Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Roundup Tolerant GM Maize Linked To Tumor Development

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the roundup-flavor-soda-proved-disastrous dept.

Science 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.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Did they study the health effects of starving? (0, Troll)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387481)

Yeah, we should ban evil pesticides! Down with evil chemicals and modern GM farming! Organic all the way!

Now, all we have to do is figure out how to feed 7 billion people using old-fashioned organic farming that could barely feed 1.5 billion people in the 19th century. Let's see, there are about 10 million people in NYC alone. No problem, a few rooftop gardens should about cover it.

Or maybe we could just convince 6 billion people to commit suicide for the cause. Hippies, you go first.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41387559)

Or maybe we could just convince 6 billion people to commit suicide for the cause. Hippies, you go first.

Actually the hippies are the ones buying the organic everything. It's the people consuming the GM Roundup stuff that are committing slow suicide by cancer.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (5, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387583)

Actually the economically advantaged are the ones buying the organic everything.

FTFY.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (4, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387785)

I always enjoyed the sight of people coming out of the Union Square Whole Foods in NYC with organic groceries. Because the smog, heavy metals, and road traffic exhaust of Manhattan won't give you cancer, but that trace amount of pesticide sure will.

To be fair, they do have above-average produce.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (2)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387851)

Actually the economically advantaged are the ones buying the organic everything; the disadvantaged are the ones growing their own "organic".

FTFY... again!

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (4, Funny)

c (8461) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387875)

Actually the economically advantaged are the ones who think they're buying the organic everything.

FTFY.

FTFY.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (2)

o'reor (581921) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387897)

Yeah, right: real hippies actually grow the organic food they eat. I guess that makes them some kind of food geeks.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41387581)

6 billion people totally need to kill themselves. The roads are too crowded.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41387909)

The successful fight against Natural Selection is something that should be studied.

But they won't give me a grant.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41387609)

So are you saying that research into the negative effects of this technology should not be done and shared because the need is too great?

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (4, Interesting)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388199)

I'm the first to admit that I'm no expert on this stuff, but this sounds pretty damning...

Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were.

"This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said in an emailed comment.

"The statistical methods are unconventional and probabilities are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. There is no clearly defined data analysis plan and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."

Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, said the study's findings raised the question of why no previous studies have flagged up similar concerns.

"If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren't the North Americans dropping like flies? GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there - and longevity continues to increase inexorably," he said in an emailed comment.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41387651)

Now, all we have to do is figure out how to feed 7 billion people

No, no. You misunderstand. The point of GM, pesticides, etc. is to thin the herd SO we can move to organic farming.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (4, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387657)

False dichotomy. No one is saying we must ban everything that gives you cancer.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41387747)

I am.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (4, Insightful)

dbet (1607261) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388373)

Then we better ban sunlight.

Calling Mr. Burns!

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41387799)

Dammit, and here I just registered BantheSun.org.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (2)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387813)

Good, because I like to take my organic free-range beef and then throw it on the BBQ.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (3, Insightful)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388157)

False dichotomy. No one is saying we must ban everything that gives you cancer.

I don't think anyone said it had to be banned, but labeling products that are genetically modified to be round-up resistant (and subsequently sprayed with round-up) is important in allowing consumers to make their own decisions. Currently that is not required by law and is not being done voluntarily. When you go to the store and buy products based on corn, soybeans etc you have no way to know if it's been modified or sprayed with roundup today. Unless you buy the highly expensive "organic" products. If the products were properly labeled, there could likely be some middle ground between the two.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (4, Insightful)

cplusplus (782679) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387671)

Ever watched someone die of cancer? You might change the tune of your somewhat crazy rant if you had. The article states that "Up to 50% of males and 70% of females died prematurely" showing "2-3 times more large tumors than the control group" - which is somewhat disconcerting. If those numbers translate to what will be observed in the human population (which they probably won't, as this study was done with the upper bound tolerated limits in food, although consistent with what could be found in the food chain), then guaranteeing food for people now with the promise of a horrible premature death later doesn't sound like a good compromise.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (4, Interesting)

pepty (1976012) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388043)

FTA:

The article states that "Up to 50% of males and 70% of females died prematurely" showing "2-3 times more large tumors than the control group"

FT (other) A:

Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were. "This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said in an emailed comment. "The statistical methods are unconventional and probabilities are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. There is no clearly defined data analysis plan and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (-1, Troll)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388179)

Ever watched someone die of cancer?

Ever watched someone starve to death?

