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."

Re:Killer potatoes

[bwd234]

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:So...all potatoes are bad?

[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 much of a biology background, have a hard time accepting this. But countless studies performed over decades by various groups have shown that in the vast majority of cases, if a certain chemical harms lab mice, the same chemical will very, very likely harm humans. But that's really not surprising, when you consider how similar our bodies actually are to mice.

GM food supporters suck

[spycker]

What? Something like a 1/3 of Americans are obese.

100 Million Indians are obese.

China has many millions of obese people.

Food is not a scarcity. The equitable distribution of food may in fact be the 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.

Garbage Science...

[RexRhino]

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:Just bad science...

[ColdWetDog]

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:Just bad science...

[shma]

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.

All GM food is not the same

[giorgosts]

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.

Re:GM food supporters suck

[TrekkieGod]

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 get a breed with qualities that you want.

Introducing pieces of new genetic material is certainly different from what you're talking about.

In what way? When you manipulate "pre-existing genetic information", you can do that because different plants of the same species have different qualities. They have different qualities because of random mutations and gene crossover combinations. Instead of waiting for random mutations, we add designed mutations to the mix. Usually purposefully damaging a gene that is responsible for undesired qualities. It's the same thing but now we have technology, so it's dangerous!

I don't dismiss the fact that it's possible to end up with something that causes ill effects through genetic manipulation, but treat those problems in a case-by-case basis. My problem with the grandparent was his "you have to be stupid to eat GM foods" tirade. That's a ridiculous attitude with no merit whatsoever. Mostly we just end up with better foods because we added features we want and removed features we don't.

Re:So...all potatoes are bad?

[picob]

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.

Commie bastards ;)

[shelliob]

Im a biochemist who works in clinical trials and i can tell you right now that that study is terribly terribly flawed, and really shouldnt be given the weight it has been in the media. From the independant 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". Basically this russian group abused/neglected a large group of rats, and gathered data attempting to link their unfortunate conditions to a pretty charged topic. The worst thing about these kinds of reports and pseudoscience is that it takes away from serious studies to determine the health benefits of GM, or in fact any foods.

BT potatoes

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, according to the book Botany of Desire, GM potatoes modified to include the natural pesticide BT are regulated by the FDA as pesticides, not as foods. There's no testing whatsoever on safety for human consumption. A large portion of the potatoes produced in the U.S. are BT potatoes. Fast-food french fries? Bet on it. The author of BoD grew some BT potatoes in his garden, asked the FDA scientist if he should eat them. The FDA guy said "Well, let me ask you a question: why would you?"

Re:Stop testing? Bury heads in sand?

[Greyfox]

Most of the "Old School" foods are ALSO GM. Take corn -- Aztecs bread corn plants for traits they liked until they got the plant we know today. A plant that can't even reproduce without human intervention.

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 directly rather than crossbreeding and hoping we get the traits we want. I would go so far as to say that if you want to cut all GM foods out of your diet, you'd best stop eating altogether.