New Study Confirms Safety of GM Crops 571
New submitter ChromeAeonium writes "Much like vaccines and evolution, there exists a great disparity between the scientific consensus and the public perceptions of the safety of genetically engineered crops. A previous study from France, which was later dismissed by the EFSA, FSANZ, and the French High Council of Biotechnologies, claiming to have found abnormalities in the organs of animals fed GM diets by analyzing three previous studies was discussed on Slashdot. However, a new study, also out of France, claims the opposite is true, that GM crops are unlikely to pose health risks (translation of original in French). Looking at 24 long-term and multi-generational studies on insect resistant and herbicide tolerant plants, the study states, 'The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.' Although it is impossible to prove a negative, and while every GM crop must be individually evaluated as genetic engineering is a process not a product, perhaps this study will help to ease the fears of genetically engineered food and foster a more scientific discussion on the role of agricultural biotechnology."
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:GMO Crops are OK? Whatever (Score:5, Informative)
But Mendel never cross bred a pea with a firefly.
Genetic engineering doesn't splice food with animals either. Try and find a reliable source for your idiotic hysteria.
More issues than just safety (Score:5, Informative)
I agree that the fear of *eating* GMO foods is science-phobia. But even if GMO foods are safe, GMO agriculture is bad for everybody.
Everything that you read on /. about intellectual property applies to the IP that Monsanto et al apply to their products and research. In fact, it's worse, because the wind doesn't blow proprietary software from nearby windows and OS X boxes onto your linux systems, causing you to owe the IP owners money and disabling your ability to build your own software.
GMO seeds are also highly optimized to solve certain problems, and can fail miserably in other climates where local strains have been bred to adapt to local conditions. The farmers in India who are committing suicide en masse because their crops have failed are not just phobic about science. They got fucked in the ass.
The GMO salmon that are safe to eat are so big because they never stop growing, so they never stop eating. Is that a species that you think would have no ecological impact if accidentally released into the wild?
Re:Crazy vs. Evil (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Crazy vs. Evil (Score:5, Informative)
No. I prefer heirloom stuff when I can get it. And no matter what they say, GM food is bad for you, because we weren't designed to eat GM food.
We weren't designed at all, mind you.
Re:GMO Crops are OK? Whatever (Score:5, Informative)
Splicing the gene in worked just fine. However, the product wasn't significantly better, as a tomato, and the PR was bad.
Good old Green Fluorescent Protein, a jellyfish derivative, has been spliced into just about anything and everything somebody in a lab coat has cared to hold still for 10 minutes; but largely as a proof-of-technique or imaging agent, it has no obvious value for food crops.
Our experience to the present suggests that attempting to grab useful animal traits and shove them into plants(I, for one, welcome the tomeato with enthusiasm!) is harder than naive speculation would suggest; but that there is no magic barrier to splicing animal genes into plants, other animals, bacterial, etc.
Re:OOOookay. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:GMO Crops are OK? Whatever (Score:5, Informative)
False Headline (Score:5, Informative)
The headline is egregiously wrong. But what else is new around here? If the article's abstract of the paper is anywhere close to accurate, this was just a toxicological study of the effects on animals of being fed certain genetically modified plants. It has NO predictive value with respect to the effects of other modifications.
Re:Crazy vs. Evil (Score:5, Informative)
People buy "organic" stuff - paying significant premiums - as if that means anything in practice. The perception is that it's more natural.
Except that it does mean something in practice. In the US, use of the word "organic" is regulated; the laws vary somewhat depending on the type of product, but in general they cannot be grown with synthetic fertilizer, pesticides, or (in the case of animals) growth hormones and overused antibiotics. Some people think that using more natural methods makes the food taste better (I can tell the difference with dairy but mostly due to the grass-feeding requirement, which is is a separate issue but part of the USDA Organic standards); others think such food is better for them (if you had the choice between eating pesticide residue or not, I assume you'd pick the latter); but regardless, in most cases it's at least better for the environment, with less risk of groundwater contamination from pesticides and fertilizers. More objectively, some studies have often shown better levels of nutrients in some organically produced food.
This is not like the word "natural," which is completely unregulated in the US. Anyone can stick that on a label and it doesn't need to mean anything. "Organic" is different (although depending on the wording with multi-ingredient foods, the product may be only partially so, though at least 70% if it appears anywhere besides the ingredients label).
"Idiotic"? Really?!? (Score:3, Informative)
But Mendel never cross bred a pea with a firefly.
Genetic engineering doesn't splice food with animals either. Try and find a reliable source for your idiotic hysteria.
"Idiotic"?
I saw it originally in Scientific American in the 1980s and that was what I was alluding to in the parent.
I expected Slashdotters to be a bit more educated and informed ....
Re:GMO Crops are OK? Whatever (Score:4, Informative)
- Bacteria/ Archaea vastly outnumber any other living thing, there are much more of them than of anything else combined.
- We only know details about ~1% of them, because the rest can't be cultured.
- Horizontal gene transfer is the norm with bacteria/ archaea. Viruses are one type of vehicle used to transfer DNA portions.
- Pathogens among bacteria/ archaea are very uncommon. The successful evolutionary strategy for them is to NOT be pathogenic, otherwise there would be no multi cellular organisms.
- Only 10% of the human body is actually ours and derived from human DNA. The other 90% are micro organisms.
- At least one third (1/ 3) of the human DNA comes from horizontal gene transfer, it's mostly virus genes
Re:Crazy vs. Evil (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Crazy vs. Evil (Score:5, Informative)
what's to stop someone from labeling something organic when it is no such thing?
The law. Did you read my post? "Organic" is regulated. "Natural" and other words are not, so if you had said that instead you'd at least have a point (and I'd agree).
Re:More issues than just safety (Score:4, Informative)
the wind doesn't blow proprietary software from nearby windows and OS X boxes onto your linux systems, causing you to owe the IP owners money and disabling your ability to build your own software.
If you're referring to the Schmeiser case, the problem wasn't that his crop was contaminated, it's that he discovered that his crop was contaminated, saved and segregated the seed from the contaminated parts, and then used that seed to plant 1000 acres that he knew would then be herbicide-tolerant. There's a difference between being accidentally contaminated, and actively exploiting a (patented) gene to reduce costs or improve yield. Nobody has owed anyone else money simply because their crops were contaminated, so long as they didn't exploit the properties of that genetic engineering.
That being said, I generally agree that the patent process around this are really dubious and Monsanto in particular is pretty evil, but I think people misunderstand what actually happened with this particular case.