Suppressed Report Shows Cancer Link to GM Potatoes

Doc Ruby writes "After an 8-year-long court battle, Welsh activists have finally been allowed to released a Russian study showing an increased cancer risk linked to eating genetically modified potatoes. While the victory of the Welsh Greenpeace members in the courtroom would seem to vindicate the work of the Russian scientists that did the original research, there are still serious questions to be answered. The trials involved rats being fed several types of potatoes as feed. The rats who were fed GM potatoes suffered much more extensive damage to their organs than with any other type; just the same, serious questions remain about the validity of the findings. The Welsh group wants to use this information to stop the testing of GM crops in the UK, tests currently slated for the spring of this year."

So...all potatoes are bad?

[bwd234 (806660)]

"Those in the "control groups" that were fed non-GM potatoes suffered ill-effects"

Maybe pototoes are bad for rats. Doesn't mean they will be harmfull to humans.

Re:So...all potatoes are bad?

[DrifterX79 (824302)]

Well I guess that most potatoes manufactured by General Motors may contain used motor oil, proven to cause cancer in humans. I say hold off for Honda potatoes...maybe even Lexus Legumes.

Re:So...all potatoes are bad?

[bitt3n (941736)]

GM Potatoes: Unsafe at Any Spud.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't mean they will be harmfull to humans.

There's a reason why certain species of mice are used for these sorts of laboratory experiments: they're nearly identical to humans. Genetically, mice and humans share a great deal of DNA. Not nearly as much as some primates, but still just over 99.5%. Beyond that, the organs of mice are similarly proportioned to that of humans. That is, the relative sizes of the organs to one another are almost identical to that of humans.

People such as yourself, who don't have

Re:So...all potatoes are bad?

[by Anonymous Coward]

People such as yourself, who don't have much of a biology background, have a hard time accepting this.

What we have a hard time accepting is that 99.5% similarity means jack, when we have something like 90% DNA similarity with sunflowers. If we are only .5% different from rats, that means that .5% represents a hell of a lot of difference, not the other way around. It's relative just like any other amount. Would you want to eat something that was .5% cyanide, just because .5 is a really small number? Without a point of reference the number tells you nothing.

Re:So...all potatoes are bad?

[by Anonymous Coward]

What we have a hard time accepting is that 99.5% similarity means jack, when we have something like 90% DNA similarity with sunflowers.

Wrong. You can't compare humans/animals and plants in terms of DNA similarity (or lack thereof). The basic structure is too different to make any comparisons worthwhile.

If we are only .5% different from rats, that means that .5% represents a hell of a lot of difference, not the other way around.

Wrong. Most of the 0.5% difference between mice and humans involves genes that are currently classified as inactive. Thus they basically have no identifiable effect, even after decades of study. The amount of DNA that actually causes the differences between humans and mice is remarkably small. While 0.5% of the total DNA is different, approximately 98.5% of that 0.5% is considered inactive.

And like I said in my earlier post, decades of studies have shown that mice are a very accurate representation of humans, when it comes to testing chemicals. The organs are proportioned almost exactly the same, and comparable responses to humans have been observed again and again and again. Doubt it if you wish. The fact remains that if something is harmful to mice, we can be sure that a relative proportion of that chemical is harmful to humans.

Re:So...all potatoes are bad?

[Danny Rathjens (8471)]

Uhm, why are you guys pulling these ridiculous percentages out of thin air? They are woefully incorrect. Ever heard of the various gnome projects that have completely sequenced the dna of certain animals and plants? There is still a large margin of error based on the precise definition of "similarity", but based on the genome projects that have sequenced a human and a rat, the number was much closer to 80% for rats. And the estimates were around 40% similarity to humans for chickens(gallus domesticus). Our common ancestor with rodents was around 85 Million years ago, and we've diverged quite a bit more than .5% since then. Heck, just look at the number of chromosomes of rats and humans, humans have 3 more haploid chromosomes, that's around a 13% difference alone, so obviously the 99.5% number is completely bogus. erm, well he said mice, but mice and rats are pretty close, and both used for lab experiments. ah, here is a pretty picture that shows structural differences within the chromosomes as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_Genome_Pro ject [wikipedia.org]

99.5% similarity?????

