Roundup Tolerant GM Maize Linked To Tumor Development 356
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.'"
How to Attribute a Newspaper (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Awful headline. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Awful headline. (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, since the purpose of the GM in the case of roundup resistant strains is to be able to bathe the GM plants in roundup, it could be argued that only the GM corn will give you roundup related cancer, the non-resistant corn would be dead long before you could eat it.
Giant Ragweed (Score:5, Informative)
You know what has also become Roundup resistant? Giant ragweed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19585341 [bbc.co.uk]
Get it right (Score:2, Informative)
roundup is linked to the tumors not GM food.
Surprise surprise, poison is bad for you.
Of course there's a simple solution to this. Don't just genetically modify the maize to be resistant to roundup, genetically modify people to be as well. There, problem solved. And Monsanto should love that since everyone needs a patent license from them to have a kid.
Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:I'm really lucky ... (Score:3, Informative)
"80% of my last posts, via 10 months, got modded down by a group of rogue mods. Since 2012-09-07 my karma is down to good"
Maybe you got modded down because you're a troll? All pollution regulations work that way, even in Europe, because literally getting 0% of something like that in your water is basically impossible.
Re:Dangerous poison. (Score:5, Informative)
1. Analyze a dangerous poison.
LOL. Glyphosate kills anything that makes its own tyrosine, tryptophan and phenylalanine. People supposedly cannot synthesize it we can only eat it. Much as oxygen will kill some anaerobic bacteria, it would be a huge shock to discover oxygen causes cancer in people.
A quick "chemists glance" at the MSDS and its about as scary as rubbing alcohol... I would not drink it or wash my hands in it before eating, but I wouldn't freak out either. Everything in a chemistry lab is dangerous, you have to put it in a spectrum, and this is worse than the distilled water but pretty much obviously on the safe edge of the spectrum compared to everything else in a lab. Some of the problem is the solvents and stuff the herbicide is dissolved into to spread it around. I heard there was a court case where some PR clown called it as safe as table salt, which although technically true is misleading because your body has perfectly adequate although extremely unpleasant ways to remove a lethal salt dose from your body, unless you somehow stop it or inject it all at once. Calling it as safe as rubbing alcohol would have been about as true and less likely to get sued.
Its pretty laughable that glyphosate is a "dangerous poison". Try some organic mercury compounds if you want real danger. Its not even useful for biowarfare, not persistent enough, its highly biodegradable. Which mystifies me... so if it all degrades worst case in 100 days, and twinkie sits on the shelf for 4 months before its eaten, how is anyone eating the stuff? Yeah, I know, field to table salad without rinsing or washing, but that doesn't fit the meme of all american diets being hyper processed.
The other funny part is its use will be a footnote in history "soon". Too many resistant weeds are spreading. Why spend big bucks to apply something that'll do nothing. Why agitprop to ban something that no one will want to manufacture pretty soon, anyway?
30% for the control rats got cancer too (Score:2, Informative)
Mark Lynas ( https://twitter.com/mark_lynas [twitter.com] ) picked some interesting points out of the paper (and links to a mirror of the paper).
30% of the 20 control rats also got tumours.
Re:How to Attribute a Newspaper (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.marklynas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/FCT-final-paper.pdf [marklynas.org]
definitely worth a read
Re:How to Attribute a Newspaper (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Awful headline. (Score:5, Informative)
They don't go into detail about how the Roundup is exposed. In previous studies, they use adjuvants to help with delivery, which can increase toxicity. But they say nothing in this paper. They also don't control dietary intake. What if GM corn is tastier and they're eating more? Or less?
Furthermore, they observe the same health effects in the roundup group, the GM corn group, and the GM+R (both) group, AND these effects are not dose-dependent. Combine this with the small sample size, and the fact they're using a tumor-prone rat breed, you have a paper that's going to be crucified by peer review.
As of today, there is no citation for this paper by Food and Chemical Toxicity which means... I don't know. But it hasn't been published yet. Was this leaked during peer review process? This stinks and everyone should withhold judgement.
Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Awful headline. (Score:5, Informative)
After he got the seeds, I suppose he was able to grow two crops, one exposed to Roundup, and the other pesticide-free.
Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Awful headline. (Score:5, Informative)
We have plenty of fields. The U.S. produces an oversupply of food each year, and has to figure out ways to get rid of the excess (foreign aid, high fructose corn syrup, cattle feed, corn ethanol). The reason is because we implemented policies to ensure overproduction, to avoid a repeat of the food shortages which followed the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. And population growth in Canada and the U.S. is less than one percent a year [wikipedia.org], trending towards zero growth. There is no need to maximize yield per acre here, just a profit incentive to do so.
The vast majority of the world's population growth is in third world countries [wordpress.com]. Developed nations all have population growth rates near zero or even negative. There's something about living in a modern post-industrialized economy which makes people want to have fewer kids. So the solution to feeding the burgeoning world population isn't to maximize yield per acre. It's to assist those third world countries in developing their economies so they too can become post-industrialized nations. If you instead concentrate on making more food, that population growth will just continue a vicious cycle of poverty and high population growth, until starvation and fighting over food finally caps it.
Re:Awful headline. (Score:4, Informative)
I am a farmer in southern Saskatchewan, Canada. I do not, and have never worked for Monsanto or any other pesticide company. I have in fact used pesticides including some of Monsanto's glyphosate products (Roundup, Rustler and most recently RT540). Rates of application I have used range from 0.5-1.0 liters (0.13-0.26 US gallons) per acre of product mixed in 5-10 gallons of water. My use, though, is restricted to pre-seeding burnoff as I do not grow any glyphosate-tolerant crops.