Slashdot Mirror


What You Eat Affects Your Genes

purkinje writes "Tiny bits of genetic material, called microRNAs, can make their way from the food you eat into your blood stream, and change how your genes are expressed, according to a new study. A team of Chinese scientists found tiny bits of white rice microRNA floating around in people's blood after a meal. When they looked at what was happening on a cellular level, they found that the microRNAs were changing gene expression, decreasing levels of a receptor that filters out LDL (bad) cholesterol. When the scientists gave mice both rice and a chemical to block the microRNAs, their levels of that receptor returned to normal — showing that the microRNAs weren't just swimming through the blood stream, but acting on genes in the animals' cells."

249 comments

  1. And your..... by jimpop · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... Jeans

    1. Re:And your..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Peens

    2. Re:And your..... by villain222 · · Score: 1

      dude, ankle length shirts?? Sweeeett.

    3. Re:And your..... by youn · · Score: 1

      I believe this is especially true for people named gene ;)

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
  2. If this were done in an English speaking country.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...they probably would have used a different pairing of test subjects besides "mice" and "rice"

  3. not my field.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    looks interesting, not my field but I have to ask if there is existing research with similar findings.

    anyone got better introductory information on this topic?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroRNA
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_expression

    1. Re:not my field.... by Khyber · · Score: 2

      Food is essentially a chemical. DNA is a chemical. Should we be surprised that one chemical would have an effect on other chemicals?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:not my field.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I only eat all natural, organic foods. It says right on the label that it does not contain any chemicals!

    3. Re:not my field.... by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, because up until recently we thought that cell membranes kept all the environmental chemicals out except only the ones that are allowed in. Every year we're learning that cell membranes are much more permeable than we thought and that chemicals we used to think never entered cells are in fact binding to stuff inside cell nuclei (even more membranes to go through) and affecting genes directly. We used to think that anything that happened in the nucleus was strictly controlled by a cells own internal messaging mechanisms. Now we're not sure. Much more environmental interaction is allowed than what was previously believed.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:not my field.... by epine · · Score: 1

      Food is essentially a chemical. DNA is a chemical. Should we be surprised that one chemical would have an effect on other chemicals?

      Not in dead tissue. In living organisms, enzymatic Q is a big deal. Achieving a high Q is pretty much the mandate of evolution toward complexity. See Freeman Dyson's little monograph "Origins of Life" from 1985. Interfering effects would tend to lower system Q, but now that we can examine the Swiss cheese in nanoscopic detail, I'm not surprising to find a few little green men hammocking in the bubbles.

      Broadly, however, there would be considerable surprise if this was pervasive on the same scale as innate genetic expression mechanisms. If not, the co-evolutionary factor is far greater than anyone has yet surmised (zen spewing potheads excluded).

    5. Re:not my field.... by treeves · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty vacuous statement. You could say that about pretty much every material thing.
      "Cars are made of chemicals, trees are made of chemicals. Should we be surprised when a car crashes into a tree it sometimes knocks it over?"
      How about "Gold is a chemical, helium is a chemical. Put them together and ....nothing happens."

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    6. Re:not my field.... by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      I know this is supposed to be humour, but it's surprising how many people don't realise that basically all matter is a 'chemical' compound of some variety.

      The great unwashed masses seem to be blissfully unaware that there is no such thing as 'chemical free chicken' or what ever marketing spiel the ad men decide to pitch to you.

      What we are really poor at is distinguishing between harmful chemical compounds and comparitively harmless compounds. Even water (H2O) is harmful in sufficently high concentrations, either due to drowning or water poinsoning.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    7. Re:not my field.... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the profound physiological effects of excessive exposure to solid h2o, getting crushed under ice in an avalanche is pretty unhealthy as well.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    8. Re:not my field.... by infaustus · · Score: 3, Informative

      DNA is transcripted into RNA which is translated into proteins, which are the main structural components of life. MicroRNA binds to the RNA transcripts, preventing them from being translated into proteins. The article title is misleading because we usually consider DNA to be our genes, and MicroRNA affects gene expression rather than genes themselves. RNA interference, including interference by MicroRNA was discovered decades ago but no one has studied interference by foreign RNA in food. It's mostly been studied in the context of viruses or transgenic cells.

      --
      Frosty piss posts are worthless, GNAA posts are worthless and hurtful, but they are the least of this site's neuroses.
    9. Re:not my field.... by node+3 · · Score: 1

      You're arguing semantics. Whether people misuse the term "chemical" or not, the thing they are describing is still real.

    10. Re:not my field.... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember reading about traces of certain plastic showing up in people's blood after many years of use. Anyone got more details on this?

      Imagine if plastic flatware, cups, etc. is the "lead mugs" of the next few generations? In 2250 they'll look back on us and wonder what the hell we were thinking...

    11. Re:not my field.... by Tarsir · · Score: 1

      The great unwashed masses seem to be blissfully unaware that there is no such thing as 'chemical free chicken' or what ever marketing spiel the ad men decide to pitch to you.

      This may come as a surprise to you, but not all words have a single canonical definition, nor are the multiple definitions they do have necessarily clear cut. Allow me to demonstrate, using the Google-Dictionary definition of chemical:

      A compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, esp. artificially

      As you can see, the term chemical implies, at least according to this one source, artificiality, without requiring it. Therefore, the obvious implication of saying that organic foods don't contain chemicals is that they don't contain artificial, unnatural, or extra chemicals (the credibility of such a claim is another matter, of course). This is the kind of mistake a computer would make; ignoring context in favour of some obscure interpretation that leads to a ridiculous conclusion. Or a troll, now that I think about it

    12. Re:not my field.... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Every year we're learning that cell membranes are much more permeable than we thought and that chemicals we used to think never entered cells are in fact binding to stuff inside cell nuclei"

      Had we paid attention to basic plant biology or horticulture classes 30 years ago this news would not have been news at all to us.

      I've known about cell permeability forever - learn how OSMOTIC PRESSURE will overcome selective permeability and that alone gives you reason to not trust the effectiveness of your own cell membranes to consistently do the job.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    13. Re:not my field.... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Gold is a chemical, helium is a chemical. Put them together and ....nothing happens."

      Only at earth pressures, but I doubt your education ever went that deep.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    14. Re:not my field.... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      There's some awesome logic. You know that everything you've ever come in contact with is a chemical, right?

    15. Re:not my field.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my always suspicion as a child (and still). Glass and relatively impermeable ceramics seem like a good bet. So does stainless steel for cooking; Teflon also seems like a potentially very bad thing.

    16. Re:not my field.... by treeves · · Score: 1

      Yes, I admire your vast knowledge of nuclear physics. Do you feel better now?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  4. no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I eat lot of junk food, so only my junk dna is affected. And my sweatpants don't fit anymore. But that's ok; my virtual girlfriend still says I look good.

    1. Re:no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROFL... that made me chuckle.

    2. Re:no problem by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, if you eat a lot of junk food only your junk DNA is expressed...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:no problem by hedwards · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wow, eating a lot of junk food makes your junk bigger. You heard it here first.

    4. Re:no problem by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      Great now someone's going to market extenze candy bars. They'll only be available in King Size obviously.

    5. Re:no problem by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Erh... no.

      Wait, wait, what I mean is, I only eat salad! Honestly!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So now, the spammers who have successfully hooked some poor gullible into purchasing penis enlargement pills will now start sending junk food instead.

      Or maybe the pills are now concentrated junk food.

    7. Re:no problem by rthille · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be ROFC then?

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  5. Re:This is not new. by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

    Broken clock is right blah blah blah. As much crazy bullshit that that idiot spews, he is bound to get something right eventually. (Contrast this with MSM, who never get anything right, so I draw the conclusion that they are not incompetent, but malicious).

  6. Re:This is not new. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    What you didn't read is the chance that that hazard will actually manifest, and the comparison between that chance and the chance of getting whatever the disease is preventing. Then there's the severity of side effects to consider... The worst likely side effect of most vaccines is discomfort for up to a few days. The worst likely side effect of many vaccine-preventable diseases is death.

    Alex Jones is just as bad as Fox News. He presents only facts that support his particular crazy theory, and ignores every bit of information that doesn't. That one of his bits of almost-credible information has some superficial similarity to actual science doesn't change anything.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  7. Who Knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who knew the old phrase "You are what you eat" could actually be true!

    1. Re:Who Knew? by cyberzephyr · · Score: 1

      Doe's that mean that i will turn into the Ribeye i just ate?

      --
      I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
    2. Re:Who Knew? by aXi · · Score: 1

      I think that means you are the rib-eye, all we need to find is a capable and ruthless butcher...

    3. Re:Who Knew? by mywhitewolf · · Score: 2

      actually, you're largely what you drink (hydrogen & oxygen), followed by what you breath (oxygen, carbon and nitrogen) which makes up 96% of what you are..

    4. Re:Who Knew? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's strange, I don't remember eating any sexy beasts.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    5. Re:Who Knew? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I dunno ... but I know a whole load of pseudo-diet-quacks are sure to be bashing out new books/products as we speak. Said books will take full advantage of the new word.

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:Who Knew? by instagib · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. What I don't get is that misleading and downright dangerous diet "advice" is being published since decades, and the authors, instead of being sued, get rich. Add to this the outdated and flawed official "food pyramid", plus incredibly cheap junk food for those who don't care, and in the end almost no one eats well and balanced.

    7. Re:Who Knew? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Doe's that mean that i will turn into the Ribeye i just ate?

      Yes.

      Next!

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    8. Re:Who Knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, you're largely what you drink (hydrogen & oxygen), followed by what you breath (oxygen, carbon and nitrogen) which makes up 96% of what you are..

      You mean breathe.

    9. Re:Who Knew? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      If this is true then there must be an awful lot of people who eat nothing but arseholes.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    10. Re:Who Knew? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Oh my god we're drinking people!

  8. Truly Remarkable by sackvillian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is amazing and one more nail in the coffin of our long-held dogma of genes being passed down from two parents, expressed but otherwise unaltered, then passed down to our children, all with just a little bit of mixing and mutation. From epigenetic modifications, to massive variances of stomach flora even between relatives, now to food's ability to affect our very gene expression... we've got some serious reconsidering to do about what makes us who we are.

