsanto did the research in 2000 and 2001, and obviously knew the outcome.

You can't say "and obviously knew the outcome" unless you're Monsanto. I believe that GMO crops undergo far fewer tests for safety than pesticides. From the Wikipedia page on one of the three crops in question (MON 863):

In 1989 a 90-day rat-feeding trial done by the FDA, 40 rats that were fed the Bt corn developed multiple reactions typically found in response to allergies, infections, toxins and diseases. Gilles-Eric Seralini reviewed the study as part of the French Commission for Biomolecular Genetics and said that the response by the rats were similar to reactions caused by pesticides. Although the Bt-toxin is a pesticide, he points out that animal research on pesticide-producing corn is nowhere as thorough as that required for approval of pesticides. Follow-up studies on these serious findings were demanded from organisations worldwide. None were conducted and the corn was approved.

MON 863 is even approved for use in the EU which is surprising considering the long history of European countries denying crops imported from other countries like the US where GMO crops are allowed on the off chance that said crops were cross pollinated with GMO plants in other fields. Very recently I believe Germany banned cultivation of GMO plants. If you want your data don't look toward Monsanto or even the underfunded FDA. Look to the European Union, I hope more studies follow in the path of this research but unfortunately it's hard to think of a source for major funding if it's not our tax dollars.

Disturbing?

[Colin Smith]

Only if you think Forbes is for the kind of people who get all gooey over fluffy pink bunnies.

 

rep of Int Journal of Biological Sciences?????

[acidfast7]

as a scientist, it has two things I dislike listed on its webpage... 1. In a prominent position its "unofficial IMPACT FACTOR" ... ugh. 2. In a prominent position its "UNOFFICIAL impact factor" ... well, if TR/ISI can't find it important enough to tabulate (assuming this is what unofficial indicates), why should we care :( in fact, this is the first time I have heard of the journal ... if the work is more widely useful, we not publish in a more widely-read journal?

Re:rep of Int Journal of Biological Sciences?????

[Anonymous Coward]

Also at the bottom of the page we see this. Not saying they are biased, but sometimes you find what you're looking for.

Greenpeace contributed to the start of the investigations by funding first statistical analyses in 2006, the results were then processed further and evaluated independently by the authors.

Re:rep of Int Journal of Biological Sciences?????

[Lawrence_Bird]

Questionable, at best:

"The main criteria for accepting a manuscript for publication are originality, scientific importance and interest."

Nothing about scientific accuracy or legitimate conclusions.

Re:rep of Int Journal of Biological Sciences?????

[Anonymous Coward]

As a scientist, this is also the first time I've heard of this journal. Furthermore, did you read the article? There are so many problems with the data, from how it was collected, how the "experiments" were conducted, how the data was analyzed. I just wonder why the authors did not perform a real experiment rather than collecting sketchy data from companies. Many, many problems with the manuscript. I am sure this is why the article was published in a bunk journal. I'm not saying GM is good or bad. I'm just saying show me some real data from a well designed experiment, then we'll see. I would not rely on the data published in this article.

Re:rep of Int Journal of Biological Sciences?????

[Anonymous Coward]

It does raise an eyebrow.... 3 years of tinkering with the data to find some way to hold it up to the light and find something negative to say. And then they came up with a weakly suggestive correlation. I dunno... could be real, could be they are just reaching for anything. Normally these types of re-analysis papers take about 3 months, not 3 years - because you don't have to do the difficult, expensive and time-consuming data collection. You just crunch the numbers. Really, the first cut should have been done within days. I'd say that the fact that multiple groups combed over this data for years before finding something that they could publish argues that at a minimum there is no evil intent from Monsanto. I mean, if you had to pass it around from group-to-group specifically looking for some data that would show a problem (because you were politically predisposed to need to find a problem) and it still took years to find anything, how do you expect that the company that desperately wants not to find a problem should find one in a much shorter time. It appears obvious that the data at face value indicates safe, you have to dig deep to find some hint of danger.

Is it really that surprising?

[janek78]

We knew that insecticides are harmful. Now we have a GM crop that instead of being sprayed with them actually makes them. Is it a surprise that it's harmful? If you make a crop that produces cyanide, it's going to be poisonous.

This is not really related to GM technology (although TFA does not rule out mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process), rather content of toxic substances.

Re:Is it really that surprising?

[Rogerborg]

If you make a crop that produces cyanide, it's going to be poisonous

What if I make a crop that produces razorblades? Should I feed that to my kids? 'Cause, apparently just like Monsanto's Evil Scienticians, I'm a complete retard, and can't make the connection between harmful and harm without you to explain it to me.

Say; what if I made a crop that produces Hitler? Would that be bad?

Re:Is it really that surprising?

[vlm]

If you make a crop that produces cyanide, it's going to be poisonous.

I wonder how many people caught the sarcasm of your post, revolving around apple seeds containing cyanide.

Re:Is it really that surprising?

[maxume]

Like apples, apricots and almonds?

Mangos produce urushiol (the stuff that makes poison ivy unpleasant for lots of folks). People eat blowfish.

So it isn't just a matter of whether the insecticide is produced, it is also important whether much of it ends up in the part that gets eaten.

Re:Is it really that surprising?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you make a crop that produces cyanide, it's going to be poisonous."

Like apples, you mean?

That's excellent.

[tjstork]

You have a food that kills rats. How can you possibly get angry about a food that kills rats? I mean, do you know how many people are starving because rats eat the food? This is absolutely a great thing.

Re:That's excellent.

[warpuck]

Yep killing the stock price too. http://www.forbes.com/feeds/prnewswire/2009/12/08/prnewswire200912081230PR_NEWS_USPR_____CG22704.html Down 2% @9:00am 12 Besides it takes too long to kill them. Probably have 2 litters of rats before kidney or liver failure. With the high yields they get with DeKalb Genuity VT, the rats will die fat and happy. Hmm, I think I will switch from Jack Daniels & Canadian Mist to Capn' Morgan and E&J.

Re:That's excellent.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a rat you insensitive clod.

Re:That's excellent.

[DutchUncle]

I got no problem with people making rat poison. My problem is with people putting rat poison in MY food. Even worse, people putting "stuff" in my food when they themselves don't even know the effects.

Random thought: These business people can all do arithmetic when it comes to money, right? Why wasn't it obvious to them that "corn that kills bugs" might be "corn that kills whatever eats it"?

Re:That's excellent.

[MiniMike]

I thought that the problem is the GM corn makes the rats unsafe to eat, thus removing a food source. But when the rats die, they won't be eaten by insects- maybe there's some application there?

Wary

[methano]

You know what? I don't believe this research is right. It may be correct and we're gonna learn of an interesting mechanism whereby this implementation actually allows a protein to avoid the digestive system and make it's way straight into the bloodstream. That would really be cool. But from what I know of the mechanisms of digestion and what types of molecules get through the whole process, I just don't believe this conclusion is correct. I suspect that it's bogus or a statistical fluke. As I said, there may be something here but my first inclination is to suspect something is wrong. Research has shown many mutually exclusive things to be "true" and so one has to have a mechanism that throws up a "bogus flag". This article does.

So I'm gonna call bogus for now.

Re:Wary

[SpinyNorman]

Huh? The corn has been modified to contain something that acts as an insecticide.

If it kills insects when they eat it, then why would it be at all surprising if it was bad for rats or humans too?

Re:Wary

[PeterM from Berkeley]

Hello,

    Somehow the Bt toxin makes its way through the bug's digestive system to kill it. Why is it so unbelievable that some of the toxin makes it through a human's digestive system?

--PM

Re:Wary

[BradleyUffner]

If it kills insects when they eat it, then why would it be at all surprising if it was bad for rats or humans too?

If you spray an insect with water containing soap you will kill it too, are you going to stop taking baths? Salt has some rather nasty effects on slugs, so you better get rid of that. Insects are different that humans.

Re:Wary

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If you spray an insect with water containing soap you will kill it too, are you going to stop taking baths?

Since that works by drowning the bug, I think I will stop spraying soapy water up my nose.

Salt has some rather nasty effects on slugs, so you better get rid of that.

Been trying to cut down the amount of sodium in my diet, thanks for the advice.

Insects are different that humans.

And yet we have a lot more in common than we have differences.

Re:Wary

[Reservoir Penguin]

But do you believe that People and Bugs can coexist peacefully?

Re:Wary

[vlm]

Somehow the Bt toxin makes its way through the bug's digestive system to kill it. Why is it so unbelievable that some of the toxin makes it through a human's digestive system?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis

"When insects ingest toxin crystals the alkaline pH of their digestive tract causes the toxin to become activated."

Most (all?) higher animals use a strongly ACIDIC digestive tract. Not a serious concern.

No idea why it would directly affect rodents. Maybe it doesn't directly affect them at all.

Re:Wary

[Anonymous Coward]

You work for Monsanto, don't you?

Re:Wary

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes a protein could most certainly never harm anyone upon ingestion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum_toxin

Please go make some meat and dirt and tell us how that works out for you.

Re:Wary

[Anonymous Coward]

And then some...

A large percentage of the world's population carries (is infected with) Heliobacter Pylori or cat toxoplasmosa (gondii), for example. Heliobacter turns PH down to about 1. Or one or more of several others.

Are these people going to reap the added 'benefit' of low PH activating the bug toxins? Are these, in Bt's case, going to try to induce their intestines to dissolve and explode - as the bugs' do?

'Older-school' GM carries a lot of variation, plus gene-exchange 'facilitators'. The corn still carries it. Imagine millions of consumers' statistical 'facilitation' of exchange between gut bacteria and the Bt gene. Or other, more... er, interesting, ones. Or with the common cold. In people. Or bovines. Or swine. Or poultry.

Naaaahhhhhh......

Never happen. Right.

Re:Wary

[geekoid]

first off, it isn't research. It's a collection of cherry picked data and a poorly worded conclusion buy some very biased people.

Second, it's not a statistical fluke, it's a lie.

Re:Wary

[Quiet_Desperation]

But do you believe that People and Bugs can coexist peacefully?

NEVER!

(clutches can of Raid)

Re:Wary

[Cytotoxic]

Hello,

Somehow the Bt toxin makes its way through the bug's digestive system to kill it. Why is it so unbelievable that some of the toxin makes it through a human's digestive system?

--PM

from the Wikipedia article:

The toxicity of each Bt type is limited to one or two insect orders, and is nontoxic to vertebrates and many beneficial arthropods.

That's why.

Re:Wary

[Anonymous Coward]

Very good.

The BT protein kills insect larvae by paralyzing their intestinal tracts. It does not have this effect on humans.

Instead, it may cause food allergic reactions instead, which can cause autoimmune reactions, and other deleterious side effects.

Re:Wary

[SpazmodeusG]

No, the small intestine uses alkaline digestion passed to it by the pancreas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancreatic_juice

Re:Wary

[okmijnuhb]

I'll give you a nickel if you consume 16oz of roundup.

Re:Wary

[cybernanga]

If you spray an insect with water containing soap you will kill it too, are you going to stop taking baths? Salt has some rather nasty effects on slugs, so you better get rid of that. Insects are different that humans.

Completely immerse yourself in soapy water and see how long you last. Excess salt can kill you too.

Re:Wary

[BradleyUffner]

I'll give you a nickel if you consume 16oz of roundup.

OK, but I want half now, and the other half after.

Re:Wary

[BradleyUffner]

Excess salt can kill you too.

Not on contact.

Ubiquitous Corn ... depending on what you eat

[Gothmolly]

If people don't drink soda, eat candy, or eat meat (fed on said corn), isn't there a sort of Darwinian solution to this? It seems like all you really need to do is not eat crap.

Re:Ubiquitous Corn ... depending on what you eat

[JoeMerchant]

If people don't drink soda, eat candy, or eat meat (fed on said corn), isn't there a sort of Darwinian solution to this? It seems like all you really need to do is not eat crap.

Yeah, o.k., if we spend all our time growing our own food, we just might be able to do that (not eat crap.)

We have a pretty strong wheat (gluten) allergy in the family, which cuts out about 60% of the products on the grocery store shelves and leaves corn as a prominent component of the diet - if you count meat, dairy, eggs, etc. as corn derivative products that pretty much leaves fruits and vegetables as your entire dietary choice, and being that restrictive has its own problems in nutrition.

Re:Ubiquitous Corn ... depending on what you eat

[RobNich]

If only it were that easy. Unfortunately, corn has made its way into just about every single food sold in the US. This is because the US government is subsidizing the cost of corn. This also makes it a viable fuel substitute, though without the price-altering subsidies corn would be too expensive to replace petroleum-based fuel. Corn is so cheap in the US it has started to replace even soy in foods and other products that need starch or other derivatives.

This is yet another example of the US government interfering with the free market and causing problems. And since the Constitution forbids this type of meddling, it's rather surprising that it's allowed to continue. Perhaps US citizens are not as smart as they once were? For example, as smart as they were before the US government took over schooling?

Politics of GMO

[Kupfernigk]

This demonstrates the European objection to GMO. It is not, as the manufacturers would like to suggest, a Luddite fear of new technology. It is a growing perception that there is no proper oversight of GMO development. In the US, the NIH acts as a counter to the pharmaceutical companies and does a lot of fundamental research. The GMO companies are perceived as being able to carry out inadequate trials, and not make their seeds and research sufficiently available to genuine independent researchers to ensure that the result is properly evaluated. (In the UK, the chief cheerleader for Monsanto is George Bush's pal Tony Blair, which goes a lot of the way to explain our concern. He's lied to us so often that now anything he promotes is immediately seen as being evil.)

During the 19th century the issue was contaminated food produced by the new breed of large processed food manufacturers: in the early 20th it was the meat packing industry. Now it's Monsanto. In the first two cases it turned out industry was unfit to regulate itself, and bribery of Government officials was rife. But nowadays we regard processed food manufacturers as mostly benign (well, except for the junk food industry), and nobody worries about tinned meat. Regulation in the end was good for the industry. Monsanto needs to stop pissing on anyone who suggests it isn't perfect, and start to come clean. It would be in its long term benefit.

Re:Politics of GMO

[o'reor]

Hell, Tony Blair even picked up his phone to have researchers at the University of Aberdeen fired, just because their own research proved that the GMOs were not as innocuous as Monsanto pretended them to be...

Re:Politics of GMO

[jonbryce]

The chief cheerleader in the UK is the former science minister in Tony Blair's government - Lord Sainsbury, who's family owns a supermarket chain of the same name.

Re:Politics of GMO

[DeadCatX2]

It is a growing perception that there is no proper oversight of GMO development.

Maybe if people would stop freaking out about the idea of GM food, we could have a rational discussion about what kind of oversight is appropriate. Instead, everyone panics, labels GM food the devil, and the debate is snuffed out.

There's this stuff called Golden Rice, it's rice that has a Vitamin A gene. It will help lots of Chinese kids stop going blind. Maybe those researchers should study whether that rice kills rats.

Re:Politics of GMO

[JoeMerchant]

Check the history of tobacco money - they jumped into processed foods in a big way when the anti-smoking sentiment got strong in the U.S.

Of course, those were all good people in the tobacco industry, straight shooters who were concerned about the general welfare of, well, themselves at least.

Re:Politics of GMO

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be in its long term benefit.

Senior executives mostly don't think much further than their next annual bonus.

Re:Politics of GMO

[Dr. Spork]

I think you overestimate the Europeans who object to GMO. I'm all for hawk-like oversight, but how many anti-GM people do you know who will say: "OK, now the oversight is in line with other industries I support, so now I'm cool with GM"? I know none.

Those people (for example many Germans) really are Luddites and their irrationality will destroy this planet. (The same people tend to fear nuclear power, so produce most of their electricity with earth-destroying coal. The world thanks you, fuckers!)

Science

[takowl]

OK, I haven't read the paper in detail, but my initial impression is that, if academic researchers have found evidence that GM food damages your health, why haven't they put it in a really major journal--Nature, Science, PNAS, or something like PlosONE if the whole publication really had to be open access? I've got a degree in biology, and this is the first time I've ever come across the 'International Journal of Biological Sciences'.

Glancing at their results table, it doesn't seem clear cut overall. E.g. there are cases where rats fed 11% GM corn show a response, but rats fed 33% GM corn don't, cases where male rats are apparently affected, but not females, and vice versa. They also don't name the maize they used as a control, so we don't know how accurate it is.

All in all, it looks like they did a rather unconvincing study that prominent journals weren't prepared to accept, so they stuck it out there in this way. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but take it with a pinch of salt.

Re:Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Good to see an island of sanity, in this comment, amid a sea of FUD. Likely, a qualified science blogger will soon take a look at this and find even more problems with study methodology and analysis.

Re:Science

[Sockatume]

Certainly there are aspects of it which reek of "data mining": checking every possible correlation, and seeing what ones turn out to be statistically significant, then hypothesising on that. The post-hoc hypothesis is unscientific off the bat, and doing so greatly tightens the criteria for statistical significance, because it's like taking several gambles at once. The chances that one or more of them will come up are higher than any individual bet.

Re:Science

[Sockatume]

(I should say, this is a favourite of pharmaceutical companies. If a drug fails to hit statistical significance in a trial, find a subgroup that it worked in and say it's suitable for that group. They may have simply done the reverse: searched for subgroups which it is harmful in and say it's dangerous.)

Re:Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda like Tree Ring temperature correlations eh?

Re:Science

[Pedrito]

why haven't they put it in a really major journal--Nature, Science, PNAS, or something like PlosONE if the whole publication really had to be open access?