[fasta (301231)]

It's rare to find so much misinformation at Slashdot, and that's saying something.

Humans and chimpanzee DNA are very similar, there are apparently about 40 million differences (out of about 3 billion positions) between chimp and human DNA; in protein coding regions, the number of differences is much smaller.

Humans and mice, on the other hand are far more evolutionarily distant (80 million years since the last common ancestor, compared with 5 million, or less for chimps). In protein coding regions, mouse and human DNA sequences are about 80% identical, on average, but outside protein coding regions, the level of sequence similarity is no higher than would be expected by chance. (This large difference was one of the reasons the mouse genome was sequenced after the human genome - sequences that were more similar than chance were expected to have a function.)

While plants and animals (and bacteria) share a large number of proteins that do similar things, their DNA sequences do not share any significant similarity except in protein coding regions for very highly conserved proteins.

What all of this has to do with unpublished Russian studies on genetically modified plants, I cannot imagine.

Re:

[Planesdragon (210349)]

There's a reason why certain species of mice are used for these sorts of laboratory experiments: they're nearly identical to humans.

there are exactly two reasons why we perform tests on certain mice. You're focused on reason #2 -- namely, "a high past correlation of harm in these creatures to harm in Humans." #1 is "the short lifespan and low genetic variety make for a highly economical test pool."

Mice are significantly different than humans: for example, a 5 ft/lbs blow to the chest isn't much to a human

Why all?

[jd (1658)]

There are something like 1,500 identified types of potato, any of which can contain higher-than-normal levels of chlorophyll. This gives us 3,000 permutations. Of the possible genetic modifications, I'd say there are likely to be dozens by now, if not hundreds. Then, there are probably many hundreds of members of the rodent family that can be classed as rats. At this point, the number of possible permutations of rat and potato are so astronomically high that nothing much can be concluded.

(eg: Let's say th

Re:

[Wilson_6500 (896824)]

Then, there are probably many hundreds of members of the rodent family that can be classed as rats.

Which is probably one of the reasons why biologists use genetically identical strains of test animals.

Re:So...all potatoes are bad?

[picob (1025968)]

I confirm, potatoes are bad for rats. Potatoes contain glycoalkaloids a toxic compound, which can affect the digestive, nervous, and urinary systems. Cooking degrades this protein in some extent, but a small percentage will remain in the potato. While humans do not suffer effects because of their large body volume - you would have to eat many (green) potatoes - smaller animals often suffer from this. That's also why you shouldn't feed your dog potatoes.

Killer potatoes

[Zouden (232738)]

It showed that the potatoes did considerable damage to the rats' organs. Those in the "control groups" that were fed non-GM potatoes suffered ill-effects, but those fed GM potatoes suffered more serious organ and tissue damage.

Hold on... the non-GM potatoes still caused ill-effects? How much potato were they feeding these rats? Did they even cook them first?
It seems like the only conclusion one can draw from this study is that "if you're eating so much potato that you get sick, GM potatoes will get you even sicker!"

Re:

[bwd234 (806660)]

It's just like back in, oh whenever...the 70's or 80's... I forget, anyway when they fed 1000 times the normal dosage of saccharin to rats they developed cancer. Trying to extrapolate data by using 1000 times normal dosage isn't the most reliable form of research. Besides, maybe "everything" gives cancer to rats! :)
Did any human ever come down with cancer from saccharin? My guess is no.

Re:

[Babbster (107076)]

Not to mention the danger posed by virtually every other medication and foodstuff on the planet if consumed to excess. Even too much water can kill (have we forgotten [joystiq.com] so quickly?).

