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

Ziphius · 21-09-2012 06:23PM

SamHarris wrote: »

The irony that it is the same hippy 'organic' movement that is one of the most disgusted with Western decadence is lost on them Im sure.

Many seem to forget that organic farming is big business. Many farms in the US have been bought up by large multinationals such as Kellogs. It's great marketing slap on a meaningless term, slightly alter your methodology, and charge a huge mark-up.

The myths in the public mind are astonishing. That organic is somehow healthier despite using some very nasty chemicals (all natural so don't worry) and in greater volume than conventional farming. Additionally organic vegetables carry a greater risk of E. coli infection due to the use of animal waste in place of synthetic fertilizers. In California in 2007 three people died and 200 were made ill by consuming spinach contaminated with E. coli. It was traced back to a single organic farm. http://www.cgfi.org/2007/03/deadly-organic-spinach/

SamHarris · 21-09-2012 06:42PM

Ziphius wrote: »

Many seem to forget that organic farming is big business. Many farms in the US have been bought up by large multinationals such as Kellogs. It's great marketing slap on a meaningless term, slightly alter your methodology, and charge a huge mark-up.

The myths in the public mind are astonishing. That organic is somehow healthier despite using some very nasty chemicals (all natural so don't worry) and in greater volume than conventional farming. Additionally organic vegetables carry a greater risk of E. coli infection due to the use of animal waste in place of synthetic fertilizers. In California in 2007 three people died and 200 were made ill by consuming spinach contaminated with E. coli. It was traced back to a single organic farm. http://www.cgfi.org/2007/03/deadly-organic-spinach/

Its always the same - people are always bringing up 'big pharma' and 'oil' - as though alternative medicine and green energy are cottage indurstries completly unconcerned with profit.

If that had been a problem created on a single farm with GM food you would not hear the end of the calls for its eradication. Its just more ludite fear of the new. Pretending it has some sort of scientific basis through appeals to 'nature' being some sort of Gaia watching over us all should be laughed off in the same way an appeal to 'god' making them in a certain way is.

Ziphius · 21-09-2012 06:57PM

SamHarris wrote: »

If that had been a problem created on a single farm with GM food you would not hear the end of the calls for its eradication. Its just more ludite fear of the new. Pretending it has some sort of scientific basis through appeals to 'nature' being some sort of Gaia watching over us all should be laughed off in the same way an appeal to 'god' making them in a certain way is.

What concerns me most is the headline grabbing bad science such as the one that started this thread. It only serves to stir up confusion among the general population. People with out the time will simply play the 'better-safe-than-sorry' strategy and avoid GM. Meanwhile, the peddlers of Organic snake-oil can get by without reproach.

SuperInfinity · 21-09-2012 07:08PM

You watch that mouth of yours Ziphius. I know you're feeling bold now with your little partner backing you up but when it comes to irreversibly changing the food of the planet with GMO muck then you'll find the vast majority of real scientists at least prefer organic and even those in favour would say ideally we could do organic. You're only making a fool of yourself by calling organic "snake-oil".

What "concerns" you. Go away, we don't need your "concern". We don't need a self-righteous nanny looking out for us with "concern". So many times we have listened to authorities telling us things were "safe", and now you want to irreversibly pollute food forever with GMOs.

It's not a case of them being "safe" or not anyway. Eating fast food all day is "safe", but it's just very very bad for you over the long term. It could happen that this will be the way all food ends up if GMOs are allowed out.

And... if this was sensationalist crap, yes, I do condemn it. I think that sort of thing does huge damage to the anti-GM cause. All lies and bending of the facts to suit a specific causes or ideologies are to be condemned. I have seen anti-GM people do this sometimes and I think it's a disgrace that does terrible damage.

TheChizler · 21-09-2012 07:27PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

You watch that mouth of yours Ziphius. I know you're feeling bold now with your little partner backing you up but when it comes to irreversibly changing the food of the planet with GMO muck then you'll find the vast majority of real scientists at least prefer organic and even those in favour would say ideally we could do organic.

Really? Have you anything to back up that statement?

Ziphius · 21-09-2012 07:39PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

You watch that mouth of yours Ziphius. I know you're feeling bold now with your little partner backing you up but when it comes to irreversibly changing the food of the planet with GMO muck then you'll find the vast majority of real scientists at least prefer organic and even those in favour would say ideally we could do organic. You're only making a fool of yourself by calling organic "snake-oil".

What "concerns" you. Go away, we don't need your "concern". We don't need a self-righteous nanny looking out for us with "concern". So many times we have listened to authorities telling us things were "safe", and now you want to irreversibly pollute food forever with GMOs.

It's not a case of them being "safe" or not anyway. Eating fast food all day is "safe", but it's just very very bad for you over the long term. It could happen that this will be the way all food ends up if GMOs are allowed out.