Yeah, their editor-in-chief is only the chief of mammalian genetics at NIH, and their editorial board is a bunch of slackers from the likes of Georgeton, UCLA school of medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Vancerbilt, Nortwestern, UC, etc.

OK, I haven't read the paper in detail... Glancing at their results table, it doesn't seem clear cut overall. E.g. there are cases where rats fed 11% GM corn show a response, but rats fed 33% GM corn don't, cases where male rats are apparently affected, but not females, and vice versa. They also don't name the maize they used as a control, so we don't know how accurate it is. Maybe you should read it in detail. FTFA: The raw data have been obtained by European governments and made publically available for scrutiny and counter-evaluation. So, they didn't actually perform the experiments, they're using the results of experiments that others did. It doesn't invalidate your point, but if you read further, I think they realize this:Furthermore, groups of animals were also fed with diets containing one of six other normal (non-GM) reference maize lines; the same lines for the NK 603 and MON 810 tests, but different types for the MON 863 trials. We note that these unrelated, different non-GM maize types were not shown to be substantially equivalent to the GMOs. The quantity of some sugars, ions, salts, and pesticide residues, do in fact differ from line to line, for example in the non-GM reference groups. This not only introduced unnecessary sources of variability but also increased considerably the number of rats fed a normal non-GM diet (320) compared to the GM-fed groups (80) per transformation event, which considerably unbalances the experimental design.

Yeah, I know, actually reading the article before posting your critical analysis is pretty hard to avoid.

Re:Science

[Anonymous Coward]

You are basically saying: if you can bribe/sue/coerce a few major journals, so they won't run a story, your products are safe because nobody can publish in a reputable journal saying otherwise; and lesser known journals are not trustworthy.

Oh but I'm sure that wouldn't happen. Big corporations always play by the rules.

Re:Science

[JasterBobaMereel]

The fact that they were able to use Monsanto's own data and still show a possible problem is worrying

If this were independent research (as it should be) and they showed this then it could be ignored .... but I would assume Monsanto's own data is likely to be sanitised at least to a degree?

Re:Science

[Alinabi]

Because it is not a ground breaking, fundamental science result, which is what Science and Nature tend to publish. They also wouldn't publish a result about the safety of side airbags in KIA cars, although, technically, it is physics.

Re:Science

[acidfast7]

Yeah, their editor-in-chief is only the chief of mammalian genetics at NIH, and their editorial board is a bunch of slackers from the likes of Georgeton, UCLA school of medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Vancerbilt, Nortwestern, UC, etc.

actually he makes the point that I tried to make above ... the journal may have some big names on their editorial board (in fact, I worked in the past with some of them) ...

but how often do they publish in their own journal ... hint: almost never.

maybe, i should clarify, i'm a junior professor and i have never heard of this journal (nor has any of the 6 people in the office I am sitting in, all post-PhDs in biochem/chem/biophysics.)

Re:Science

[geekoid]

I have read it in detail. After puzzling over the poor wording, logical fallacies and strange conclusion, I looked up then authors.

Pretty enlightening. It also explains why this meta study is so crappy, even for a meta study.

Re:Science

[StuartHankins]

A logical response would be to take the information at face value, using that to investigate further, rather than to simply blow it off because you don't recognize the credentials of the parties involved in the research.

If I were a biochemist that's what I would do. Unfortunately I'm just a coder, so I have to depend on others to examine this and determine its accuracy.

Re:Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, their editor-in-chief is only the chief of mammalian genetics at NIH...

Are suggesting that corn is a mammal?

Re:Science

[acidfast7]

A logical response would be to take the information at face value, using that to investigate further, rather than to simply blow it off because you don't recognize the credentials of the parties involved in the research. If I were a biochemist that's what I would do. Unfortunately I'm just a coder, so I have to depend on others to examine this and determine its accuracy.

You're not acutely aware of the signal-to-noise problem in the biological sciences.

Re:Science

[takowl]

Yeah, I know, actually reading the article before posting your critical analysis is pretty hard to avoid.

On /.? More seriously, if I'd taken the time to read it in detail, my comment would have been much later, and nobody would ever have read it. Considering the apparent credulity of /. readers on this issue, I wanted to get an oar in.

It does have some credible scientists on its editorial board. And I don't believe it's a bogus journal. But I do know a bit about how science works (being in it), and we consider the reputation of the journal, not just its editorial board. IJBS hardly has any reputation (acidfast7, posting above and below, agrees with me on this).

To back up my point, a bit of searching shows that this group of scientists has tried the same stunt before, and their methodology was and still is suspect (this is from Food Standards Australia/NZ, not Monsanto): FSANZ response

Re:Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Georgeton, UCLA school of medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Vancerbilt, Nortwestern,

Are those the Canadian equivalents of Georgetown, Vanderbilt, and Northwestern?

Re:Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Georgeton, Vacerbilt, Nortwestern?

Are these joke schools with reputable sounding names sort of like the knock off electronics brands, or are you a horrible speller?

If it's a joke, it's funny (in theory), but very poorly executed.

Good luck with that!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'll do my best to avoid corn altogether

If anyone has ever read The Omnivore's Dilemma, you'll realize that in American culture, the only way to stay away from GMO corn is to stay completely away from processed foods - I'm not sure about the Organic brands.

But you just know that the GMO corn makers are just going to take the cigarette companies' play book and stall any legitimate inquiries and just poo-poo any facts and studies that that show their product in an unfavorable light..

Re:Good luck with that!

[jedidiah]

> you'll realize that in American culture, the only way to stay away
> from GMO corn is to stay completely away from processed foods

That's really not a bad approach in general.

Good luck

[Rooked_One]

gotta keep this short as I have to get to work, but something like 90% of the food products you buy at say, walmart, contains GM corn or soybeans.

Re:Good luck

[Rosyna]

Likely because the foods we eat the most (such as corn and bananas) have been genetically modified for thousands of years. Same thing with cows, pigs, and chicken but those might not be thousands.

Re:Good luck

[gowtah]

Breeding is far from specifically inserting genes into a species dna.

Re:Good luck

[geekoid]

yes, inserting genes is faster and more productive. They also yield great results and help feed the world.

Perhaps not

[BigSlowTarget]

It doesn't look like the 'impact factor' relates to anything. Its in the header whether you're looking at an article or their contact information. No explanation there.

This note on the front page: This Journal is ranked among the top 2.1% of journals (29/1380) according to SCImago in the area of Agricultural and Biological Sciences ...details
Indexed/covered by MEDLINE, PubMed, Science Citation Index (SCI) Expanded, Current Contents®/Life Sciences, EMBASE, CAS, CABI, Scopus

Plus there isn't much anti-GM crapvertising elsewhere on the website. I'm normally among the first to call bs, but this could very well be the ideal journal for the paper as it seems specifically dedicated to issues in the biological/agricultural sciences.

Anyone familiar with the journal or practices in submitting in the field?

Re:Perhaps not

[acidfast7]

sorry, i guess that i wasn't clear, i shouldn't try to write grants and read slashdot at the same. one of my pet peeves is no-name journals spouting of their impact factors. even worse is a journal that i have never heard of spouting off about their "unofficial" impact factor. as this correlates to the study at hand ... why not publish in a respected journal? their careers depend upon it. i haven't read the article, but the suggests methodological lapses (i mean PLoS ONE would love this type of article if it's done well).

Re:Perhaps not

[takowl]

It doesn't look like the 'impact factor' relates to anything.

Impact factor is a measure commonly used in science for the quality of a journal. Effectively the number of citations per paper from a certain list of journals. Theirs doesn't look nice because: 1. Respectable journals hide it away somewhere on the info section of their website, they don't put it in a big banner for everyone to see, and 2. 'Unofficial' means they've calculated it themselves, i.e. ISI, which normally calculate it, don't think they're important enough to get one.

Like the parent poster, I'm not familiar with the journal, although I am in the same broad field. Which seems a bit suspicious for something putting itself in the top 2.1%. I've looked up SCImago: IJBS has dropped to 3%, but that list includes specialists like "South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture", and excludes the big name general journals (Nature, Science, PNAS). I'm also not clear how they calculate their ranking: they show its h-index and cites/document (common measures of impact) as being lower than New Phytologist (immediately below it, and a journal I'm quite familiar with). As far as I can tell it's a real journal, not an anti-GM front, but it's certainly not the big-hitter it pretends to be, and that likely means the quality bar is lower.

Re:Perhaps not

[BigSlowTarget]

Thanks - didn't know the impact factor facts and they didn't provide any link or explanation of how they derived it.

So it sounds like there's some weakness but no outright trash in the journal choice.

I suspect and hope it's an honest attempt at an objective study. If it's not then the agenda driven science emulation crowd has gotten much better at playing their games.

So, no more rat problem in the corn field

[cenc]

When I first read the title, I thought this was some sort of intentional solution targeted at controlling rats in corn fields. They just need to tweak this to be more targeted.

How did I guess this was from Kdawson?

[Anonymous Coward]

The study shows no organ damage. This is a lie by the esteemed Slashdot editor.

The study shows slight changes in some parameters which could be signs of damage. It could also not be. Eating sausages will give you different kidney readings from eating chicken, yet neither sausages nor chicken has been banned. Correspondingly the study says these are "signs of toxicity and not proof of toxicity". I would have expected KDawsons "organ damage" to imply that organ damage had been found.

Some data seems surprising - there is a significant effect for female rats consuming 11% Monsanto corn, but not male rats or female rats consuming 33%?

Although I agree that multiple year teasts should be performed, and organ damage checked for. Though it would be extremely surprising if this has not already been done by anyone.

Of course, since I write this I must be paid by Monsanto or just be evil, since all good-thinking progressives would never question criticism of an evil megacorp like Monsanto.

Re:How did I guess this was from Kdawson?

[Anonymous Coward]

> the study says these are "signs of toxicity and not proof of toxicity"

Thirdly, the statistical power of the tests conducted is low (30%) because the experimental design of Monsanto (see Materials and Methods). However, it is important to note that these short-term (3-month) rat feeding trials are the only tests conducted on the basis of which regulators determine whether these GM crop/food varieties are as safe to eat as conventional types.

> Although I agree that multiple year teasts should be performed, and organ damage checked for. Though it would be extremely surprising if this has not already been done by anyone

Given that these GM crops are potentially eaten by billions of people and animals world-wide, it is important to discuss whether the experimental design, the statistical analyses and interpretations originally undertaken are appropriate and sufficient ...

Re:How did I guess this was from Kdawson?

[sycodon]

I think Goodwin's law needs to include some extras.

Long before Hitler is mentioned, invariably, George Bush will be mentioned and associated with the target of the post...as in "George Bush's pal Tony Blair".

Also, those who dispute the main idea of the post/discussion or the authors of studies/articles, etc. that support the dissenter, will be accused of being paid by the target of post/discussion.

Re:How did I guess this was from Kdawson?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, since I write this I must be paid by Monsanto or just be evil, since all good-thinking progressives would never question criticism of an evil megacorp like Monsanto.

Don't be silly. Here, take a bowl of corn...

Re:How did I guess this was from Kdawson?

[Dr. Spork]

I read the article too and took away exactly the same conclusions. I also thought it was interesting that they can't isolate the effects of the corn itself from the effects of whatever the corn was treated with. (They mentioned that the signs of toxicity are reminiscent of something that could be a reaction to a pesticide.) That might be worth doing in a future study, and wouldn't be hard: You just grow the corn in a test field and don't spray it at all, and compare its effects to the corn that was grown the conventional way.

So come on, people. This shit is important, and lab rats aren't that expensive. Let's go already!

Re:How did I guess this was from Kdawson?

[StuartHankins]

Although I agree that multiple year teasts [sic] should be performed, and organ damage checked for.

That idea is what differentiates you from Monsanto, a highly litigious company with a history of suppressing negative results.

I think GM products should be identified on the label, and regular testing should absolutely be required before the products are made available for human consumption.

The alternative is to expect that Monsanto has my health in highest concern, which makes me laugh. Monsanto is in it for the money, period. They would do anything to keep the cash flowing. (Cue the Dune quotes)

Re:How did I guess this was from Kdawson?

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Yes it's easy to criticize megacorps, but Monsanto employs a LOT of people where I live. Not only that, they really put a lot of money into science - have a large payroll for scientists, researches, lab workers. They are a biotech driver. It's better to have them here than another country for many reasons. One is that we CAN criticize them here.

we need GMO foods

[chichilalescu]

like it or not.
you can choose between keeping the human population to a constant (and already there are a lot of starving people), or change something to the food we eat.
I didn't do any research on the issue, but if a biologist says he wants funding to make food that grows faster and easier, I think he should get that funding. I would gladly have society give up on "new clothes every season, or you're a caveman/woman/person/thingie" and put more money into this kind of research.
but i'm just a geeky hippie, so i don't get a say in this.
on the other hand, if there are alternatives to gmo foods, let me know.

Re:we need GMO foods

[o'reor]

GM crops are already doing more harm than good. Just ask the Indian cotton farmers, for instance...

It has been proved that they also have lower yields and require more pesticides in the long run than conventional crops.

I'm not saying that GM plants and research should be discarded, or that they can't be used to actually get better yields and use less pesticides. I'm just saying that for now, a few corporations are focused on making piles of money by making farmers entirely depend on their seeds and their pesticides, no matter what it takes. And that particular use of GM crops (and of patents lawsuits over crops) should be outlawed.

Re:we need GMO foods

[cbope]

How about birth control? Not over-populating an already over-crowded planet?

The main problem with GM, is that eventually the GM crops will work their way "into the wild". And then there is no stopping them. What happens if a particularly nasty GM crop gets loose and cross cultivates with wild or non-GM crops, and wipes out the natural crop? And said nasty GM crop is after-the-fact demonstrated to have a severe negative health impact on the human population? How can anyone control it? Wipe it out? What then???

GM is a time-bomb, sooner or later it's going to explode. And we are starting to see the expansion now.

Re:we need GMO foods

[Punko]

No. If you increase the food supply, you will have the base population expand and then have more people starving. If the worlds' population is stable, and you increase the food supply, then its a win. But we have already shown that the human population is expanding and will continue to expand until the mortality rate equals birthrate for the planet as a whole. you want more people to die of starvation? Increase the food supply and wait. You want fewer people to die of starvation? Reduce base human population and the number of people starving will go down. Kill of 2B now, and number of starving folks (always some percentage of total population) will be reduced. Sorry folks, but animal herds done regulate themselves until a significant portion of the population is on the tipping point of starvation.

Re:we need GMO foods

[geekoid]

Indian Cotton farmer suicides have nothing t do with GM crops and there ehalth effects and everything to do with making bad business decsion and chosing the cowards way out.

from the second link:
University of Minnesota economist Vernon W. Ruttan sums up: "Thus far, biotechnology has not raised the yield potential of crops"

This is patently false, and is evidences buy the farmers global that have had higher yields do to genetic modification. In fact, with out it 1/3 of the global population would starve to death in a month.

what you are stating is against all real world evidence.

The only problem with GM crops is legal. I.E. if seeds blow into someone else's land, they should not be sued for using them.

Re:we need GMO foods

[Dr. Spork]

So... more food means more starvation? Gee, do you also think that war is peace and servitude is freedom?

More seriously - some research you must be unaware of: The world's human population does not depend on the size of the food supply. That's true for rats and rabbits, but not us. Human fertility depends largely on the degree of education of women and their degree of economic opportunities. (Of course, other factors are important too, but none are more important. The food supply does not figure at all. If you want to stabilize the human population - and all environmentalists should want this - you have to eliminate global poverty and educate as many girls as possible. I think that's good policy in any case.)

Re:we need GMO foods

[mcgrew]

you can choose between keeping the human population to a constant (and already there are a lot of starving people), or change something to the food we eat.

Unlike centuries past, there is plenty of food to feed everyone, thanks to technology like giant harvesters and such. The only reason people are starving is greed and politics. Because of politics we could have so much food we'd have to discard most of it, and people would still go hungry.

Re:we need GMO foods

[shutdown -p now]

It's not GM crops doing more harm than good. It's companies behind those GM crops using GM abilities for the sake of more profit, screwing their customers in the process.

It's much like digital media itself isn't evil, but DRM (which is enabled by digital media) often is. Arguably the temptation for providers to add DRM - once it's possible - is too great, so perhaps some more regulation is in order. Ditto for GMO.

Re:we need GMO foods

[o'reor]

This is patently false, and is evidences buy the farmers global that have had higher yields do to genetic modification.

Have you cared to actually read further than the 3-lines summary? The writers actually quote 10 studies to support their standing point. Would you care to provide at least *one* to support yours ?

MOD PARENT UP

[schnablebg]

This is exactly right. The reason GMO corn exists and is widespread is that the gov't has incentivized corn production so much that it is practical to grow huge fields of it. This crop monoculture results in the excessive need of pesticides, hence the requirement of "Roundup-ready" crops in the first place.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to call bullshit on this. It's dodging the question. "We wouldn't have to deal with this problem because this would never have happened under a free market system!" Suuuure. You can't see a situation where a monoculture could develop in a free market system? That's just IMPOSSIBLE, huh?
The government subsidies may have encouraged a monoculture, but that's beside the point. The GM crops improve yield. Why would that have not been a success in a pure free market?

