Suppressed Report Shows Cancer Link to GM Potatoes 325
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe pototoes are bad for rats. Doesn't mean they will be harmfull to humans.
Re:So...all potatoes are bad? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So...all potatoes are bad? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:So...all potatoes are bad? (Score:5, Informative)
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
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? (Score:5, Informative)
99.5% similarity????? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you really didn't need to read any farther than this to know you were about to get an eye-full of hysterical bullshit:
Doc Ruby writes
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So for research where that kind of difference is important, scientists don't use mice as a model, but use something like a crash-test dummy. They only use mice in cases where they can take advantage of the similarities.
Duh.
Hardly the "vast majority" (Score:2)
For example, metronidazole causes cancer in rats, but not in humans. Also, here's an article with a lot of information on teratogenicity [pcrm.org]:
Mean positive and negative predictivities barely exceed 50%; discordance among the species used is substantial; reliable extrapolation from animal data to humans is impossible, and virtually all known human teratogens hav
Why all? (Score:3, Insightful)
(eg: Let's say th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Which is probably one of the reasons why biologists use genetically identical strains of test animals.
Reputable biologists might. (Score:2)
Re:So...all potatoes are bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
Killer potatoes (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Did any human ever come down with cancer from saccharin? My guess is no.
Re: (Score:2)
If 1000 times the normal dosage of an artificial sweetener produces a significant increase in cancer risk, that's *damn well* worthy of note. Three orders of magnitude isn't quite good enough for me there. Eight orders of magnitude? Sure - but 3 isn't a good enough margin of error.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet they still say I should drink more water.
Iron, Calcium, various vitamens are all necessary for healthy life, yet a dose of a 1000 times more than FDA recommended is harmful for a number of them. Salt- A necessary substance, is harmful in greater doses.
It's quantity that makes the poison.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
On one hand, it's good to know that the rat you use one day is essentially the same as the rat you use the next day. On the other hand, you could be introducing other strange artifacts.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
On another matter, I've never seen ANYBODY use TWO Sweet-N-Lows. Always 0.5!
Re:Killer potatoes (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just ill-effects. According to the last paragraph of the article, half of the rats in the study died, and the results were recorded only for the ones that survived. That's such astonishingly bad science that I don't see how anti-GM activists can claim it as a victory.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I highly recommend watching this top-notch documentary by the widow of Jerry Garcia; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427276/ [imdb.com]
The good Dr.'s site (Score:4, Informative)
**and his paper** (Score:5, Informative)
Stop testing? Bury heads in sand? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
$
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stop testing? Bury heads in sand? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty much all livestock today are radically different than livestock 500 or 1000 years ago, due to centuries of breeding for the traits that make them the most tasty and delicious for humans.
The only difference between that and the GM foods of today is we can just go in and tinker with the genes dire
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's certainly a difference worthy of at least semantic note between selection / breeding by phenotype, and direct manipulation of genotype. GM foods may turn out to pose no risks to consumers, but saying they're produced in the same way new breeds have been produced for thousands of years is deceptive.
As always, this shows (Score:5, Funny)
Yes but did you know? (Score:2)
Re:Yes but did you know? (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, more recent studies have shown that cigarettes are the leading cause of statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
If they were originally bred as lab rats, there's a good chance that they were genetic twins.
Just bad science... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
At the very least, the paper deserves to be judged on its scientific merits before being dismissed.
Re: (Score:2)
I kid, I kid. But realistically, there are far more variables at play in the U.S. population than can realistically be controlled for when analyzing the impact of GM crops on our ENTIRE population.
Uhhh.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone ranking the US as second worst has apparently never been to Asia, Africa or SA.
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, the chances of GM potatoes seriously screwing me up are maybe one in a million, but guess what... food is the ONLY product that I purchase which actually gets absorbed into my body. I don't care so much about the safety or purity of the rubber on my shoes, or the safety of metals in my car or the glass in my windows, because I don't stick these thing
It's not nice to fool with mother nature... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:2, Informative)
Terminator gene useful (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And suppose cross fertilisation occurs and you have interesting hybrids in the wild ? And suppose ingesting the modified pollen has weird effects on the insects (this has been d
Re: (Score:2)
Give a link, chum. Try to provide a link to them being harmed by normally occurring levels of pollen instead of the super-saturated studies the UK did. You can kill someone by force-feeding them water too.
Re: (Score:2)
Science doesn't get perfected until quite a bit of "fooling" gets done... even after that, "perfected" is rarely the right word.
Sure... if I were world dictator I'd probably shoot for more lab time and slower market penetration for some of these GM products, but given the choice between nessisary research getting funded by agribusiness and public phobia of science holding it back, I'll chose the r
What are "GM potatoes"? (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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"? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
+1, Intelligent (Score:2)
Thanks for the link and the summary! It's intelligent posts like yours that prevent me from kicking my addiction to Slashdot.
In Soviet Russia (Score:5, Funny)
Garbage Science... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
well then (Score:2)
If you think their potatoes are bad, you should hear what people are saying about their cars!
All GM food is not the same (Score:3, Interesting)
Did you look at your subject line? (Score:2)
Anyone have a link on gm foods "altering" you? (Score:2)
I remember hearing from a reliable source that GM foods alter you (presumably by hormones or retroviruses used in the modification process).
