Rats Fed Lifetime of GM Corn Grow Horrifying Tumors, new study.

steddyeddy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This just in. GM plants incorporating Agent Orange.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19585341

That is scary Cap but in fairness thats not an arguement against gm. Just like the development of mustard gas isnt an arguement against the use of chemistry.

SuperInfinity

steddyeddy wrote: »

That is scary Cap but in fairness thats not an arguement against gm. Just like the development of mustard gas isnt an arguement against the use of chemistry.

A closer similae might be how methanol is closely related to ethanol except ethanol has an extra CH2. One a deadly toxin capable of causing blindness in humans in quantities of 10ml, the other a recreational... toxin some consider capable of doing much good for blood vessels and neurons. Full disclosure: I referred to wikipedia while writing this post.

Ziphius

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

as always
methanol can be formed many ways, most likely from methane, and there is plenty of methane in the permafrost, in sea bottom hydrates and fracking , not to mention bio-gas

I don't like patents especially on necessities
I am very upset that antibiotic resistance has continued to develop because of overuse and not quarantining when resistance has developed

GM is a very large field , stuff like producing Human Insulin is good especially when there isn't any other way of increasing yields of it


stuff like modifying an organism so that it is similar to different strain of the same organism just so you can patent it is not good

patenting sections of existing human DNA is beneath contempt

GM is still in its infancy so plenty of scope for unintended consequences
we still don't now for certain what 98% of our DNA does
( though some claim they do http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/06/bio_boffin_bunfight/ )

worst case scenario - we are one retrovirus away from extinction - unlikely but you have to assess both the likelyhood and the consequences. There is no doubt that another asteroid will hit this planet or that there will be more supervolcanos, the only question is when , it's not a certainty that GM will go horribly wrong, but the consequences must be balanced against profit taking.


GM offers huge potential, but for food production at present it's not essential as other factors are involved. Coming from a country where the population levels still haven't recovered from the effects of relying on monoculture a century and a half ago. You may claim that a different strain would be resistant to disease X , but if the new threat is Y and there isn't any resistance yet ?


There is a book called The Death Of Grass, I haven't read it, but it's a scary premise.

perhaps in the more wealthy countries we will have robots or at least computer vision that will allow mechanised intercropping so we can move away from monoculture

Also most plants were domesticated a long time ago. GM hasn't really expanded our sources of food.

Thanks for this Capt'n.

I'm very wary about the patenting of genetic material. Patents on wholly human created genes or methods of extraction or diagnoses is one thing. That a single company can hold a monopoly on an existing human gene, testing for it, and researching it is something I can't understand. It seems something that could far more harm than good.

Thankfully, it appears that scientist simply ignoring these patents on human genes. For example, researchers have released open source software that detects mutations linked with various human diseases (e.g. breast cancer). Many of the genes are patented in the United States. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101014/full/news.2010.540.html

Geri Male

Who gives a f*ck. Rats are horrible - they DESERVE TUMORS.

Ziphius

Geri Male wrote: »

Who gives a f*ck. Rats are horrible - they DESERVE TUMORS.

:pac:

Run_to_da_hills

On a similar note.

Children born to parents who eat GM wheat may DIE before age five, warn scientists

Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) has developed a novel variety of genetically-modified (GM) wheat that contains an altered protein and enzyme-suppressing mechanism that some scientists are now saying could cause serious problems for the human liver. A recent report compiled by several acclaimed experts in the field of genetics says that children born to parents who consume this GM wheat variety could actually end up dying before they reach the age of five.

http://www.naturalnews.com/037261_GM_wheat_liver_failure_fatalities.html#ixzz27JVPLYZR

TheChizler

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

On a similar note.

Children born to parents who eat GM wheat may DIE before age five, warn scientists

Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) has developed a novel variety of genetically-modified (GM) wheat that contains an altered protein and enzyme-suppressing mechanism that some scientists are now saying could cause serious problems for the human liver. A recent report compiled by several acclaimed experts in the field of genetics says that children born to parents who consume this GM wheat variety could actually end up dying before they reach the age of five.

http://www.naturalnews.com/037261_GM_wheat_liver_failure_fatalities.html#ixzz27JVPLYZR

I'm immediately alerted to the article's location and sources, which include GM Watch. Also this thread is about GM corn and rats, not about risks of GMOs.

However what the article says is that an enzyme in this wheat has been modified to suppress the production of glycogen in the wheat itself. They go on to imply that this modification will somehow be transferred from the wheat to the people consuming it. As in altering their DNA to suppress glycogen production :P. I'm no Geneticist, so I'm open to correction on this, but something seems to be lost in translation between the study and published article.