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[je ne sais quoi]

And you don't think that GW Bush appointing a former Monsanto lawyer to the Supreme Court had nothing to do with it? Democrats are just as bad at appointing lobbyists for industries to oversee federal organization that they're supposed to be regulating, but look at this chart here. Look at that chart and tell me with a straight face that the Republican party is trying to remove government interference in markets. If you do, you are arguing to me that the same political party that is supposed to stand for unregulated capitalism is also contributing to that regulation necessary by giving out the subsidies that created the environment for Monsanto to poison our beloved rat population (and maybe us too, the article was short on that).

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[je ne sais quoi]

ONe thing I forgot to point out that is that there was a landmark decision by the Supreme court in 2001 that decided that utility patents could be granted to cover a modification to a plant, which Clarence Thomas (the Bush appointee) wrote the majority opinion for. If you think patenting software is bad, the Supreme Court decided that it's no problem patenting some corn:

J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. A case decided before the United States Supreme Court in 2001. In this case the court decided that utility patents could be issued for plants, even though some protections on plants are already available through the Plant Patent Act and the Plant Variety Protection Act.

That is why we Monsanto poisoning us and suing any farmer who ends up with GMO pollen in his corn or saving seeds.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Abcd1234]

That's bullshit. Subsidies or not, corn would still be a huge cash crop. In fact, in the absence of subsidies, GMO corn would be *more* likely to be developed, as the higher yields mean more income for the farmer.

Sorry, you're just dodging the question. Probably because the real answer (government regulation is necessary to protect consumers from opportunistic businesses) doesn't fit with your libertarian worldview.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Richy_T]

Hobby horse much?

GW Bush is out of office, by the way, and is unlikely to be running again.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Richy_T]

Corn would still be a big cash crop but higher yields would just mean lower prices. There is an incentive to increase crop yield but the diminishing return is met much earlier and the *cost* of things like GMO become less supported by the income from the crop and thus less likely to be employed.

The subsidies mean that the corn is effectively pre-bought and has to be dumped on the market any way possible

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly right. The reason GMO corn exists and is widespread is that the gov't has incentivized corn production so much that it is practical to grow huge fields of it. This crop monoculture results in the excessive need of pesticides, hence the requirement of "Roundup-ready" crops in the first place.

While getting rid of the incentives is fine with me, the motive for "Roundup-ready" is to reduce production costs. And if anything, a reduced demand is likely to make farmers even MORE likely to want to maximize profitability by using GMO, since they won't have the economies of scale that comes from dealing with one big uniform field(s).

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[5KVGhost]

"The government subsidies may have encouraged a monoculture, but that's beside the point. The GM crops improve yield. Why would that have not been a success in a pure free market?"

First off, "GM products" are not the problem. This particular type of GM product may be a problem. If the summary of the study is correct and if conclusions of the study can be replicated.

There are many, many ways of increasing yields. The government subsidies created a situation where a rapid transition to GM corn was, by and large, the most practical and the most efficient choice. People make rational choices based on the incentives you give them.

For a timely discussion of how all this works in practice, read this:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/12/pepsi-throwback-and-the-sugar-racket/

The major reason we're growing so much corn is because the government has, for decades, kept the price of sugar artificially high. (And to make subsidised ethanol, a more recent development.) And they simultaneously funnel money to the companies that make corn syrup.

In a real free market, one not distorted by the power of the government to redistribute vast sums of money at will, corn crops would have had to compete against other crops which might have been more profitable to grow. And the manufacturers of corn syrup (which would now be sold at true cost) would have had to compete on an even playing field against sugar growers on factors like price, taste, and mouth-feel. But by making sugar super-expensive and corn syrup super-cheap, the government all but ensures one single outcome.

Think about that the next time you want the government to "fix" something.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Nova77]

That's the reason why it was accepted:
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620772383.htm

"In conclusion, the Panel considers that the information available for MON 863 addresses the outstanding questions raised by the Member States and considers that MON 863 will not have an adverse effect on human and animal health or the environment in the context of its proposed use."

While I am not at all fan of Monsanto, I have to say that in the past research on GM crops has been highly polarized and there has been a lot of poor science from both sides. Let's wait and see how this study classifies.

I have nothing against GMO in theory

[locallyunscene]

but WTF Monsanto, FDA. This is bad for EVERYBODY. Especially considering Americans eat more corn than anyone on Earth, ever(except maybe the Hopi).

This is why you can't let lobbying continue as is. I don't think this out-and-out corruption through bribery, but I'd bet my bottom dollar Monsanto spent a lot of money wispering into ears that GMO posed no health risk and was a forgone conclusion. Hell, they didn't even need to check their own data, what could possibly go wrong? Besides that's the FDA's job right? Meanwhile the FDA hears all about how Monsanto wouldn't let any GMO through that would hurt their consumers. Of course they know the technology better, and their own analysis should be thorough enough to allow for FDA approval.

I'll take a Department of Redundancy Department that does its goddamn job over a regulatory body that doesn't.

Re:I have nothing against GMO in theory

[o'reor]

FDA and Monsanto ? Mind the revolving door on your way out...

Re:I have nothing against GMO in theory

[JasterBobaMereel]

GM is safe based on Monsanto's research conducted by Monsanto funded by Monsanto

The FDA have used the results from this to conclude that it is safe!

The US government have concluded it is safe based on the FDA recommendation ....

I would like to get somebody completely independent of Monsanto not constrained by them in any way to test this before eating their products ... but Monsanto seems to dislike anyone doing this?

Re:I have nothing against GMO in theory

[mcgrew]

This is bad for EVERYBODY. Especially considering Americans eat more corn than anyone on Earth, ever(except maybe the Hopi).

IINM the Hopi ar Americans, aren't they?

This is why you can't let lobbying continue as is.

It's my belief that nobody should be allowed to lobby anyone they're not eligible to vote for. Why should Monsanto or the Teamsters be able to have better access to my elected officials than I do?

Re:I have nothing against GMO in theory

[EEBaum]

I don't think this out-and-out corruption through bribery

You, sir/madam, are what is called an idealist.

Re:I have nothing against GMO in theory

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently watched a French documentary (Le monde selon Monsanto, 2007 by Marie-Monique Robin) about Monsanto's practices; key people of the FDA could be traced back to having been members of Monsanto during their careers and vice versa. See Michael Taylor as a terrifying example here: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-08-monsanto-FDA-taylor/
Basically, Michael Taylor has been shifting key positions in the FDA and Monsanto many times for a substantial part of his career. Last summer he has become “senior advisor" to the commissioner of the FDA.

How can he, as single person, fulfill both positions adequately? It certainly doesn't make sense without the clear notion of lobbying.

An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know enough about toxicity studies to analyze this too closely but then as I read it, there is some "fishy" stuff going on.. First off, though - these researchers did not set up these studies. They used lawyers to get data from some of these companies or something like that- it's kind of vague. I have NEVER seen a study where you report like you did the research but you actually didn't. You are just trying to take the numbers and draw your own conclusion.
They say in one part: "The most fundamental point to bear in mind from the outset is that a sample size of 10 for biochemical parameters measured two times in 90 days is largely insufficient to ensure an acceptable degree of power to the statistical analysis performed and presented by Monsanto. " They say that because they think Monsanto shouldn't say the corn is safe - but then they (these researchers) are using that same "Insufficient" data to say it's unsafe. That's the way this whole paper is- it just doesn't jive together.

They also note that the control corn fed the rats in these studies was not similar enough to the GM variety to be good controls.

OK - then why are they using these data at all - why not do their OWN study???!!! I"ll tell you why - because they found a way to skew this data for their own purposes. How can you pick apart an experimental design and then use that data and say YOUR conclusions are valid. This is insulting and I still do not believe this can be a legitimate journal (although I can't find much on it online).

Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer

[Dunbal]

here is some "fishy" stuff going on.. First off, though - these researchers did not set up these studies. They used lawyers to get data from some of these companies or something like that- it's kind of vague.

      Granted such a study is not scientific and has no merit per se. However this type of thing might be enough to get a real group of scientists interested in setting up a real, controlled study. After all science is all about asking questions and getting answers. There might be a valid question. So now someone will look for a reliable, reproducible answer.

I have NEVER seen a study where you report like you did the research but you actually didn't.

      Tobacco companies claiming that smoking is "safe" circa 1970's and 80's?

Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, note the acknowledgments at the bottom: Greenpeace (which is against GMOs) started the research in the first place. No, it doesn't show that the results are bogus, but it is fishy.

Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer

[ceoyoyo]

Meta studies are scientific, though, depending on the circumstances, they may not be as good evidence as a primary study.

Studies where you reanalyze someone else's data are quite common, and are the reason there have been efforts to create large, generally available datasets including cancer registries, pharmaceutical trials and astronomical surveys.

Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer

[Dunbal]

Meta studies are scientific, though, depending on the circumstances, they may not be as good evidence as a primary study.

      As a physician I agree - to a point. Meta studies of double blind randomized clinically controlled trials, however, cannot be compared to a meta studies of subjective patient surveys. The source of the meta study is important, and it must be consistent, otherwise the meta-data is absolutely useless. I think the GP was referring more to the source of the data rather than the fact a meta-analysis was used.

Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer

[beatsme]

If you'll notice at the top of the page there's what's called an Impact Factor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor 3.24 is nothing to brush aside. That in itself shows a certain "legitimacy" of this journal. Also: the fact that this data CAN go both ways is enough to bring the original conclusions (that it is safe) into question and prompt new research.

Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer

[StuartHankins]

You have to sign a contract with Monsanto to purchase their seeds. Did you ever stop to think that this contract may prohibit testing and/or releasing public information in regards to that testing? These researchers might be trying to find a loophole, where the results were published elsewhere and they are aggregating them.

Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer

[claus.wilke]

They say in one part: "The most fundamental point to bear in mind from the outset is that a sample size of 10 for biochemical parameters measured two times in 90 days is largely insufficient to ensure an acceptable degree of power to the statistical analysis performed and presented by Monsanto. " They say that because they think Monsanto shouldn't say the corn is safe - but then they (these researchers) are using that same "Insufficient" data to say it's unsafe. That's the way this whole paper is- it just doesn't jive together.

You might want to re-read your statistics textbook. They say that the power of the Monsanto analysis is low. That implies that if Monsanto does not see a significant result, they cannot conclude that no effect exists. However, the authors of this study see significant results nevertheless. Thus, even though power was low, the effect was large enough to show up.

In a nutshell: To demonstrate that there is a problem, all you have to do is find the problem in some instance. To demonstrate that there is no problem, you have to demonstrate that you looked very hard and yet could not find a problem. What the authors are saying is: "Monsanto didn't look very hard, and yet there is evidence of problems."

Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer

[ceoyoyo]

True - that's why I said "depending on the circumstances." Metastudies that draw together data from experiments that were not designed to answer the current question, or are sensitive to differing or ill-reported methodology are always a little suspect. On the other hand, as you point out, metastudies of clinical trails, where all the source experiments are designed to answer the same question, are generally better than any one primary study.

It sounds like these guys have just reanalyzed Monsanto's data, which is scientifically fine. From a very quick scan of the paper, although they sexed up the abstract, it sounds like their main finding is that the Monsanto testing is inadequate to reasonably show the corn is safe, and the original analysis was done kind of sloppily anyway. As an incidental finding, they show some weak evidence that the corn might actually be having some negative effects.

Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have NEVER seen a study where you report like you did the research but you actually didn't."

Are you stupid?

To me, it's clear they got the data elsewhere and are offering their analysis of that data. I don't see where this is unclear as you make it sound. It's also very clear upfront by the story and the comments even on /., and that's saying something.

Further, there's no way you are a PhD and have never encountered this. There are always reviews of literature, opinion letters, and counter opinions on top articles in many scientific journals where non-authors of the original papers rehash and reinterpret or offer differing analysis of someone else's data. I've seen this in physics and biology journals.

And it's also commonly accepted, esp. in biology, to take data, aggregate it AMONGST multiple studies between multiple papers by different authors and institutions, and apply statistical analysis to them. Many times, no new original data is added to the analysis.

I've even seen this more direct method, which you are criticizing, multiple times. People take someone else's data, and reanalyze it applying a different algorithm or data interpretation. No wet work or replication of the experiment were done in those either; they got the raw data and went at it. It's particularly seen in the physics and computer and astronomy worlds, where people take images, data sets, and rerun them. Usually it's done with huge datasets done that were generated for another reason though or to apply a new method of thinking.

Here, it was done over litigated and freshly uncovered data. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it, because if you do, there's a shitload of papers done in nearly any other scientific discipline where less direct application is done and routinely accepted.

So where the hell do you get off saying never?

Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised that you have a PhD and yet claim that reanalyzing someone else's data is "fishy". It happens all the time, and it's quite important to verify that someone's data actually backs up their claims. When the data actually supports a different interpretation, that's publishable.

Here, the authors note that the experimental design does not enable powerful tests, and that the tests that Monsanto employed were not the most powerful possible in the already weak scenario. They then established that Monsanto's results were really weak, and that applying a more powerful (but admittedly still weak) statistical methodology revealed that the data could support the opposite conclusions.

Yes, someone should do a more thorough study, which is exactly what the authors concluded. They don't so much say that their conclusions are valid, as to say that when they look at the data more closely than Monsanto did, it suggests something quite different than what Monsanto put forth.

That's science.

Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer

[Anonymous Coward]

There are definitely scientific papers that re-interpret statistical data from studies the authors did not perform, though they are usually published in the form of review articles. They are not treated as original research, obviously, and I say this not as a supporter of this particular paper. It has its problems, and I find it [perhaps] telling that the only reports I can find citing it emanate from HuffPost (which isn't bad on some things but has a pretty dismal Health section) and TreeHugger and other such agenda-driven sources. (Again, this is not to say I don't agree with some of the agendas, but we should base opinions on the evidence when applicable and not our politics.)

The only thing we can hope for is that a properly controlled study with a large sample is carried out to produce better and more definitive results. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if such a study went either way.

Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer

[Anonymous Coward]

"OK - then why are they using these data at all - why not do their OWN study???!!! I"ll tell you why - because they found a way to skew this data for their own purposes."

Or because you can't do research on Monsanto corn without a contract, on account of their patent.

That, and, because the STUDY HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE, and the company that paid for it WAS HIDING THAT DATA.

If they'd just given it up without a fight, this would have come to light nearly a decade ago.

Avoiding Corn-derived Products

[jdevivre]

Good luck avoiding corn-derived products.

Try reading "The Omnivore's Dilemma" to get a sense of how much of our food products come from subsidized corn (sugar? CITRIC ACID???!).

Re:Avoiding Corn-derived Products

[cplusplus]

Don't eat food from a box. It's hard to avoid corn based products if your in the "McDonalds-lunch and rip-open-a-box-and-add-water-dinner" mindset. It's trivially easy if you don't mind cooking and baking. I have no problem avoiding corn based products (and have a need to). Make your food with fresh vegetables. Bake bread (bread machines make this incredibly easy). Bake your own cookies with cane sugar if you want something sweet. Eat more fish. Grass fed beef is getting easier and easier to find.

distinction

[nten]

Correct, GM is truly a wonderful thing. But I do wonder if spot checks on produce wouldn't be advisable. Processed foods get spot checked, perhaps produce should as well. You can get a DNA sequencer on ebay for two grand now. Grabbing the sequence that produces abrin, or ricin from the rosary pea or castor bean respectively, and putting it in a couple corn plants, is within the ability of an undergrad certainly. The lab procedures are published out there, I saw them on the kindle store even. Corn is wind pollinated, so planting a few modified malcious plants upwind of a field could be really nasty. It is only going to get easier to do, and restricting the technology is the wrong way to try and prevent it. Spot checks of produce for common pathogens and dangerous chemicals would add to the price of food, so I wouldn't suggest they be mandatory. Might work kind of like an organic stamp, "Non-deadly GM" or somesuch.

Re:distinction

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct, GM is truly a wonderful thing. But I do wonder if spot checks on produce wouldn't be advisable. Processed foods get spot checked, perhaps produce should as well. You can get a DNA sequencer on ebay for two grand now. Grabbing the sequence that produces abrin, or ricin from the rosary pea or castor bean respectively, and putting it in a couple corn plants, is within the ability of an undergrad certainly. The lab procedures are published out there, I saw them on the kindle store even. Corn is wind pollinated, so planting a few modified malcious plants upwind of a field could be really nasty. It is only going to get easier to do, and restricting the technology is the wrong way to try and prevent it. Spot checks of produce for common pathogens and dangerous chemicals would add to the price of food, so I wouldn't suggest they be mandatory. Might work kind of like an organic stamp, "Non-deadly GM" or somesuch.

Someone should do this* with corn and spread it around the midwest....

* From what I can tell the story was a joke

Re:distinction

[somersault]

Might work kind of like an organic stamp, "Non-deadly GM" or somesuch.

Haha. That would be a great ad campaign.

*waits for someone to give what they consider the "obligatory" xkcd ref*

Re:distinction

[vegiVamp]

Ooo. Now there's an interesting angle for a terrorist to take. Are seeds forbidden on airplanes already ?

Re:distinction

[Anonymous Coward]

If you insist... http://xkcd.com/641/

Re:distinction

[Anonymous Coward]

When Monsanto first began producing Roundup corn and other pesticide-resistant produce, it was quickly found that separating GM and non-GM corn was nearly impossible, due to contamination problems. Mandating that GM and non-GM grains be processed differently was also impossible, because of the enormous costs that would have entailed. I think this is one reason why Europe backed down on its stance against genetically-modified grains - it was not possible to keep them out of the total exported food supply.