Oh no, of course you haven't. Because, thanks to GM crops and pesticides and the vastly improved crop yields they've provided, food today is plentiful in the developed world.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (3, Insightful)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388427)

Ever watched someone die of cancer?

Ever watched someone starve to death?

Oh no, of course you haven't. Because, thanks to GM crops and pesticides and the vastly improved crop yields they've provided, food today is plentiful in the developed world.

Not that it didn't happen, but can you cite a reference to a time when food was not plentiful in the developed world. I'm honestly curious. I know there are plenty of places in the world where folks are starving, but I've never heard of there being a food shortage in my country (USA) during my lifetime.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (2, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388513)

Actually, before well into the 20th century, people did routinely starve in the western world--particularly in rural and isolated areas like in the U.S. and Australia. But, either way, the point is that our food yields have kept up with our explosive population growth. That wouldn't have been possible without the much-decried advances in pesticides and GM that everyone seems to be so upset about today. A world of organic-only farming is going to be a world where a LOT of people are going to be starving.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (2)

DickBreath (207180) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387767)

You suggest a problem and then answer it with a solution that accelerates fixing the problem:

Now, all we have to do is figure out how to feed 7 billion people . . .
. . . maybe we could just convince 6 billion people to commit suicide . . .

The solution is simple: Soylent Green.

Mmmmmmm. Yummy Soylent Green.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (4, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387901)

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:Did they study the health effects of starving? (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388073)

French people don't mess around when it comes to their food, the entire country almost literally shuts down at dinnertime.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (1, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388259)

You're wrong. There are large numbers of people that are not just suggesting but demanding that all pesticides be banned.
And the numbers he's suggesting aren't if organics were grown via methods from 100 years ago, they are if we actually industrialized Organic farming (which we are in fact doing) The point is that modern farming techniques with GM crops and modern pesticides produce 5 to 10x the yield of Organic crops. If we were to switch to all organic, that would mean we'd have to use 5x the land, 5x the fertilizers, 5x the gas, 5x the manpower to produce the same amount of food we do today. Forcing Organic farming would kill BILLIONS of people. No joke at all. Even if GM crops do increase your risk of cancer over 50 years... starving increases your risk of death rather immediately.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (4, Insightful)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388101)

Maybe we should start with people who destroy any chance of reasonable debate by boiling down every argument to two extremes.

Why pick on just GM?!? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41388103)

Why not Ford or Chrysler farming? Hmmmm?! And then there's Toyota farming that I hear just keeps growing without the ability to stop.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41388167)

Sorry bro, small organic farms that use intensive growing methods produce equal or greater yields that GM crops without fertilizers or pesticides. On top of that, the food tastes better.

The real problem is that we don't have enough small farms run by a few people, or giant farms with hundreds of employees people willing to do the hard work necessary to obtain those yields. The shortages you're talking about are created by lazy ass motherfuckers looking to get rich or protect their own no matter who gets hurt by eating their product.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388187)

Or... you could develop a distribution system that isn't so inherently corrupt and wasteful.. Might require a little less war, and it would be less profitable than big agribusiness, but better able to deal with local shortages.

Re:Did they study the health effects of starving? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41388245)

Now, all we have to do is figure out how to feed 7 billion people

1) Ban pesticides
2) Don't feed 7 billion people
3) Saves the environment and improves the quality of life for the rest of the species down the line

How to Attribute a Newspaper (4, Informative)

Electrawn (321224) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387553)

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).

Re:How to Attribute a Newspaper (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41387571)

Poor editing for comedy is really the only reason I keep coming back. Try not to spoil that.

Re:How to Attribute a Newspaper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41387715)

They don't care. This is about the dollars. Always about the dollars. As long as Slashdot gets clicks for it they don't care if they're posting articles about an Obama/Romney love child or the tech specs on a 555 IC. They're so close to being pure yellow journalism that I hear they're going to change the background color.

Re:How to Attribute a Newspaper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41388041)

They're so close to being pure yellow journalism that I hear they're going to change the background color.

Naw, just the ownership [slashdot.org] . And the logo [slashdot.org] .

Re:How to Attribute a Newspaper (5, Insightful)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387877)

I am more concerned about the original paper ( which is no where to be found ) then proper newsfeed and what not.

Re:How to Attribute a Newspaper (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41388067)

All right, we get sick of Slashdot editor bashing, but this needs to be addressed.

I don't. I get sick of the terrible excuse for editing here. The only reason I might get sick of the bashing is because nothing gets done about it!

Awful headline. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41387567)

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. (5, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387667)

In other news, Monsanto has patented cancer.