And... if this was sensationalist crap, yes, I do condemn it. I think that sort of thing does huge damage to the anti-GM cause. All lies and bending of the facts to suit a specific causes or ideologies are to be condemned. I have seen anti-GM people do this sometimes and I think it's a disgrace that does terrible damage.

Returned from your little harrumph to threaten me, have you? Certainly a change in tact seeing as your last strategy was simply to extricate yourself from the imbroglio of your own splurging nonsense.

That you have the audacity to accuse me of being a nanny while you proffer and promote your own authoritarian, reactionary, Luddite, and ignorant opinions is stunning. I find them as unctuous as "organic fertilizer" that you deem fit to swill on your food.

As a citizen of this country I'll voice my concerns as much as I wish. You, nor anyone else, can shout me down simply because I disagree with your own particular prejudice.

asherbassad · 21-09-2012 07:39PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

If it's posted by RTDHs then you know you can ignore it.

That was brilliant.

SamHarris · 21-09-2012 07:54PM

I'm not little...

Either show comprehensive proof that GM foods is as dangerous and as evil as you think it is or admit that you continue to hold a view that directly contributes to thousands of deaths every year based on nothing more than your own hunches. Simples.

SuperInfinity · 21-09-2012 08:25PM

SamHarris wrote: »

Either show comprehensive proof that GM foods is as dangerous and as evil as you think it is or admit that you continue to hold a view that directly contributes to thousands of deaths every year based on nothing more than your own hunches. Simples.

Funny, I seem to remember tobacco companies saying the same things for decades, denying that their product caused lung cancer.

As I already stated, even if they leave food as being just enough not to cause any noticeable affects in the short term, it will still be inferior. Maybe our systems would make do on them, but there'll be subtle, undetectable changes, by definition. And if you don't believe that, you don't believe in evolution. Because food has evolved with vertebrates, mammals and then humans for millions of years.

Naturally, we are guided by our tastes towards what would be good food for us to eat. We don't like rotten foods, or unripe foods. With GMOs, that goes out the window. You could for example have rotting strawberries that taste great.

It's ridiculous, small-minded nonsense to think you can simply mess about with food, do a couple of tests, and if it seems "much the same" as normal food, to let it out.

SamHarris · 21-09-2012 08:30PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Funny, I seem to remember tobacco companies saying the same things for decades, denying that their product caused lung cancer.

That means nothing.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

As I already stated, even if they leave food as being just enough not to cause any noticeable affects in the short term, it will still be inferior.

Why?

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Maybe our systems would make do on them, but there'll be subtle, undetectable changes, by definition. And if you don't believe that, you don't believe in evolution. Because food has evolved with vertebrates, mammals and then humans for millions of years.

Through a process of unnatural selection for the last few thousand years, GM is merely a more refined version of that process.

I have the distinct feeling that you dont know what GM even is. A potato is not going to 'randomly' be made with the ebola virus.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Naturally, we are guided by our tastes towards what would be good food for us to eat. We don't like rotten foods, or unripe foods. With GMOs, that goes out the window. You could for example have rotting strawberries that taste great.

Em... Scource?

Also I cant imagine why that would be a reason not to feed a few billion more people.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

It's ridiculous, small-minded nonsense to think you can simply mess about with food, do a couple of tests, and if it seems "much the same" as normal food, to let it out.

The tests are extremly rigorous. Its much more small minded to believe that something is 'good' by virtue of being 'natural' (whatever that means).

The Beast of Bodmin · 21-09-2012 08:38PM

ALL FOOD IS GENETICALLY MODIFIED, MORANS.

Pottler · 21-09-2012 08:46PM

The Beast of Bodmin wrote: »

ALL FOOD IS GENETICALLY MODIFIED, MORANS.

Yeah, them Morans eh, total dopes.

SuperInfinity · 21-09-2012 09:14PM

SamHarris wrote: »

That means nothing.

What do you mean it "means nothing", it shows directly that the lack of strong evidence proving their destructiveness is no surprise... ie. it is in direct contradiction of your point. That was your point, remember? That there's been no conclusive evidence so far showing GMOs drastically affect health.

SamHarris wrote: »

Why?

I just explained it in the next sentences.

SamHarris wrote: »

Through a process of unnatural selection for the last few thousand years, GM is merely a more refined version of that process.

A more refined version of it? Don't make me barf. Evolutionary systems are far more complicated and "refined" than humans will ever be able to understand.

SamHarris wrote: »

I have the distinct feeling that you dont know what GM even is. A potato is not going to 'randomly' be made with the ebola virus.

lol.

SamHarris wrote: »

The tests are extremly rigorous. Its much more small minded to believe that something is 'good' by virtue of being 'natural' (whatever that means).