If I use 10 packets of saccharin in my coffee every day for the rest of my life, the increased cancer risk I'd obtain from that would be so minimal that it would hardly be worth considering (forgetting, of course, that the caffeine would probably be a lot more dangerous to my health). In fact, it would NOT be worth considering

Re:Killer potatoes

[dreamchaser (49529)]

Actually it was the equivalent of an adult human drinking 800 cans of diet soda a day, so while you are correct that it wasn't 1000 times the 'normal' dosage, you are still rather far off base about the saccharine studies of the 70's. I would suggest that you do some mor research before commenting any further on the subject.

Here is one interesting piece [hilbert.edu] for starters. I'm sure a smart AC like yourself can find more if you actually pull your head out of your ivory tower and look.

The good Dr.'s site

[Bananatree3 (872975)]

http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/a.pusztai/ [freenetpages.co.uk] is the site of the paper's author.

**and his paper**

[Bananatree3 (872975)]

The paper being described in TFA can be found Here [colorado.edu]. Also, there are almost a dozen different citations of the paper on Google Scholar [google.com]

Stop testing? Bury heads in sand?

[Anomolous Cowturd (190524)]

Given the suggestion that GM foods might be more harmful than old-school foods, wouldn't the sane thing be to *increase* testing? What's wrong with these idiots?

Re:

[Gentlewhisper (759800)]

Given the suggestion that GM foods might be more harmful than old-school foods, wouldn't the sane thing be to *increase* testing? What's wrong with these idiots?

$

Re:Stop testing? Bury heads in sand?

[edwdig (47888)]

Given the suggestion that GM foods might be more harmful than old-school foods, wouldn't the sane thing be to *increase* testing? What's wrong with these idiots?

There weren't any details in the story, but it depends on what type of testing is being planned. You don't want to do human testing if the early testing on lab rats doesn't look good.

As always, this shows

[caseih (160668)]

that research causes cancer in rats.

Re:Yes but did you know?

[value_added (719364)]

78% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Actually, more recent studies have shown that cigarettes are the leading cause of statistics.

Just bad science...

[by Anonymous Coward]

From the article - "Greenpeace said the Russian trials were also badly flawed. Half of the rats in the trial died, and results were taken from those that survived, in breach of normal scientific practice."

Go sensationalism. These "findings" were probably "suppressed" because they weren't very valid and obtained under shifty premises.

You need a good case study for GM crops? GM crops have been in American markets for years now starting with the Flavr-savr tomato. It's not like the FDA hadn't done independent testing on their own before approving them. But a sample size like the entire US, a pattern would probably emerge.

Re:Just bad science...

[ColdWetDog (752185)]

I wouldn't necessarily make any statements about the general safety of Genetically Modified crops from this (or any other) single study or even experience with a single product. According to TFA, the potatoes in question were modified to produce (I assume additional) lectins [wikipedia.org]. This is a broad class of potentially biologically active molecules that could be helpful or harmful at either "usual" dosages or the typically higher dosages found in these sorts of experiments.

I haven't poured through the literature to see how good or bad this particular study is, but it's concerning that 1) someone's making GM crops with this molecule amplified (can't figure out why) 2) even a poorly done preliminary study seems to have suppressed instead of repeated and expanded.

Re:

[shma (863063)]

Regardless of the validity of the claims made in the paper, the results WERE suppressed and it took an eight year court battle to get them to release it.

At the very least, the paper deserves to be judged on its scientific merits before being dismissed.

Uhhh....

[jd (1658)]

America is probably not a good example to use. Estimates of autism have shot up in recent years, it is now classed as the second-worst contry in the Western world for children, education standards have fallen, creationists have become a major political force, obesity is sky-high and rising, something caused Britney Spears' hair to fall out, and 90% of all recent US news stories on legal and/or political issues can be best explained by some form of brain damage.

It's not nice to fool with mother nature...

[STDOUBT (913577)]

I'm all in favor of scientific progress. In fact, I'm a big fan.

But until the science of genetic manipulation is (close to)perfected, all they are doing is 'fooling' with it. Coupled with todays climate of unbridled corporate power, this stuff is very dangerous IMO. Please bear in mind, it's not the scientists who get to push 'products' to market. And, corporations will *always* be able to buy a scientist who supports claims of safety.