    Very cool.

    --
    Hey mate, spare a sig?
    1. Re:Truly Remarkable by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How long has it been since that was actually dogma outside of intro-level stuff(I ask by way of honest inquiry, in case somebody is familiar with the recent history of the field, not rhetorical attack)?

      I am given to understand that it was at one point; but friends-of-friends in the university lab scene tell me that, while still considered to be largely ill-understood, the study of epigenetics and other subtle environment/genome interactions was a very hot area, with lots of exploratory work being done.

    2. Re:Truly Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know that sometimes it is a lot to ask you to read more than just the title (which is WRONG), but, let me quote the summary for you:

      they found that the microRNAs were changing gene expression, decreasing levels of a receptor that filters out LDL (bad) cholesterol. When the scientists gave mice both rice and a chemical to block the microRNAs, their levels of that receptor returned to normal

      Emphasis mine--conclusion: the microRNA was not being inserted into the genome (and for anyone with any background, you'd know that RNA doesn't go into the genome anyway).

    3. Re:Truly Remarkable by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It might be your long held dogma, but people in the field have long known about epigenetic changes to DNA and it's implications. We've known about mitochondrial DNA for decades, same with DNA methylation. The microRNAs are fairly new and an open field but it has been realized that the "Central Dogma" (DNA -> RNA -> Protein) has been barking up the wrong tree for some time.

      TFA is interesting and rather unexpected. Small, unprotected RNA molecules aren't "supposed" to survive long outside. If this is true, if it can be repeated it might explain some of the more confusing relationships between diet, growth, cancer and other diseases. The nice thing is that this experiment should be 'relatively' easy to replicate (at least from the detail one gets in TFA - they're not using anything all that unique, weird or expensive).

      Since it is such a potentially high profile experiment, the cynic in me wonders why it didn't get published in a higher profile journal. Of course, not every important discovery is published in Nature or Science, but one wonders.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Truly Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of things in the environment affect gene expression as well. It's all very well having a gene, but unless it is expressed, or turned on, it isn't going to do anything.

      Analogous to having a method or function in your code: it wont do anything until you call it.

    5. Re:Truly Remarkable by Hentes · · Score: 1

      This only affects the way genes are read not the way they are copied. Rice has little to do with reproduction.

    6. Re:Truly Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically you're saying inbreeding is a-ok?

    7. Re:Truly Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you read into it too much. I believe what they are trying to say is don't eat rice, your cholesterol will go up

    8. Re:Truly Remarkable by prograde · · Score: 2

      Since it is such a potentially high profile experiment, the cynic in me wonders why it didn't get published in a higher profile journal. Of course, not every important discovery is published in Nature or Science, but one wonders.

      I hate to nit-pick, but it was published in Nature

    9. Re:Truly Remarkable by ShakaUVM · · Score: 0

      How long has it been since that was actually dogma outside of intro-level stuff(I ask by way of honest inquiry, in case somebody is familiar with the recent history of the field, not rhetorical attack)?

      I am given to understand that it was at one point; but friends-of-friends in the university lab scene tell me that, while still considered to be largely ill-understood, the study of epigenetics and other subtle environment/genome interactions was a very hot area, with lots of exploratory work being done.

      Well, here on Slashdot, old science loves to have a field day.

      People still talk about Lamarckian inheritance as if it was completely wrong, instead of mostly being wrong. =)

      If you starve a mother, it will actually methylate the genes of her kid so that they'll grow up skinnier, for example - which is classic Lamarckian inheritance.

    10. Re:Truly Remarkable by DeviantxOne · · Score: 1

      Since it is such a potentially high profile experiment, the cynic in me wonders why it didn't get published in a higher profile journal. Of course, not every important discovery is published in Nature or Science, but one wonders.

      It looks like the Cell Research journal is published by Nature, though admittedly it is a low impact factor journal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_Research_(journal)

    11. Re:Truly Remarkable by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Most people have only read the intro-level stuff. What those in the field know needs wider circulation.

    12. Re:Truly Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking idiot. This is about temporary changes in gene expression. That's something that occurs naturally in response to ~many~ external stimuli. It just so happens that in this case the expression is via a more direct route.

      Yawn. Nothing to see here.

    13. Re:Truly Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but it throws massive doubts in the direction of the GM food crowd. Not only must they now prove that the proteins and carbohydrates inside their foods are safe, but that the micro RNA released from it is also completely safe.

      I can't say I was ever much of a fan of GM food, but to me it seemed completely benign due to the logic of digestion breaking it down into nothing more than building blocks. Now we find out that it's also carrying live genetic code and the whole ball game changes.

      On the up side, they have just opened up an entirely new realm of food science. Is high fructose corn syrup suppressing genes? Are there any beneficial foods with direct observable causality? Can we massively change someone's gene expression by diet, perhaps making their ailments disappear?

    14. Re:Truly Remarkable by he-sk · · Score: 1

      But the title is wrong/hyperbole though, isn't it?

      It's not genes which are affected, but the function they regulate in the body.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    15. Re:Truly Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew all those roguelike couldn't be wrong!

    16. Re:Truly Remarkable by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      People still talk about Lamarckian inheritance as if it was completely wrong, instead of mostly being wrong. =)

      lol wut

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    17. Re:Truly Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since it is such a potentially high profile experiment, the cynic in me wonders why it didn't get published in a higher profile journal.

      Because it may annoy multi-billion dollar GM foods industry?

    18. Re:Truly Remarkable by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      You might find Lamarck's Signature interesting. They find gene sequences formed during one's lifetime on T-cells in introns on adult cells. Basically, retro-viruses are carrying them around the body, and occasionally to germ cells, and onto the next generation. It's evidence of a Lamarckian mechanism, albeit a small one. Lamarck isn't quite dead after all.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    19. Re:Truly Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since it is such a potentially high profile experiment, the cynic in me wonders why it didn't get published in a higher profile journal. Of course, not every important discovery is published in Nature or Science, but one wonders.

      It is actually published in a Nature Publishing Group journal: "Cell research"

    20. Re:Truly Remarkable by Kashgarinn · · Score: 1

      Pardon me, but the phrase "You are what you eat" was coined some time ago.

      What you eat has always had an effect on you, it is interesting that it's at the RNA level, and will mean that in the future, the doctor won't need to get you pills to get you better from a condition, just a menu.

    21. Re:Truly Remarkable by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Altering how genes are expressed isn't even close to changing the genes themselves, despite what the shitty summary says.

      Typical crapdot.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    22. Re:Truly Remarkable by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/cr2011158a.html#Results

      It's strange that they searched through miRNA db, but not against all human DNA to check if there is location other than LDLRAP1 containing exactly the same sequence as MIR168a (I did, and - no).

      "Since it is such a potentially high profile experiment, the cynic in me wonders why it didn't get published in a higher profile journal. Of course, not every important discovery is published in Nature or Science, but one wonders"

      I am not sure I understand this. The original article was in Nature.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    23. Re:Truly Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well popsci still pretends that the genetic makeup of an organism comes from the parents only and is determined at gestation. That's also the prevailing view of trait inheritance and evolution. These tree diagrams are everywhere. It might not be a dogma in science any more, but in mainstream media it is.

    24. Re:Truly Remarkable by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Actually, there's a growing body of evidence in the field of epigenetics that shows that acquired traits can be inherited. Google leads to many, many interesting and legit papers.

    25. Re:Truly Remarkable by turtledawn · · Score: 1

      I would consider Cell a pretty high profile journal.

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
    26. Re:Truly Remarkable by turtledawn · · Score: 1

      My mistake, Cell Research not Cell, which is at least an imprint of Nature but not on the level of real-Cell.

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
    27. Re:Truly Remarkable by Hentes · · Score: 1

      I did not debate that just pointed out that in this specific case the rice only affects the way genes are read, not the genes themselves.

    28. Re:Truly Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is amazing and one more nail in the coffin of our long-held dogma of genes being passed down from two parents, expressed but otherwise unaltered, then passed down to our children, all with just a little bit of mixing and mutation. From epigenetic modifications, to massive variances of stomach flora even between relatives, now to food's ability to affect our very gene expression... we've got some serious reconsidering to do about what makes us who we are.

      Very cool.

      Actually it doesn't say that your genes are altered; merely that genes which are already present are expressed in ways which they may not have been otherwise. This doesn't change the fact that you got those genes in the first place from your parents.

      You are right in that it is a pretty big change in how we look at genetic expression, but it isn't everything that you're claiming.

    29. Re:Truly Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did not read the article, I am a true /. AC, but what impact does this have on GMO food, with all that extra DNA tossed in to make it glow and stuff?

      You always here those Ass Hats at Monsanto say stuff like "the corn is fine we only add a few genes from the Animal kingdom into this plant to help ...." I have always been rather suspicious about cross-Kingdom gene spicing. A pig and corn were NEVER intended to make sweet love down by the fire.

    30. Re:Truly Remarkable by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If you starve a mother, it will actually methylate the genes of her kid so that they'll grow up skinnier, for example - which is classic Lamarckian inheritance.

      No it's not.

      Classic Lamarckian inheritance would be that you starved the father and his son was born skinny Ii.e. the opposite of the "blacksmith's arms" example that Lamarckians used, whereby the muscles gained by bein a powerful blacksmith would be "passed down" to the offspring).

      Are you talking about starving a pregnant woman? I don't think there would be much argument with the idea that physical effects can be passed through to her child in that case (e.g. drug-addicted women giving birth to babies who are themselves drug addicts).

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    31. Re:Truly Remarkable by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So basically you're saying inbreeding is a-ok?

      Who said it wasn't?

      Yours, the Royal Family.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    32. Re:Truly Remarkable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cell Research isn't a bad journal. People who work in the fields that publish in Nature and Science sometimes snidely refer to these journals as 'the tabloids'. Given their high retraction rate, research published in Nature and Science is - from a probability-of-retraction standpoint - more suspect than something from a more pedestrian journal that isn't as trend-driven.

      Granted, a study published in a pedestrian journal that turns out to be bogus may not attract enough scrutiny to force retraction or revision. It's a tricky question and it just goes to show that you can't judge the quality of a scientific study solely by the title of the journal. This could very well turn out to be the genesis of a whole new field. Once other groups try to replicate, then we'll be able to judge more confidently. If no one picks it up and does the follow-on studies, we'll never know how reliable the study is.

