What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Think Choosing a Gift For A Teen Girl Is Impossible? view!
bestbuy.com - Hello-o-o! No WAY! Email, IM, chat, social networking & streaming audio/video are all on Netbooks.
131 Comments
- spedmyster, on 10/12/2007, -13/+38First of all, the process of genetically modifying produce is in many ways a more precise form of the selective breeding humans have done for hundreds of years. This by itself is harmless as long as GMOs are used moderately. The problem comes with the integration of pesticides into produce, which unsurprisingly, can show "signs of toxicity. People need to realize that there are responsible forms of GMOs and that this issue shouldn't be generalized.
- SeismicShock, on 10/12/2007, -13/+38No, I think this is why food should be tested, so you find problems like this.
Otherwise the story would be 19 Americans drop dead from GM corn
But it's easier to sensationalize everything isn't it? - Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -19/+39Sorry, any study commissioned by Greenpeace having to do with genetically modified food is 100% unreliable by nature. Its the EXACT same thing as the cigarette companies commissioning studies on the effectiveness of their product. When your existence relies on the result of the "study", the outcome is void. My original thought to this article was, well 90 days of a nothing but corn diet would probably do that to any animal. Did they test normal corn to see if in fact it did the same thing?
Secondly, it SICKENS me that groups like Greenpeace FORCE third world countries to abandon genetically modified food offered to them for free because they feed them lies about its possible health issues. Basically, Greenpeace is telling the POOREST people in the world that THEY CANNOT EAT, because GREENPEACE doesnt like the way the food was made. Its fine for yuppies in America with PLENTY of money to choose to be vegans, or eat organic food, or eat food that has only been grown on hill tops facing south, but to tell the worlds poorest people that they cannot eat because the food that they are being GIVEN is poison, when in fact it certainly isnt, and condemning millions to death because of it, WELL THAT TAKES A SPECIAL KIND OF *****. - AllnightChemist, on 10/12/2007, -28/+46For all those who ever asked, "why should I pay more to buy organic food?" here is your answer.
- JustinPM, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22While I can't find anything that directly states how the experiment was done, the fact that it was commissioned by Greenpeace kind of disturbs me.
- Malakin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15MON863 is a corn that produces its own insecticide to combat root-worm. Until now, the most substantial study done on it that I'm aware of was a 90 day rat corn feeding study by it's manufacturer Monsanto.
So it produces it's own insecticide that kills root-worm and it's never been thoroughly tested by anyone but it's own manufacturer. Most people are aware of Monsanto's track record thus far. I understand the skepticism pertaining to the study since Greenpeace had their hand in it. But considering the facts and history, would it really be surprising if MON863 caused liver and kidney problems in rats? - rockingrhino, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Also is the corn on the ones that is just GM or one where Monsanto has included their pesticide? Yes, some chemical companies have added pesticides as part of the seeds. One is Roundup "ingrained" in soy seeds.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18I agree, take this article with a grain of salt. The study was commissioned by greenpeace, who is actively engaged in opposing use of genetically modified food ( http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering ). Additionally, the article mainly focuses on quoting the greenpeace spokesperson, rather than the study itself.
- Nysul, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11They are cheaper than humans?
- captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@trghpy
If it is labeled 100% organic it is organic from seed to consumer
@b0wl0fud0n
A field has to have no chemicals applied to it for 3 years before it can be called organic. That is what stops some farmers from going organic, that three years can be a long time raising crops organically without getting paid for them being organic. - trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Assuming your grower is 100% organic from seed to delivery.
Most of the time it just means organic pesticide methods. - fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9You never will unless you die from liver disease.
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Monsanto's the devil.
- captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@rbowes:
>>"-easier on the environment(no-till farming and less herbicides with soy beans)"
I think you're confused. No-till farming actually depends greatly on herbicides. That's how they combat the weeds, instead of tilling the field to remove weeds before planting they spray it. In fact it used to be called chemical farming until they realized the negative perceptions with that and changed the name to no-till - DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -13/+19"For all those who ever asked, "why should I pay more to buy organic food?" here is your answer."
Why? There are plenty of "natural" foods that cause cancer as well. This is just Greenpeace FUD. - earlycj5, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I'm a little more than dissapointed, this article has little to no critical information in it.
After I read the real journal article I'll pass judgement. - rbowes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Note: the corn rootworm resistant corn(aka BT corn) has been used in North America for several years. It has an enzyme expressed in its roots that ruptures the rootworm's gut.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Technically, it doesn't "prove" anything. You don't prove things in science, you give evidence towards theories and find correlations between events. Mathematicians prove things.