Re:distinction

[Glothar]

You don't have much background in genetics, do you?

I don't mean to insult you. I don't expect most people to understand genetics. However, I would hope they understand how much they don't don't know about genetics.

Sequencing an organism is a long, complicated process even with modern sequencing technology. Sequencers don't give you answers, they give you decent guesses. For eukaryotic organisms like the castor bean, its very difficult to even sort out which copy of which chromosome you're looking at. Then you need to find the genes that produce ricin. There's almost certainly more than one coding region, and you do know that they're not labeled, right?

If after a few years you managed to complete your sequencing of the castor bean and if you managed to isolate the collection of genes responsible for producing ricin, you still wouldn't have reached the really hard part of the process: Integrating it into the corn plant. If you were really lucky, you'd be able to get a hold of a corn specimen that had already been sequenced for you, then it might only take millions of dollars and years of research to find a way to integrate those genes into the correct part of the corn genome.

To think that you'd be able to do this with a sequencer off of ebay and some spare test tubes is humorously naive. Jurassic Park wasn't real. We don't do gene splicing with VR displays.

There is a reason why huge corporations do this work. Hundreds of trained geneticists spend years working on getting things like this done, and even they fail repeatedly.

Are spot checks advisable? Sure, why not? Are they advisable because someone might have created an apple that releases sarin gas? No. Sorry, we don't live in fantasy land. The chances of someone pulling that off are miniscule compared to the chance that you're struck by a meteor within the next year.

Re:distinction

[Cyberax]

"Sequencing an organism is a long, complicated process even with modern sequencing technology. "

You don't need to sequence the whole genome. Just use primers for known toxins to check for their presence.

Re:distinction

[StreetStealth]

Nah, someone would have to actually try bringing GMO seeds aboard a plane and shouting in Arabic while attempting to throw them out the bulkhead hatch.

Then the TSA would not only ban bringing seeds on planes, but also issue guidelines stating that passengers may not look out the window while flying over farmland, may not read books about farming during the middle two hours of a trip, and may not think about corn at any time while the plane is in the air.

Re:distinction

[davebooth]

Well, I DO have a background in genetics and to be honest I probably wouldnt need a sequencing machine to create something evil.

Give me the enzymes and nucleotide stocks, some e coli and some M13 bacteriophage. a couple glass plates and some acrylamide I'm quite capable of sequencing without one, thank you very much!

Not that much sequencing would be required, Monsanto have already done that work and have kindly provided a template with a known target sequence (the gene for the thuringensis toxin) already under the control of a highly active promoter. So lets start our hypothetical experiment with a sample of BT corn.

Ideally we'd look for a single-peptide toxin and recent research has provided a much "better" payload than either ricin or any other plant or bacterially derived peptide toxin and again much of the required preliminary work has already been done. We're going to replace the gene for thuringensis toxin with PRP and make sure, by site directed mutagenesis, which requires the same reagents and skills as sequencing, that as many as possible of the polymorphisms that encourage the refolding of this protein into the PRP-Sc form are present. Sure it will take time and persistence, but the techniques are no challenge.

Theres your upwind "pollen bomb." Mad Corn Disease, anyone?

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition, check out this documentary of The world according to monsanto... pretty eye opening.

If you are American, I hope your anti-French nationalism does not blind you while seeing this film.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[vvaduva]

They do it through lawsuits. They are a very litigious company as they sue their own customers for failing to disclose harvest data and seed information. Since they patended certain varieties of soybeans and corn, you cannot keep seed from one year to the next. Also, a neighboring farmer who has his own non-Monstanto crops contaminated by Monstanto crops are also being sued and asked to prove themselves innocent.

It's a travesty. I am not opposed to GM foods by any means, but this company's approach to solving problems with their products is completely unreasonable. A class-action suit seems to be the only answer.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Anonymous Coward]

Any person in any country in the world could buy a bag of Monsanto corn, feed it to rats and dissect them. Controlled experiments with rats are cheap. North Korea could do it. Cuba could do it. Venezuela could do it. The African Development Bank could do it. Why haven't they? Is the lack of evidence merely a sign that capitalists have sabotaged that evidence?

Given the number of self-hating Marxists and Socialists around I would have expected at least one report of organ damage, which this study, had you bothered to read it, and contrary to the idiotic KDawson's title, does neither show nor claim.

Finally, somebody gives a rat's a$$

[Anonymous Coward]

It was time somebody had to teach those rats a lesson for eating our food.
Does anyone know if it has a similar effect on cockroaches too?

Don't jump to conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no Monsanto fan, but a lot of commenters on Boing Boing were questioning the methodology and validity of the study.

Got news for you, GMO is in the wild in China

[cenc]

I taught at an Agricultural U. in China, where the government and University was all but openly encouraging students to take the untested GMO rice home to their rural families to plant. They were experimenting with all kinds of nasty pesticides and other things, and I would not exactly call the development they were doing "scientifically rigorous". The scientific method in China basically means at best copying things from other countries, and at worst just randomly trying things out. I never got the sense the grad students and such even really understood what it was they were doing, and the potential environmental impact or ethics of it was certainly not openly discussed.

Re:Got news for you, GMO is in the wild in China

[tacarat]

Well, when you have over a billion people, you can spare a few for testing purposes. Besides, what's worse? Starving to death sooner (not to say they're actually starving) or feeling fuller/richer and having something maybe happen later? Short vs long term considerations all around, really.

Curious question, though. Will the GMO companies try to replicate MS's "success" in terms of getting mindshare through piracy?

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[LordKronos]

Wait...so the president's actions in 2009 is responsible for information remaining hidden from 2000 through 2008? For crying out loud, he didn't even make US Senate until 2004. But yes, I suppose the corruption of a member of the Illionois Senate has its reach all the way down into the state of Missouri (where Monsanto is based). Or maybe Obama has a time machine.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Any person in any country in the world could buy a bag of Monsanto corn...

Are you sure about that? I'm not a farmer, and I don't know anyone who has had anything to do with Monsanto corn, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a contract that you need to sign before buying Monsanto GM corn.

Puffed...

[DigitumDei]

round up ready rice?

Mod parent up.

[uncledrax]

Wow.. someone that RTFA?! You must be new here.

Mod parent up.

For the ADHD, you can skip to this:
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA3
and
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA4

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Monsanto did the research in 2000 and 2001, and obviously knew the outcome. So how did they manage to suppress the data and results for 8 years?

>The invisible hand of the free market made the data and research invisible.

While the visible hand of government was busy doing something else.

Video presentation of GMO issues in great detail

[sd1000]

This is a video describing in detail many of the studies and issues discovered in GMO's. http://vimeo.com/6575475

Stduy flawed

[Orga]

If the GMO corn has been bred for high sugar, as we know that's the main focus, then the rats more than likely consumed more calories which I would expect to have a detrimental effect on most systems in the body. From the study: We note that these unrelated, different non-GM maize types were not shown to be substantially equivalent to the GMOs. The quantity of some sugars, ions, salts, and pesticide residues, do in fact differ from line to line, for example in the non-GM reference groups. This not only introduced unnecessary sources of variability but also increased considerably the number of rats fed a normal non-GM diet (320) compared to the GM-fed groups (80) per transformation event, which considerably unbalances the experimental design. A group consisting of the same number of animals fed a mixture of these test diets would have been a better and more appropriate control.

Re:Stduy flawed

[GargamelSpaceman]

I thought the corn was bred to be roundup ready. Roundup is an herbicide that kills plants including corn. However roundup ready corn is immune to the effects of roundup. So the farmer can spray the field with roundup, and thereby kill all weeds but leave the corn undamaged. It's so much easier than pulling weeds by hand.

Re:Stduy flawed

[Anonymous Coward]

Excessive fructose consumption causes the production of reactive oxygen species in the liver, which causes sclerotic damage similar to that caused by alcohol consumption.

The liver damage/liver function anomalies detected by the monsanto safety study may be totally unrelated to the BT production, but may instead be a biproduct of boosting sugar production in the corn products (which would be financially advantageous, since more HFCS and Corn ethanol could be produced per acre, which would also boost support for government biofuel subsidies).

It is important to note that raw glucose is relatively safe to consume in absurd quantites; It is fructose, and sucrose (which breaks down into glucose and fructose upon ingestion, which makes it biologically interchangeable with HFCS) which result in the production of the reactive oxygen species. The problem is that glucose is substantially less sweet tasting than HFCS or Sucrose.

Humans were better able to tolerate a high corn biased diet when the corn was essentially starchy field corn, for much the same reasons that asian cultures could withstand large quantities of starchy rice; Starch gets metabolized into glucose, and the fructose levels in these 'bland' foods is very minimal.

Modern cultivation techniques have appealed to human cravings for sweet, and glucose is not very sweet; instead, we breed for, and excessively consume the biologically dangerous sucrose, and fructose at ever greater levels.

As the linked to article points out, excessive fructose consumption contributes mightily to obesity, and type II diabetes; as well as to "fatty liver disease", which causes massive liver damage.

These effects are being widely reported in humans right now, but disclosure and further study is being actively discouraged by the Corn grower's association, and the people behind the HFCS lobby groups, while they simultaneously produce purposefully specious propaganda. (It's specious, because it assumes Sucrose table sugar is "safe", when it has the exact same deleterious health effects. It's like saying that ingesting Lead acetate sweetener is no more dangerous than cooking in lead pots. Both are equally deadly.)

Re:Stduy flawed

[Orga]

I assure you the corn tested that is roundup ready has also been bred to be high yield and high in starch content. It's not just comparing Roundup Ready yellow corn to the exact same yield corn but not roundup ready. We have no Idea what the non-GMO corn is.. what was it maize from the 19th century? The kernels of orignal maize is vastly different from the yellow corn we see everywhere today.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Pictish Prince]

What, nobody ever explained lobbyests and corruption to you?

There is an alternative to gmo corn...

[Anonymous Coward]

there is a better way... see here and scroll down to the non gmo corn at the bottom of the page.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Nova77]

Do you have any evidence to back this up? Again, I am not a fan of either monsanto or gm, I just want to know what's real.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[clarkn0va]

And this one. And this one.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[mcgrew]

So how did they manage to suppress the data and results for 8 years?

It's called "trade secrets". I hope it comes back and bites them in the ass; there will be lawsuits by people with liver damage, even if they're drinkers or use a lot of Tylenol. Win or lose it'll be expensive for Monsanto, and I for one will cheer the people suing them on.

The sound of WHOOOOOOSH!

[ElectricTurtle]

Is it just me, or are all the replies to the GP missing the point? We already deliberately consume things such as booze and cooking oil that are bad for our livers. So what? People can do that all their lives (in moderation) and be perfectly normal. If some GM corn is a bit rough, is that the end of the world any more than olive oil or whiskey?

Not the only problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bodily damage isn't the only problem. Just look around for Monsanto's licencing agreements that it wants to be signed for people to use their product.

Here's a starter http://boingboing.net/2009/12/13/how-monsanto-owns-an.html

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, in areas such as supermarkets.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Lumpy]

Problem is that it needs to be done further. Was the roundup ready corn grown in a controlled lab and the rats only ate that? Or is the study based on rats captured from fields planted with Roundup ready?

The difference is that the rats ate corn or corn+chemicals.

It needs to be researched fully so any real findings are solid and cant be refuted.

Good 'ol Monsanto

[revlayle]

They want to own food and the IPs for any GMOs they make and them force them into countries an markets. While i usually try to avoid hype documentaries, I do recommend watching "Food, Inc." as a starting insight into the evil of Monsanto (as well as the meat industry) - maybe biased but still a GOOD watch. The find a French documentary (usually it is subtitled or dubbed) called "The World According to Monsanto" for more details on the companies practices. Remember, before food, they created Agent Orange (as well as all the other "rainbow" Agent herbicides). Because of these shows, I have tried to buy my food from local source, and try to buy (unsuccessfully) in season (when i do buy out of season, I try Whole Foods, dunno if they are THAT better, but the one in Tulsa is good) - all my meat comes from a local butcher now and local livestock feed in conventional ways.

Re:Good 'ol Monsanto

[Croakus]

Just watched that last night and it re-enforced decisions I had already made about my food. We do everything we can in our house to purchase from local farms, and, when that's not possible, from responsible farms.

I learned as a child in East Tennessee what happens when you have too many cattle on too little land. I learned what happens when you feed them things they're not meant to eat. The fact that these big companies with all their engineers and scientists are too stupid to know what I learned at 12 years old completely baffles me.

Re:Good 'ol Monsanto

[revlayle]

Feeding cattle things other than their normal grazing habits on land lends to e. coli issues. the grass cows eat naturally helps their stomachs fight of bad bacteria, while grain fed cows have trouble battling off that stuff (and gets into much of the meat supply in super markets and restaurants)

It's the Ends, Not the Means

[rmccoy]

Exactly.

I'm not worried about the process of genetically modifying food anymore than I am using nuclear energy for power. In both cases, I'm worried about how these tools are used by the corporations that are centered on short-term profit.

GM is an accelerated version of what happens in nature. We need it to feed our billions. Unfortunately, lack of corporate imagination and long-term thinking might produce a backlash that makes it untenable for years.

Re:It's the Ends, Not the Means

[Fred_A]

GM is an accelerated version of what happens in nature.

No it's not. It's the artificial manipulation of a genotype to get a desired trait by means that are not very well understood but that mostly work although their consequences are not very well grasped.

We need it to feed our billions.

No we don't. Crop rotation and the use of better seeds works much better and with far less pesticides and other toxic chemicals, notably in emerging markets.

However, a certain company won't get as rich if we go that way...

Re:It's the Ends, Not the Means

[rmccoy]

I'll give you that I shouldn't speak in absolutes.

However, you should read Stewart Brand's latest for some additional information.

Your point about the profit is exactly my concern.

Re:It's the Ends, Not the Means

[Anonymous Coward]

In the USA as part of the supporting farmers, we actually pay people not to grow stuff on their farms. We're actually capable of producing way more food than we do. The solution to world hunger is NOT to engineer newer better varieties, but mostly the distribution of the food. I believe we can easily produce enough food. Moving food from where it's easy to get to places where it isn't has always been the hardest part of solving that problem. That problem isn't all that technically difficult either, it's usually more of a political problem.

Re:It's the Ends, Not the Means

[sjames]

It's way more than accelerated natural cross breeding. How long do you suppose it would take to cross breed corn with a herring using a natural process? Even Barry White can't make that one happen!

Re:It's the Ends, Not the Means

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are popular arguments, but all dead wrong.

It's the artificial manipulation of a genotype to get a desired trait by means that are not very well understood but that mostly work although their consequences are not very well grasped.

And that would mean something if all life was created 6000 years ago, but it wasn't. Whether or not a gene arose by evolution or artificially is irrelevant. Besides, viruses have been moving genes around in plants and animals (aka genetic engineering) since, well, forever.

No we don't. Crop rotation and the use of better seeds works much better and with far less pesticides and other toxic chemicals, notably in emerging markets.

First, GMOs have actually lowered pesticide use, contrary to popular opinion. Besides, it isn't an either-or problem. You're not going to stop wearing a seatbelt if you're a safe driver and have an airbag, are you?

However, a certain company won't get as rich if we go that way...

Monsanto doesn't have a monopoly on science. Do you see them profiting on the Rainbow papaya, Chinese and Iranian Bt rice, or GM cassava? No.

Re:It's the Ends, Not the Means

[ktappe]

GM is an accelerated version of what happens in nature.

Only if nature happened to be randomly experimenting in that direction AND that experiment gave the organism a competitive advantage so that the mutation got retained. It is actually rather unlikely that maize was going to independently develop in the way Monsanto was forcing it with this GM. So your statement is probably (but not absolutely) false.

Re:It's the Ends, Not the Means

[he-sk]

We need it to feed our billions.

Maybe we don't.

From the 2006 study:

With the average yield ratios, we modeled the global food supply that could be grown organically on the current agricultural land base. Model estimates indicate that organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base.

Re:It's the Ends, Not the Means

[rmccoy]

Don't get me wrong. I'm on the side of the angels but, skimming the article (sorry, no time for more right now), I don't see anything about time for training and conversion and how people are fed during that time.

My planned future would move everyone to organic and renewable technologies along the lines of Joel Salatin's farm in "The Omnivore's Dilemma." But I'd like to get from there to there without starving millions.

Re:It's the Ends, Not the Means

[NapoleonTheGreat]

We need it to feed our billions.

No we don't. Crop rotation and the use of better seeds works much better and with far less pesticides and other toxic chemicals, notably in emerging markets.

Also, if there would be less waste, maybe the billions would not go hungry. Have you even heard of dumpster-diving? Where people would scourge big store dumpsters for perfectly edible food?

almost all plants have natural insecticides

[Anonymous Coward]

most plants produce their own insecticides (and other chemicals) when under stress, to defend against insects and other attackers.

we haven't even begun to understand the chemical makeup of ordinary vegetables in the environment.

not that I think GM corn is a good idea. im just saying.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[SBFCOblivion]

I'll never understand why so many people here blame so many ills on the free market when we currently do not even have a free market.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this more of a failing of the the FDA? (government)

What GM food for hundreds of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

"There are safe GM foods that have been feeding people for hundreds of years"

What GM food for hundreds of years?

It's kind of hard when GM foods require genetic knowledge that is not hundreds of years old and medical techniques that are only decades old, along with specific genetic information that is likewise only decades old.