    33. Re:Truly Remarkable by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Not just the pregnant woman's kid, but also their grandiose are born underweight if you starve the pregnant mother.

      Was a study on this a few years back on Rakish women starved by the Nazis.

    34. Re:Truly Remarkable by base_chakra · · Score: 1

      Since it is such a potentially high profile experiment...

      As you alluded, the import of this study is not the demonstration that food affects gene expression. That premise is the basis of the science of nutrigenomics, a discipline that is revolutionary and tremendously exciting, but which precedes this experiment. Similarly, it has been known for several years that dietary microRNA affects gene expression.

      Obviously, Discover Magazine is a popular magazine, not a scientific journal. TFA introduces the reader to dietary microRNA as a regulator of gene expression, but falls short of contextualizing the research within nutrigenomics.

    35. Re:Truly Remarkable by utkonos · · Score: 1

      You are conflating germ line and somatic cells. The genetic particles discussed here affect the gene expression in somatic cells. This is not a hereditary change. Your germ and soma cell lines part ways very early in development, so for you to say that the germ line is somehow affected by these changes and more than that the change is hereditary is complete nonsense.

    36. Re:Truly Remarkable by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Sigh... apparently grandkids and Danish are not part of the Android dictionary...

    37. Re:Truly Remarkable by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      That has nothing to do with Lamarck's ideas -- other than that people who are still angry at Darwin are constantly bringing up Lamarck in relation to it.

      Both Darwin and Lamarck were describing a process of developing species over multiple generations.

      Lamarck (without any specification of the mechanism of inheritance) claimed that traits acquired through various kinds of activity are inherited without any kind of evolutionary selection mechanism involved. In his opinion, new generation "started" with some modifications that older generations developed over their lifetime through their everyday activity, and continued development into those directions to end up with variations far beyond the level of variations that would be possible to develop over a single lifetime.

      Darwin (without any specification of the mechanism of variation or inheritance) claimed that random inheritable variations are constantly introduced into population, and individuals with traits that make them more suitable for survival and reproduction, have greater numbers of offspring, and thus those traits become more common in later generations. Eventually this results in various new species representing mutually incompatible ways or directions of such development.

      Neither Lamarck nor Darwin ever mentioned DNA -- it was unknown at the time, the only thing known about inheritance was that it exists, and sufficiently different set of inherited traits prevents interbreeding thus forming distinct species.

      Discovering a mechanism that introduces random variations over a lifetime of an organism, as opposed to only over reproduction process, does not make Lamarck any less wrong. He would be somewhat right only if:

      1. There was a mechanism that allows or causes organisms to direct those variations toward in some beneficial direction (thus making natural selection unnecessary, as all changes provide benefit that organism was "looking for"), as opposed to being as random as normal mutations (and relying on selection for beneficial and against harmful modifications).

      2. Variation would be possible to "accumulate" and continue development into some direction progressively over multiple generations.

      3. The mechanism that makes acquired traits inheritable could eventually produce distinct, non-interbreeding species.

      The first is not entirely out of the realm of possibility but never was observed and is likely false -- changes are still random, and selection is necessary to make the next generation more adapted than the previous one. The second is most likely false because modulation mechanisms that work while the organism is alive, do not gain any additional flexibility in the next generation, as base genome is either unchanged or randomly mutated. The third is definitely false, as no modulation of gene expression can prevent combination of all such variants as long as reproduction is possible at all, so new species can't be formed that way.

      In other words, this does not make Lamarck any less wrong, his theory was a really bad guess.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    38. Re:Truly Remarkable by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>In other words, this does not make Lamarck any less wrong, his theory was a really bad guess.

      I didn't say that Lamarck was right, only that he wasn't entirely wrong. He was right that environmental factors can influence succeeding generations. He's right in a small way, which is why epigenetics is called Neo-Lamarckianism by that reference above.

    39. Re:Truly Remarkable by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Environmental factors also can cause mutations (what was known before genetics and before Darwin -- except, of course, mechanism and role in development of new species were not known at the time), and it still has absolutely nothing to do with anything Lamarck ever said.

      which is why epigenetics is called Neo-Lamarckianism by that reference above.

      What is stupid because it misrepresents both Lamarck's hypothesis, and actual processes being studied now. Lamarck described development of traits directed by the nature of environment and organism's capability to adapt over its lifetime. The actual mechanism produces random results, and the direction of phenotype change is in no way related to the environmental factor that causes it. Lamarck's hypothesis required no selection because direction of changes was always to adapt. In reality, selection is a necessary part of the process because harmful changes are very common, they just aren't passed to next generations as much. Lamarck described development of species. New species can not be produced by keeping genome the same and modifying its expression, because without a chain of mutations genome remains compatible. As I said, nothing like Lamarck.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    40. Re:Truly Remarkable by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>New species can not be produced by keeping genome the same and modifying its expression, because without a chain of mutations genome remains compatible. As I said, nothing like Lamarck.

      Why are you so focused on speciation? The main point of what we call Lamarckism is the so-called "Inheritance of Acquired Traits" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_of_acquired_traits), which is exactly what happens in certain situations.

      I'm hardly alone in drawing the parallels between epigenetics and Lamarckism. Hell MIT researchers even call it as such - http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22061/

    41. Re:Truly Remarkable by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      It would be intellectually dishonest to equate inheritance of acquired traits with Lamarck -- the traits that Lamarck talked about are traits affected specifically through activity (or "use") of organ or trait that modified it over a lifetime into a specific direction (changing shape, exercising, etc.) Those traits are still known to be non-inheritable -- for example, generations of people wearing corsets or performing physical exercises do not in any way affect the distribution of body shapes, and the fact that appendix mostly does nothing useful, does not affect its shape or existence in modern humans.

      If there will be inheritable changes of body shape/muscle development, and they will by any chance caused by epigenetics, it would be a shocking coincidence if those changes were triggered by the same factors (wearing corsets and exercise) that the organism (in this case, human) would be somehow subjected due to conditions that make those changes beneficial. If humans will at some point develop a method of changing their gene expression specifically toward some beneficial traits, and it will also happen to be inheritable, it will be the first instance of such development -- and such goal-oriented development would be completely outside of any biological evolutionary mechanism.

      This contradicts the core of Lamarck's hypothesis -- that direction of changes toward beneficial and against harmful, is dictated by the environmental factor itself, through some kind of "exercise" or being "molded" into a more adapted form, and those changes are inherited. Such development, if it was possible, would work in complete absence of natural selection, while in fact it does not -- changes in gene expression or their ability to be inherited do not exhibit any tendency toward being beneficial, but beneficial changes are selected through survival and mating.

      The fact that SOME acquired traits can be inherited, was not even discussed at the time of Lamarck or Darwin, as mechanism of inheritance was completely unknown by then -- for Lamarck it was one of the base assumptions, for Darwin it would be an irrelevant detail.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    42. Re:Truly Remarkable by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>for example, generations of people wearing corsets or performing physical exercises do not in any way affect the distribution of body shapes, and the fact that appendix mostly does nothing useful, does not affect its shape or existence in modern humans.

      A woman eating a corset would probably eat less, which would lead to skinnier kids and grandkids.

      Look, as I've said repeatedly, I'm not saying that Lamarck was right (by any stretch of the imagination) - just that there are some cases of inheritance of acquired traits, which is another name for what we call Lamarckism.

    43. Re:Truly Remarkable by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      A woman eating a corset would probably eat less, which would lead to skinnier kids and grandkids.

      It won't, because as far as we know, eating habits changes do not by themselves affect anything inheritable specifically into direction that reinforces those habits. Kids would not act as if they wear a corset if they actually don't -- they may be influenced by the parent when they are raised, so they will be accustomed to eating less, or even to wear a corset. But this is not biological evolution or inheritance, this is culture.

      Look, as I've said repeatedly, I'm not saying that Lamarck was right (by any stretch of the imagination) - just that there are some cases of inheritance of acquired traits, which is another name for what we call Lamarckism.

      What Lamarck claimed, has absolutely nothing to do with it. His hypothesis specifically relies on specifically beneficial traits appearing as a result of interaction with the environment and those traits being inheritable. The mechanism he proposed would never work without a bias toward beneficial traits acquired through "exercise" or without those specific traits being inheritable. The traits that are actually inherited are acquired through variation of biochemical mechanisms, completely unrelated to development of beneficial traits through environment or exercise. They are not in any way directed toward being beneficial, therefore Lamarck's hypothesis was completely wrong.

      As I have mentioned before, at the time of Lamarck, what is and what is not inheritable was completely unknown. Lamarck's belief that stretched giraffes' necks may be inheritable is not specific to his theory any more than some ignorant peasant's belief that cutting his dogs' tail will eventually allow him to breed dogs with shorter tails. Does it mean, we should name theories after ignorant peasants? After all, it could happen that by some strange coincidence tails contained glands that through some convoluted chain of influence, caused genes responsible for long tails to be expressed.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    44. Re:Truly Remarkable by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      eating a corset

      I assume, it meant wearing a corset. Eating corsets would likely cause various harmful and mostly non-inheritable changes.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  9. Duh... by Khyber · · Score: 2

    This is why we have the phrase 'You are what you eat," after all.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Duh... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm going to start eating cats, to make me faster and cuter. I will become the king of Quake 3, and girls.

      Sorry kittehs but I must consume you for your positive attributes.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Duh... by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Diet-based gene expression regulation sounds like a fun way to semi-plausibly rationalize the idea of eating animals to gain their traits.

    3. Re:Duh... by jasno · · Score: 4, Funny

      While it's true that eating lots of pussy could make you king of the girls, I doubt it'll help your Quake 3 skills.

      --

      http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    4. Re:Duh... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Ah, that explains why most cultures frown on cannibalism so much - I guess it results in a stack overflow somewhere in the universe.

    5. Re:Duh... by ignavus · · Score: 1

      This is why we have the phrase 'You are what you eat," after all.

      Unless you are an autophage, in which case you eat what you are.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    6. Re:Duh... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      More a problem of the stack growing into code. Remember, kids, we're old, old, old designs, we don't have fancy stuff like endless ram.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Duh... by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid your grammar skills will deteriorate, however.

