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.
Actually the economically advantaged are the ones buying the organic everything.
FTFY.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
1. Analyze a dangerous poison.
2. Modify a crop's genes to be resistant against said dangerous poison
3. Treat modified crop liberally with dangerous poison
4. Have cattle eat crop treated with dangerous poison
???
6. Be amazed at what the poison does to non-resistant life forms.
False dichotomy. No one is saying we must ban everything that gives you cancer.
Ever watched someone die of cancer? You might change the tune of your somewhat crazy rant if you had. The article states that "Up to 50% of males and 70% of females died prematurely" showing "2-3 times more large tumors than the control group" - which is somewhat disconcerting. If those numbers translate to what will be observed in the human population (which they probably won't, as this study was done with the upper bound tolerated limits in food, although consistent with what could be found in the food chain), then guaranteeing food for people now with the promise of a horrible premature death later doesn't sound like a good compromise.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
He says that this is guaranteed to produce Roundup impervious weeds. At some point these super weeds will need very toxic chemicals to kill. The real problem is that vast areas of monoculture are unsustainable.
Nature abhors a vacuum and will fill it up with what can tolerate the environment.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
You know what has also become Roundup resistant? Giant ragweed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19585341
I always enjoyed the sight of people coming out of the Union Square Whole Foods in NYC with organic groceries. Because the smog, heavy metals, and road traffic exhaust of Manhattan won't give you cancer, but that trace amount of pesticide sure will.
To be fair, they do have above-average produce.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
FTFY.
Log in or piss off.
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!
The article states that "Up to 50% of males and 70% of females died prematurely" showing "2-3 times more large tumors than the control group"
FT (other) A:
Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were. "This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said in an emailed comment. "The statistical methods are unconventional and probabilities are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. There is no clearly defined data analysis plan and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."
Maybe we should start with people who destroy any chance of reasonable debate by boiling down every argument to two extremes.
I'm the first to admit that I'm no expert on this stuff, but this sounds pretty damning...
Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were.
"This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said in an emailed comment.
"The statistical methods are unconventional and probabilities are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. There is no clearly defined data analysis plan and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."
Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, said the study's findings raised the question of why no previous studies have flagged up similar concerns.
"If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren't the North Americans dropping like flies? GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there - and longevity continues to increase inexorably," he said in an emailed comment.
Then we better ban sunlight.
Calling Mr. Burns!
In that case I think banning GM foods would have a much smaller impact that you suppose. Commercial sale of genetically modified foods began in 1994 (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food ). Not that I'm suggesting they need to be banned. I'm for mandatory labeling of products and detailed government sponsored scientific studies on the topic. If the problem was eliminated (or significantly reduced) before 1994, then GM crops and round-up did not play a role.
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.