Slashdot Mirror
New Study Confirms Safety of GM Crops
New submitter ChromeAeonium writes "Much like vaccines and evolution, there exists a great disparity between the scientific consensus and the public perceptions of the safety of genetically engineered crops. A previous study from France, which was later dismissed by the EFSA, FSANZ, and the French High Council of Biotechnologies, claiming to have found abnormalities in the organs of animals fed GM diets by analyzing three previous studies was discussed on Slashdot. However, a new study, also out of France, claims the opposite is true, that GM crops are unlikely to pose health risks (translation of original in French). Looking at 24 long-term and multi-generational studies on insect resistant and herbicide tolerant plants, the study states, 'The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.' Although it is impossible to prove a negative, and while every GM crop must be individually evaluated as genetic engineering is a process not a product, perhaps this study will help to ease the fears of genetically engineered food and foster a more scientific discussion on the role of agricultural biotechnology."
You cannot ease the fears of the crazy. If you could, they wouldn't be crazy.
But label the damn things so people can choose. Trying to sneak it under the radar - that's the true evil.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
That's a nice result and all, but it doesn't address the real concerns with GE crops:
1. patent wars on farmers
2. cross-contamination to non-GM crops / organic farms
3. against license agreements to save seed
4. crop monoculture
This debate will be a non-issue in a few years once it's realized that it's just an advancement in agriculture and not a plot to destroy the world. People are so silly when they start picking sides. It's a curious behavior we have that leads us astray on many issues.
Like a previous poster mentioned, the study ''proving'' the safety of GM crops was financed, at least in part, by a consortium of large French companies with an interest (a large interest) in GM crops.
Make of that what you will, but it reminds me of these studies, sponsored by Microsoft, ''proving'' that Windows was more secure than Linux.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
The major problem with GM crops is their intellectual property implications, and another one is accidental cross-breeding with wild plants. If people are able and allowed to use the seeds of last year's GM crop to seed this year's crop, without paying a yearly fee to Monsanto or some such, and if there is a way to guarantee that the modified genes won't spill over into the wild plant gene pool (causing who knows what damage as wild plants become poisonous to bugs that feed off them), I wouldn't have a problem with GM - but what are the chances of either? Not very high.
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html
Health issues are not the damn point of this subject. Who really cares what your next carbohidrates source will be? The issues are about poluting the organic crops and then making people pay a seed license. Patents and ownership are yet again the real issues here
It is with the fact that companies like Monsanto now *own* the genetic code to the crop and can destroy anyone they think is "using" it without paying them a fee.
That is the real danger and threat to society. Add in the few strains of the crop being produced now and it becomes an even bigger threat to being totally wiped out with a single disease.
Monsanto and their unholy alliance with the US Government is the danger, people.
perhaps this study will help to ease the fears of genetically engineered food and foster a more scientific discussion on the role of agricultural biotechnology
Yeah, because people who reject vaccines and evolution despite overwhelming scientific evidence are going to suddenly embrace reason concerning genetically modified crops. If anything, this study will somehow reinforce their views. Already, I see others on /. -- people who really should know better -- cooking up conspiracy theories.
"Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
Claiming that GM is safe is about as stupid is claiming that GM is dangerous. Every individual alteration should be examined and go through safety trials.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Did they test these plants before or after they dumped tons of extra pesticides on them?
That's one of the issues, we'll develop a Round-up resistant corn. Then the farmer will use 3x as much Woody's Round-up.
The end result is not that the particular GMO crop necessarily poses a health risk, but the greater use of pesticide related to that crop does.
You know, I did a first post, once. Perhaps for each of us, it has become such an ingrained meme, the pull is irresistible in the right circumstance. For me, I happened to log in at the moment Slashdot announced its 10th anniversary. I had a window of I would guess 5 or so seconds in which to frame and post a first post on that story. The temptation got the better of me. I had never done a first post here or on any other forum before, and haven't since. Perhaps that just happens to each of the 2 million or so members here on a story they particularly like, and happens to a few members considerably more, depending on the severity of the vulnerability to the meme.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Every single thing you eat has been genetically modified the good old fashioned way anyhow, through selective breeding.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
There's also environmental damage. Herbicide-tolerant crops mean the farmer can spray more and push yields higher, but greater use of herbicides damages diversity in the surrounding countryside. I suppose this is related to your point 4.
Here's an anecdote for you. I'm actually home for the holidays (in farmland country) and was asking my parents what happened to a lot of specific insects I remembered as a kid but don't see these days (I realize it's winter but I've been home in the summer too). Specifically we used to have these massive garden spiders that had a golden abdomen like this one. When I was a kid, I used to flick grasshoppers and locusts into these massive webs they built between our pine trees. The webs are no longer there. My mom says it's the Roundup. She's worked her garden since 1977 and I mean like an acre of garden that we basically subsisted on. She's convinced that it's the farmers that drench their crops with Roundup now and that this Roundup is killing certain insects (directly or indirectly in the food chain). She also claims that due to Roundup we never see the number of toads and frogs that we used to (literally our backyard would be full of the young) but I can't say if this is true or not as my dad has since laid plastic lining around our pond to protect our lawn.
Anyway, is there anyone doing these studies? Who applies Roundup to frogs, toads, golden garden spiders or their food and studies the impact? I guess nobody really cares about spiders but there's the obvious recent example of pesticide harming the bee population and that could turn into be a very dreadful problem.
My work here is dung.
Government enforced, privately owned and limited food is anti-human and anti-life. Also the AC post directly above mine saying essentially what I wanted to say.
If you take DNA from peanuts (safe) and mix it with wheat (safe) odds are you get a safe hybrid. Except if you are allergic to peanuts. Nobody expects to die from a peanut allergy when eating bread. Without labeling GM ingredients you can't know what you are eating.
I'm not so worried about the ingestion part of GM crops but the troubling part for me is seeing Megacorp take down small time farmers for "copyright infringement"[0][1] due to crops cross-pollinating via the wind, bees, whatever. It's ridiculous. It's basically a legal argument to eradicate any form of alternative food source other than Monsanto's monopoly.
Thing is, GM crops are the foothold for food copyright. If you need any indication where that could end up have a look at RIAA proceedings for the past 10 years or even Microsoft's (et al) Seed Vault[2].
[0] - http://www.nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm
[1] - http://www.mnn.com/your-home/organic-farming-gardening/stories/monsanto-wins-lawsuit-against-indiana-soybean-farmer
[2] - http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23503
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
It's not about preconceived notions: most scientific examinations of GM don't ask the right questions. Few people doubt that the current generation of GM foods are probably safe to eat and probably don't cause massive environmental harm. But some rather more relevant questions are:
- Can we rely on the integrity of the people who will test the next generation of crops and do we have sufficient controls in place to prevent biased testing
- Are the risks of GM food - however small they may be - borne by the people who profit from the technology? If not, how do we address this fundamental disconnect?
- What are the long term risks of reducing genetic diversity amongst our food crops? Does it make us more vulnerable to unexpected, intercontinental crop failures or reduce our ability to cope with climate change?
- What are the social, economic and geopolitical consequences of making third world farmers dependendend on multinational companies?
- What are the social, economic and geopolitical consequences of the planet's primary food sources being subject to patent controls?
I'm not comfortable that any of these questions have been properly addressed.