Joe Baggaleducia, Monsanto Chairperson, said "Monsanto is tired of users benefiting from the use of our proprietary cancer implementation and we're going to be pressing the matter in the courts soon. We don't care if you're old, young, or dying. You will be paying your $599 Monsanto CancerPlus fee, you cock smoking tea baggers. Show me the money!"

Mr Baggaleducia then stripped naked and jumped into the giant money pit he recently had installed inside his tropical home in the Caymens. A Monsanto Spokesman was not available for comment.

Re:Awful headline. (4, Insightful)

SoulMaster (717007) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388017)

You know, as I was RingTFA, I was trying to figure out how the reporter didn't mention Monsanto at all. Seriously, your quote is modded funny, but not including the fact that Monsanto owns (and TIGHTLY controls) both in the article seems to be a significant oversight on the part of the press.

-SM

Re:Awful headline. (3, Interesting)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388149)

In other news, Monsanto has patented cancer.

Funny, but while I agree there's a lot of evil at Monsanto, there's the problem that in many cases Roundup is LESS toxic than the alternatives if you want to get the crop yeild per acre/dollar that you can with Roundup & Roundup ready crops. It's sad, but we have limited amounts of fields and only so many resources(in dollar equivalents).

Theoretically speaking, we could feed pretty much everybody on the planet with 10% of the current planted crop areas if we switched to high density greenhouse hydroponics/aquaculture. We also wouldn't need anywhere near as much fresh water from the environment, but it would come at horrendous cost.

We could shift to non-greenhouse organic or non-roundup, but then we'd need more acres under cultivation, and it'd ultimately cost more for food. People have already rioted over food prices around the world. Actually heard on the news that they've spotted the price point at which 'global unrest' occurs. Didn't say what that price point is, but said they figured it out.

Food is serious business; we can only attempt to make food as safe as possible while still producing enough.

Re:Awful headline. (4, Informative)

Znork (31774) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387697)

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.

Re:Awful headline. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41387989)

Have you priced roundup? We most certainly do not bathe the plants in roundup; we wick them at the right time to use as little roundup as possible. However, you're very proud of your ignorance, so replying is a waste of your time. If that second statement is indeed false, I strongly suggest you read about the pesticides organic farmers are using. They're a lot worse for you and the environment than what professional farmers are using.

Re:Awful headline. (5, Insightful)

o'reor (581921) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387761)

Wrong. TFA says:

Researchers found that NK603 and Roundup both caused similar damage to the rats' health whether they were consumed on their own or together.

(emphasis mine)

So even without spraying Roundup on it, the GM crop increases the occurences of cancers.

Re:Awful headline. (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387863)

That particular GM crop, which was genetically tuned to respond to Roundup.

Re:Awful headline. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41388201)

Sure, because where on earth does one source NK603 that hasn't been exposed to Roundup? Oh yeah - you don't. It doesn't exist.

Re:Awful headline. (3, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387825)

No, the interaction of genes to the proteins that are expressed in the field is not an exact science. Fiddling with genes can and will produce unexpected changes in crops with some small number of those being potentially dangerous.

And that is not even counting the GM foods that have been intentionally modified to naturally contain pesticides.

Re:Awful headline. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41387887)

I was thinking ROUNDUP exposure was a feature of most GM crops.

Re:Awful headline. (2)

PSiLiCON (160088) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387919)

Actually if you had RTFA, you would have realized that both Roundup and the GM corn caused cancer independently.

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. (3, Insightful)

jandersen (462034) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387939)

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.

Strictly speaking, we don't know whether GM food is risky; historically, there has been a long list of substances that were regarded as "obviously harmless" or even "beneficial", which none the less turned out to be harmful.

However, there is a more subtle danger: genes will eventually escape into wild plants. If, say, wheat is given this RoundUp gene, there is a large risk that this gene will spread to closely related grasses one day, and suddenly we have a wild and potetially undesirable, wild plant with resistence to RoundUp. The truth is, we know far too little about how genes transfer between species to rule out any scenario.

Or, just imagine if pharming takes off as an industry - what will happen if the genes that produce some powerful medicine somehow escape into the wild? And perhaps combine with other genes to produce effects that are completely unexpected? It would be nice if we, as a species, would sometimes look before we jump.

People are not interested in your sanity. (2)

Medievalist (16032) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388091)

Strictly speaking, we don't know whether GM food is risky; historically, there has been a long list of substances that were regarded as "obviously harmless" or even "beneficial", which none the less turned out to be harmful.