So I call "bollocks" on your statement there.

Just like the rest of your rant against the people.

And bt is organic WHEN PRODUCED BY THE NATURAL ORGANISM!!! Not fecking plants.

Re:What GM food for hundreds of years?

[Schadrach]

The same way we've genetically engineered dogs since at least the dawn of civilization, without really knowing the nature of "genes" for almost all of that time. It's admittedly a much slower generational process, but surely you don't think that the pretty broad genetic differences between breeds of dog are combinations that would likely arise and be successful without human meddling. Selective breeding is nothing but a very slow primitive form of genetic engineering.

Re:What GM food for hundreds of years?

[jmac_the_man]

This guy was genetically modifying pea plants in 1865, and had a fairly full understanding of the foundation of modern genetics. Of course, he was trying to figure out how animal husbandry, the practice of putting two animals with desired traits together and hoping they mate and produce offspring with the desired traits, worked. The concept predates him by several hundred years.

As far as Bt being organic when produced by the bacteria but not by the plant, the label "organic" isn't what makes something safer. It's the knowledge that it's been around and used for hundreds of years without ill effects in people. If two things are chemically identical, but one is organic and one is synthetic, they will react the same, whether in a solution or in an animal.

Re:What GM food for hundreds of years?

[JBdH]

No, it's not. With selective breeding you can never go outside of the scope of the accumulation of genetical variety available in the species your breeding with. You cannot breed dogs that produce poisonous bites by just interbreeding different type of dogs, the genetical material needed to be able to allow for a poisonous bite just isn't there. Theoretically dogs could in the long run, through spontaneous genetical mutation acquire such features, but that's outside the scope of breeding of dogs.
If you would start genetically modifying dogs with genetical material alien to dogs, say poisonous snakes, you actually could produce such poisonous dogs, given enough perseverence and research. Genetically modifying creatures is in essence engineering, working from the specfications of features of the creature up to a design. Selective Breeding is bricolage, using whatever is at hand to meet a goal that's changing along with the process.

Re:What GM food for hundreds of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo Mama and I genetically engineered YOU, you little bitch!

Stop parsing words, stop playing games. When a group of scientists and a group of investors get together, and decide that they can change the genes in a generation or ten, with laboratory methods, it is GENETICALLY ENGINEERED. You will note that MOST of these GM products are sterile - like a mule. You can't save the seeds and plant them - they are STERILE! This is not the usual result of "selective breeding".

GM shit ain't safe for human consumption. Only ignoramuses are willing to forget that "normal" food has been "selectively bred" for a zillion years, AND that man has been "selectively bred" for the same zillion years to eat those foods.

Focking idjits.

Re:What GM food for hundreds of years?

[moeinvt]

"Selective breeding is nothing but a very slow primitive form of genetic engineering."

The "very slow" part is what completely differentiates selective breeding and natural evolutionary processes from genetic engineering. All of the genetic differences you see in something like dogs occurred very gradually, and with some degree of harmony with the ecosystem. Introducing these GMOs is basically bypassing thousands of years of evolution, and going off on a tangent that would have a minuscule probability of ever occurring, even through selective breeding. I think that's a very important distinction when we're talking about the potential health and environmental impacts of these things.

Re:What GM food for hundreds of years?

[BrokenHalo]

As far as Bt being organic...

Being the cranky soul that I am, I commonly like to tease people about the definition of "organic". I.e. show me some inorganic vegetables, perhaps made of silicon? Germanium or ruthenium?

Re:What GM food for hundreds of years?

[geekprime]

I'm sorry,

There is NO WAY that I am going to accept the assertion that "selective breeding" is the same process as "gene splicing".
Nor will anyone else that is not trying to reassure someone that gene splicing is not dangerous.

It is pretty obvious that there are (this time at least) unintended reactions AND that we apparently cannot trust Monsanto to fully test and disclose before selling and feeding us their experiments.

Re:What GM food for hundreds of years?

[vivian]

I dont eat dog, so I am not worried about any genetic modifications made to those.

The big problem with GM technology is not the actual technology - it is how it is being used.
I would have no problem eating GM foods if they were only modified to add say, additional vitamins, grow with salter water, or endure harsher environments, but the problem is they are making changes that do things like add pesticides into the food its self, or enable much higher levels of herbicides and insecticides to be used on crops without killing the plants (eg, "round up ready" strains)- so there are many more toxins actually in the food, or used on the food we eat.

The other big evil with GM crops is that it promotes monocultures, which puts all your eggs in one basket geneticalyl speaking - if there is then something that badly affects that strain of crops, it can have a devestating effect as entire harvests can be wiped out due to there being no natural bio diversity which would otherwise have allowed some plants to survive.
On top of that, the way that GM crops are licensed, so that often they are engineered to only produce a single generation from the seeds and can not breed true is just a disaster waiting to happen.

One good and relatively safe use of gene technology would be to use it to precisely Analise the natural variations produced by crossbreeding several different strains of the same type of crop, then selecting those that had the ideal characteristics.

we need to start cracking down on inappropriate genetic modifications to our food, and only allow modifications that enhance the flavour or health benefits of the food, or make it able to grow in harsher climates or with less water - not introduce genes which produce toxins or are designed to enable use of much higher concentrations of poisons.

Re:What GM food for hundreds of years?

[vtcodger]

There's an interesting and sort of thought provoking discussion of the physical characteristics of Silver Foxes bred only for tolerance to humans here:

http://www.hum.utah.edu/~bbenham/2510 Spring 09/Behavior Genetics/Farm-Fox Experiment.pdf

The curious thing is that in addition to becoming human friendly, these domesticated foxes developed a propensity toward dog like physical characteristics like curly tails, overbites, and piebald coats ... curious.

Re:What GM food for hundreds of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

By "cranky soul", do you mean that your eternal metaphysical being is powered by methamphetamine?

Or is it possible that words might be able to have multiple meanings and perhaps "organic" in a food production context != "organic" in a chemistry context?

Just sayin'.

Re:What GM food for hundreds of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps this difference was lost on you: selective breeding does not alter DNA on a molecular level. Recombinant genetic engineering (what Monsanto does) does. Monsanto basically gets tobacco virus to implant its modified genes into plants. Genes designed to express particular proteins, without regard to the effect of these proteins on human health. That's a problem.

Re:What GM food for hundreds of years?

[Foobar of Borg]

The same way we've genetically engineered dogs since at least the dawn of civilization, without really knowing the nature of "genes" for almost all of that time.

Selective breeding is not the same as genetic engineering. An analogy would be this: My skin slowly sloughs off cells and replaces them. So, why shouldn't I just take a scalpel and hack the skin off my arm?

Re:What GM food for hundreds of years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Genetical?

Bollocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Bollocks. There is no GM in the history of agriculture.

There was directed evolution, but until you can tell me how to get an ear of corn impregnated by the seed of an insect and produce viable offspring, none of that was genetic modification as far as GM is concerned.

PS if you were right, how come Monsato can patent it: there's thousands of years of prior art...

Food, Inc.

[tresstatus]

Nothing that Monsanto does comes as a surprise to anyone who has seen "Food, Inc.". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/

the problem with GMO crops is that they can't be contained. a farmer doesn't have to plant monsanto's corn or soy beans for them to start growing in their fields.

and to anyone who says "i will just avoid eating corn and corn products".... good luck. almost every product in the grocery store either contains corn or ate corn.

Re:Food, Inc.

[geekoid]

really? Food inc? Yes base all your opinion and conclusion on heavily biased cherry picked crap.

I used to be against GMO because it is made to sound scary. When actually studying the subject and reading studies I realized the anti GMO people are ignorant fear mongers. This 'study' is a great example of the kind of crap they pull.

Re:Food, Inc.

[revlayle]

GMO isn't the primary issue... the corporate controlling and execessive litigate over an "IP of food" is the problem. I mean properly done GMO crops can be beneficial... but doing so to 1) corner a market and 2) control a food supply (that's Monsanto) doesn't benefit anyone but Monsanto and their share holders - not to mention the borderline illegal activities in the US and dangerous environmental practices. Also there are other documentaries about Monsanto specifically (the french made "The World According to Monsanto") etc.... blah blah

Re:Food, Inc.

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

and to anyone who says "i will just avoid eating corn and corn products".... good luck. almost every product in the grocery store either contains corn or ate corn.

You mean like all the fruits, vegetables, and grains? Or the highly processed food products and meat that we shouldn't be eating so much of to begin with?

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[somersault]

I read about this a couple of days ago while looking into artificial flavouring actually.. the info is out there for people who care enough to look.

Having said that, just because food has one effect on rats, does not mean that it has the same effect on humans. I also found a couple of experiments on animals where they'd feed birds, pigs etc higher levels of protein in their diet and they'd end up with cancer.. I read a good book recently about studies of carbs and fat on humans, but it annoyingly didn't mention protein at all..

Anyway, processed corn based foods are just generally no good nutritionally.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[sznupi]

I expect it to stop just after calling of Soviet Union or North Korea "socialist" (while totally ignoring, say, Nordic countries) stops.

Common sense not always common

[ligius]

Sings of organ damage in rats it's most likely to be just the precedent of a lot of evidence yet to come on this field. Just a bit of common sense. If you are Monsanto, you produce a plant (food) in a way that you just want to maximize volume of your plant and don't want any other living thing in the agricultural environment, and you do this just for the sake profitability... then that food can't possibly be good for humans, nor even for rats. Try giving a rat the chance to choose between two types of food, organic corn and gm corn, which one chooses?

Obligatory documentary about Monsanto

[Hurricane78]

If you want to see a documentary, looking at the actual details, and without being as annoying as Michael Moore ;), this one is really nice:

• In English
• En Français
• In Deutsch

IMO, Haliburton, Microsoft, RIAA/MPAA, and the weapons industry are all freakin’ jokes compared to these guys... :/ (Only Eli Lily might come close.)

Currently only in Animal Feed

[Slashdolt]

Currently, GMO corn is only in animal feed. But the problem is that you cannot simply go to the elevator and request "GMO Free" corn. Feed corn is feed corn, whether it's GMO or not. That was the big coup that Monsanto pulled off a few years back. It took a lot of lobbying, I'm sure.

I raise "all natural" free-range chickens and sell them to friends and neighbors. I wish that I could get corn that was GMO-free, but the only way is to purchase "organic" (TM) corn, at about 10 times the price. At that point, I'd have to sell the chickens for $5/lb and no one in their right mind would pay for it.

Monsanto knew that if their corn had to be silo'd separately from other varieties, that it would be worth a lot less, so they had to get it commoditized with the rest, or all of that R&D would have been wasted. Good for them. Bad for us.

Re:Currently only in Animal Feed

[geekoid]

Why don't you make some sort of effort to actually study the issue?
There is no problem with GMO foods, and this 'study' is horrible.

GMO food is good for us. Without it, 1/3 of the population would starve to death in a month.

Re:Currently only in Animal Feed

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying that we can have a cost-free reduction of the population by 1/3rd in only 30 days? Sounds like a plan to me! Pollution, climate change and a host of other things would be much less of a problem with 4 billion people instead of 6.

Um, no

[jDeepbeep]

Wait...so the president's actions in 2009 is responsible for information remaining hidden from 2000 through 2008? For crying out loud, he didn't even make US Senate until 2004. But yes, I suppose the corruption of a member of the Illionois Senate has its reach all the way down into the state of Missouri (where Monsanto is based). Or maybe Obama has a time machine.

You are missing the point. The point is the frequent cross-pollination between big agribusiness/GMO interests and public safety and regulation departments of the us govt. The revolving door between Monsanto and the USDA is one of many. The USDA is merely filling out its warped destiny however, seeing as even its mission statement clearly points out a conflict of interest. It is supposed to both regulate, and promote agribusiness.

Re:Um, no

[LordKronos]

The point is the frequent cross-pollination between big agribusiness/GMO interests and public safety and regulation departments of the us govt. The revolving door between Monsanto and the USDA is one of many.

If it is so frequent (and I'm not saying that it isn't) then it should be easy enough to find some relevant articles from the prior years when it was kept quiet, rather than more recent ones that almost suggest the opposite (Monsanto guy is chosen, causing the truth to come out).

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Anonymous Coward]

>The invisible hand of the free market made the data and research invisible.

While the visible hand of government was busy doing something else.

Crotch.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[nazsco]

Even the amish uses it

http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/02/amish_hackers_a.php

Misleading title and summary !

[cyberfunk2]

If you actually read the journal article, all you will find is a LOT of criticism of Monsanto's statistical methodology (which may be valid), but very little (if any) of any actual evidence of toxicity.

Basically , they claim (which may be correct): Monsanto didn't do their studies properly! They should've used more rats, for longer, and with more measured parameters !

And THEN they turn around and claim... even though the study is statistically unsound (according to their own argument), we're going to draw some conclusions that are weak to begin with, even within the weak frame of this supposedly faulty study !

It just doesn't make much sense.... from a professional scientists' standpoint (mine), this amounts to a lot of hemming and hawing about experimental methods, but absolutely nothing in the way of conclusions !

Re:Misleading title and summary !

[bfmorgan]

However, if Monsanto used these studies to justify to the market (Congress, FDA, the consuming community, etc.), then there is a valid argument to question the acceptance of GM corn from Monsanto.

Re:Misleading title and summary !

[Anonymous Coward]

The 3 authors are not scientists but well known french anti-GMO activists. Once you know their inherent biais and politic background, you know it is a complete waste of time.

Re:Misleading title and summary !

[blivit42]

I think Fig. 1 really sums it up. Principle Component Analysis effectively finds an axis through your multi-dimensional data space that best separates your datapoints. In this case, the 1st principle component (X-axis) clearly visually separates males from females. What this tells us is that the variation in the data was dominated more by the sex of the animal than by any other factor in the experiment. Whatever effects the different corn diets may have had on their measurements, those effects are swamped out by differences between the sexes of the animals, and are therefore probably not very biologically significant. Figs. A, B, C, all show the same behavior. Nothing to see here, move along. Just another crappy experiment that doesn't really tell us anything other than the variables they measured are highly sex-dependent.

Now, it may be possible that only one or a small number of variables are contributing to the the first principle component. If these variables were removed from the analysis for being sex-dependent, THEN maybe some separation caused by diet might appear. Who knows. If they really were trying to show an effect from diet, I would guess that they would have tried such things to get the PCA to show what they wanted to see (separation on diet, rather than sex). Fig D does have sex as the 2nd component, so maybe the 1st component could be interesting, but nowhere do they say that the 1st component separates on diet, and the figure legend even touts it as yet more evidence of separation by sexes. Since almost all of their figures show sex as the main source of variation, and all of their figure legends make major note of that fact, I'm guessing that there just weren't any significant effects from diet there in the first place, otherwise they would have been able to massage better figures out of it.

However you massage your statistics, if you can't see it by eye, then it's not real.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Hurricane78]

Dude, they have more revolving doors with the government, than Haliburton and Microsoft together!
For these cases, Monsanto IS the government. It is the one who defines the requirements.
I posted a documentary about this ealier.

Cross breeding issues

[Pedrito]

My concern, which doesn't appear to have been raised yet, is this shit blows around in the wind and cross-breeds with non-GMO corn. I'm guessing nobody has any idea how badly this has happened yet. This stuff could be ending up in our food, making the most important and second largest cash crop (after marijuana) in the US poisonous to consumers. I wonder why that doesn't sit well with me.

Re:Cross breeding issues

[geekoid]

read the study, it's crap. GMO food is fine, it seems scary because people don't understand that DNA is just a chemical concoction and that almost all specie share the same DNA.

Look up the authors, look at the way the study is written, look at the cherry picking in the data.

Re:Cross breeding issues

[Dr_Barnowl]

There is evidence to suggest that despite a ban on GMO crops in Mexico, there is genetic contamination in their local crops. The hypothesis is that the corn they import from the USA sometimes gets spilled and germinates, producing GMO plants that cross-pollinate with the locals.

The upside is that it probably won't thrive in the long term. The local crops don't need all the fertilizer and pesticide sprays that the GMO crops do. The BT producing varieties may be resistant to the insects but the experience of cotton farmers in India would seem to indicate that the rest of the plants genome makes it a sickly wuss of a crop.

GMO crops are part of a razor + blades sales model ; buy the crops, buy the chemical package to make sure they work. Which of course a problem - the Roundup Ready® trait is essentially just intended to make the crop resistant to really nasty herbicides that usually kill everything. And now we get megadoses of them sprayed on our crops.

The real threat is the percentage of people who buy into the package. If natural varieties die out, the ONLY way to grow these crops will be to buy seed and sprays from Monsanto. They will literally own our means of survival. Not a comfortable thought.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[MrMr]

The linked stories are not about your beloved president.
So relax.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch the documentary "Food, Inc". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/

It has an obvious slant and bias, but does a good job of explaining the tactics of Monsanto. It will also make you think twice about everything you buy in a grocery store...

Oh, and farmers wouldn't maximize their profit?

[sirwired]

The GMO corn is used because it maximizes yield per acre. We eat more corn than we would otherwise because of the subsidies, but that doesn't mean that we wouldn't eat corn at all without them. It remains a good animal feed, the base for an inexpensive sweetener, a good source of oil, an excellent base for fermented beverages, etc.

Unsubsidized corn would still be GMO, if available, so the farmers could maximize their profit.

SirWired

Re:Oh, and farmers wouldn't maximize their profit?