Sarky

No, it's bullsh*t all right.

Run_to_da_hills

Monsanto Launches Damage Control Over GMO/Cancer Study.

No doubt we expected this, further dumb down propaganda from the promoters and manufacturers of cancer causing chem seeds.

Biotech giant Monsanto has launched a desperate damage control effort in the aftermath of a French study which found that rats fed on Monsanto’s genetically-engineered corn were far more likely to suffer tumors, organ failure and premature death.

Aside from the details of the study, a wider question remains. If Monsanto and other GMO giants are so confident in the safety of their products and have no qualms about them being in the food supply, why have they spent a combined total of over $19 million dollars in an attempt to prevent Americans from knowing that their food is genetically modified?

http://www.infowars.com/monsanto-launches-damage-control-over-gmocancer-study/

Sarky

No doubt all part of the Illuminati's plan to infect us all with tumors so we get scared into going for surgery where the entire global medical profession (obviously all in on the deal) secretly implant us with computer chips that, with the help of the Saucer People, under the supervision of the Reverse Vampires, will force us all to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of "dinner".

We're through the looking glass here, people.

Dave!

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Naturally, we are guided by our tastes towards what would be good food for us to eat.

Such as Big Macs? Chocolate bars? Battered sausages? Wurly burgers?

Dave!

.

The GM Corn Rat Study

By all accounts this study looks like the perfect storm of ideologically motivated pseudoscience. French researchers Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen, who have a history of opposition to GM food, have published a highly dubious study allegedly linking consuming the GM corn or exposure to the roundup pesticide with increased risk of tumors and death. However:

In an unusual move, the research group did not allow reporters to seek outside comment on their paper before its publication in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology and presentation at a news conference in London.

So – they presented their controversialfindings, which they consider “alarming,” but prohibited journalists from doing their job before presenting the results. That’s more than suspicious – I think it’s unethical. Transparency in science is critical, especially when that research has immediate implications for public safety and can have a profound effect on public opinion.

It is much easier to provoke fear than to reassure with careful analysis. It’s almost as if the researchers wanted an undiluted initialshock reaction to their research before the careful analysis could even take place.

But the internet moves fast these days, and that careful analysis is already beginning – leaving those news outlets who swallowed the press release in the dust. The New Scientist has an excellent analysis, based partly on a French blogger who has dissected the study. Problems already identified with the study include the following:

- The population of rats used have a high propensity for tumors.
- There were only 20 rats in the control group, and 80 in the exposure groups, an atypical asymmetry.
- The data reports that “some” of the test groups had a higher tumor incidence, while others did not – sounds suspiciously like cherry picking the data.
- The statistical analysis done by the team was atypical, characterized by nutrition researcher Tom Sanders as ”a statisticalfishing trip,” while a more standard analysis was excluded.
- Exposure to GM corn or the herbicide Roundup had the same negative effects. It is inherently implausible (admittedly not impossible) for such distinct mechanisms to have the same effect.
- There was no dose response at all – which is a critical component of demonstrating a toxic effect.
- The researchers did not controlfor total amount of food consumed, or fungal contaminants, both of which increase tumors in this population of rat.

These are only the most obvious problems with the study – the kinds of things that journalists would have been told if they were allowed to show the study to other scientists before reporting on the study.

Frankly, if a journalist is given such a restriction I think they should either refuse to report on the study, or solely report about the odd restriction, or ignore the restriction and show it to other scientists anyway. The integrity of the science reporting process is more important than this one study or this one research group.

This group has a clear conflict of interest in that they have a history ofstrong opposition to GM foods and have published dubious research in the past overcalling the risks of GM food. However, I do not believe that an apparent conflict of interest automatically condemns research, if the research is rigorous and transparent.

However, when you combine a conflict of interest (in this case a strong ideological bias) with questionable research methods and then squirrely dealings with the media, you have cause for concern.

Already the French government has ordered a probe into the possible safety concerns of GM corn. That seems like an overreaction to this one questionable study, but as long as they do an honest inquiry into the science the end result should be legitimate. I just hope they publicize the outcome of their investigation, even if negative, as much as the “alarming” research that provoked it.

shedweller

Regarding the insulin argument, people have to remember that it is made in a fermenter, under higher than atmospheric pressure AND higher than body temperature. The ecoli bacteria they use has indeed been genetically modified but part of this modification has been to ensure it doesn't live outside the fermenter.
GM corn, on the other hand, grows in a field.