I file GM under "not worth the risks". (And _do not_ give me that old "it'll help starving people" crap. No. What will help starving people are governments that aren't run by evil shits).

Re:It's not nice to fool with mother nature...

[93 Escort Wagon (326346)]

"And _do not_ give me that old "it'll help starving people" crap."

Most of the GM foods being pushed have nothing to do with starving people - it's all about increasing corporate profits, as usual. The "terminator gene" was being pushed to prevent poor third-world farmers from saving their own seed after buying grain crops once. Roundup-ready crops are developed to allow farmers to use increasing amounts of Glyphosate to control weeds, because of the inherent problems with how large-scale agriculture is "managed". Flavr-Savr tomatoes were designed to be picked at an even less ripe state so they survive shipping better. All of that runs counter to helping starving people - heck, even for the "first world" it means crops that are less nutritious than before.

The only GM crop I know of that was developed in an attempt to actually help the third world is golden rice - a rice that provides beta carotine. That was developed at a university, and while given lip service by the agro-giants it's not high on their agenda.

Terminator gene useful

[Lars512 (957723)]

Most of the GM foods being pushed have nothing to do with starving people - it's all about increasing corporate profits, as usual. The "terminator gene" was being pushed to prevent poor third-world farmers from saving their own seed after buying grain crops once.

There's two sides to the terminator gene, as I understand it, one of which you're overlooking. Suppose you engineer a crop which grows extremely well, much better than in its original form. This crop might spread wildly, and become a form of a weed, overcoming native plants and even other useful crops. The terminator gene is useful here because it prevents the crop from spreading into the wild. In this way it's a safeguard.

Suppose there is some series of studies confirming that a particular crop is statistically more correlated with the occurrence of some medical problem in humans who eat it. If that crop has already spread in the wild, and perhaps merged with non GM crops, then we'll still be eating it whether we like it or not. We need safeguards like the terminator gene.

Also, using it doesn't mean choosing the new business models it allows. They could sell seed to the same farmers at close to cost price for repeat customers, making it closer to the existing business models.

What are "GM potatoes"?

[Schraegstrichpunkt (931443)]

Isn't it a little forward to assume that all "GM potatoes" are harmful, just because some genetic modifications result in plants that are mildly poisonous? Wouldn't it depend on the specific modifications?

Not that a little caution isn't in order. We shouldn't necessarily just blindly assume that every modification to some edible plant will also be perfectly safe to eat, and I'm aware that there are also potential problems with reducing genetic diversity in our food supply on a large scale, but a study showing that particular genetic modifications are harmful is not reason to abandon all genetic engineering in food; It's a reason to find out why those particular modifications create harmful substances.

Re:

[edwdig (47888)]

The real issue is that the people trying to push genetically modified foods onto the market are also trying to avoid labeling them as such. And in this particular case, they're also trying to hide research that shows potential problems with the food. The research may be bogus, or it may not. But there's no way of knowing unless they release it.

In general, people just don't feel comfortable when others try to change things that are important while trying to prevent you from knowing about it.

Re:What are "GM potatoes"?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358)]

That's the right question, left neglected and alone by the story.

Poking around a bit, it turns out that the genetic engineers and the researchers were both looking at one particular lectin, introduced to make the potatoes resist insects and nematodes better. Which is important because "lectin" is a whole family of chemicals with different biological effects.

Now, the natural chemical defenses in plants are bad enough. Wild potatoes may need elaborate preparation to be safe to eat. Farmed ones are screened for solanine [wikipedia.org]. Potatoes, in case you didn't know, are in the nightshade family.

So the real question here is what other research was done and what results it had. Does other work confirm or contradict the Russian study?

Then there's the systems question, which is whether we're better off with the risks of the engineered potatoes or the risks of the pesticides needed to keep "natural" ones alive. The word "natural" is in quotes because they're quite different from their wild relatives.