[Attila Dimedici]

The thing is, if it wasn't for the subsidies, the grain crops grown would vary a great deal depending on what grain the farmers thought would generate the most profit for them that year. This would mean that developing a GM version of a particular grain would be less profitable. That would mean that less money would be spent developing GM grain. Additionally, there would be less pressure on the government to approve a particular GM grain (fewer groups with an incentive to get involved in the process).
Without the government subsidies, the ability of Monsanto to coverup this data would be diminished.
There is one final point I want to make. These studies show an area of concern that needs further investigation. They don't show that these strains of GM corn are harmful to humans, they merely show that there is reason to believe that they might and further study is needed.

Sugar Fountains Ratliver Stunned Scientists.

[Anonymous Coward]

European sugar is traditionally made from Beetroot, but importation can have it be from Corn (US and etc.) or Sugar Cane (rest of the tropical world). Other sources exist.

Thanks to nanotechnology, cell gene manipulation is really getting closer to engineering. The 80's to mid-2k0's version was much closer to frankenstein sweepstakes with the equivalent of shotguns in the dark, and radioactive-poison roadblocks and traffic-lights.

Not that previous 'brute-forcce' genetic technology was much nicer (toxic chemicals and radiation). As in John Wyndham's "Triffids", for example :-P Or as per Kuru, and all the other traditional biowar
bogeys.

But this is just confirmation of really old news. Chek out references on the - previously - good, sane, stable and totally assimilated Dr. Árpád Pusztai. Before he suffered 'a breakdown' and 'went rogue', becoming a soppy greenhead, evidently...

Re:Sugar Fountains Ratliver Stunned Scientists.

[GargamelSpaceman]

I wouldn't worrry about very processed corn products like sugar/corn syrup/corn starch. Because they have been processed, they are relatively pure extracts of the corn which should not differ from the same substance extracted from any other corn. It's the more chemically complex components of the corn that might differ substantially.

Re:Sugar Fountains Ratliver Stunned Scientists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm. The Sugar - Syrup - Starch family is relatively complex.

The worry is that subtly toxic varieties slowly gain preponderance.

Or something like "Corn-9" (Vonnegut : Ice-9) gains a greater chance of coming true, due to enhanced opportunities offered by a purpousely "de-restrained" (and unstoppable) genetic environment.

The problem with chain-reactions is that eventually they get to you. Somehow.

Gentlemen.........

[Ellis D Trippman]

Behold......DEATH!

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news cavemen invent the wheel. I'm underwhelmed with surprise at this not shocking Revelation that Monsanto and GMO's suck.

Do you know stupidity well?

[Anonymous Coward]

,

The kind of "duh" think that I'm thinking about here is that, if this corn produces these insecticide-like chemicals, one should have to show that it is non-toxic in humans...

That's the key: the problem is not the fact that this plant was genetically modified, but rather the specific proteins that it was engineered to produce.

This distinction will be lost on millions of reactionaries.

No the problem is not those facts but rather that people are stupid and therefore tend to do stupid things and of course do not realize that what they're doing is in fact stupid otherwise they hopefully wouldn't do it.

I say "they" but I'm included as well.

The problem gets worse by the following and excuse me but I'll bloody well scream it the loudest I can because so many people just do not want to acknowledge it:
ONE CANNOT ERADICATE STUPIDITY THROUGH EDUCATION OR KNOWLEDGE! ATTEMPTS TO DO SO WILL ONLY CREATE MORE ADVANCED STUPIDITY, NOT LESS STUPIDITY.

Humanity will evolve beyond the crawling toddler stage when it begins to seriously focus on systems and arrangements that work well and are stable for millennia despite the massive levels of stupidity inherent to every single human, we're nowhere close yet.

Re:Do you know stupidity well?

[Wonko the Sane]

ONE CANNOT ERADICATE STUPIDITY THROUGH EDUCATION OR KNOWLEDGE! ATTEMPTS TO DO SO WILL ONLY CREATE MORE ADVANCED STUPIDITY, NOT LESS STUPIDITY.

One eridicates stuipdity through pain. That's why pain exists.

The reason that you don't touch hot stoves is not because of anything your parents told you when you were a child - it's because you did it once and it hurt.

Shielding people from the consequences of bad decisions is what breeds stupidity.

Re:Do you know stupidity well?

[tehcyder]

The reason that you don't touch hot stoves is not because of anything your parents told you when you were a child - it's because you did it once and it hurt.

So the only reason that I haven't yet blasted my head off with a shotgun is because when I was a child I did it once and it hurt?

Hmmm.

Re:Do you know stupidity well?

[Wonko the Sane]

More or less

The inability to feel pain, which at first blush seems like a gift, is, in fact, a devastating disability. Every childhood milestone has become a new danger instead of a joy. That's because Gabby can't tell when she's hurting herself.

"She started cutting teeth and she had bit down through the skin. She would have bit down to the bone had I let her. It was just chewed up," Trish Gingras said.

"We decided to pull her teeth because she was mutilating her fingers," Steve Gingras said.

Learning to walk just made Gabby more vulnerable. By the time she was 2½, she had been injured and hospitalized multiple times. At age 2, Gabby broke her jaw and didn't know it until infection caused a fever. To treat the infection, she had to be on an IV medication for six weeks.

Her eyes were especially at risk.

"You'd look away for one second, you'd look back and she'd have her fingers in her eye," Steve Gingras said. "You're watching your child go blind right in front of you."

Her desperate parents tried restraints and then goggles. But by the time Gabby was 4, she needed to have her left eye removed. Her right eye was also damaged, and she wears a lens over it to help her see better. Although Gabby is legally blind with 20/200 eyesight, she can still see shapes.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[daem0n1x]

Any person in any country in the world could buy a bag of Monsanto corn, feed it to rats and dissect them. Controlled experiments with rats are cheap. North Korea could do it. Cuba could do it. Venezuela could do it. The African Development Bank could do it.

And who would give a fuck? Would you?

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[daem0n1x]

If you are American, I hope your anti-French nationalism does not blind you while seeing this film.

Don't worry. The typical anti-French bigot gets all his information from Fox News. He's not intelligent enough to understand a single word of your documentary. He'd call it all lies, anyway.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Anonymous Coward]

According to food, inc? I think.. if you keep seed you can get banned by monstanto from buying their corn.

Face it: y'all hate it when hippies are right

[spun]

Selective breeding is not the same thing as modern genetic modification. Mendel wasn't putting bacterial genes into corn. We've had thousands of years of testing selective breeding. We have had a decade or so of testing bacteria protein laced corn and other genetically modified foods. See the difference? The damn hippies were right: we should have tested this stuff more.

Re:Face it: y'all hate it when hippies are right

[Anonymous Coward]

Selective breeding is not the same thing as modern genetic modification.

Why? Give me enough time and I can use selective breeding to make corn that sings. It's called evolution.

Mendel wasn't putting bacterial genes into corn.

No, but they're still there. Horizontal gene transfer happens all the time. No big deal. If you but the Bacillus thuringiensis on corn long enough, you will eventually have Bt corn.

The damn hippies were right: we should have tested this stuff more.

Two trillion GMO meals served and no one has ever been proven to have been hurt in any way by one. So this study comes along, who cares? I've got a study saying vaccines cause autism, one that proves homeopathy works, and another that disproves evolution. You can't believe everything that comes you way, especially with such a highly politicized subject such as this. Could they be right? Maybe. But until more evidence comes my way, much more, like a causative agent for starters, I don't buy it.

Don't step out of line.

[Anonymous Coward]

You entirely CAN produce dogs with poisonous bites by breeding. The likelihood of that mutation is incredibly small. IAAMB (I am a molecular biologist)
 
Think before you type.

Re:Don't step out of line.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you try reading before you type, dumbass?

Watch a movie called Food Inc.

[RedTeflon]

I just watched a movie called Food Inc. It was disturbing / eye opening at the same time. Rather depressing actually. It goes over a brief overview of the US food industry and touches a little on the Monsanto company.
Please check it out http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/
After watching it, I had to rewatch just to truly absorb all the info.

Horrible, horrible meta study

[geekoid]

It';s not a study it;s a meta study. Not even a well written meta study.

After seeing some odd conclusions, and logical fallacies I decided to look up the authors. Yeah, huge anti-GM proponents.

So what we have is a metastudy - which are always questionable. They have a use, but it's a very narrow band use.

We have authors who are heavily biased.

All the data has been cherry picked.

This shows nothing. Please come back with good data.

For the record, I am pro good studies and scientific facts. Even when they may slay a sacred cow.

Citation Needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Not like corn provides all its nutritional value unless its treated with a relatively strong-ish base anyways... lime is what's mostly used to break up the proteins on the kernel to produce vitamin B12...

Corn can't produce vitamin B12. The components to do so exist, to modern scientific knowledge, in certain bacterial species (I am a nutritional biochemist). B12 is only used by bacteria and animals (no known usage or presence in plants, only bacterial contamination of said plants), and requires cobalt. To my knowledge, corn does not use, absorb or store cobalt under normal conditions.

While the rest of your post may have merit, the final paragraph is not scientifically accurate.

It is true, however, that genetic modification can make a plant toxic to humans, and should be thoroughly tested before use, though we could say the same thing about novel cross-breeds of plants as well.

Re:Citation Needed

[snowgirl]

Not like corn provides all its nutritional value unless its treated with a relatively strong-ish base anyways... lime is what's mostly used to break up the proteins on the kernel to produce vitamin B12...

Corn can't produce vitamin B12. The components to do so exist, to modern scientific knowledge, in certain bacterial species (I am a nutritional biochemist). B12 is only used by bacteria and animals (no known usage or presence in plants, only bacterial contamination of said plants), and requires cobalt. To my knowledge, corn does not use, absorb or store cobalt under normal conditions.

While the rest of your post may have merit, the final paragraph is not scientifically accurate.

It is true, however, that genetic modification can make a plant toxic to humans, and should be thoroughly tested before use, though we could say the same thing about novel cross-breeds of plants as well.

Sorry, I correct myself. It's B3, not B12. While I am a pedantic bitch, I'm not into nutrition and such, and as such my pedantry levels are limited in such a field.

Thank you for the correction, you get +1, Correcting me points.

Sounds like it would be an idea to insert a gene

[Anonymous Coward]

to insert a gene which somehow prevented the genetically modified corn from bearing small corn babies either alone or with normal corn. That way if you left it for some time it would all die by itself.

Oh wait, they did that but it was evil.

how did I know this was a European study?

[peter303]

Theya re like 99% against GM on the other side of the ocean. You cant get a pro-GM result published in a European-based journal.

Re:how did I know this was a European study?

[Dare978Devil]

Theya re like 99% against GM on the other side of the ocean. You cant get a pro-GM result published in a European-based journal.

Ironic because you cannot get an anti-GM study done in the US. Monsanto is the biggest corporate sponsor of Agricultural Studies at American universities. As soon as any study is done of GM products and their potential health effects, Monsanto calls the dean and offers to pull all funding. Since American colleges and universities live off of corporate funding, it is a simple decision for the dean.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[bperkins]

So it might be money, as others have said.

But I have some other questions.

1) Why hasn't this fairly simple experiment been done before?

2) Why do three types of corn with fairly different modifications have very similar toxicities?

Food Inc - Documentary

[Croakus]

I find it interesting that this popped up the day after I watched the movie "Food Inc." If you think this is disturbing, you NEED to watch the movie ...

http://www.foodincmovie.com/

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't speak for Monsanto brand GM corn but I can speak for a range of other GM products and terminator type seed stock.

You DO sign a contract, its part of the purchase. It's mostly about retaining their IP rights if you manage to breed down from there stock. Really in commercial farming these days you don't buy seed you buy a contract to plant XXXXX acres in YYYYY crop.

I will keep my backyard garden and my chickens you GMO fanbois can have the liver disease.

need a new word

[zogger]

I've seen this a lot on this site (unfortunately). Luddite is tossed around as a swear word to ridicule those who don't understand or see any benefits of modern tech. The opposite exists but we don't have a single word for it, people who automatically trust any new tech to be safe, without any evidence that it is safe, other than the inventor's and corporation's word for it. There's a word used that is close, but doesn't specify "as regards newer tech", that is a "pollyanna". We really need a new word for those who blindly "trust" but never "verify" all new high tech advances.

This issue with some of the GM corn mods has been known for years now, and dismissed by the big business sycophants/pollyannas. The largest misconception I have seen is equating *cross species modification* with naturally occurring or man made same species hybrids. These get equated all the freaking time by alleged tech savvy people as the excuse to just "trust". The "tech pollyannas" knee jerk automatically trust, based on a starting point of falsehood belief. It's just as loony and stupid as being a luddite based on erroneous or even zero knowledge of the subject.

I am a farmer and I will say I do NOT trust corporate big ag business (nor ag college academia that relies on the same big business for funding and has tame scientists in and out of the same big business) to be self regulating as to safety concerns nor do I trust the governmental regulators because of the revolving door "jobs" aspect that occur. (exactly the same as occurs with Wall Street/Federal Reserve/Treasury/SEC revolving door jobs). There's WAY too much money involved for there not to be corruption. Just human nature. Just because some person has many letters next to their name, or some official government title, is not any guarantee they are trustworthy as to being non corrupt or "bought off". They are just as likely or not as likely as anyone else, and as the currency units involved go up in number..we should take closer and closer looks as to this trust and verify business.

  It would be nice to trust the system, but I can't the way it is set up now.

Here's an interesting video on this food subject, on how much trust we should place in huge global ag business and regulations as they exist now.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6262083407501596844

Look at software code. A chunk can be written, looked at, have other people look at it, vetted..few months later they missed something and there is an 0-day.
Well, that can be patched.

Can't say the same thing for food stuff once it is planted all over. Won't be any patches once it is out in the wild and air pollination starts spreading it. We are already seeing some of the first minor examples with canola/rapeseed "superweeds". Just wait until there are major examples.

It isn't a matter of if, it is a matter of when. There will be a hugemongous "whoops..heh heh heh, guess we missed that" excuse mumbling major screwup, by guys in black suits and white lab coats at some news conference, with the global food supply. This corn might be it, who knows, but it is coming.

Re:need a new word

[davebooth]

I am a farmer and I will say I do NOT trust corporate big ag business (nor ag college academia that relies on the same big business for funding and has tame scientists in and out of the same big business) to be self regulating as to safety concerns nor do I trust the governmental regulators because of the revolving door "jobs" aspect that occur. (exactly the same as occurs with Wall Street/Federal Reserve/Treasury/SEC revolving door jobs).

I'm an ex-molecular biologist and I dont trust 'em either. Modern genetic techniques do indeed have the potential to bring tremendous benefits and I'll even go so far as to say the profit motive has a role in driving the deployment of some of those benefits but thats only with the most rigorous and transparent testing and verification. THAT is what we dont have, instead we have regulators willing to take the word of the guys who stand to make a huge pile from a favorable result of the testing. The end result of this will indeed be, as you predict at the end of your comment, that some minor factor which in testing was argued away as insignificant or negligible will become significant when the product is deployed on such scales as are applicable to food production.

I hope we're both wrong, but I dont believe we are.

Re:need a new word

[TheLink]

> minor factor which in testing was argued away as insignificant or negligible will become significant when the product is deployed on such scales as are applicable to food production.

That's the thing about medicine testing, food testing and vaccine testing.

For some stuff it's fine that "only" a very small percentage have problems with it. You take that medicine/procedure only if you have an existing problem that's worse than the medication. If your problem has a > 90% chance of killing or crippling you, and the medicine has a 2% chance, the decision is easy.

But for stuff which millions will take when they don't have an existing problem it's no longer so simple. The safety levels may have to be much higher.

Re:need a new word

[Anonymous Coward]

PHB?

Re:need a new word

[Anonymous Coward]

"Pronoia"

The opposite of paranoia.

The belief that everyone is out to help you.

Re:need a new word

[horza]

The BSE crisis in the UK is a good case study, where they said everything was fine (with the ridiculous image of the government Minister force-feeding his child a steak on national tv) until they said "whoops" and slaughtered and burned 4.4M cows.

Monsanto are famous for denying responsibility for cock-ups (Bhopal, anybody?), and enough posters have pointed out that to them profits matter not dead people. As zogger says, cross-pollination could turn this into an epic disaster. However a lot of Europe is safe, as they don't trust GM food.

Phillip.

Re:need a new word

[zogger]

Thanks for the backup on the science side. I am mostly looking at the practical economic side and it is pure vendor lockin and hidden everything and patented everything from this viewpoint. There are several overlapping bad ideas and practices there.

  Our modern corporate wall street/governmental approved ag is really screwing over both the end consumer and the primary producers, the farmers. Everyone is going into some sort of food bondage to this octopus of corporate/governmental (false)control. It just weirds me out. And I so much think there will be not one but many "whoopsies!" coming I started a program to not only do my primary crop, but hit generalization and grow as much of my own food as possible (getting closer every year to total, too). I even maintain an open pollinated-no patents seed stash, I just do the old traditional "keep the best" every season, and I have contingency plans to add airfilters to the greenhouse and continue production there for our personal food if I absolutely have to.

It's sad, but I have gradually lost faith in the impartiality of the science community. Just too much stuff tied to huge profits and patents and global trade policies today, I just don't think it is as "impartial" as they want us to believe. Look at the recent revelations with h1n1 and WHO, or the corruption scandals in the european emissions trading market, and now a proposed trillions of dollars global co2 market. There's just too much money and political power, etc., to be garnered from gaming the system, even the "independent" science system, that it leaves joe food eater or taxpayer just bewildered who to believe or not anymore.