- EmailAddress, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6until there is a label which says 'not GM' it's probably a GM product. How to prove otherwise? Follow the delivery truck back to the farm?
The US govt has said GM food is safe... did they not test the food on rats and mice?? What kind of testing did they do? Probably none. It's all about business. - barak, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9being fed only one food for 90 days could lead to malnutrition in any mammal. corn lacks two key amino acids vital to normal functioning.
the soil could have just been high in selenium.
marked inaccurate. - randroid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Was this a double-blind study where some rats were given normal corn? If so, how did they fare?
This PDF from Greenpeace provides a little more info, but it reads to me as nothing but a lot of FUD fodder. For example:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/gp_briefing_seralini_study.pdf
"The authors of this evaluation state “it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product”." Uh huh. It would have been equally true to say that it cannot be concluded to be unsafe. They would have said so otherwise. A definition of "safe" would be useful, too. I wonder how many foods, GM or "natural" would not cause "some signs of toxicity" in similar studies. - PigThief, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Pet rat owners have known this for a while now; it's really not new. Rat owners always need to be very careful about which type of corn they pick, as many types have been known to cause kidney and liver problems.
- Homet, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7This is the reason why we don't need to "rubber stamp" and approve GM food for consumption especially without public knowledge of what foods are GM or not.
The fact of the matter is that major corporations are doing their own studies while corporately tied officials at the FDA approve those foods without a second guess. Look I'm not one to say automatically GM is bad, but until any product for consumption is thoroughly researched by many independent groups, I don't want to be eating it. - deltree, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5wtf - dup, sent this in two days ago, man this site needs an editor (lol)
http://www.digg.com/health/GMO_corn_causes_liver_kidney_problems_in_rats - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5GM food is just an excuse to patent and monopolize agriculture.
- AllnightChemist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@muyoso
Your cynical, over-CAPITALIZED, emotional appeal actually proves LESS than any study conducted or endorsed by Greenpeace. I could be the world's sole opponent to people smoking cigarettes and the fact that a study I conducted shows that smokers have higher risks of cancer wouldn't invalidate my research or my findings, despite my very EXISTENCE potentially depending on the results.
But I'm not a cancer researcher, just a relatively normal guy, making a lot less than most people on Digg (that is, a lot less than people in the technology sector) and I still manage to eat organic food (which is, actually certified and regulated by the USDA) for almost every meal. And, yes, it makes me feel better. And, no, I am not a member of Greenpeace, or a vegan, or saving the whales in any direct way, so don't try to attack my argument by attacking my lifestyle.
I'm sorry people in third-world countries have starved. I don't know who's fault it is or was, but I think you're overstating Greenpeace's role in the deaths. It's probably worth considering that Monsanto doesn't just go around the world giving people grain for no reason (read: profit), as they are a business, after all. There may be other reasons for these countries' decisions to turn down "free food" that you're not considering. I doubt that Greenpeace members are twisting their mustaches trying to think of new ways to kill people in third-world countries, but that is just my two cents on your accusation--I, like you, have absolutely no proof to back up my belief. - krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -8/+12almost makes me want to switch over to organic. i've already cut out most processed foods. unfortunately, there's no standardization for "organic" or "natural" food past false advertisement statutes.
also, FTA: "Campaigners against Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) say that genetic modification technology is unproven and potentially dangerous and that GMO crops can contaminate other crops. The industry says the technology . . . has never been shown to contaminate other crops."
the industry is right. most GMO uses technology covered by the Terminator patent, although some countries have banned the technology. effectively, Terminator makes it so the plant won't germinate because the seeds are sterile. in other words, the plant cannot reproduce at all, thus forcing the farmer to continue to buy seed from monsanto year after year. more info: http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/terminator.shtml
there cannot be any evolution of the species if there is no crossbreeding, and the lack of crossbreeding is exactly why the common household cavendish banana will become extinct within 10 years. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@djlosch
"the industry is right. most GMO uses technology covered by the Terminator patent, although some countries have banned the technology. effectively, Terminator makes it so the plant won't germinate because the seeds are sterile. in other words, the plant cannot reproduce at all, thus forcing the farmer to continue to buy seed from monsanto year after year. more info: http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/terminator.shtml"
]
YOU ALMOST have it right. The entire problem with terminator gene-plants is that their pollen inevitably spreads to neighboring crops on other farms, usually with the terminator gene taking over, so that now the neighboring farmer, miles away, has dead seed and can only grow the crap he would have to buy from Monsanto.