Additionally, I can't ignore the strong correlation between the exponential decline in US population health with the ever increasing adoption of GM foods (compared to europe where they have stringent standards for GM foods).
The pushing o
Re: (Score:2)
The smelly guy on the corner isn't a reliable source.
I type of GM food or strain isn't like another. Yes, they should be tested but remember, one strain of potatoes causes cancer, doesn't mean a different strain isn't perfectly good.
I don't think fen-phen needed to pas any regulation because it wasn't used as 'medicine'.
Film at Eleven! (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to mention GM food tastes like $#!7 (Score:2)
The Lord of Harvest (Score:4, Insightful)
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:
As soon as they learn that rhetoric is valueless (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. This is just like how it's terribly unfortunate that the survival granted by our intelligence has prevented us from evolving the strength of gorillas.
If we're going to make value judgments about the evolutionary
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Breeding grapes until there is a variety that is seedless isone thing, taking DNA from a fish and splicing it into is another.
To not test GM foods is foolish.
TO abolish GM foods at this point is also foolish.
Creating a rice with more vitamin E and iron could be a good thing. Of couse suddenly changing someones
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
You know, it's funny you say that because I had lunch today the someone and we discussed this very subject. Of couse She is a Scientist doing the very thing.
So...wrong.
"If you're talking about just transplanting a minor gene, then so what?"
While we have learned a great deal about genetics, we still don't know it all. There is concern among some scientist( people with Phd's from well know universities) about the unknow effects.
"The same gene that's present in th
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. The famous "oh yeah??" retort. Good job! MY turn: Oh yeah?? Well, every scientist I'VE talked to says otherwise!
You might want to provide an actual example. For all I know, you could be right, but you're certainly not going to prove it by talking about your dates with a real-life golly-gee Scientician.
Re: (Score:2)
Referring to Monsanto? If so, incorrect. They are making the plants specifically immune to their herbicide so that less can be used targetedly.
Provide some links to some relevant high-level studies you've read, please.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea how they pull it off either. I can't afford McDonalds on my budget, even if I wanted to, so I buy rice, beans, and occasionally pork or fish. I'm not obese... I'm actually quite healthy. How you can be "poor" and eat McDonald's every day I don't know. You can eat very healthily very easily and save most of that money. Ignorance, not poverty is the issue.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I eat GM foods because I like my seedless grapes.
Umm, seedlessness isn't a genetic modification. It's the result of intentionally selecting and breeding grape plants that produce grapes with less seeds than the average grape. This is done over several generations until no seeds are produced. Think Gregor Mendel and a Punnett square. It's the manipulation of pre-existing genetic information to achieve some desired end.
Genetic Modification is inserting (or deleting) pieces from the genome (DNA) of a certain whatever. Introducing pieces of new genetic ma
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Umm, seedlessness isn't a genetic modification. It's the result of intentionally selecting and breeding grape plants that produce grapes with less seeds than the average grape.
That was my point. What many of the people replying don't get is that selective breeding is genetic manipulation. What you're talking about is the same thing with a new technological twist, and there's no reason why you should be afraid of it simply because we're better at it.
Genetic Modification is inserting (or deleting) pieces from the genome (DNA) of a certain whatever.
Ok, no argument with your definition. In the past, that was done through selective breeding. Today we have more efficient methods to do the same thing quicker for more dramatic results. The end result is still the same. You
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
george bush said
"I do not like broccoli. And I haven't liked it since I was a little kid and my mother made me eat it. And I'm President of the United States and I'm not going to eat any more broccoli."
like us all he decides what to eat, making a choice based on these tomato's are gm, these are not is reasonable.
What GM campain
Re: (Score:2)
True there is nothing unnatural about selective breading and cross breading, which in many cases is nothing like modern GM efforts at all.
If I am doing selective breading on plants and animals I do it over generations, I allow the ones that have traits I like or lack to traits I don't like to reproduce and deny those that don't meet my criteria the chance to do that. In the end w
Dear Anonymous, (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't that it's scarce, because it's not - the problem is that african's have no money.
---
Ethiopian Yam Festival Dance [douginadress.com]
Re:What are those "serious questions" with the stu (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What are those "serious questions" with the stu (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed... (Score:2)
What the hell? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What are those "serious questions" with the stu (Score:2, Informative)
I think the point is that this is FUD - no-one knows what it means, but it scares people. If you look at Microsoft press releases about Linux you might spot a similar pattern.
Raising questions won't change the fact that such foods do have very harmful effects.
Would any amount of evidence change your opinion
Wrong Wrong Wrong of course it's deifferent. (Score:2)
Taking genes from a frog and putting them in rice is not like 'selective breeding' at all.
Not On Bit.
Unless you can show me where rice and frogs where paaing genetic material and creating off spring in nature.
As such, they should be tested with the utmost rigor.
I am not saying they are bad, just that they are different. The pro-GM camp has lied to a lot of people using that 'it's just like selective greeding lie' for a long time.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Independent is currently loss-making and is seeking to carve out a section of Britain's left wing newspaper readership by being highly critical of the government and agressively pursuing an environmental agenda.
Greenpeace is a widely criticised environmental lobby group, who have made fam