I mean, this *sucks*, I don't want to have that viewpoint, but am forced to more and more because we keep finding out about weird stuff that was kept hidden or altered for profit.

Re:need a new word

[Fnord666]

We really need a new word for those who blindly "trust" but never "verify" all new high tech advances.

Isn't the term for that "apple fanboi"?

Re:need a new word

[zogger]

Fanboi would fit. It needs to be even more pejorative I think.

Re:need a new word

[uninformedLuddite]

It isn't a matter of if, it is a matter of when. There will be a hugemongous "whoops..heh heh heh, guess we missed that" excuse mumbling major screwup, by guys in black suits and white lab coats at some news conference, with the global food supply. This corn might be it, who knows, but it is coming.

The company liability is limited so it will be the little people who pay through the nose for remediation of the issue. It may not be fixable but regardless those that shoved it down our throats wont care because they will be rich. Anyway, I am pretty sure that corn is too big to be allowed to fail.

Re:need a new word

[Anonymous Coward]

We really need a new word for those who blindly "trust" but never "verify" all new high tech advances.

it already existed. the word yer lookin for is 'fool.'

Re:need a new word

[bingoUV]

Why do you need slang for everything? "Credulous" has been a word in English since before your grandfathers were born. Use it. Consult a thesaurus and you will find somewhat subtle variations too.

Re:need a new word

[zogger]

That's a nice word but it isn't as specific as luddite is in the opposite. It also isn't a noun.

"Oh, you are against blah blah, you must be a luddite!"

"Oh, you just go along with every new gadget fad, even if it is junk, you are just a credulous!"

It doesn't work...

Re:need a new word

[bingoUV]

Since you know it is not a noun, try not to use it as one.

"Oh, you just go along with every new gadget fad, even if it is junk, you are too credulous!"

Not too hard, was it?

Re:need a new word

[zogger]

Well, this is sort of silly really, that wasn't the main point of my post after all, although it was a funny/odd reflection on this phenomenon. As to technically looking for a word, yes, I was looking for a new noun, not an adjective.

Sue them rats ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the farmers before them , whose grasses were allegedly pollinated merely by the wind from so called G Modified stuff, they may go ahead and Sue the rats who are just as Dumbfounded .
The rats having taken no action they can control and yet being held liable and falsely outrageously Blamed for nothing they did or had any control over .
Albeit twisted, Such a lawsuit might nonetheless be accepted in the USA by some Jackass liberal Judge hypothetical named Judge Jerk' ,. Knowing full well that the rats cant pay and can in no way be held legally liable due to a raisin sized brain . This gives the rats a mentally incapable obvious defense.

In order to free the market...

[RoboProg]

it was necessary to regulate it. Without limited effective regulation, such as requiring this stuff to be labeled, it can be hard to conduct fair, non-coerced, transactions. I am not saying we should outright ban the stuff -- what if somebody is in a situation where the choice is grow this, because nothing else will? But it would be nice to make an informed decision.

Either regulations, or de-regulation, can go overboard. What was right 10 or 20 years ago may be too much or too little now.

Any sufficiently advanced monopoly is indistinguishable from communism. Some guys in a room on the central planning committee decide production for an entire industry, and see to it that there are no questions from the populace.

There are other studies. This is an outlier.

[CCW]

Here's a three generation feeding study that showed no adverse affect for rats fed Bt producing GMO corn, but did detect minor biochemical changes. I just skimmed it, so it may not be perfect, but it is well written and doesn't reek of significance inflation and data mining for a desired outcome like the cited study does. #2 hit on google for "Bt Rat Feeding Studies" so there is no reason for the authors not to have cited it except that it contradicts their conclusions with better data.

http://www.somloquesembrem.org/img_editor/file/Kilic&Akay08BtMaizeFeedingStudy.pdf

Aysun Kilic, M. Turan Akay, A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation, Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 46, Issue 3, March 2008, Pages 1164-1170, ISSN 0278-6915, DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2007.11.016.
Keywords: Transgenic Bt corn; Three generation study; Histopathology; Biochemical analysis; Wistar albino rat

an African country turned down free GM food

[da5idnetlimit.com]

Hmm did you hear the rest of the story on that one ?

They refused "free" gm crops seed and food, worked hand in hand with ONU to alleviate the food crisis and started sowing "normal" traditionnal seeds that were acclimated to their country.

And now they have almost reached food production independence.

Can you remind me what happened to the neighboring countries that accepted ?
They actually sowed some of the grains and now pay the "Monsanto Tax"...and even if short term they solved the problem, they now are in a problematic situation for years (possibly decades) to come.

Have a look at a documentary called "the world according to Monsanto" and what happened to some south american countries that are now paying millions, if not billions to Monsanto each year. Also have a look at Indian (like in India) cotton farmers and their suicide rates since they switched to GM cotton. One of the worst human tragedy of the decade, because they had to buy fertiliser and RoundUp, got more heavilly in debt and commited suicide when they couldn't repay it all.

And I'm not even a green activist. I just despise the bastards from Monsanto...

Say wha?

[Mathinker]

> lime is what's mostly used to break up the proteins on the kernel to produce vitamin B12.

Only bacteria have the biochemical apparatus to produce B12. I call bullshit.

It's not even anything which would be produced by the reaction of a base with protein. You'd just get amino acids...

Re:Say wha?

[snowgirl]

> lime is what's mostly used to break up the proteins on the kernel to produce vitamin B12.

Only bacteria have the biochemical apparatus to produce B12. I call bullshit.

It's not even anything which would be produced by the reaction of a base with protein. You'd just get amino acids...

It's not B12, it's B3 as stated by others. And if you looked up "Hominy" you'd see that it's true.

Re:Say wha?

[Mathinker]

> It's not B12, it's B3 as stated by others.

So the guy I replied to isn't a chemical-knowledge-pinhead, he's a can't-remember-one-digit-number-pinhead? Thanks, that really cleared things up for me!

> And if you looked up "Hominy" you'd see that it's true.

Interesting. Yes, you are correct that treating corn with alkali generates Vitamin B3. However, it's true for reasons unconnected with the reaction of protein with the alkali. From LAGUNA J, CARPENTER KJ (September 1951). "Raw versus processed corn in niacin-deficient diets". J. Nutr. 45 (1): 21–8. PMID 14880960. http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=14880960. :

It seems more likely that the present results can be explained by the findings of Kodicek (Chanduri and Kodicek, '50; Kodicek, '51), reported during the course of these experiments. He demonstrated the presence in corn and other cereals of a "precursor" of niacinamide which is normally unavailable to the rat. It is liberated by alkaline but not acid hydrolysis, as shown by biological assay with rats.

I am, of course, assuming the poster I replied to was using the word "protein" to mean "generic polypeptide" and was not talking about a particular protein after post-translational modification (since such modification could theoretically produce the kind of niacin precursor which Kodicek talks about).

> I'm not actually a lawyer, I'm just THAT pedantic.

I am a mathematician, I get paid to be pedantic. :-)

Re:Say wha?

[snowgirl]

I am the poster you responded to.

I'm pedantic, but I'm not a biologist. I knew it was a Vitamin B, I was just wrong in the assumption it were Vitamin B12... I just guessed.

I used the word "protein" because it was my assumption... I don't know biology or much organic chem at all.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[mc6809e]

The invisible hand of the free market made the data and research invisible.

Just like climate data, right?

The Monsanto people have been VERY VERY bad...

[Time_Warped]

I'm going to wish them into the cornfield too!

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[aodestruction]

Any person in any country in the world could buy a bag of Monsanto corn...

... but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a contract that you need to sign before buying Monsanto GM corn.

I grew up on a dairy farm, and I've been home to help with the planting and harvesting this past (2009) season. You DON'T need to sign any contract to buy genetically modified corn. You just buy it.

How many anomalies should we expect?

[Senescent Nerd]

Let's eyeball the statistics: 60 measurements per organ (according to the abstract), times seven organs (adrenal glands, brain, gonads, heart, kidneys, liver, and spleen), times two feeding durations (5 and 14 weeks), times two sexes (male, female), time three strains of corn tested (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), equals 5040 measurement series. (Wow! 7!) So in the absence of any effect, we should expect 5040/20 = 252 "statistically significant" (p < .05) discoveries and 5040/100 = 50 "statistically highly significant" (p < .01) discoveries.

Are we learning something about health, or are we just illustrating the perils of data dredging?

Lack of Control Experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a reason this is appearing in a fourth rate journal. There are no control experiments. How do you know that soybeans or some other food substance won't do the same thing to rats. The rat intestinal system isn't exactly identical to humans'. For example, here's a rodenticide made exclusively from corn cellulose that's supposed to be non-toxic to humans: http://www.freshpatents.com/Rodenticide-dt20070816ptan20070190098.php

I believe they are in the UK and rest of EU?

[fantomas]

"Companies must tell you if a food they sell contains grapes, raisins or hemlock, but if a food contains corn, they're not forced to tell you if it's "natural" or GM."

I think they do in the UK and the rest of the EU. Would be interested if anybody can provide references. A lot of resistance to GM food here so you certainly notice ingredients lists on tins etc noting "modified" . Not sure if it's a legal requirement but wouldn't be surprised, there was quite a fuss here when GM corn started appearing, a lot of resistance against it. I think governments still have a slight edge over companies here in terms of power compared to the USA.

All the top schools!

[BancBoy]

their editorial board is a bunch of slackers from the likes of Georgeton, (...) Vancerbilt, Nortwestern, UC, etc.

Panaphonics? Magnetbox? Sorny?

Some do, some don't

[sean.peters]

Some of the stuff has been engineered to express Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis, or more specifically, the insecticidal compound that Bt produces). So in that case, yes, the plant produces its own insecticide. In other cases, the plants are engineered for resistance to glyphosate (aka "Roundup"), a commonly used herbicide. In that case, the plant doesn't produce any pesticidal chemicals, but the farmer can feel free to use much more Roundup on his plants.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Anonymous Coward]

..a neighboring farmer who has his own non-Monstanto crops contaminated by Monstanto crops are also being sued and asked to prove themselves innocent.

Link or it didn't happen.

I recall a story years ago about a farmer who supposedly had his crops "accidently" contaminated being hassled by Monsanto. Turns out when they tested his crop, almost 99% of it was Monsanto variety. Oops.

Monsanto and The Law in this case are completely overbearing, but don't just make shit up. It just hurts your cause.

Stupid

[gr8_phk]

Pusztai's rats ate /nothing/ but GM potatoes, and then became unhealthy. I suspect that if they had eaten nothing but regular old potatoes, they also would have become equally unhealthy.

You're proposing he should have used a control group to make sure the effect wasn't due to the potato diet. He did. Your suspicion is incorrect.

Are you sure about this?

[sean.peters]

I think the majority of "high prevalence of corn in processed foods" is HFCS

[citation needed]. In fact, there are tons of products made from ground corn, at least here in the US. Many, many breakfast cereals and snack foods are corn-based. Also, most livestock eat tons of corn, so there's certainly a chance that any problematic substances in the corn would build up in their bodies before you eat the meat.

MOD +50

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, another problem caused by government subsidised industry.

We've got the same problem with petroleum-oil verse algae-oil. Oil prices should really be 2x what they currently are but they are back door subsidised due to the military industrial complex protecting them. If a truly free market existed, we could farm an area the size of Vermont in one of those mostly empty square desert states and tell the gulf desert states to pound our sand. ;)

And...

[sean.peters]

People would stop eating corn products.

And they would know which corn products were Monsanto-ized, how, exactly? Giving up corn products altogether is a pretty giant step.

hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, I don't like Monsanto, they do some real b.s. stunts.
Also, that article used a number of terms I am not familiar with, mostly specific tests or specific data manipulation techniques.

A few things bother me.

Each test group was apparently 10 rats.
The results in that article include nothing from the control group(s).
Some of their raw data was obtained via lawsuit.
The testing was also done by two different groups in different locations and different times.

I'm somewhat suspicious of this.
If I were paranoid, I'd say they just took someone elses experimental data and manipulated it to show what they wanted.

Since the IJoBS is peer reviewed, let's see what the peers have to say about this article, especially after some of the peers do their own testing.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[JohnBailey]

I'll never understand why so many people here blame so many ills on the free market when we currently do not even have a free market.

Because we vainly hope to educate the brainwashed morons who think it actually exists.

Not all of them are insecticidal...

[sean.peters]

... some are engineered to be resistant to the effects of glyphosate (aka "Roundup"), an herbicide - so you can spray for weeds around your corn without killing the corn in the process. But the insecticidal ones have genes built in for Bt - Bacillus thuringiensis - a naturally occuring bacterium that produces compounds fatal to a number bugs... especially bugs in the butterfly/moth family. Corn borers are susceptible to it - at least for now. There have already been instances of resistance developing both the GM-introduced Bt and regular old Bt sprays (which have been in common use for decades as an organic insecticide - I use it in my garden).

Their CEO eats organic

[Anonymous Coward]

In a recent radio interview, the CEO of Monsanto (a Scott named Hugh Grant, weirdly enough) admitted to eating organic food himself. I guess he knows something we don't (or didn't until recently).

Ryssdal: Do you ever buy organic food yourself?

Grant: Yeah, I do. Yeah.

What the transcript doesn't capture is the way he says it. He chuckles quietly, and answers softly, as if to say "Yeah, yeah, ok. You got me. But shhh..."

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/08/20/corner_office_grant_transcript/

The point is...

[sean.peters]

... that these compounds are known to be toxic to various other organisms. Rather than blindly trust the company who's making a profit selling the stuff, perhaps we ought to test whether they're toxic to us too. Sure, insects are different from humans. But rats are considerably closer to us in their anatomy and physiology, and it looks like there's evidence that it's harmful to them too. And your response is that we should just take Monsanto's word that there's nothing to see here?

Re:The point is...

[BradleyUffner]

that these compounds are known to be toxic to various other organisms. Rather than blindly trust the company who's making a profit selling the stuff, perhaps we ought to test whether they're toxic to us too. Sure, insects are different from humans. But rats are considerably closer to us in their anatomy and physiology, and it looks like there's evidence that it's harmful to them too. And your response is that we should just take Monsanto's word that there's nothing to see here?

Not at all. I was just pointing out to the orriginal poster who stated that if something is harmful to insects we should just assume it's harmful to people also. I think Mansanto is just about as evil a company as they come, but that doesn't make GM Crops automatically bad. Just as there are natural fruits and plants out there that will kill you if you eat them. A GM plant is like a different species of plant, it needs to be tested from an unbiased perspective, not assumed good or bad.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they only sue those who knowingly raise a new generation of seed from purchased seeds in violation of their contract. Most of those caught doing so simply admit it and pay a fine. The myth that farmers with cross-field-pollinated fields get sued likely got started by farmers who violated their contract and then lied about it when caught. The anti-monsanto crowd does little fact checking in this aera.

Or...

[sean.peters]

... maybe Monsanto could quit withholding the data that would be required to, you know, actually have said rational discussion. Yes, there is a lot of hysteria on this subject. But the cause of the hysteria is stonewalling on the part of the GM companies.

Re:Or...

[DeadCatX2]

I hope you aren't trying to place all of the blame on Monsanto. Certainly, they can share in the blame for not being upfront about all of this, which would certainly help promote discussion. One can also make the argument that it's immoral and/or unethical to get patents and then squeeze profits out of an industry as important to human survival as agriculture.

But is it that hard for some scientists to go buy some of this corn and roll their own study? Would you really even trust whatever data Monsanto provided?

Our inability to have a rational discussion about this isn't solely the result of any stone-walling. I would say it's more about those folks who feel that we shouldn't be "playing God"; how exactly do you reason with people who don't care about facts or science?

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[barkingcorndog]

I have no idea.

So, Obama's appointments in 2009 allowed Monsanto to hide this information from 2001 to the present?

Where's the link about the time machine?

Breeding can't produce toxic plants? Says who?

[macraig]

You don't know the history of the "domestication" of tomatoes, do you? What makes you so certain that process couldn't happen in reverse and produce something poisonous?

Isn't the point of testing...

[toby]

To do it BEFORE the world's crops are contaminated permanently with this GMO rubbish?

Does anyone in the mainstream not wonder why and how investigation was either not done, or hushed up, before these products were approved for environmental release, not to mention sale as food?

Oh well. Keep drinking your Aspartame laced sodas and eating your GMO corn chips, everyone. Somebody's making a...killing on it.

Why wouldn't he just lie about it?

[toby]

Of *course* the people hugely profiting from this crime eat good, healthy food themselves. They can afford to. Cheap corn products are meant for the disposable, obese, and sick masses.

I know, Scientifically, "common sense" sucks

[smchris]

But is it really a stretch that if an insect won't eat it, _maybe_ we shouldn't?

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Dr_Barnowl]

There is - you have to sign a technology agreement.

In addition, if you don't buy Monsanto corn, you are likely to be investigated. If your field is even partially pollinated by Roundup Ready® corn, and it's probably a virtual certainty by now, they'll set the lawyers on you. Since Monsanto can afford more lawyers than you, and your farm is likely to represent your family livelihood, most people cave in and settle out of court rather than lose their family inheritance. And I'm willing to bet that some of them start buying Monsanto just to avoid it happening again... maybe it even gets written into the settlements.