You do realize that nearly everyone's already decided one way or the other, based on their political brainwashing, and your sane and reasonable reality-based statements are useless, right? It's the same as a nuclear power argument; you're just ringing a bell for Pavlov's dogs, who will now slobber all over you.

Re:Awful headline. (1)

MerceanCoconut (1145401) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388151)

It does seem more likely that it's the Roundup itself that is the cause since both groups developed the same ailments. It would be useful to know if Roundup was used on the GM maize or not. Presumably it was, since that's what it's engineered for, but then the study comes down to Roundup causes tumors whether ingested through water or GM maize.

Re:Awful headline. (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388367)

Wrong, both do:

Researchers found that rats fed on a diet containing NK603 Roundup tolerant GM maize, or given water containing Roundup at levels permitted in drinking water and GM crops in the US, died earlier than rats fed on a standard diet. They suffered mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage.

Easy solution (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41387625)

Now that the problem has been identified, they just need to focus on developing Roundup tolerant GM humans.

Dangerous poison. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41387627)

1. Analyze a dangerous poison.
2. Modify a crop's genes to be resistant against said dangerous poison
3. Treat modified crop liberally with dangerous poison
4. Have cattle eat crop treated with dangerous poison
???
6. Be amazed at what the poison does to non-resistant life forms.

Re:Dangerous poison. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41387937)

1. Analyze a dangerous poison.
2. Modify a crop's genes to be resistant against said dangerous poison
3. Treat modified crop liberally with dangerous poison
4. Have cattle eat crop treated with dangerous poison
???
6. Be amazed at what the poison does to non-resistant life forms.

Better be careful not to ingest any of that god-awful poison chlorine, especially when it's been tained with lethal sodium atoms. You could die!

Re:Dangerous poison. (5, Funny)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388047)

They should modify the peoples' genes, so they can eat the Roundup directly without having to bother with that silly ol' corn.

Re:Dangerous poison. (5, Informative)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388075)

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?

Re:Dangerous poison. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41388341)

I know when I eat a twinkie. I don't know when I eat glyphosate.

Re:Dangerous poison. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41388121)

It's an herbicide, not a poison, so it's totally safe for animals just like their last product for the same purpose, Agent Orange.

Seriously, now... (0)

Type44Q (1233630) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387631)

Experts not involved in the study were highly skeptical about its methods and findings...

Come on, now; isn't it dishonest to refer to them as anything other than what they are... which is (directly or indirectly) industry representatives)?! :p

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote." - James Bovard

Re:Seriously, now... (-1, Offtopic)

Type44Q (1233630) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387809)

Haha, here come the paid shills with the mod points to burn... if that panicky reaction of on theirs doesn't confirm the validity of my blatantly obvious observation, I don't know what does! :p

Cue the tinfoil hats.. (0)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387719)

And I'll continue buying my GM modified food that's cheaper, as tasty (if not tastier), and often more nutritious.

The only thing I dislike about GM foods is that we have a single strain that could be hugely impacted by a disease, but otherwise... Organic is just stupid.

Re:Cue the tinfoil hats.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41387773)

I have no conceptual problem with eating GM foods, but I do have a problem with eating foods which have been sprayed with ungodly amounts of herbicide.

It's not quite the same thing.

Re:Cue the tinfoil hats.. (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388309)

ungodly amounts of herbicide

2 kilograms per acre? I think that's about how much bird shit falls on a field annually. I'd have to think about that. Its not exactly the herbicide equivalent of the finale of "cloudy with a chance of meatballs".

I agree with you, eating weird chemicals for the hell of it is not wise, but going all "Refer Madness" and just making stuff up is going to do more to harm the cause than help.

Your neighbor drowning his landscape in bottles and bottles of roundup to control weeds is going to cause about 99.9% of your lifetime exposure anyway. You don't have to apply that stuff until it drowns the plant, farmers know that because its expensive when you're treating 160 acres, but J6P does not.

Re:Cue the tinfoil hats.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41387927)

Does this apply to you and your logic as well? Or do trolls wear hats?

Re:Cue the tinfoil hats.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41388003)

And I'll continue buying my GM modified food that's cheaper, as tasty (if not tastier), and often more nutritious.

UHMMM... GM corn and tomatoes taste are like the chicken of the vegetable world. They have no flavor.

You obviously don't cook your own food, otherwise you would actually know this from first hand experience.

Re:Cue the tinfoil hats.. (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388055)

It is only cheaper if you buy organic from a supermarket. The local organic farmers market and organic co-op are as cheap as commercial foods. And organic does fine commercially too.