      Can you really give up these +5 moderated slashdot comments for the sake of enjoying life?

    8. Re:Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chinese did the study, go figure (some tiger balls, anyone?).

    9. Re:Duh... by balaband · · Score: 1

      No that will make your kids promiscuous and playing Quake.

      Might want to reconsider.

    10. Re:Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but if you eat dog, does it mean you'll be able to lick your own balls and ass? !!

    11. Re:Duh... by SICKECHO · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows the only way to be truly good at Quake 3 is to be a virgin or be abstinent..

    12. Re:Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That's like having a guy at the office who comes in every day and says, 'I'm the biggest fucker here!! And you sniveling shits would die without me, ahahahaha!' I guarantee you that by the end of the day, you would have killed him, and eaten him, just to possess his power."

      --Lewis Black

  10. So does this mean by Hsien-Ko · · Score: 1

    If I eat lots of chicken............ i'm going to turn into a chicken?

    1. Re:So does this mean by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 1

      If I eat lots of chicken............ i'm going to turn into a chicken?

      I can't eat chicken without being afraid that this is true.

    2. Re:So does this mean by dominique_cimafranca · · Score: 1

      If you eat a lot of chicken, you're going to grow boobs. That's from the hormones they inject into the chicks to make them grow fast.

    3. Re:So does this mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to grow my boob in a yoghurt pot. I shall call it Enid.

    4. Re:So does this mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to start feeding my girlfriend more chicken.

    5. Re:So does this mean by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      One of my grandmothers was afraid to eat eggs more than 3 times per week in case she turned into a chicken. I have no idea where she picked up that particular thought process.

      Hrm... now I wonder if it's related that I play a lazor chicken in WoW...

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    6. Re:So does this mean by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'm going to start feeding my girlfriend more chicken.

      "It rubs the lotion on its skin, and eats its chicken, or else it gets the hose again"

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  11. Damn! More research now! by killfixx · · Score: 2

    In ten years we could have scientifically proven "homeopathic" remedies.

    Gene-doping through diet manipulation. Lose weight, increase brain function, increase blood flow while reducing blood pressure, even creating or discovering new gene functions. Perhaps a mutation that gives blood plasma a lubricating effect that prevents arterial plaque.

    Or, for the vain men (and women) in the audience, truly reversing hair loss.

    --
    "Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
    1. Re:Damn! More research now! by elfprince13 · · Score: 2

      You're confusing homeopathy with naturopathy (and other "alternative medicines"). http://xkcd.com/765/

    2. Re:Damn! More research now! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Except for a small portion of the populace, all of those things are better controlled via diet and exercise. Ultimately, if you're too lazy to take care of yourself, perhaps you shouldn't expect to live to be a hundred.

    3. Re:Damn! More research now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought I'd add James Randi's explanation of homeopathy, just in case the comic wasn't a clear enough reference.

    4. Re:Damn! More research now! by syousef · · Score: 1

      Except for a small portion of the populace, all of those things are better controlled via diet and exercise. Ultimately, if you're too lazy to take care of yourself, perhaps you shouldn't expect to live to be a hundred.

      Legitimate question: Do you really want that last 20 years? There are healthy prosperous people at 80+ but they are the exception not the rule. Is that time you spend in your youth keeping healthy going to be repaid at the end of your life with extended misery?

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    5. Re:Damn! More research now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soon as you can prove it scientifically, it's no longer homeopathic. :)

    6. Re:Damn! More research now! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      And when someone finds evidence that "alternative" medicine actually works it becomes "mainstream" medicine, "western" medicine or just "medicine."

  12. GMOs - become sterile by locopuyo · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is exactly why we need to be careful about GMO taking over our food. They modify them so they don't reproduce so the companies making them can keep reselling them. You are eating them. They did studies on mice and they became sterile after 3 generations. This is what GMOs are doing to humans.

    1. Re:GMOs - become sterile by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      So we're to believe that eating sterile food means we'll become sterile after only three generations of inbreeding? Well, gee... good thing we haven't had seedless fruits for very long, and thank goodness we haven't been breeding food to be grotesquely large, or anything like that!

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:GMOs - become sterile by JRowe47 · · Score: 2

      Who are "they" and what did "they" study and how did "they" study it? Not to be crude, but links or gtfo. Seriously, nobody cares what you think "they" said or did unless you can prove it.

      GMO means a lot of different things to different people. It could mean chemically modified DNA sequences or clever breeding techniques or even simply hybridizing plants using low tech means.

      Language exists to express ideas. If you don't provide clarity and context, you're wasting everyone's time.

    3. Re:GMOs - become sterile by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      Until GMOs consumption of infertile organisms was a small amount of the human diet. What isn't now?

    4. Re:GMOs - become sterile by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I've never bought into the GMO hysteria, but this article does make me think twice about eating it. If, say, corn, is just digested, I couldn't care less. But if the GMO's DNA will be interacting with my cells, the level of safety concern is different.

      I still think most GMO's get a bad rap - people are starving and going blind because of the fear (both worse than any GMO side-effects), but those are 3rd world problems, and I have 1st world problems to worry about.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:GMOs - become sterile by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 5, Informative

      Can't tell if trolling or just very ignorant. I could have modded, but I'd rather educate. First off, treating all GMOs as if they have the same traits is just stupid. There are bunches of different genes that have been inserted and potentially any gene could be used, so acting as if one trait should matter for every other one is beyond senseless. Second, the traits you're talking about were not designed for that purpose (although that was a side effect the companies no doubt considered), but rather was to prevent the flow of the genes to other people's crops (the very thing people are trying to sue Monsanto over now...they're evil bastards if they do, and evil bastards if they don't. Third, those traits are not in use anyway. Because most seed sold nowadays is hybrid seed (hybrid and GMO are different and commonly confused but not mutually exclusive things) farmers typically want to buy new seed anyway, as they have been doing long before GMOs came on the scene. Before you complain about something, might want to do some basic fact checking first. Fourth, I highly doubt the study you mention was done all that well in light of the hundreds showing no harm from GM food and the fact that the best causative mechanism for why GMO food would be inherently dangerous is...oh wait, no one has ever proposed any coherent way that could happen. Fifth, this new paper (assuming it is accurate) says nothing about GMO safety. There are thousands of genes for all sorts of stuff in every single thing you eat. I highly doubt transgenes are going to behave differently, especially considering that the only three traits currently in use (the Bt gene, an EPSP synthase gene, and viral coat protein genes) can very easily be found in non-GM food too. So basically, no, this has no relevance on genetic engineering whatsoever, but I have no doubt someone out there will cite it as such.

    6. Re:GMOs - become sterile by hedwards · · Score: 1

      The reason to buy into GMO hysteria is that if something goes wrong, it can't be undone. I'm sure there are plenty of upsides, but the research needs to be done under laboratory conditions to ensure that nothing escapes into the environment where it can combine with random other genes in ways that haven't been fully considered.

    7. Re:GMOs - become sterile by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      Language exists to express ideas. If you don't provide clarity and context, you're wasting everyone's time.

      Hrm... I need to make that into a sig file. Or an auto responder on twitter.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    8. Re:GMOs - become sterile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because big corporations have never withheld or suppressed evidence that their product caused harm. Got a smoke?

    9. Re:GMOs - become sterile by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Some of those problems of starvation and reduced revenue are actually a direct result of GMO interference. Take cotton. There is a plant that yield three times the normal amount of cotton. Which is great. But it also requires a lot more herbicide because it's also more fragile. Which is, in the end, bad for the cotton farmer. In the end, he gets as much money for his cotton as he did before, because the increase in sales are eaten up by the herbicides (plus he gets a not-so-healthy dose of it with his hand pumped backpack herbicide spray). He can't switch back to the old cotton plants, though. The cotton price plummeted when everyone switched to the "superior" cotton plant, meaning he's stuck now, dependent on a plant that forces him to ruin his health by standing in the middle of the herbicide cloud.

      The real gain is ours. We got dirt cheap sheets and t-shirts. Ever wondered how those 3 bucks a piece t-shirts are possible? That's your reason.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:GMOs - become sterile by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And here's your problem: How? How do you want to make sure that "pure" plants do not get "contaminated" by "altered" plants? You'd have to keep them separated by a few miles to make sure that no pollen gets spread. Well, good luck with that!

      We also don't really have a choice anymore. Yes, you and me, we can most likely switch to "healthy", unaltered food. How many people can? How many are dependent on that cheap meat from the pig with six additional ribs and the cents-per-pound rice with the genes from god knows what creature?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:GMOs - become sterile by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And if it wasn't for gene manipulation, we'd still have no cheap insulin for the diabetic, I know, I know.

      It has no bad side effects. That's what science says. And while I usually trust science, I doubt that we know enough about toying with genes to make such a bold statement. The whole thing isn't even a generation old, and, well, since we're talking about genes here, the real outcome will probably be visible in a generation or two, probably later. The question is whether it's too late by then if we missed something because of our limited understanding of genetics. We're still at a fairly early stage of the genetic development.

      It reminds me a bit of the radiation craze of the middle 20th century. Everything was radiated, from toothpaste with radium to shoe fitting x-ray machines to water radiators (a bit like those water "purifier" snakeoil boxes you can buy today). It was supposed to be beneficial for the organism. Well, I guess we know more about it today and know that it's generally unhealthy to bombard the human body with the decay products and radiation.

      Now, I'm not saying we'll have to expect the same crap from gene enhanced food, I just think we do not know enough yet to know for sure.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:GMOs - become sterile by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Realistically, no one in the world is dependent upon non-organic, GMO foods. We just use them because they are more convenient and they enable greater economies of scale. A lot of modern agriculture revolves around producing foods out of season or in monoculture or without insect damage or foods that are trendy rather than nourishing. No one is dependent upon cents-per-pound rice who wouldn't still have been dependent before it. The much larger issue is the energy used to transport food long distances. No one would die without GMO crops. Their diets would just be less varied and they would have to live closer to where food is produced and more of them would have to be farmers.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    13. Re:GMOs - become sterile by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      I'm reading lately that the same is true of tap water. Chlorine was great, we used chlorine on everything, washing dishes, cleaning, in swimming pools, in the tap water. Unfortunately we find out decades later that chlorine in water combines to form organic carcinogens. What's the solution? Oh now we're starting to use chloramine instead, which is similarly unproven and untested and probably also produces god-knows-what kind of harmful reactions.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    14. Re:GMOs - become sterile by hedwards · · Score: 1

      If they can't guarantee that the genes won't spread, then they shouldn't be doing the research. End of story full stop.