In Soviet Russia

[quokkapox (847798)]

Potatoes Modify YOU!

Garbage Science...

[RexRhino (769423)]

Genetic modification is the artificial changing of DNA... you can say that a specific DNA change is harmful, so that a specific type of engineered potato is bad... but that doesn't say anything about GM foods. The safety or danger of the foods would have to be evaluated on the specific genetic changes made. Even then, the GM products don't carry any more risk than plants created by mutation breeding (in fact, GM was concieved as a less risky version of mutation breeding).

That, of course, is totally ignoring the fact that the guy conducting the research was a hardcore anti-GM activist before the research. It is like asking activist creationists to do an impartial study on evolution.

Re:

[CosmeticLobotamy (155360)]

That, of course, is totally ignoring the fact that the guy conducting the research was a hardcore anti-GM activist before the research. It is like asking activist creationists to do an impartial study on evolution.

Pretty much every scientist has a side on GM. If you're going to ignore research by people with biases, you're going to ignore all research.

If you're capable (I'm not), take a look at his methods, rip them apart, or if they're sound, repeat them and see if the result is the same. Good science sh

Yeah

[KKlaus (1012919)]

Someone needs to explain to the general populace that GM food is still just food. If the genetic changes are bad, and cause the food to produce something dangerous, or more of something dangerous, that's one thing (and we should be weary of that of course). But there's nothing inherently dangerous about genetic alterations. I'm tired of the belief that the GM somehow gets into the food and makes it evil, explanation unneccassary. It's like people being convinced that irradiated food is radioactive or so

All GM food is not the same

[giorgosts (920092)]

The reason for GM crops is only one: profit. Profit may come from improved appearance, from increased shelf-life, or from increased yields due to lower pest numbers. The agrochemical companies make two birds with one stone. They sell the GM seeds which usually are modified as to be pesticide-tolerant, and then they sell the pesticide to be used in excessive amounts to kill off everything else. Using vast amounts of chemicals is bad for the foodstuff as it leaves toxic residue inside, as well as for the environment that the toxic waste is released into. There is also increased risk of cross-pollination with other non-GM crops, which is the main reason of banning GM agriculture in Europe.

The Lord of Harvest

[khchung (462899)]

If you want to know more about GM food, go ahead and read this book, seriously. It is an eye-opener to me, as someone who knows next to nothing about farming and thinks there might be some good reasons for NGOs to oppose GM food so vehemently.

A few juicy points from the book (not in the order as they appear in the book, just the order it came out from my memory), though I knows too little to judge if their validity:

• In the book it mentioned one similar experiment with potatoes and mice (not sure if this is the same one), however, the experiment is so poorly controlled (e.g. the GM potato contains less vital nutrients compared to the "normal" potatoes) that the mice are more likely damaged through malnutrition than any effect of GM food. Other experiments that accounts for all the intake value of different nutrients showed no harmful effects for GM food.
  
• Agriculture in its current form (with pesticides, fertilizers, etc) is already the most destruction thing human does routinely to nature. Any additional "damage" to the environment due to planting GM crops won't make much a difference anyway.
  
• Corn farmers already have to buy seed every year from dealers, no terminator gene needed! Why? Because modern corn are usually hybrid breeds that give great yield but do not generate viable seeds. But you don't see NGOs screaming at seed dealers. This shows that farmer don't mind buying seed constantly as long as the yield difference is worth the price.
  
• People has been making genetically new variants of plants for centuries already (i.e. through selective breeding). Needless to say, none of these new variants are subjected to as much scrutiny as GM foods has gone through (yet some still think them "unsafe").
  
• Before GM, there were already other means (e.g. soaking in chemicals, radiation, etc) to cause genetic mutation in plants, which can also result in new variants of plants. These crops, however, are not called "GM" and can be sold with as much testing as variants obtained through breeding (i.e. no testing at all).
  
• In some cases, the use of GM crops can and do reduce the use of pesticides, so it is not all bad.
  