That's right, Monsanto now makes money out of farmers for NOT buying Monsanto products. The best thing for them about this business model is that it spreads itself - literally, with pollen - across national borders, regardless of consent or trade agreement.

Diversity is key

[spectro]

Nature evolves providing diversity and that is its best defense. From the beginning of farming we have been fighting diversity therefore becoming vulnerable to pests. We develop a pesticide to control this pest and after a while the pest evolves becoming resistant to it....

Homogenization makes business sense but is not the way of nature. We would like to produce one kind of corn, soybean, potato, apple, etc... the one that yields us more profit. In pursuing this we are creating a single point of failure. All we need is for a pest to become round-up resistant and all our soybean/corn produce goes to hell.

Remember that pests are also fighting for survival and having more of the same just make it easier for them to figure out a resistance. If we had diversity, some of the crop would die but the rest will survive. Not as profitable but way safer.

Moral: If bacteria and insects can't eat it...

[Anonymous Coward]

..we shouldn't either.

idk how you got modified informative, but I give u

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

PLUS 5 for being funny!

That was HILLARIOUS!

I think you are missing the bigger picture

[jbssm]

For us Europeans and Americans, this may just seem a serious but easily solvable problem. They will replace the crops, they will pay something to the affected people and in the end all the Monsanto CEO's will be happy and rich as usual (remember, the China milk problem? As much as you can say they are evil as opposed to USA, at least they made the guilty people pay ... which obviously will not happen here with Monsanto. They are just too rich and powerfull). Anyway, for the West this will not be such a big problem, we will just eat other stuff while the crops get replaced. But now, think about all those 3rd world countries, that are using this to survive, do you really think they can afford to eat "other stuff" while they wait?

deadly innovation

[anonieuweling]

So now we have deadly innovations lobbied to death worldwide (even the EU simplifies the number of desks to visit for Mansanto), news about shortcomings is of course supporessed or denied and the public is kept in the unknown, all in the name of corporatism which originated in the USA, land of the not so free....

It's the glyphosate, not the modified protein

[Ubi_NL]

If you would actually read the article their conclusion states that it is probably remainders of the toxin itself rather than the modified protein inside the plant that is responsible for the effects.

Re:Breeding can't produce toxic plants? Says who?

[mcgrew]

Fruit-bearing plants like the tomato need completely non-toxic (at least to its target symbiant) to spread its seed, so the fruit wouldn't have been poisonous. However, the rest of the tomato plant is inedible; many plants are like that.

The tomato's fruit never was poisonous, but people thought it was.

Tomato history
French botanist Tournefort provided the Latin botanical name, Lycopersicon esculentum, to the tomato. It translates to "wolfpeach" -- peach because it was round and luscious and wolf because it was erroneously considered poisonous. The botanist mistakenly took the tomato for the wolfpeach referred to by Galen in his third century writings, ie., poison in a palatable package which was used to destroy wolves.

The English word tomato comes from the Spanish tomatl, first appearing in print in 1595. A member of the deadly nightshade family, tomatoes were erroneously thought to be poisonous (although the leaves are poisonous) by Europeans who were suspicious of their bright, shiny fruit. Native versions were small, like cherry tomatoes, and most likely yellow rather than red.

On the bright side

[Locke2005]

The GM corn has been proven effective at pest control, since it kills rats! This presents an exiting new marketing opportunity for Monsanto!

Kill Monsanto.

[crhylove]

As if we needed any more reasons to put Monsanto out of business. This has got to be one of the most foul organizations on the planet.

Curious

[OpenSourced]

So when you try to put a medicine on the market, that only a small handful of people will take, you have to test it, test it again, then in other animals, then finally in people with controlled trials. When you modify a food, that almost everybody will take, you are allowed to on your say so, or perhaps on the looks of the thing "Hey, its maize, old and good, you know it cannot harm anybody".

I wonder if a medicine that showed this effects on rats would have been allowed even to be tested on humans, much less to be ever released to general consumption.

It's a matter of intelligence

[Lorien_the_first_one]

Considering the many ways in which genes can be expressed, particularly foreign genes, I doubt that we're remotely smart enough to engineer food safely. I even think it will be several decades before we are, and by then, it will be too late.

If Monsanto were willing to label their food and accept liability, that would make things a bit better. But they just want the royalties and vendor lock-in that GMOs produce. Remember how these guys fought tooth and nail to prevent labeling here and in Europe? Now we know why.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[PopeRatzo]

Yes, in areas such as supermarkets.

And how are you supposed to know which corn in the supermarket is Monsanto GM corn unless you have the government regulations requiring labeling?

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[PopeRatzo]

You DON'T need to sign any contract to buy genetically modified corn. You just buy it.

That's right, you don't have to "sign" a contract, there's an end-user agreement that is binding as soon as you plant their corn.

They've become so powerful that they don't need you to actually sign a contract for you to be bound by one.

VERY careful reading

[Onymous Coward]

I may also be having a problem reading the article carefully. We should both look closely at this particular sentence:

MON 810 and MON 863 are engineered to synthesize two different Bt toxins used as insecticides.

Actually, after a bit of perusing, I feel quite confident that it's not about spraying.

Now, that said, Bt toxins are supposed to be not so toxic to humans. At least when sprayed.

Re:VERY careful reading

[Mab_Mass]

Oops. My bad. I really just read the abstract and skimmed the rest...

Separate study needed for processed foods

[harlows_monkeys]

A lot of comments are mentioning processed foods, and the large amount of corn in them.

While there are many good reasons to stay away from processed foods (read "The Omnivore's Dilemma" or "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan for details), you can't necessarily apply the cited study to processed foods, precisely because they are processed. The processing might well break down or remove the chemicals that are causing the organ damage.

Replication

[Lorien_the_first_one]

The major problem that hasn't really been addressed is civil and criminal liability for mistakes that can wipe out entire food chains. If you make a mistake with a car, you can stop replication, change the design and restart. No way you can do that with GMO crops. Once they get going, they can be very hard to stop.

The seed becomes the bomb.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[PopeRatzo]

when we currently do not even have a free market.

That's right. We currently do not have a "free market". We have never had a "free market" and no "free market" has ever existed in human history. Further, there will never, ever be a "free market".

Yet, we have people who base their entire socio-political view on the desirability of this impossible fantasy.

And let me tell you, the downside to having an "almost free market" where government plays no part in being a counterbalance to corporate power, you get a situation that's much much worse than a reasonable regulatory system in an open society.

But you don't hear free market nutjobs talking about a "reasonable regulatory system". You hear them talking about how "any government regulation of the marketplace is a bad thing".

That's why they're wrong and dangerous.

   

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[PopeRatzo]

Just like climate data, right?

Nice straw man, troll.

Especially since it turns out that the whole climate-gate "scandal" was nothing but FUD.

Please read the study...

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, I am a bit worried by the mindless chatter from many people on both sides of the debate here. I trust you read the article ? It is freely accessible. Noticed how they blast the miniscule amount of data not allowing the critically important dose-response relationship ? Then go ahead and talk of an 'obvious dose-response' using the same data ? With their ciritcal point being one mean value ? (Oh, please notice that it is perfectly fine to replace the used statistics with their own take on it, which really seems superior. But they still do not have enough data for any dose-response-relationship, which makes everything else interesting but meaningless. To the pro-GMO crowd - please ignore the rather worrisome, agressive style of the text and instead notice the valid criticism of the lack of data. Keep in mind that while they do slightly exaggerate to make a point, the same point would stand without exaggeration).

Things to take away from this (in my opinion):
a) If third parties call someone 'independent' - check to see if true (hint: these researchers are not). But please keep in mind that being dependent on a source of money does not automatically mean someone is wrong.

b) Commercially motivated animal testing has to be subject to far better statistical analysis. The authors are mostly right - not nearly enough data.

c) Calling data insufficient for a specific analysis and then using it to prrof your own agenda ? .... not so good

d) Do not automatically trust a study or an organization just because they seem to be on your side.

Two more things to mention:
1) Even if this would be proof that one GMO is dangerous (not convincing, which is a pity - that would have been interesting, to say the least), it would not follow that it ios ok to generalize to all GMOs. But it would be good incitement to ask for better controls (which everyone one should anyways)

2) Sorry to everyone who feels offended. Please take a deep breath and remember that I certainly did not mean you. You are a rational, critical thinker, after all !

Cheers.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Thanks for pointing that out. The current /. crowd would never pick up on sarcasm, subtlety, innuendo or implication.

Australian "FDA": this article is a joke!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/educationalmaterial/factsheets/factsheets2009/fsanzresponsetoseral4647.cfm

Executive, slightly hyperbolic summary: these guys do crappy statistics, don't listen to scientific consensus, and are repeat offenders.

Let the consumers decide

[spun]

No, you can't make corn that sings in any reasonable time frame, nor with any certainty, using selective breeding. With selective breeding, you must rely on the traits already present within the genome, or you must wait for the proper random mutation, which may never come.

You are confusing bacteria with viruses. Bacteria do not transfer genes horizontally. And in general, genes transferred this way are not active.

Given that the data came from Monsanto itself, I'd say I trust this study. It's the first of it's kind. You are basically saying, let anyone do anything they like until it is proven conclusively, without a doubt, that it causes harm. I say, if you want to do new things, you must at least label your products as untested. Let consumers make the choice as to what they trust.

The site, truthabouttrade.org, is an agribusiness advocacy site. I find it amazing that you would trust such an obviously biased web site, but not trust a scientific paper published in a respected peer-review journal.

Whew! Glad I missed that one!

[frank_adrian314159]

Less than 7% of corn consumed in the US is directly ingested, the rest being used for animal feed, high-fructose corn syrup, starch, and other products. As such, the issue is probably not a great concern (although, if it hurts Monsanto and breaks the stranglehold this company has on the corn industry, it's a good idea). Also, since the whole point of the RR trait is to allow farmers to douse their fields in Roundup, I'd also check to see how of the stuff the corn has absorbed.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[BikeHelmet]

What a coincidence. Nearly a decade ago I started to get blinding migraines in 5 minutes flat from eating corn.

I'm against genetically modified ANYTHING. Why? Because I can't verify the effects are negative. We're toddlers, playing with genomes. We need to study this shit for decades(lifetimes) before we put it out in the wild - lest we damage ourselves irreparably.

Brilliant!

[zooblethorpe]

No, really, brilliant! How do we make this happen? I can't think of a better way of waking up the USian public to the wondrous joys of our modern GM food!

Now back to your regularly scheduled problem...

Cheers,

Re:Whew! Glad I missed that one!

[horza]

Of course it matters what you put into the animal feed...

Phillip.

sort of

[zogger]

Usually pointy haired bosses are mid level though. These big decisions are made by the muckety mucks at the top.

I think that if it can be proved that research studies were obfuscated to hide the negative, or fudged..purely for economic gain, or that an official regulator used their authority position to further that shady goal, that it should be treated as a crime against humanity, like attempted genocide, along those levels. As in major criminal felony, not some white collar BS civil matter where they might get some joke fine either.

There are normal accidental mistakes, then there are deliberate decisions made to go ahead and issue some governmental stamp of approval and then produce and sell something that they know has questionable and dangerous traits. The latter non accidental occurrence should be a serious criminal violation. And repeated occurrences within the same corporation should result in a corporate death sentence, disallowal of corporate charter, declaring all outstanding stock to be worthless and untradeable. If they can do it to poor people with normal crimes, "three strikes" laws, they should apply the same thing to corporations. Three major criminal foulups-out ya go, dissolved, physical plant and other assets seized and auctioned off.

"Maximizing shareholder value" should not be the only criteria for allowing corporate charters. Just screw that and that mindset and belief. I like what the original design had, corporations had to prove to be of the public benefit to retain their charters. Now it is..they can do anything crooked sleazy or illegal they want and if they can afford to eat the fines if they are caught..they keep doing it. Nuts. Whack a few dozen of the top infringers down. Shareholders would *finally* get the message that they better be watching over their employees conduct a little better, that there's no such thing as a free lunch, and with profits come duties and responsibilities.

  And with that, we need some whistleblower protections with big sharp teeth in them. It's still a joke and lower level employees in government and business are still afraid of getting the word out on malfeasance and unethical or illegal behavior they are aware of. That should just not be.

not bad!

[zogger]

It's a brand new bouncing baby word!

floor wax/dessert topping

[zogger]

Some of this stuff now it is *both*. They are adding in genes/whatnot to make normal food crops also produce strong medicines.

well..it's neat they can do that..cheaper and better and more effective medicines is a worthy goal...but if this stuff escapes and crosses over with the "regular" food....eventually you'll have little choice, eat said and consume a dose of medicine, or no eat. Yes, that would be a choice, Hobson's choice.

WTO

[zogger]

The WTO will eventually even the playing field out to the most stupid and corrupt will be the law of the globalist land. Europe is holding out on some things, but eventually they will succumb to software patents, food patents, acceptance of GMO foods, etc. As more and more of the wealth production shifts elsewhere, the suits will insist that "IP" is the way to make money, to "save" the economy. When it comes to food, no patents on open pollinated heriloom seeds are possible, so out they go! They've been on a buying binge to aquire existing seed companies then trash them, dropping diversity and honest choice. And with the so called "law" saying that GM pollen crossing over into your non-GM field means you have "stolen their intellectual property"..well...ain't that special. There ain't gonna be no winnin' there. All they do is get enough of their crap planted in every county, eventually everyone who doesn't pay the yearly patent seed ripoff price is now a criminal, legally, as it becomes impossible to grow non GM patented stuff, the wind takes care of that. Check out that vid I posted in my original post, quite the eye opener. With corn, it pretty much is too late, so much cross pollination now with patented GM seeds that it is near impossible to try and grow "pure". Look at the refs in the vid to the poor campesinos in Mexico who grew nutritious specialized for their locale corn for like many generations, now it is crap, and isn't near as good to eat, because it got cross contaminated.

    Of course this is rubbish, but that is what they have done to the US now, they *looted* the place, not only with the food supply but with any number of things, and got away with it promising us the magic beans for the cow, and it eventually will be all over, because of these globalist treaties that place international corporate profits over everything else. The farmers are screwed, do it their way and make some pitiful profit, or try to fight them and go bust. The options are limited.

Not Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Some day, one of these things is going to slip through our bribed or non-existent regulatory structures. And when it does, we're fucked.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, I live in ag land and can drive 2 miles down the road and buy as much GM corn as I want. Stop talking out your ass.

Codex Alimentarius

[Anonymous Coward]

This is in order with the Codex Alimentarius to poison the food supply to significantly reduce the world's population. The Codex Alimentarius is now being used by individual countries to reduce the nutritional value of all foods, and to allow dangerous chemicals to be introduced into the food supply. Monsato significantly profits from all this, while at the same time poisoning the food supply. Demand from your representative that GM foods be labeled and identified, making it harder for companies like Monsato to continue to poison us.

fixed that for you!

[vaporland]

How would the unencumbered "free market" handle a problem like this? Especially since none of us who eat corn are actually direct customers of Monsanto's GM corn?

People would stop eating corn products, because they would be dead.

Those who were damaged by the defective product would seek damages in a civil court, except that they would be dead.

There, fixed that for you...

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[okmijnuhb]

They sell you the disease and the cure, brilliant!

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[adamchou]

Now that there is research out there showing that Monsanto corn is bad for our health, I'm wondering how long until they start getting sued

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[JBaustian]

How many of us consume unprocessed GM corn as 11% or 33% of our daily diets? I can't eat that many tortillas or muffins, I like a little variety in my menu.

Our health = collatoral damage for Monsanto profit

[KayakFun]

Monsanto has a long, and fortunately well-documented, history of deliberately poisoning our world with first their herbicides, then genetically modified plants that withstand larger quantities of their own herbicides, and further infertilizing that crop, so that you have to buy new seeds every year.

Couple that to an army of lawyers to sue the environmentally consious people and innocent bystanders who had their natural crop infected with blown-over genetically modified seeds from Monsanto, and anyone can conclude that Monsanto is EVIL.

If I was granted 1 wish, I wish that Monsanto would stop operating and invest their accumulated profits into undoing the damage that they did worldwide.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[plover]

Good question. This will really affect low income people, as corn and other grains are cheap and filling. In lots of cases processed corn cereals such as breakfast cereals serve as whole meals, and make up a sizable fraction of a person's diet. Many snack foods are corn based, and there are many people who will eat this kind of "junk food" for one of their meals.

Some of the states' low income food programs try to provide some balance to their clients. Texas WIC is computerized, and you can redeem only so much of your benefit for certain foods. You can't spend 100% of it on Fritos, for example. But other states simply provide a fixed amount of benefit, and you can choose to spend all of it on tortillas if that's what you desire.

Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf

[Pictish Prince]

Sorry if someone else posted this: The World According To Monsanto

Ouch

[Mathinker]

> I am the poster you responded to.

Ooooops. We pedantic mathematicians are not well-known for our social skills, sorry.

I'm sorry if I flamed you a bit badly, there. I guess I was having a hard day....

Anyway, thanks for the pointer to interesting info. "Nixtamalization" has such a nice woody sound!

Re:Ouch

[snowgirl]

> I am the poster you responded to.

Ooooops. We pedantic mathematicians are not well-known for our social skills, sorry.

I'm sorry if I flamed you a bit badly, there. I guess I was having a hard day....

Anyway, thanks for the pointer to interesting info. "Nixtamalization" has such a nice woody sound!

Meh, us lawyer-type pendants are used to people flaming us. :)