It is known in some framing areas that entire native species of certain plants have been wiped out by the exposure to this inevitable overspill of the pollen from the GMO plants.
In fact, within the past year ( and it was a digg story), some rice that was not approved for humans by the FDA, was said to have accidentally (yeah, sure) escaped into the field, so that it has made its way into the commercially grown rice crops in the US. The particular kind of unapproved rice was designed to allow an incredibly large amount of a certain pesticide to be used, without killing the rice plant.
So naturally, the corporate pigs arranged an 'accident', so they could plan on selling more of their poisonous pesticides later on.
This is why I will not eat rice grown in the US, if I can help it....especially the kinds that are not organically farmed.
but with pollen overspill from GMO crops, even the organic farms are at risk, since you really can't control where pollen goes.
You continued with "there cannot be any evolution of the species if there is no crossbreeding,"...so, note tht the above mentioned process of terminator pollen overspill precisely eliminates the needed biodiversity! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5just genetically modify the rats not to get liver and kidney problems.
- foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Studies have shown that if the entire world's food supply was only organic, we would provide 2/3 of the food we make today....
- foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Dude... his wife just died and he is in the hospital. Give him a break...
- IanPatterson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Im out of the loop...thats rough,
Ill take that back - CaptMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Who eats nothing but corn (genetically modified or not) for 90 days and expects to be healthy?
- TB65, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In other news, New York has found a solution to its rat problem.
- Travis182, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Monsanto found all this stuff out themselves when they had to do their "testing." They just told the scientists to spin the data, switch the numbers, and throw it at the FDA. The FDA approved and now they're running the experiments on all of us. Thanks to those willing to do this kind of research, people need this kind of information.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4djlosch, there actually are standards for the organic label. http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/indexNet.htm
- honeymonster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Borlaug used natural selection to improve the natural wheat alongside introducing modern farming practices, all good. GM crops are artificially modified most commonly to resist pesticides so more can be used on them. Pesticides are rather bad for humans and animals, eat the crops more pesticides in your, eat the animals that eat the GM crops, more pesticides in you. Africa’s biggest problem is endemic corruption, civil war, incompetent leaders and lack of modern farming. Zimbabwe is a great example of this.
- elViesca, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@muyoso
The reason why people in the third world is starving is not because an organization like Greenpeace is stopping them from eating GMOs, I don't know where did you find that information. I'm not opposed to GMOs as long as they are tested and determined to be safe for human consumption, the sad truth is that this rarely happens.
Most of the time, companies like Monstanto are much more interested in making huge profits than in helping starving people. I live in Mexico, and we eat a LOT of corn since our ancestors lived here, we're supposed to be the richest country in the world in terms of corn varieties, we should be exporting corn, but the reality is that now we don't even have enough production to meet the national demand and we have to export cheap, highly subsidized and genetically modified corn from the US.
And now, what's worst is that Monstanto and Cargill are pushing our useless government to grant them permission to plant GM corn in Mexico. This is a real danger to the native species, because they will end up polinized by these modified crops, and eventually they will disappear, leaving room only for Monsanto's and Cargill's crops. And guess what? unlike the native varieties, these seeds aren't for free, the farmers have to pay for them (and they are really expensive), and if some of Monsanto's lawyers catches you planting their seeds without permission, even if it is for consumption only, prepare yourself to get your ass sued to death.
So, If I were a poor farmer in Mexico that has to lend a lot of money from the bank just to buy Monsanto's seeds and pesticides (yes, they require a lot more pesticides than organic varieties), I rather go and get a job in the US, illegally if I have to.
My problem with GMOs is that good science often becomes just another way for corporations to profit from the people's needs. - justinjohnson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@ muyoso
I don't know where you're getting your information, but groups like Greenpeace do NOT FORCE African countries to ban GMOs. It is the decision of their government, and they make this decision mostly based on the effective ban in the EU. When it comes down to it, the EU is the reason that countries like Zambia do not distribute GMO donations. I say distribute because there are warehouses of corn in Zambian villages full of GM maize, however the government refuses to distribute it.
Interestingly, many nations that previously banned GMOs have now decided to accept them. These countries have realized that they need to distribute these donations because their people are starving.
From:
Henri E. Cauvin, Between Famine and Politics, Zambians Starve. The New York Times
International, Friday, August 30, 2002.