Just saying

Birneybau

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

wait til run to da hills see's this thread

I'm sure he's seen a thread he started

Sarky

Don't be so sure. I don't think he's ever read anything he posts.

Ziphius

shedweller wrote: »

Regarding the insulin argument, people have to remember that it is made in a fermenter, under higher than atmospheric pressure AND higher than body temperature. The ecoli bacteria they use has indeed been genetically modified but part of this modification has been to ensure it doesn't live outside the fermenter.
GM corn, on the other hand, grows in a field.

Just saying

You must also remember that E. coli is a known human pathogen. It causes a range of diseases and can even be fatal (I provided links re this earlier in this thread). That it is under rigorous containment, particularly in an industrial setting, is no great surprise.

Maize and wheat, on the other hand, are domesticated food crops.

shedweller

Ziphius wrote: »

Maize and wheat, on the other hand, are domesticated food crops.

But are out in the wild, with no long term knowlege (at least in the general community) of how it will effect either our health or the ecosystem.

Anyway, my point about insulin was in response to some posters statements about people liking their insulin shots, which are made using GM techniques.

It's not that clear cut.

And regarding the point about GM solving food shortages. (Where are they, and how exactly is there a food shortage there?) This is alongside global obesity problems, right? Maybe some effort into cutting down how much crap people eat would be better suited.
But that would hurt corporate profits........hmmmm, there's a dilemma!

steddyeddy

By what mechanisim does the gm corn initiate tumors in rats? DNA that we eat doesnt get incorperated into our own genome.

Ziphius

shedweller wrote: »

But are out in the wild, with no long term knowlege (at least in the general community) of how it will effect either our health or the ecosystem.

Are you actually suggesting that domestic crops such as maize and wheat posses health risks to the general public?

shedweller wrote: »

Anyway, my point about insulin was in response to some posters statements about people liking their insulin shots, which are made using GM techniques.

It's not that clear cut.

I picked up on your point. It is, to frank, garbage. You're conflating the dangers of E. coli as a bacterium with GM. Imagine if someone said:

"Tigers are cats. In zoos they are kept in high security enclosures. Surrounded by multiple barriers with high fences. The public isn't even allowed to touch them. But many people are keeping domestic kittens in their homes. It's a danger to the rest of us!"

Of course it's not "clear cut", that's why people brought up GM insulin in the first place. You're example is just a simplistic cartoon attempt to stir up doubt.

shedweller wrote: »

And regarding the point about GM solving food shortages. (Where are they, and how exactly is there a food shortage there?) This is alongside global obesity problems, right? Maybe some effort into cutting down how much crap people eat would be better suited.
But that would hurt corporate profits........hmmmm, there's a dilemma!

You think reducing food consumption would help undernourishment?

shedweller

GM crops, Ziphius. I was suggesting that GM crops are an unknown in terms of long term risks. Long. Term. Risks.
And your tiger/kitten analogy is.....embarrasing. Sorry.

Ziphius

shedweller wrote: »

GM crops, Ziphius. I was suggesting that GM crops are an unknown in terms of long term risks. Long. Term. Risks.

Firstly, there is no evidence that GM crops are any less safe than conventional ones. Secondly, the quote of mine that you posted wasn't even taking about GM crops. Why don't you actually think about what you're going to say before blurting out whatever nonsense you have stuck in your head?

shedweller wrote: »

And your tiger/kitten analogy is.....embarrasing. Sorry.

Why? Because it exposed the holes in your own poor reasoning? Or because you just couldn't understand it? Why can't any anti GM-ers ever substantiate their arguments with anything?

And that you think an ellipsis is just a random number of full stops is ... embarrassing. Sorry.

SuperInfinity

Ziphius wrote: »

Firstly, there is no evidence that GM crops are any less safe than conventional ones.

God, how many times do we have to hear this nonsense? This statement is being said over and over again no matter how much we point out about:

1) How extremely hard it is to obtain clear evidence of a destructive effect on people's health over the long term (an example which I gave was of the tobacco's industry denial for decades pointing to the fact there was "no solid evidence", to which I was given the amazing retort: ... ok my bad, it felt on the tip of my tongue but I can't seem to remember what it was now, but it was something stupid and irrelevant.)

2) The fact that even if it were "safe", Mars and Coke are "safe", that's not good enough. We want brocolli to be highly nutritious and good for you, just as it always was.