      It is incredibly irresponsible and arrogant of them to put the entire world at risk, because they're too cheap to do their studies under controlled and monitored conditions. If the CDC can work like that, I don't see any good reason why these researchers can't.

      The argument that we don't really have a choice anymore has more to do with incompetent regulation than it does any particular reality. Corporations do it like this because it's cheaper, the fact is that GMO products aren't necessary, most of the things they're trying to do are directly related to incompetent agriculture in the first place. We wouldn't need golden rice if the farmers would be growing a traditional mix of greens along with the rice.

    15. Re:GMOs - become sterile by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "the research needs to be done under laboratory conditions to ensure that nothing escapes into the environment"

      Glad to see you approve of their techniques. Already being done.

    16. Re:GMOs - become sterile by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Give a link, I do believe that's a load of crap.

    17. Re:GMOs - become sterile by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      I look at the quality and information contained within his response and then at the same attributes of yours.

      Then I weigh as to which I consider the response of an intelligent person.

    18. Re:GMOs - become sterile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately we find out decades later that chlorine in water combines to form organic carcinogens

      Cooking a steak also forms organic carcinogens. Big whooping deal. IMHO the DBP (disinfection by-products) scare is somewhat overblown. We've fallen prey to a sky-is-falling attitude. As soon as people learn that something in parts-per-billion concentration raises their risk of cancer by a few millionths of a percent, we have to make it mandatory to test for and remove that contaminant. The problem with carcinogens is that there's risk even in the very smallest nonzero exposure. Whereas most contaminants have zero harmfulness at low levels, there is a small-but-nonzero risk that a mutation caused by a carcinogen - even at the lowest possible exposure level - could ultimately cause cancer. However this risk is negligible at low levels - especially relative to the many carcinogens you're exposed to over the course of an average day. Nearly everything is carcinogenic to some degree.

      By the way - chlorine is poison. Chloramine is actually a somewhat milder poison than chlorine. At the amounts either are added to drinking water, they're not harmful to humans. Chloramine is not used because of the chlorine DBPs; use of chloramine creates its own set of DBPs. Chloramine is used because it is more stable than chlorine and has a longer shelf life. In an extensive system with many hundreds or thousands of miles of pipe and millions of gallons of stored water in reservoirs, it can take days for the water to reach some customers. Chlorine evaporates in approximately 3 days. Because a disinfectant is needed in the water right up to the customers' service lines, chlorination of a large system requires facilities in the system to add chlorine to the water as it naturally dissipates over time. A chloramine residual lasts much longer than chlorine and does not suffer from this problem. That is why chloramine is preferable to chlorine in many water utilities. Chloramine also doesn't impart a chlorine taste to the water, which may make it more palatable to customers.

      I work in water industry.

    19. Re:GMOs - become sterile by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      If they can't guarantee that the genes won't spread, then they shouldn't be doing the research. End of story full stop.

      Genes have always spread. It's what they do. If you prevent that (terminator technology) everyone freaks out. What if I don't want the sd-1 gene in my rice, should people doing rice breeding stop? Singling out genetic engineering is nonsensical in light of all the other genetic change humans have caused in food crops (and don't give the 'oh but that's natural' baloney). If you have an issue with the product, fine, but the process is not the issue (unless you know very little about it and view it with magical thinking).

      the fact is that GMO products aren't necessary, most of the things they're trying to do are directly related to incompetent agriculture in the first place.

      Do you have any idea the types of precautions that must be taken before a field trial can be approved? Obviously not, so don't you think it is a bit arrogant to assume they don't?

      the fact is that GMO products aren't necessary,

      Are they necessary? Well, not at the moment (unless you're a papaya farmer in Hawaii or anyone else who loses whole crops to pathogens that can't otherwise be controlled), although the whole spraying less pesticides and reduced soil damage is pretty nice.

      most of the things they're trying to do are directly related to incompetent agriculture in the first place

      You mean the agricultural practices that feed you? The ones that have improved so much in the past century that we'd have to log just about every forest on the planet if we used the practices we did just a century ago?

      We wouldn't need golden rice if the farmers would be growing a traditional mix of greens along with the rice.

      And if they had the means to transport and store fresh produce, and if the people who needed Golden Rice could actually afford it. Do you honestly think that simply eating a more diverse diet never occurred to anyone developing Golden Rice? You're right of course, it would be better than Golden Rice, and wouldn't it be great it it were so simple, but your solution is basically 'let them eat cake.'

    20. Re:GMOs - become sterile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, an Anonymous Coward who claims to "work in the water industry". Sorry to have to be the one to inform you, but many water districts are switching to chloramines because of DBPs like Trihalomethane, and because the EPA now regulates them and suggests using chloramine instead. It's right on their website:

      Chloramine can help reduce some disinfection byproducts, such as trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids

      http://www.epa.gov/dclead/disinfection.htm

      And you expect us to believe that chlorine "evaporates" from underground pipe distribution networks? Bullshit.

      This isn't about disinfecting water in the pipes. It's about disinfecting everything within 100 ft of any city water supply. This is totally obvious cronyist bullshit. Big business either privatizes the water systems or pays off the captured regulatory agencies to mandate ridiculous untested long-lived poisons (that just so happen to also be agricultural run-off) be added to the water supply for dubious "health" reasons. As we head into depression and 100-year droughts, if you try to grow a garden you'll be forced to disinfect your entire yard with water contaminated by overpriced agricultural waste that is impossible to economically remove. Meanwhile the price of water can go up right along with the 100% rise in the price of food over the past decade and those who profit from it will be the now-privatized water agencies, big-agribusiness and chemical producers at the expense of everyone else. All the while you're getting the same dose of carcinogens that you were getting from the previous round of "helpfully" government-mandated disinfectants.

      This country is going straight down the fucking tubes and if you really get a government paycheck you would be smart to use it to buy gold and silver rather than anonymously trolling /. with these transparent lies. No one believes any of it any more.

    21. Re:GMOs - become sterile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Evaporates" is the wrong word to use, but I was dumbing it down. So sue me. But look, the Tulsa Beacon link you posted said EXACTLY THE SAME THING:

      Chlorine evaporates out of the water.

      Chloramines last longer in the distribution system than chlorine. Also, the only reason they'd have problems with their plumbing due to ammonia in their water is if they're adding too much of it. If they add the right amount to combine with the chlorine they won't have those problems.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorination#Alternatives

      Disinfection with chloramine is also becoming increasingly common. Unlike chlorine, chloramine has a longer half life in the distribution system and still maintains effective protection against pathogens. The reason chloramines persist in the distribution is due to the relatively lower redox potential in comparison to free chlorine.

      Chloramination can help reduce SOME DBPs. No, chloramines don't form THMs/HAs but they form other DBPs which are also potentially harmful. Which, if you'll notice, is what I said before: "use of chloramine creates its own set of DBPs". (*)

      But hey, don't just take my word for it. Why don't you try reading the link that you posted, moron (rather than just cherry-picking a single phrase):

      There are a number of other disinfectants that are effective at killing disease-causing microorganisms, including ozone, chlorine dioxide, chloramines, and ultraviolet (UV) light. With the exception of UV light, these alternative disinfectants produce different types of disinfection byproducts that also have potential risks. ... Chloramine can help reduce some disinfection byproducts, such as trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids, but may not be the perfect solution.

      if you try to grow a garden you'll be forced to disinfect your entire yard

      My city has used chloramine disinfection for ages. Our garden has never seemed to mind.

      I have no reason to believe that chloramines are any more dangerous than free chlorine. You have provided nothing to support that other than your paranoid scare-mongering. And chloramines are not "overpriced agricultural waste". They are formed by combining chlorine with ammonia. Water often has a small amount of naturally-occurring ammonia already, since it can be formed by certain biological processes.

      if you really get a government paycheck you would be smart to use it to buy gold and silver rather than anonymously trolling /. with these transparent lies

      Gee thanks for the advice, guy-who-is-also-an-anonymous-coward. I'll be sure to start on that right away.

      *THMs = trihalomethanes, HAs = haloacetic acids, DBPs = disinfection byproducts

  13. Sodium Benzoate by apostrophesemicolon · · Score: 2

    Just a side note, a common preservative Sodium(Natrium) Benzoate (NaC6H5CO2) used in most foodstuff is long known to cause alterations in human DNA. For example, almost all brands of ketchups use this preservative.

    Wikipedia: Sodium Benzoate: Safety & Health

    Diet Coke to drop additive in DNA damage fear

    1. Re:Sodium Benzoate by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Funny

      But it comes with a free frogurt.

      Never mind, that was potassium benzoate.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:Sodium Benzoate by treeves · · Score: 1

      K or Na does not matter. It's the benzoate (benzoic acid anion) that matters.

      I had read that ascorbic acid (vitamin C) could react with benzoate to make benzene, which is a known carcinogen.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    3. Re:Sodium Benzoate by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh then it's easy! Just cut back your Vitamin C intake, cancel all those oranges and lemons from your diet and you're set!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Sodium Benzoate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very true statement.

      Mt. Dew uses Orange Juice (high levels of Vitamin C) and Sodium Benzoate.

      I drank incredibly stupid amounts of Mt. Dew when I was younger.

      Now, my bone marrow has freaked out and the clonal forms of it have taken over. Attack of the clones.

      Do I tie the two directly together? No, as I have no evidence one way or another. But it sure seems odd - massive quantities of known carcinogen, and now have a form of cancer that is known to be environmentally caused.

  14. The question in my mind is... by Y.A.A.P. · · Score: 2

    How long do these changes last?

    If this were a permanent change, one would wonder why all those Southeast Asian people who consume white rice regularly don't end up with high LDL counts counts and subsequently a high per-capita rate of heart attacks.

