Slashdot Mirror
Roundup Tolerant GM Maize Linked To Tumor Development
New submitter spirito writes with this snippet about rats fed Roundup laced water: "The first animal feeding trial studying the lifetime effects of exposure to Roundup tolerant GM maize, and Roundup, the world's best-selling weedkiller, shows that levels currently considered safe can cause tumors and multiple organ damage and lead to premature death in laboratory rats, according to research published online today by the scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. ... Three groups were given Roundup in their drinking water, at three different levels consistent with exposure through the food chain from crops sprayed with the weedkiller: the mid level corresponded to the maximum level permitted in the US in some GM feed; the lowest corresponded to contamination found in some tap waters. Three groups were fed diets which contained different proportions of NK603 – 11%, 22% and 33%. Three groups were given both Roundup and NK603 at the same three dosages. The final control group was fed an equivalent diet with no Roundup or NK603 but containing 33% of equivalent non-GM maize."
The Chicago Tribune reports that not everyone's convinced of the results: "Experts not involved in the study were highly skeptical about its methods and findings, with some accusing the French scientists of going on a 'statistical fishing trip.'"
All right, we get sick of Slashdot editor bashing, but this needs to be addressed.
The link to the Chicago Tribune is from a Reuters newsfeed. The attribution should be to Reuters, via Chicago Tribune.
For quick reference, any "feed" stories from tribune company are going to have "sns" in the title. Other papers will vary.
(From a former Tribune Co. Employee).
The headline suggests that GM corn causes cancer. This is ludicrous and only feeds the ignorant paranoid anti-GM crowd.
It's ROUNDUP exposure that's linked to tumors - NOT genetic modifications. I am not at all surprised.
I've been saying for years that there is nothing particularly risky about GM foods - it's dumping horrendous of herbicide on things that's risky... this is obvious to me, but not to the ignorant masses.
Don't give the freaks ammunition, please.
You know what has also become Roundup resistant? Giant ragweed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19585341
roundup is linked to the tumors not GM food.
Surprise surprise, poison is bad for you.
Of course there's a simple solution to this. Don't just genetically modify the maize to be resistant to roundup, genetically modify people to be as well. There, problem solved. And Monsanto should love that since everyone needs a patent license from them to have a kid.
Yeah, we should ban evil pesticides! Down with evil chemicals and modern GM farming! Organic all the way!
True to your user name, I see. Nobody has sugested that all pesticides are bad or that we should return to the 19th century. You do realize that there were no tractors back then, let alone harvesters or combines?
This one strain of corn is what's under discussion, and it looks like it should be banned... if the methodology of its studies hold up. Which it looks as if they may not.
Free Martian Whores!
"80% of my last posts, via 10 months, got modded down by a group of rogue mods. Since 2012-09-07 my karma is down to good"
Maybe you got modded down because you're a troll? All pollution regulations work that way, even in Europe, because literally getting 0% of something like that in your water is basically impossible.
1. Analyze a dangerous poison.
LOL. Glyphosate kills anything that makes its own tyrosine, tryptophan and phenylalanine. People supposedly cannot synthesize it we can only eat it. Much as oxygen will kill some anaerobic bacteria, it would be a huge shock to discover oxygen causes cancer in people.
A quick "chemists glance" at the MSDS and its about as scary as rubbing alcohol... I would not drink it or wash my hands in it before eating, but I wouldn't freak out either. Everything in a chemistry lab is dangerous, you have to put it in a spectrum, and this is worse than the distilled water but pretty much obviously on the safe edge of the spectrum compared to everything else in a lab. Some of the problem is the solvents and stuff the herbicide is dissolved into to spread it around. I heard there was a court case where some PR clown called it as safe as table salt, which although technically true is misleading because your body has perfectly adequate although extremely unpleasant ways to remove a lethal salt dose from your body, unless you somehow stop it or inject it all at once. Calling it as safe as rubbing alcohol would have been about as true and less likely to get sued.
Its pretty laughable that glyphosate is a "dangerous poison". Try some organic mercury compounds if you want real danger. Its not even useful for biowarfare, not persistent enough, its highly biodegradable. Which mystifies me... so if it all degrades worst case in 100 days, and twinkie sits on the shelf for 4 months before its eaten, how is anyone eating the stuff? Yeah, I know, field to table salad without rinsing or washing, but that doesn't fit the meme of all american diets being hyper processed.
The other funny part is its use will be a footnote in history "soon". Too many resistant weeds are spreading. Why spend big bucks to apply something that'll do nothing. Why agitprop to ban something that no one will want to manufacture pretty soon, anyway?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Mark Lynas ( https://twitter.com/mark_lynas ) picked some interesting points out of the paper (and links to a mirror of the paper).
30% of the 20 control rats also got tumours.
The same strain of rat was used in the controls and fed the same way (just a different variety of corn) and didn't get the tumors.
Way, way off. The numbers are more like a 30% decrease in yields, based on current farming methods. Considering that we haven't applied science to organic farming like we have to chemical farming, due to easy postwar chemical availability, the gap could probably be closed even more. Yes, conventional farms have marginally higher productivity. But you are off by an order of magnitude with your "5x" claim.