Are you seriously telling me that you don't know what "natural" means? If yes then I think you need to take some classes in remedial english.

There are billions of natural processes occurring right now outside your window, processes that science has very little understanding of, including ecological systems. Processes and systems every one of us depends on for life. The idea that you could just release these GMOs into the environment and seamlessly change them all and it without consequences is just absurd.

TheChizler · 21-09-2012 11:16PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Are you seriously telling me that you don't know what "natural" means? If yes then I think you need to take some classes in remedial english.

Is it Denny sliced ham?

Somnus · 22-09-2012 12:27AM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

A more refined version of it? Don't make me barf. Evolutionary systems are far more complicated and "refined" than humans will ever be able to understand.

If you mean that evolution has a number of contributing pressures as to which mutations stick, then yes. But the occurance of a new mutation is completely random. So in terms of mechanisms, we can modify DNA more accurately than nature. That's the strength of genetic engineering

SuperInfinity wrote: »

There are billions of natural processes occurring right now outside your window, processes that science has very little understanding of, including ecological systems. Processes and systems every one of us depends on for life. The idea that you could just release these GMOs into the environment and seamlessly change them all and it without consequences is just absurd.

Introducing GMO's might have an effect on the local flora and fauna, yes. Or it might have no effect at all. Hard to tell without actually carrying it out. You can't stop experimenting just because something bad might happen

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Naturally, we are guided by our tastes towards what would be good food for us to eat. We don't like rotten foods, or unripe foods. With GMOs, that goes out the window.

Em, why?

But let's be honest, this is turning into a pure GM vs anti-GM thread, which was done about a month ago.

Reality is that the study in question is of questionable validity, and as such does not indicate any evidence of GM corn being harmful

Ziphius · 22-09-2012 03:44AM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Are you seriously telling me that you don't know what "natural" means? If yes then I think you need to take some classes in remedial english.

I dunno if it's tragic or endearing that your ignorance of basic science matches your lack of understanding of the English language.

Capt'n Midnight · 22-09-2012 10:23AM

smash wrote: »

GM corn is in nearly everything that's mass produced. A good documentary to watch is Food Inc. to get the stats, and even since then there's been a rise in its usage.

Remember US food rules don't apply in the EU.

If you've read Fast Food Nation there is a clear distinction how abattoirs process domestic food and that for export to the EU. Little things like setting a minimum time for animals to be processed so things like cleaning out the nasty germs in the gut isn't a rushed job. We also have rules about hormones and antibiotics and GM labelling.

Over here we use subsidised corn syrup as a sweetener.

Point is US health scares usually don't apply on this side of the pond.

However, GM soya is in a lot of things.

Capt'n Midnight · 22-09-2012 10:32AM

Ziphius wrote: »

There is no evidence that eating GM crops causes cancer. To insinuate this is misleading and dishonest. To deny life-changing technology to the World's most undernourished is in, my opinion, repugnant.

How many times will I have to repeat that any food shortage is due to policy and pricing rather than a lack of food growing capability.

Norman Borlaug the scientist led the Green Revolution during the 60s, helped quintuple wheat yield in developing nations and has been personally attributed the saving of over a billion human lives.
He pretty much sums things up.

All done without GM

and there are serious problems with over intensive monoculture
like the cost of fertilizer and running out of economic reserves of phosphates

loosing arable land and access to water are big problems

Ziphius · 22-09-2012 01:58PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How many times will I have to repeat that any food shortage is due to policy and pricing rather than a lack of food growing capability.

Beats me. I'm not disagreeing with you. However, the facts are that we live in a world were a billion people are underfed. The total human population is estimated to reach 9 billion by mid-century. We need sustainable agricultural production. And GM is part of it. Not the only part but certainly a part.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

All done without GM

and there are serious problems with over intensive monoculture
like the cost of fertilizer and running out of economic reserves of phosphates

loosing arable land and access to water are big problems

True. Again no disagreement here.

Funny you should mention phosphates, I just read about a GM plant that's been engineered to use phosphites as an alternative source of phosphorous. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7415/full/489181d.html

Capt'n Midnight · 22-09-2012 02:25PM

Ziphius wrote: »

Beats me. I'm not disagreeing with you. However, the facts are that we live in a world were a billion people are underfed. The total human population is estimated to reach 9 billion by mid-century. We need sustainable agricultural production. And GM is part of it. Not the only part but certainly a part.

Peak population is expected to be 11 billion which we can do today as long as people don't eat like Americans and go easy on meat.

Anyway we'll have developed high-energy plankton by then.

ICI had a single 50m tall fermenter capable of producing 50,000 tonnes of single celled protein per year using methanol as food for methylophilus . Fossil fuel prices went up and they shut it down.

It's like renewable energy, alternative technologies are waiting in the wings the only issue is the price point at which they become more economic than technologies.