3) Evolution is evidence that GM foods are bad for you. There is something like a 1/100,000 chance for a mutation to be good for an organism, a corollary to that is surely that there is something like a 1/100,000 chance for a mutation of a food to be good for the organism consuming it (agree? disagree?). Changing intrinsic parts of food in ways you know nothing about and expecting them to turn out just the same health-wise is an evolutionary absurdity.

ziphius admit it, this "there is no evidence" is something made to appeal only to the layman in this discussion.

And the most important point to all of this is that the changes could be irreversible for the rest of eternity if they crossbreed with natural types!!! At least if the brakes are put on this, maybe we could "download" and backup the genomes of natural types with a few to somehow recreating them some day if and when it came to it.

shedweller

Its always the same. A certain number of pro-gm people revert to insults to try win an argument. Throw in a few distractions like kittens and some random reference to ...an ellipsis and you are sure to derail a thread! Well done.

Now, ziphius, stop talking ****e and show me proof that gm is perfectly safe. Proper tests done by independent researchers is, i think, a must. Don't you agree?

Dave!

SuperInfinity wrote: »

3) Evolution is evidence that GM foods are bad for you. There is something like a 1/100,000 chance for a mutation to be good for an organism, a corollary to that is surely that there is something like a 1/100,000 chance for a mutation of a food to be good for the organism consuming it (agree? disagree?). Changing intrinsic parts of food in ways you know nothing about and expecting them to turn out just the same health-wise is an evolutionary absurdity.

err, no, that does not follow at all. What's good for an organism and what is good for the organism consuming it have nothing to do with each other.

There may be a 1/100,000 chance of a mutation resulting in (for example) the development of a photo-sensitive cell giving the organism vision, versus a 99,999/100,000 chance of a mutation resulting in the equivalent of a cleft pallet (this is not correct either, since many (most?) mutations are neither positive or negative, but neutral), but if you're eating the organism, then it doesn't make a difference to you.

Ziphius

shedweller wrote: »

Its always the same. A certain number of pro-gm people revert to insults to try win an argument. Throw in a few distractions like kittens and some random reference to ...an ellipsis and you are sure to derail a thread! Well done.

Now, ziphius, stop talking ****e and show me proof that gm is perfectly safe. Proper tests done by independent researchers is, i think, a must. Don't you agree?

Look, you made a point, I challenged it. Either accept you're wrong or bring some substance to your argument. Don't play the victim or throw a little tantrum. If you're going to direct condescending posts at me don't be surprising if I reply in kind.

You still haven't addressed my analogy.

Really the onus should be on you to show that GM is unsafe. The study that started this thread has been thoroughly debunked at this stage.

Here's a good review on the human health effects of GM foods from 2008
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/?tool=pmcentrez

Some choice quotes:

"Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA."

"There is little documented evidence that GM crops are potentially toxic"

"The presence of foreign DNA sequences in food per se poses no intrinsic risk to human health... the potential toxicity of the protein expressed in a GM food is an essential component of the safety assessment that has to be performed"

"Opponents of GM technology often cite these examples as proof that it is inherently unpredictable and dangerous, although another interpretation would be to say that safety testing of GM plants was effective in both cases, having identified allergenic potential before either product was released to market. It is perhaps a sobering thought, that if conventional plant breeding techniques had been used to achieve the same aims, there would have been no legal requirement for the assessment of allergenicity and the plant varieties could have been commercialized without in vivo testing"

Sounds pretty safe to me.

Ziphius

SuperInfinity wrote: »

God, how many times do we have to hear this nonsense? This statement is being said over and over again no matter how much we point out about:

1) How extremely hard it is to obtain clear evidence of a destructive effect on people's health over the long term (an example which I gave was of the tobacco's industry denial for decades pointing to the fact there was "no solid evidence", to which I was given the amazing retort: ... ok my bad, it felt on the tip of my tongue but I can't seem to remember what it was now, but it was something stupid and irrelevant.)

2) The fact that even if it were "safe", Mars and Coke are "safe", that's not good enough. We want brocolli to be highly nutritious and good for you, just as it always was.

3) Evolution is evidence that GM foods are bad for you. There is something like a 1/100,000 chance for a mutation to be good for an organism, a corollary to that is surely that there is something like a 1/100,000 chance for a mutation of a food to be good for the organism consuming it (agree? disagree?). Changing intrinsic parts of food in ways you know nothing about and expecting them to turn out just the same health-wise is an evolutionary absurdity.

ziphius admit it, this "there is no evidence" is something made to appeal only to the layman in this discussion.

And the most important point to all of this is that the changes could be irreversible for the rest of eternity if they crossbreed with natural types!!! At least if the brakes are put on this, maybe we could "download" and backup the genomes of natural types with a few to somehow recreating them some day if and when it came to it.