    Is this a short-lived change, like until the affected cells undergo Mitosis again (~30 mins.), or is there another food in tyhese people's diets that counteracts this genetic change?

    1. Re:The question in my mind is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These changes are short lived but there is nothing stopping different foods with different microRNA from causing different effects, there may even be some that alter how DNA replicates which possibly could lead to long lasting effects.

      I hear eating too much McDonalds has a long lasting effect.

    2. Re:The question in my mind is... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      There's more to it than that because many other cultures also consume white rice (eg, latin americans) as a dietary staple and do not have the same MI rate as east asians.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:The question in my mind is... by lkcl · · Score: 1

      actually, there are people in China who are becoming allergic to rice.... which turns out to be the mono-crop mass-produced Genetically-Modified variety that is, thanks to its lower price, not only making it difficult to re-establish native varieties, but is also killing people in the process. well, i guess that solves several problems all at once, then, doesn't it.

    4. Re:The question in my mind is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I hear eating too much McDonalds has a long lasting effect.

      people eating McDonalds on regular basis do not last long enough to see the effect.

    5. Re:The question in my mind is... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      The outstanding thing that comes to mind for me, is that such epigenetic influence could alter embryological development.

      Subtle changes in gene expression can mean the difference between being born with a penis or not. (Activation of a specific horome causes atrophy of the mulerian ducts in mammalian embryos, causing them to develop as males. Disruption of this signal during a critical period of development can cause the formation of female or ambiguous genitals, despite having a male genotype. This is just an example; there are a whole lot of time specific cellular signalling mechanisms at work in embyos. This is why thalidamide causes deformities, for instance.)

      Influence from diet during gestation would have long lasting effects, even if changes to expression are temporary.

    6. Re:The question in my mind is... by chooks · · Score: 1

      The book "The Windup Girl" takes this idea of GM foods and their impact in the future to an extreme end. Its a great read (Sci Fi -- it won the Hugo and Nebula award). Definitely worth the read if you enjoy post-apocalyptic stories based on crop gene manipulation....

      --
      -- The Genesis project? What's that?
  15. Re:This is not new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alex Jones needs to be taken off the air immediately and sent to China for Organ Harvesting that is the only way that vile kook will be of any use to humanity.

    This is what happens when you let these kooks and conspiracy theorists say whatever they want to say. We need the FCC to step in and tell these morons to either tell the truth or take their vile Tea Party spewing rhetoric and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

    We used to have FCC rules against such morons, but the Reptile Republican patron Saint his Highness Ronald McDonald Reaganus Maximus screwed all of that up and now we have to listen to such blowhard work against the progress that has been made in last 90 years. These cretins rally their ignorant masses against the Progressive measures that are there to make their lives better, they are like the people throwing wooden shoes into the machinery, worse they are terrorists and should be treated as such.

    Oh and don't get me started on their worship of the "Founders", a bunch of slave holders like Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton. The Tea Party has stated they want to abolish the Amendment that freed the slaves, They want a return to the plantation and won;t be happy until the black man is out picking cotton for them.

    Their precious constitution was written over 300 years ago and holds absolutely no relevance today, they had no idea what electricity was or even cars. We would be better to just to have one final amendment to constitution to void it and write a new one that ensures social justice and a fair wage equal wage so that the CEO and the factory line worker make the same amount of money then we will be able to finally have a country we can be proud of.

  16. Re:This is not new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what are you doing? youre responding to what you accuse as being crackpottery with your own crackpottery. of course, in your world, democrat good, republican bad.. you have no business calling him a simpleton.

  17. News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought we knew this for years. I remember reading about this in the late 1980s in Popular Science. The same issue also talked about prions and other fuctup stuff, like spongiform encephalitus (before all the hipster cows made it popular).

    1. Re:News? by devphaeton · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I saw that one too. When I was 8, I had a subscription to both PS and Ranger Rick.

      --


      do() || do_not(); // try();
  18. "you are what you eat" by lkcl · · Score: 1

    such a trite, annoying phrase... yet, even more annoyingly, it damn well turns out to be true! i remember seeing this mural, done by some ayurvedic indian guru thousands of years ago. it depicted a tiger mauling its prey violently, and eating it. underneath was an obese man, mouth open and wide-eyed in the same expression as the tiger. i thought at the time, "yes very interesting" and really didn't give it much more thought. yet here we are, in 2011, and "modern science" now backs up "ancient wisdom" yet again. how annoying.

  19. Wait, rice is bad for you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a Chinese study saying rice is bad for you?

    Or is it only "white" rice?

    I only eat brown rice anyway but still, this seems odd. Are they trying to make a case for everyone to eat McDonald's or what?

    1. Re:Wait, rice is bad for you? by treeves · · Score: 1

      They're not trying to make a *case* for anything, I'd guess. They studied some phenomena and found some interesting heretofore unknown behavior and reported it.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    2. Re:Wait, rice is bad for you? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Most people consider reducing LDL cholesterol a GOOD thing.

  20. Genetic-Modified Foods by lkcl · · Score: 1

    so tell me... why is Genetic Modification of food allowed? what's a direct consequence of introducing or removing genes from food that we eat? (answer: RTA). so how are we to know that Genetic Modified food will not have unintended consequences, as a direct result of the removal or insertion of genes that would otherwise never have gotten there?

    it's been shown years ago that gut bacteria adopt the genetically-modified soya bean genes into their own RNA. what happens when someone decides to "leverage" food crops to produce drugs, and those accidentally cross-pollinate with the world's food supply? that would be an incredibly stupid and irresponsible thing to do, right? oh wait - i see it's already been implemented. complete insanity, and this research goes to show how much is being put at risk: our lives.

    1. Re:Genetic-Modified Foods by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      Because the same people that own mega-agriculture own mega-pharmaceutical creating a never ending cycle of profits.

    2. Re:Genetic-Modified Foods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O noooes.. Imagine what will happen if a gene randomly mutates. Or worse, imagine the consequences of a gene transmitted from a wild relative of wheat that entered your bread by...wait for it...SEX!

      We should stop eating anything with DNA immediately!

      Your arguments are rubbish.

      And yes, I am a plant biologist.

    3. Re:Genetic-Modified Foods by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Well then do it. Create a drug producing plant and get it to cross pollinate purely by chance.

      Put up or shut up.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    4. Re:Genetic-Modified Foods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so tell me... why is Genetic Modification of food allowed?

      Because we have this thing called science. And Science demonstrates the safety or harm of things.

    5. Re:Genetic-Modified Foods by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 1

      so tell me... why is Genetic Modification of food allowed?

      Because corporations rule the world and they don't a fuck about anything other than the next few quarters' profits.

      --
      "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
    6. Re:Genetic-Modified Foods by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, those genes ain't some sort of "plastic" that our body can't use, they grow in a more or less normal organism, so you get some jellyfish with your corn or whatever.

      In a nutshell, I'm more scared of trans fats than genecrap. Though, given the choice, I could do without either.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Genetic-Modified Foods by biodata · · Score: 1

      GM Roundup-resistant oilseed rape (canola) has already been found in the wild, hybridised with local weed Brassica populations. We have already created a super-weed, resistant to major weedkiller, by releasing GM crops which have cross-pollinated purely by chance with indigenous populations. http://agbioforum.org/v12n34/v12n34a10-duke.htm We already know it happens easily in the wild. Adding genes coding for drugs (toxins) to a plant could well confer a selective advantage by making it less likely that the plant will be eaten by herbivores, allowing the mutation to sweep through a wild population. We need to forget the idea of putting extra genes coding for toxic things in the genomes of things related to things we eat.

      --
      Korma: Good
    8. Re:Genetic-Modified Foods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I want to be resistant to roundup!

    9. Re:Genetic-Modified Foods by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      ALL of your food is genetically modified, whether it says "organic" on the package or not. The only difference is how it got modified.

  21. My Preference by actionbastard · · Score: 1

    Glagnar's Human Rinds. Now with flavor.

    --
    Sig this!
  22. Re:This is not new. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    Their precious constitution was written over 300 years ago

    And which constitution is that? The US Constitution is only 224 years old.

    Also, what if you can't impose social jistice by fiat?

  23. You taste like a burger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't like you anymore.

  24. Tobacco and Addiction... by IonOtter · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this will have relevant effects on research into addiction to nicotine and other drugs? Such as the addiction to those drugs possibly being written into our genes?

    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:Tobacco and Addiction... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      You're addicted to food. Nicotine (most drugs, actually) is an appetite suppressant.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  25. Re:This is not new. by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

    Alexander Hamilton

    But, Alexander Hamilton was a federalist!

  26. Re:If this were done in an English speaking countr by curio_city · · Score: 1

    Nope, mice are relatively cheap, easy to handle, and have physiology somewhat similar to humans' in English-speaking countries too.

  27. Victor Buono, "Heavy" by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 2

    A Fat Man's Prayer:

    Lord, my soul is ripped with riot,
    Incited by my wicked diet.
    "We are what we eat!" said a wise old man;
    And Lord, if that's true, I'm a garbage can.
    I want to rise on Judgment Day, that's plain;
    But at my present weight, I'll need a crane.
    So grant me strength, that I may not fall,
    Into the clutches of cholesterol.
    May my flesh with carrot-curls be sated,
    That my soul may be poly-unsaturated.
    And show me the light, that I may bear witness,
    To the President's Council on Physical Fitness.
    And at oleomargarine I'll never mutter,
    For the road to Hell is spread with butter.
    And cream is cursed; and cake is awful;
    And Satan is hiding in every waffle.
    Mephistopheles lurks in provolone;
    The Devil is in each slice of baloney;
    Beelzebub is a chocolate drop;
    And Lucifer is a lollipop.
    Give me this day my daily slice,
    But cut it thin and toast it twice.
    I beg upon my dimpled knees;
    Deliver me from jujubes.
    And when my days of trial are done,
    And my war with malted milks is won,
    Let me stand with the heavenly throng
    In a shining robe - size 44 long.
    I can do it, Lord, if you'll show to me
    The virtues of lettuce and celery;
    If you'll teach me the evils of mayonnaise,
    The sinfulness of Hollandaise.
    Of Pasta a la Milannaise,
    Potatoes a la Lyonnaise.
    And crisp-fried chicken from the South,
    Lord, if you love me, shut my mouth.