• Furthermore, one of the famous GM linked pesticide (Roundup), has the advantage of naturally decaying in matter of weeks. Thus using Roundup linked crop with Roundup do leave less harmful chemicals around in the environment.
  

As soon as they learn that rhetoric is valueless

[Schraegstrichpunkt (931443)]

Hopefully never, because "don't fuck with nature" is a self-defeating position for a human being to hold. We have flourished as a species because of our ability and motivation to manipulate nature to improve our conditions. Vaccines and antibiotics come to mind. Hell, we'll probably be extinct within the next 1000 years unless we learn more about how to better "fuck with nature".

We are nature

[quokkapox (847798)]

we'll probably be extinct within the next 1000 years unless we learn more about how to better "fuck with nature".

I don't think it will take that long.

But that's beside the point and irrelevant anyway. I think what people need to start to realize is that everything we humans do is natural, whether it's clear-cutting a forest, nuking your enemy's cities, or creating a rainforest preserve, it's all natural (though the ethical status of these actions is another matter).

We're just the latest step lif

Re:As soon as they learn that rhetoric is valueles

[SQL Error (16383)]

Unfortunately, our ability to cure diseases and stave off death has pretty much stopped the selection of the strong over the weak

Yes, it's terribly unfortunate that many gene-related disorders can now be treated and that people can live full lives rather than dying horribly at a young age.

Re:

[Babbster (107076)]

When will people learn that an aphorism is a poor substitute for knowledge?

Re:

[TrekkieGod (627867)]

Food is not a scarcity...How will GM foods fix something that is not broken in the first place? You have to be stupid to willingly to eat GM foods.

What the hell? What gave you the idea that we genetically modify crops in order to fix some sort of scarcity? They're genetically modified to create crops that have increased resistance to the elements (too much heat, too much cold, not enough water, too much water). So that farmers can have more of their product survive until sale, and make more money.

I eat GM foods because I like my seedless grapes. Wouldn't eat them otherwise. And because I know genetic modification isn't some black magic that'

Re:

[c6gunner (950153)]

Breeding grapes until there is a variety that is seedless isone thing, taking DNA from a fish and splicing it into is another.

Bunk. No GM foods contain any animal protein. If you're talking about just transplanting a minor gene, then so what? The same gene that's present in that fish is probably present in 20,000 other animal species, and at least a few dozen plant species. You're just trying to use word-play to induce frightening images of frankenplants in peoples minds. In reality, DNA modification

Dear Anonymous,

[FormOfActionBanana (966779)]

There's a 98% chance you're an eleven year old dork in a ninja costume.

Re:What are those "serious questions" with the stu

[aussie_a (778472)]

An equally valid conclusion is normal potatoes are harmful to living beings, be they animals or humans. As a human who has eaten potatoes all his life, I'm questioning this study.

Re:What are those "serious questions" with the stu

[anagama (611277)]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the particlar version of GM potato studied was more damaging than a certain type of unmodified potato. Your generalization of "GM potato" is just too broad. For example, would you say that all condensed tree sap is dangerous after watching mice die from ingesting concentrated hemlock sap? Obviously, that would be quite erroneous and our pancakes would be rather plain fare.

What the hell?

[Wilson_6500 (896824)]

Just because someone put words in a paper doesn't necessarily mean they're true. Even if there's no outright falsification, it's entirely possible that their statistical analyses could be off (for a silly example: they had a sample of only two rats, and one of them suffered more free radical damage than the other). There's the potential for them to have misinterpreted their results, or to have accidentally exposed the rats to a different--

Wait, wait. Wait. I just went to look in the article for where these folks had been published (i.e. what quality of peer review they had). Right at the bottom of the page, it says that Greenpeace _admits_ that the Russian studies had errors. So, they're admitting that they're using a poorly-designed study in order to try and scare the government into banning trials on GM foods? What is going on here?

Re:

[geekoid (135745)]

green peace was taken over by anti-corporate people years ago. It's only purpose is to spread ignorance and fear.