We've been through your arguments already. Read the review I posted above.

Capt'n Midnight

Dave! wrote: »

Such as Big Macs? Chocolate bars? Battered sausages? Wurly burgers?

Battered mars bars covers all bases

Capt'n Midnight

shedweller wrote: »

Regarding the insulin argument, people have to remember that it is made in a fermenter, under higher than atmospheric pressure AND higher than body temperature. The ecoli bacteria they use has indeed been genetically modified but part of this modification has been to ensure it doesn't live outside the fermenter.
GM corn, on the other hand, grows in a field.

Just saying

If you've seen Jurassic Park then you'll know the frog DNA allowed them to get around the all female rule. In the book the dino's eat lysine rich food -just means they have a fondness for chicken when they get to the mainland.

SuperInfinity

Dave! wrote: »

err, no, that does not follow at all. What's good for an organism and what is good for the organism consuming it have nothing to do with each other.

But the fleshy part of fruit isn't an organism, it's specifically built to be attractive to organisms consuming it. It's known as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-evolution The plant of the fruit has an interest in humans being alive and doing well, sort of to "buy" their product and disperse their seeds. Organisms that don't want to be touched/eaten often evolve poisons that certainly effect the organism consuming them... ie. the fact that it has a poison and is bad for the organism consuming it is good for the organism. It's completely intertwined.

Dave! wrote: »

There may be a 1/100,000 chance of a mutation resulting in (for example) the development of a photo-sensitive cell giving the organism vision, versus a 99,999/100,000 chance of a mutation resulting in the equivalent of a cleft pallet (this is not correct either, since many (most?) mutations are neither positive or negative, but neutral), but if you're eating the organism, then it doesn't make a difference to you.

No, it's a 1/100,000 chance of a mutation resulting in a positive trait, not result in a specific trait, which would be an astrological number. The enormity of the chances involved has also been used (with some credibility) against the general theory of evolution.

And it does make a difference to you. You've been evolved to eat A, not "perfectly" evolved but still pretty well adapted to it. You haven't been evolved to eat A`, A that is a little changed as occurs sometimes in nature. Now it's unlikely to do you much harm, but it won't be as good as eating the original A. Eventually humans would evolve to be better able to eat and make use of A'. However GM foods could modify A so fast, it would be hugely different, let's call it "A#. Now humans could be partly evolved to deal with that, but it just won't "fit" very well, it won't be an exact match. This is hardly some revolutionary line of argument, it's basic common sense: change an environment (including food available) from what an organism has evolved for and it won't do so well, like a fish out of water.

Run_to_da_hills

An interesting comparison of the blatant poisoning of people by the Nazi's a generation ago to the discrete mass poisoning of society today by corrupt governments and multinationals.

Zyklon B is a very effective chemical for killing humans. The trick is getting the victims to inhale it. Since most people won't voluntarily inhale Zyklon B gas, you have to use some means of force to march them into chambers where the gas is released. Hence the use of guns in the hands of governments, the rise of the SS (known as "TSA" in modern America), and the rounding up of innocent citizens to be gassed to death during the Nazi regime. "Nazi," by the way, is shorthand for "national socialist party.

The Nazi approach to killing people was very effective in 1944, but it wouldn't fly today in the age of instant messaging, Twitter, Facebook and other social media. It's hard to keep a concentration camp a secret these days, especially if millions of people are being processed through them.

If the Nazis had cell phone cameras in 1944, somebody would have snapped some photos, uploaded them to "NaziTube.com" and the whole cover would have been blown. (Or YouTube would have censored the videos and protected the Nazis from being outed, because YouTube routinely censors videos that expose bad government.)

The Nazi approach to killing people was very effective in 1944, but it wouldn't fly today in the age of instant messaging, Twitter, Facebook and other social media. It's hard to keep a concentration camp a secret these days, especially if millions of people are being processed through them. If the Nazis had cell phone cameras in 1944, somebody would have snapped some photos, uploaded them to "NaziTube.com" and the whole cover would have been blown. (Or YouTube would have censored the videos and protected the Nazis from being outed, because YouTube routinely censors videos that expose bad government.)

Fast forward six decades or so, and you've got our modern world. All the same types of psychopathic killers still run the world's most powerful governments and corporations, but they've figured out that in order to kill people, they've got to do it a little more covertly.

Specifically, there needed to be a way to get people to voluntarily kill themselves.

http://www.naturalnews.com/037290_Zyklon_B_GMO_food_weapons.html