    --
    Chaos maximizes locally around me.
    1. Re:Victor Buono, "Heavy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I'm hungry :-(

  28. So it all finally makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The food you eat can change your genes. Presumably, if you eat bad food it will have negative genetic effects. THIS must be the reason the average American holds their present stereotype.

    1. Re:So it all finally makes sense by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I told you, it's a glandular problem and I have heavy bones.

      Yes! That's it! It's not that I eat too much fat and sit around my lazy butt all day! It's just those genes in my food that make my glands do some weird shit and that somehow cling to my bones.

      Get those genes out of my food!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  29. In other news: by Nethead · · Score: 1

    Genes are made out of what you eat!

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  30. Re:This is not new. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Heh, that gave me a good chuckle.

    Jones is classic dis-information - some controversial nuggets of truth mixed in with batshit-crazy to make sure the truths are dismissed as well.

    "Oh, that's one of those Alex Jones theories - you know he's batshit crazy, right?"

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  31. Going to wait for other labs to confirm this. by Guppy · · Score: 2

    I'm going to have a hard time believing this, until we get a couple more labs to replicate the findings.

    Just about every animal on earth, including us, produces copious amounts of RNAse, an enzyme that shreds RNA molecules. And while most enzymes are rather fragile, RNAse is unusally robust -- you can boil some RNAses for hours, and they will retain their activity. They're everywhere, on your skin, in your body -- and it's a pain in the butt when you're working with RNA (you put RNAse inhibitors in everything to keep them from chewing up your material).

    It's almost as if it were being produced as some kind of defense mechanism against... hmm....

    1. Re:Going to wait for other labs to confirm this. by Joe+Torres · · Score: 2

      I can't find the reference, but there was a paper published that studied the stability of microRNAs with RNAses and found that they were more resistant than longer RNA species. There is a paper that was published earlier this year that reported an estimated miRNA average half-live of 119 hours, with some over 200 hours, inside cells (Gantier, M.P. et al. Analysis of microRNA turnover in mammalian cells following Dicer1 ablation. Nucleic Acids Research (2011). It is possible that the study could've underestimated the half-life since other groups have reported that microRNAs have enhanced stability in the presence of Dicer and the study I mentioned calculated the half-life in its absence. I haven't had a chance to read the paper referenced in TFA, so I can't speak to how believable it is yet. I'm sure that many labs (and companies) will start looking into this and its impact on their favorite disease or to try to modify their favorite food to knock-out harmful microRNAs or express helpful ones.

    2. Re:Going to wait for other labs to confirm this. by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for confirmation that the sun is the center of the universe. So far, that seems not to be the case. Earth is not conclusively the center of anything, either. So until I have a few more labs saying the sun is the center of the universe, I'll plug my ears.

    3. Re:Going to wait for other labs to confirm this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. I'd think the next research would be "so what's mitigating these effects? because something must be." Everything-deeply-changing-everything doesn't match observable reality outside the microscope.

    4. Re:Going to wait for other labs to confirm this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the strain of lab mice they used in the study is deficient in the production of a particularly relevant RNAse.

    5. Re:Going to wait for other labs to confirm this. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, makes you wonder with such half-lives if half our modern problems with diabetes are the result of improved transportation and refrigeration.

      When everything you eat is already half-rotten chances are that these kinds of RNAs might be gone. When your food is frozen from an hour after death until 20 minutes before it is on your dinner plate then that doesn't happen so much.

    6. Re:Going to wait for other labs to confirm this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Additionally, microRNA are short enough that I wonder how reliably we can determine the source as being from food consumed, and not from sample contamination or presence of an identical (or nearly identical) microRNA in humans.

      I don't necessarily believe this is wrong; only that I'm sceptical until I see this validated. Alternatively, I may read the actual paper at which point I'll probably be so disappointed with there statistics that I won't believe it any more. Either that or find that they did a fantastic job and believe it.

    7. Re:Going to wait for other labs to confirm this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAScientist anymore, but I wonder whether the micro- size of these RNAs might protect them from many effects of degrading enzymes as they will present (A) fewer opportunities for recognition sequences, and (B) those recognition sequences might fold in a manner that is not very alike to how they would fold in a larger RNA molecule, possibly altering the recognition structure of the recognition sequence and resulting in non-activity of RNAses that otherwise might cleave the site.

      Also, I agree with the general idea of this scientific observation from personal experience - I have noticed that consuming certain awesome raw or recently killed foods has had noticeable corporal and mental effects.

    8. Re:Going to wait for other labs to confirm this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a fascinating point, if this work is replicable. I hadn't even considered that dimension and I'm a biologist too. (I guess you are too.)

    9. Re:Going to wait for other labs to confirm this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah... if true, this is very cool, but RNAse is very ubiquitous and robust. I'm working with RNA today, and even normal sterile water isn't sterile enough, we have to use sterile water that has specifically has the RNAse destroyed.

      However, plant miRNA's are produced and packaged rather differently than miRNA's with animal origins, so it is possible that these differences could allow plant miRNA's to survive longer in an animal.

    10. Re:Going to wait for other labs to confirm this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that historically people growing up on farms did not have an abnormally high rate of type II diabetes.

      Do we really need to more explanation than "eat too much crap and don't exercise enough"??

    11. Re:Going to wait for other labs to confirm this. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Why do people eat to much and not exercise enough? Apparently people had no trouble with this 100 years ago. So, are you suggesting that the psychological makeup of humans has changed in 100 years, or perhaps there is a deeper cause?

  32. Who needs jeans? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Jeans? Who needs jeans? A kilt gives more room "down there" and can improve circulation around the equipment that a man uses to pass on his genes. So does an ankle-length shirt.

    1. Re:Who needs jeans? by euroq · · Score: 1

      Dude I love the links. I'm going to buy a kilt tomorrow.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    2. Re:Who needs jeans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also known as a skirt and a dress. :)

    3. Re:Who needs jeans? by Adriax · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Ye know why it's called a Kilt? Because I kilt the last man who called it a skirt!"

      Also, I would rock a wizzards robe at work if not for the dress code.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    4. Re:Who needs jeans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do Scotsmen wear kilts?

      Because sheep can hear zippers.

  33. You're a vegetable, you're a vegetable by tepples · · Score: 0

    Don't use that phrase around kids, or they might shun their vegetables for fear of turning into the next Terri Schiavo.

    1. Re:You're a vegetable, you're a vegetable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not. Funny.

  34. Selective breeding over generations is GM by tepples · · Score: 5, Interesting

    so tell me... why is Genetic Modification of food allowed?

    Selective breeding over generations is genetic modification, and it's been going on for the past four millennia. Did you mean " recombinant genetic modification"?

    what happens when someone decides to "leverage" food crops to produce drugs, and those accidentally cross-pollinate with the world's food supply?

    Patent lawsuits like Monsanto v. Schmeiser.

    1. Re:Selective breeding over generations is GM by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 1

      Selective breeding over generations is genetic modification, and it's been going on for the past four millennia. Did you mean " recombinant genetic modification"?

      The phrase "genetically modified" means genetically engineered. No one uses the term to mean selective breeding.

      --
      "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
    2. Re:Selective breeding over generations is GM by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      Selective breeding over generations is genetic modification, and it's been going on for the past four millennia. Did you mean " recombinant genetic modification"?

      The phrase "genetically modified" means genetically engineered. No one uses the term to mean selective breeding.

      Uh, selective breeding is engineering. :)

      However, everybody knows what you meant. The parent's point is that the only difference between modern and ancient techniques for food modification is the speed with which it happens. That in itself does have some level of impact I'll grant, but then again our ability to detect disease is also greatly increased - for all we know half the problems with eating modern foods is that ancient farmers selectively bred foods that kill you over time and had no way to tell this was happening since there weren't epidemiologists around.

      However, I'm not sure that this kind of discovery has huge implications for genetic manipulation of foods. Apparently perfectly ordinary foods are messing with your gene expression in both good and bad ways, and likely modified organisms do the same, both in good and bad ways. In fact, one would think that genetic manipulation would be the easiest way to eliminate the bad micro RNAs and increase the good ones, once we understand how it all works.

    3. Re:Selective breeding over generations is GM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent's point is that the only difference between modern and ancient techniques for food modification is the speed with which it happens.

      Then the parent is uninformed at best. Let's consider trying to introduce the gene for GFP (green fluorescent protein) into maize. Even if you assume *in theory* that you could wait long enough until the GFP gene randomly occurs via mutation, and then amplify it via selective breeding, *in practice* it's so impractically slow that it might as well not be possible. And I'm not even sure that it's possible in theory; it depends on the specifics of recombination in that species.

      Yes, you might be able to create an uphill ascent path by doing genetic testing of intermediate mutants and selecting those that get you a little bit closer, but this is no longer simply selective breeding. Plus which it assumes there's a path from start (maize) to finish (glowing green maize) that doesn't get you into a fitness valley where the seed won't germinate.

      In real-world terms, no, you probably can't selectively breed your way to glowing green corn. Glyphosate-resistant corn, maybe, as I suspect that's just a matter of turning up existing cellular mechanisms for detoxifying things (no, I'm not going to look it up, I'm busy enough already).

      Keep in mind that the mutation rate is pretty low, in human lifespan terms. Selective breeding works with what's already in the genome (and of course affecting regulatory elements) more than coming up with anything new. The may be safety advantages to the slower change to phenotype with selective breeding.

      Personally my objection to GMOs is strictly on an IP rights basis.

    4. Re:Selective breeding over generations is GM by SICKECHO · · Score: 1

      Evolution is a fancy way of saying mutation. Who knows what all this processed food, sprayed with chemical and possible genetic modifications is going to do to our species in the long run... We need more organic farms, there's no legitimate long term studies of what these chemicals can do to us...

    5. Re:Selective breeding over generations is GM by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I don't have issues with patents and IP on such things, but they should be limited to more reasonable lengths, and what I don't approve of is some of the tactics that have been used legally against farmers who likely didn't actually want the GMOs on their land.

      IP rights are what encourage investment into these technologies in the first place. The trick is finding the right balance. Giving an "Apple" some exclusivity to reward them for innovating is one thing, but giving them a patent on the "smartphone" for 20 years is ridiculous.