If you think commercially grown monocultures are as nutritious as organic crops, you are sadly mistaken. And too believing of Slashdot stories

plus GM crap encourages more use of pesticide. See...
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5950 [worldwatch.org]

Re:Cue the tinfoil hats.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41388185)

I'll continue buying my GM modified food that's cheaper, as tasty (if not tastier), and often more cancer-causing.

FTFY.

The end is near! (Really) (5, Interesting)

judoguy (534886) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387721)

I have a friend that's a food researcher at a large Midwestern university. He's not opposed to Roundup per se, but rather the *massive* use of it on vast areas of monoculture.

He says that this is guaranteed to produce Roundup impervious weeds. At some point these super weeds will need very toxic chemicals to kill. The real problem is that vast areas of monoculture are unsustainable.

Nature abhors a vacuum and will fill it up with what can tolerate the environment.

Re:The end is near! (Really) (1)

pepty (1976012) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388403)

In this, the best of all possible chemical-industrial complexes, we should really be expecting that as each generation of antibiotic, herbicide, or pesticide is kneecapped by the evolution of resistant organisms (and simultaneously goes off patent) a new generation of molecules should come in to fill the gap. Unfortunately the chemical end of the operation doesn't seem to be up to speed these days ...

Gee...that's a surprise.... (1)

robinsonne (952701) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387779)

So, you're telling me that these researchers don't know the difference between giving a chemical with food as opposed to just with water? There's a big difference in how the body (rat or human) absorbs chemicals depending on how it gets there, and what is in the stomach.

It's more than just the concentration. Look at medication sometime: "Take this drug with a full glass of water." "Take this drug with food." etc. etc.

Maybe they should have the rats chomp down on some of the actual GM food that is supposedly so bad?

Re:Gee...that's a surprise.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41388013)

Without seeing the molecules, It is hard to say if it really matters. some molecules have very low water solubility (probably not the case here given they were giving the molecules in water). often molecules with low water solubility have higher lipid (read: Fat) solubility. so taking the molecule with food (specifically fat) will increase the absorption as the molecule will be absorbed with fat.

I'm really lucky ... (0, Flamebait)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387815)

... to live in a society where issues like this are no brainers.
The USA have regulations that allow a minimum amount of poison x and poison y and poison z in their tap water?
Hello? That is considered to be a first world country? Your tap water contains weedkillers, that is ridiculous!

Re:I'm really lucky ... (1)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387973)

That message brought to you by, I presume, a German (.de in your email address), which is literally famous for the death of vast amounts of Black Forest from acid rain caused by pollutants.

Re:I'm really lucky ... (2, Informative)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388009)

"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:I'm really lucky ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41388165)

Most likely your tap water contains it too. That stuff is long lived and gets spread around. Your country has an admissible level as well, otherwise except for water from ice cores nothing would be considered drinkable. Whether Roundup should be used at all is another matter and the one that should be discussed, not whether there should be any minimal amount allowable.

Re:I'm really lucky ... (2)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388195)

The USA have regulations that allow a minimum amount of poison x and poison y and poison z in their tap water? Hello? That is considered to be a first world country? Your tap water contains weedkillers, that is ridiculous!

I hate to break this to you but there is a little of everything in everything. You just can't tell until you're able to count parts per million.

Re:I'm really lucky ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41388293)

The USA have regulations that allow a minimum amount of poison x and poison y and poison z in their tap water?

Yeah, exactly like European countries do, moron.

Re:I'm really lucky ... (2)

MaXintosh (159753) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388523)

Dose makes the poison. Any chemist or biochemist would tell you that. Selenium is either a mineral requirement or a toxic substance, depending purely on the dose. As is the case for sodium, potassium, and good old fashioned water. On the other hand, there's likely some amount of elemental mercury in your drinking water right this instant. But it's so trace that it's hard to detect without clever setups, and it undoubtedly has no health effects because it's so rare.

If you asked a homeopath, though, the ultra-rare nature of the pollutant is what makes it especially deadly. Heaven help us if the mercury in the water become any more dilute, we'll all die from its toxicity.

And in any event, any analytically chemist would tell you that in many regulations out there, we set unrealistically low requirements for some contaminants. Sometimes its because water naturally has a lot of junk in it, and getting it out on a utility scale is tricky, but more often than not, the 'safe levels' are picked as arbitrarily low numbers by middle manager types without any understanding that the analytical methods for detecting the analyte of interest at that low of a level aren't feasible.