David E. Sanger, Bush Links Europe’s Ban on Bio-Crops with Hunger. The New York
Times May 22, 2003. - macguy815, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5That monsanto you're referring to no longer exists. Solutia was spun off from monsanto. Monsanto was bought by Pharmacia, which in turn was bought by Pfizer, which then spun off monsanto into its own company again. The company is now mainly a plant sciences company, not a chemical company.
- XZanatos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@djlosch
"unfortunately, there's no standardization for "organic" or "natural" food past false advertisement statutes"
You are only half right, assuming you are in the USA. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulates what can be called "organic". You can look up the specifications yourself, but they include no GMOs, no pesticides, no chemical fertilizers, etc. Practically every other "feel good" terms, such as 'natural', are not regulated though. - JustinPM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Tests are done on rats because they're not cute most of the time. They don't do tests on Koalas and Mice, they do them on Rats because most everybody does not like Rats. They'd do them on the Duck-billed Platypus if they were as easy to reproduce as rats.
- opticrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2RTFPRJA (read the fekkin peer-reviewed journal article).
http://www.springerlink.com/content/02648wu132m07804/?p=84d0f9e1668b4f399da474b221d659ae&pi=0
hard to say if it's unsafe or not. but easy to say that the original study has some power issues (n=10 in some treatment condition cells).
i have no problem with genetically modifying food... but this reinforces the need for rigourous testing of new transgenic food, in my (totally unqualified) opinion :) - ferrofluid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The GM companies are the ones raiding the 'Third' World' for interesting crops to GM alter, then patent and then claim as their own.
The traditional farmer tends to save 10% of the harvest for seed for next year, the GM companies want a farmer to buy new seed stock EVERY year.
If you own a company and sell high tech seed, much better to sell a product that is sterile in the next generation and has 'DRM' built into it.
One use seeds, and a captive consumer. - bigtoe416, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Pretty much everything Monsanto produces causes cancer. Agent Orange, check. rBST, check. Saccharin, check. GMO corn, probably check. They're one of those companies that needs to be destroyed. I'd personally kick the CEO in the balls if I was ever to meet him. They're probably the largest corporate contributor to cancer that nobody knows about.
- derblase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Since (we presume) they were being "scientific" they would have fed the rats ONLY corn.
Who the ***** ONLY eats corn? - Splitt3rxx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I personally think food that has been genetically altered to resist disease is better than natural food covered in pesticides or, rotten/full of bugs.They test food for a reason, the good stuff gets through, toxic food is not alowed to be sold.
EDIT: this is by greenpiece.... this has no credibility at all. - DiggLord, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Good thing I'm not a rat.
- DiggLord, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ya but did that make front page?
- wrxevovi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I was going to write a longer critique of this paper, but I just couldn't. The paper is so obviously "interpreted" it just made me feel sick to my stomach.
So the 2 claims to the paper are as follows:
1. GMO corn *changes* body weight.
In males, 3 diets(11% non-GMO, 33% non-GMO, and 33% GMO) showed the same body weight; however, the males fed 11% GMO corn, showed a 3.3% decrease in body weight.
In females, 3 diets (33% non-GMO, 11% GMO, and 33% GMO) showed the same body weight; however, the females fed 11% non-GMO corn showed a 3.7% decrease in body weight. It is funny how you can get 3/4 curves superimpose on each other, but the authors interpret the data as 11% GMO corn increases body weight, instead of 11% non-GMO corn decreases body weight.
2. GMO corn causes liver and kidney damage.
To show that GMO corn causes liver and kidney damage, they did a comparison 58 biochemical and physiological parameters, which they measured twice (5 weeks and 14 weeks), were fed low corn (11%) and high corn (33%) diets, and used both males and females, so they ended up with 494 comparisons between GMO and non-GMO.
They ended up with 40 statistically significant changes, which may sound like a lot, but based on their cut off for statistical significance, you would expect 25 statistically significant changes even if they were fed the exact same diet. (0.05*494)
However, of those 40 only 33 caused a greater than 5% change. Of those 33, 16 changes were found in those fed the low corn diet (11%) and 17 changes were found in the high corn diet (33%). If GMO corn caused damage, then you would think that eating more would cause more changes.
Furthermore, the changes often were not even in the same direction. For example, you look at total liver protein in male rats at 14 weeks, the 11% GMO diet decreases total liver protein, while the 33% GMO diet increases total liver protein. -
Show 51 - 100 of 132 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is