    6. Re:Selective breeding over generations is GM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lawsuit you mention was not because of accidental cross-pollination - the guy specifically selected for the patented trait by spraying with Roundup.

  35. Re:chaneloutlet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if I want a purse made out of human skin?

  36. Really? How is this new news? by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
    Gene expression is controlled by the environment, we've known that for decades. See Bruce Lipton.

    I guess it's good to see it mainstreamed. I just wonder what people with complete faith in genes believed activated genes.

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  37. Eat pecs to get pecs by tepples · · Score: 1

    Say I go to Chick-fil-A to eat more chikin, and I order a #1 (chicken breast sandwich, waffle fries, Coke Zero). Now a chicken breast is the pectoralis muscle of a chicken, so if I eat chicken pecs, will that help me build my own pecs?

    1. Re:Eat pecs to get pecs by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Say I go to Chick-fil-A to eat more chikin, and I order a #1 (chicken breast sandwich, waffle fries, Coke Zero). Now a chicken breast is the pectoralis muscle of a chicken, so if I eat chicken pecs, will that help me build my own pecs?

      Yes, same goes for chicken wings. Oh, wait...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  38. Two questions, one criticism. by conspirator23 · · Score: 2
    1. Do populations that eat significantly more rice have significantly different LDL levels?
    2. If not, are those populations less sensitive to the effects?

    And just to mention here, why call it "white" rice in the summary? Same genes, whole grain or not. TDA doesn't suggest that white rice puts more microRNA into the bloodstream. It doesn't make a distinction anywhere.

  39. .hmmm. by conspirator23 · · Score: 1

    Er, TFA..

  40. Re:chaneloutlet by siddesu · · Score: 3, Funny

    You'll have to contact Hugo Boss. Ask for the Schutzstaffel catalog.

  41. But Remember: by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 2

    GMO's are harmless and good for you.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:But Remember: by the+plant+doctor · · Score: 1

      GMO's are harmless and good for you.

      Interesting thought since this article was about white rice which is not a GMO...

    2. Re:But Remember: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that your (MONSANTO) official view ;)

  42. Hugo Boss by KingAlanI · · Score: 2

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Boss
    Evidently, the eponymous founder of Hugo Boss was indeed heavily involved with the Nazis, including as a uniform manufacturer.
    However, the stuff-made-of-human-skin myth seems ironic considering the actual horrors of Nazi Germany.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:Hugo Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh.

  43. RICE triggers INOSITOL6 production, and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Allegedly, ( & afaik it's actually been tested (to an extent)) it helps stop cancers/tumors!

    * In fact? See here, straight from THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY on that very note -> http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/DietandNutrition/inositol-hexaphosphate

    (Pretty damned cool & I hope you guys all pick up on this - well, except for the damned trolls around here that is... They should get cancer as far as I am concerned, & leave us all be!)

    APK

    P.S.=> You KNOW the "old saying" of "How could a billion Chinese be wrong?", well... I guess they aren't, but personally? I like INDIA'S RICE BETTER (Basmati rice RULES!!! Comes in 'sealed bricks', you have to see it, & cooks VERY quickly too!)

    ... apk

  44. Re:If this were done in an English speaking countr by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    You think it would have been better to use cats and rats?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  45. Agreed by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    And it does provide a new and more terrifying insight into exactly how a carcinogen might work. If the cell membranes aren't the bulwarks we thought they were it certainly explains how a cancer causing agent might get in to do its dirty work.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  46. Alternative Healing Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I expect to hear this being quoted in defence of homeopathy.

    Up until now the the micro-RNA created by homeopathic succussion has been overlooked by as an agent in human health...

  47. You are what you eat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Duh! What part of that did people not understand?

  48. Why wouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I posed this question back in freshman bio in university, and was blown off, but was honestly curious.

    Why wouldnt DNA be affected by any other chemical, naturual or not, it comes in contact with? It seemed to me as if it being sold to me as some magic, carved in stone, "bluebrint for life", but why would it be different than any other compound that can be adultered.

    Why wouldnt centuries of common diet account for physical differences in races, different attitudes, etc?

  49. Really? I didn't know that. by RudyHartmann · · Score: 0

    So what I eat drink and ingest can affect my cerebral cortex? Beer, librium and crack can affect me? Gosh, I never knew that. Thank God for these articles.

    --
    Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
  50. A Nightmare by mattr · · Score: 1

    This is fucked up if true.

    Antibodies from women with a rare condition known as immune infertility are used in the creation of GMO food
    http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may282011/gmo-not-food-cs.php

    1. Re:A Nightmare by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      I did a little digging on this subject, because the picture painted by the article you cited contained some confusing conclusions, which seem to stem from misunderstanding the sources they cite (see the footnotes at the bottom of the salem-news article). At the end of this digging, I shared some of the article's concerns, but for different reasons.

      Yes, it does appear that a company called Epicyte is producing a variety of corn that contains antibodies that latch onto sperm. The leap was the conclusion that people would become infertile by eating the corn. That seems not to be the case. Rather, the corn is used to produce a topical spermicide. The motivation is presumably that a gel containing antibodies that specifically and only target sperm will cause fewer problems than today's more toxic chemical spermicides, which cause irritation of the skin and mucous membranes. The corn here is grown not as a food crop, but as a pharmaceutical crop that is processed to produce the spermicide.

      I do understand that there are two causes for concern here. The first is that, unless the modified corn is grown under extremely strict conditions, there is the probability that it will cross-pollinate with other corn, and the gene will escape into the wild. In that way, it could find its way into food crops. The second is the concern raised by the Slashdot article here that food rNA can enter the bloodstream. Put together, these do raise the possibility that these genes could accidentally get into women's bloodstreams, where it seems conceivable that it could cause them to produce some of these antibodies. The causal chain is not nearly so direct as is implied by the salem-news article (one gets the feeling that any degree of truth to it got there by accident), but it is enough to cause some legitimate concern.

      If the rNA responsible for producing these antibodies did enter women's bloodstreams in this way, one wonders what the effect would be. Presumably, if it does cause infertility, the effect would be short-lived, because rNA in the blood doesn't last long (or, this is my understanding, at any rate). If this is the case, if the infertility effect is strong enough, and if this rNA can be produced in a way that doesn't cause it to accdentally enter food crops, then this would actually be a wonderful thing, because we need good alternatives to hormonal birth control; it can be pretty hard on women's bodies. But those are a lot of "if"s.

      The second leap in the article was the confusion of that genetically-modified corn with other strains of genetically-modified corn, which are intended to be higher-yield (e.g., pesticide-resistant, etc), that are being pushed in Africa. I do believe that there is something sinister about this, but it is not some plot to quietly sterilize Africans. Rather, because this corn does not produce viable seeds, farmers are made dependent on Monsanto et al for seeds each year. I also view the overuse of pesticide encouraged by these crops to be bad thing. But they're not feeding contraceptive corn to people.

      I wish there were more critical articles by real experts on issues like this. Too often, it feels like everyone is either a well-intentioned but ignorant hippy, or a willfully-blind corporate shill, and we're left to sort through the half-truths.

  51. BPA by slew · · Score: 1

    I seem to remember reading about traces of certain plastic showing up in people's blood after many years of use. Anyone got more details on this?

    Imagine if plastic flatware, cups, etc. is the "lead mugs" of the next few generations? In 2250 they'll look back on us and wonder what the hell we were thinking...

    You probably remember reading about BPA. BPA is used in the plastic lining inside of cans, poly-carbonate water bottles, thermal printers used for the receipts you get at a typical store. Although BPA both accumulates and is eliminated from the body pretty quickly, some people are worried about long term exposure as it is pretty much in everything these days so we never really get rid of all of it from our bodies because of constant re-exposure...

  52. Ahem. by CountBrass · · Score: 1

    You're assuming the article is true. Chinese scientists have a reputation for making stuff up.

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  53. New compound, old story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Food components affecting gene expression isn't really new. To use the relatively well known example of the lac operon, lactose from dairy products upregulates production of enzymes for the breakdown of lactose in bacteria. The only difference here is that the regulation is occurring post-transcriptionally.

  54. Actually. by CountBrass · · Score: 1

    Given the amount of fraud in Chinese science it makes a lot of sense to wait for confirmation from a more credible source.

    And even if Chinese science were whiter than white, your blind-acceptance is decidedly un-scientific.

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  55. Re:If this were done in an English speaking countr by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Funny

    No, I think a fox and lox. But I would not eat it in a box.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  56. anti-drug by cstacy · · Score: 1

    How you even know you got methylation islands, kid?

  57. Re:If this were done in an English speaking countr by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    You suck cox.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  58. Curiouser and curiouser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The obvious follow-up research is, of course, if that microRNA also appers in unborn children? What would that do for Lamarckism?

  59. White rice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TFA says nothing about the rice being white. If anything brown rice should contain more RNA, not less.

  60. White rice? White mice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The post should talk about microRNA found in white *mice* that were eating white rice...

  61. At the heart of this by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    is the true reason in the exponential increase in obesity; industrialized foods that not only alter our metabolism, but our very genes. Perhaps we need to look for microRNA snippets that are generated by BPA and other steroid-like chemicals.

  62. Apologies by eyenot · · Score: 1

    I apologise for all those times I rebuked my friends and made them feel foolish for ranting on while stoned or drunk about "evolving" in their own lifetimes, by ingesting chemicals or meditating or whatever. I take back all those times when I said, "no, at best you'll be able to manipulate such changes across numerous generations of carefully selected offspring, but it's not likely to be something you can see to fruition before you die, let alone something you can perform in one generation, let alone something we'll ever see made possible to begin with in our own lifetimes, let alone something you can cause to happen inside of yourself in this lifetime."

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  63. RNAse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A previous poster wonders why the microRNAs aren't being degraded. I'm no expert, but my understanding is that these RNAs form little hair-pin regions where they're double-stranded. That probably ensures that they are not broken down by RNAse

  64. Whaddya mean white? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's nothing I can see in TFA that says this is white rice. Which is no surprise to me, considering that white and brown rice are the same species. Brown is "wholemeal".

  65. Ohhh noooo!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does that means that Mc Donnalds is bad for our health?

    O.o