They also fed them Weed Killer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41387817)

So, these people fed rats with Weed Killer and some GM food. The rats got cancer, so of course it's the GM food that caused it.

EH?

Get it right (1, Informative)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#41387829)

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:Get it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41388153)

Read the linked article (again), it's not only Roundup:

"Researchers found that NK603 and Roundup both caused similar damage to the rats' health whether they were consumed on their own or together. [...] The team also identified a "threshold effect" where even the lowest doses were associated with severe health problems."

Re:Get it right (3, Insightful)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388225)

I think you might be wrong. Took me a few readings as the wording was a tad wonky. I believe there were four test groups:

* Round up and GM corn at three levels.
* Just round up and normal corn at three levels.
* Normal water and GM corn at three levels.
* Control - Tap and normal corn.

The article claims only the control group was healthy.

Re:Get it right (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388311)

Key quote from the article:

"Researchers found that NK603 and Roundup both caused similar damage to the rats' health whether they were consumed on their own or together."

Four groups:
1. Fed Roundup & GM corn - cancer
2. Fed Roundup - cancer
3. Fed GM corn - cancer
4. Fed no roundup or GM corn - no cancer.

FDA epic fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41387977)

Researchers found that rats fed on a diet containing NK603 Roundup tolerant GM maize, or given water containing Roundup at levels permitted in drinking water and GM crops in the US, died earlier than rats fed on a standard diet. They suffered mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage.

The fact that we are allowed a dose of roundup in our water is what should scare you

Re:FDA epic fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41388405)

Researchers found that rats fed on a diet containing NK603 Roundup tolerant GM maize, or given water containing Roundup at levels permitted in drinking water and GM crops in the US, died earlier than rats fed on a standard diet. They suffered mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage.

The fact that we are allowed a dose of roundup in our water is what should scare you

You permit unlimited contaminants, it'll cost $0. You permit 0 contaminants, it'll cost $unlimited. You pick a suitable finite level of contamination, you can get it for a finite cost, and win. This study may suggest the permissible roundup levels are too high, but the fact there is a finite threshold is not in itself scary to anyone sane.

So don't eat maize. (0)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388145)

Really. Cut the following things out of your diet if you want to loose weight and/or avoid diabetes, cancer, Parkinson's or Alzheimer's.

1) Wheat
2) Sugar
3) MSG
4) Corn
5) Fruits and Vegetables
5) If you're fat - All carbohydrates

Also make sure that:
1) The cow meat you eat is from grass fed cows.
2) The cow milk you drink is not pasteurized and is from grass fed cows
3) The eggs and chickens you eat were raised outdoors on a diet of bugs and greens.

The science has been pointing this way for a long time now, but most people are blind to it.

Re:So don't eat maize. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41388331)

I lived between two dairy farms and went to high school with kids who actually worked on dairy farms that supplied milk to grocery store chains and gas stations and such.

I'm never drinking unpasteurized milk. The stories I've heard you would not fucking believe.

Re:So don't eat maize. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41388393)

Why the fruits and vegetables?

30% for the control rats got cancer too (2, Informative)

ssam (2723487) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388173)

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.

This is Slashdooooooot ! (1)

o'reor (581921) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388183)

So for everyone who did not bother to read TFA and posted rants below to the tune of "Oooooh they fed both GM food and herbicide to the rats ! It's not the GM crops that give cancer, it's the Roundup ! French scientists have surrendered their intelligence" and so on...

Here is the key sentence in the article:

Researchers found that NK603 and Roundup both caused similar damage to the rats' health whether they were consumed on their own or together.

(emphasis mine)

US Life Expectancy Decreasing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41388191)

One of the skeptics says:

"If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren't the North Americans dropping like flies? GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there - and longevity continues to increase inexorably,"

But US life expectancy is actually decreasing:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-09/life-expectancy-in-the-u-s-drops-for-first-time-since-1993-report-says.html

It's dangerous (2)

edibobb (113989) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388263)

NK603 is as dangerous as cell phone radiation.

Rat murderer (1)

Bazman (4849) | more than 2 years ago | (#41388389)

I tried to find this paper online but I don't think its available as a preprint yet. But I did find that the lead author has been stuffing rats with assorted GMO foods for many years. Sometimes its kidney failure, sometimes its cancer, maybe sometimes nothing happens. The important thing is how many negative results he's had and not published. That's statistical GMO cherry-picking.

Fixed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41388411)

"Monsanto and Dow Chemical 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.'"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?