Another example, most of the life in the sea is on the continental shelves. So potentially we have about 2/3rd's of the planet to grow algae.

Ziphius · 22-09-2012 02:58PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Peak population is expected to be 11 billion which we can do today as long as people don't eat like Americans and go easy on meat.

Anyway we'll have developed high-energy plankton by then.

ICI had a single 50m tall fermenter capable of producing 50,000 tonnes of single celled protein per year using methanol as food for methylophilus . Fossil fuel prices went up and they shut it down.

It's like renewable energy, alternative technologies are waiting in the wings the only issue is the price point at which they become more economic than technologies.

Another example, most of the life in the sea is on the continental shelves. So potentially we have about 2/3rd's of the planet to grow algae.

I don't see feeding people as the problem. It's setting an acceptable cost that's the issue.

You're first example of bacterial conversion of methanol to "single celled protein" is clearly unsustainable in our current energy environment. I'm also curious where the methanol will come from. Incidentally the bacteria you named, Methylophilus methylotrophus has already been genetically modified to increase protein yield (http://www.wikigenes.org/e/ref/e/6776410.html). I don't ICI used GMOs in it's trials, but if they believe it'll improve profits you can be sure they will in the future.

I'm interested in what your standing is with regard to the use of GMOs Capt'n Midnight. Not only with regard to food production but also basic science, medicinal uses, and so on. Could you provide a brief sketch of your views?

SuperInfinity · 22-09-2012 08:18PM

Ziphius wrote: »

I dunno if it's tragic or endearing that your ignorance of basic science matches your lack of understanding of the English language.

I don't know what you're talking about. He said "whatever that means" when talking about the word "nature". I stated that any person who speaks English should know what the word "nature" means.

I'm sick of these "one size fits all" insults and one-liners that people try to force into any mention of a subject. Call me pedantic or something, but when someone else suggests they don't know what "natural" means, I find that problematic to discussion. It's not like I was trying to have a go, but if he denies the concept of "natural" existing then what a I supposed to say except suggest he goes and tries to find out what others mean by it and what it's supposed to mean. Maybe I could have been "nicer" about it, but that wouldn't go with our heated discussion so far. Your insult doesn't follow at all.

If you try and think in a more honest and straightforward way, you wouldn't say something like that. Rather you're just actively trying to seek to "counter" everything I'm saying when I'm making legitimate points.

Dr Poca I read your post, I'd like to take your last two points as an excuse to escape the discussion.

Ziphius · 22-09-2012 08:43PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I don't know what you're talking about. He said "whatever that means" when talking about the word "nature". I stated that any person who speaks English should know what the word "nature" means.

I'm sick of these "one size fits all" insults and one-liners that people try to force into any mention of a subject. Call me pedantic or something, but when someone else suggests they don't know what "natural" means, I find that problematic to discussion. It's not like I was trying to have a go, but if he denies the concept of "natural" existing then what a I supposed to say except suggest he goes and tries to find out what others mean by it and what it's supposed to mean. Maybe I could have been "nicer" about it, but that wouldn't go with our heated discussion so far. Your insult doesn't follow at all.

If you try and think in a more honest and straightforward way, you wouldn't say something like that. Rather you're just actively trying to seek to "counter" everything I'm saying when I'm making legitimate points.

Dr Poca I read your post, I'd like to take your last two points as an excuse to escape the discussion.

That the poster used inverted commas around the word natural indicates he was referring to specific meaning of the word used by certain people. The dichotomy of natural on one hand and artificial on the other. And the idea that if something is "natural" it is innately better than something that is "unnatural". Everything in the universe is natural. Calling your food colouring "natural" is just marketing.

Perhaps my rebuke crossed a line but as Jesus said "live by the sword, die by the sword", what did you expect?

Good call on Dr Poca's points. I think I'll do the same. This thread seems to have exceeded it's natural (;)) lifespan.

steddyeddy · 22-09-2012 10:48PM

I think a lecture I had a long time ago sums up my view!

Plan for GM trials

Sir, – It is regrettable that you chose to run a one-sided article by Stella Coffey on the proposed GM (genetically modified) trials by Teagasc (Opinion, March 26th). It should be pointed out that gene transfer by agrobacterium has been happening for centuries if not longer. It was well documented but not understood. It must therefore be accepted as a naturally occurring event. An understanding and exploitation of the event is only some 30 years old.
The exploitation of this phenomenon has led to the production of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) although some more sophisticated processes have sprung from this natural phenomenon. It should be said in favour of GMOs that millions in the third world have been spared blindness thanks to the GMO Golden Rice. The development of high Lysine Maize has made survival on a staple diet of maize possible. I owe my well being at this advanced age to insulin produced by GMO as do millions in the western world. The majority of cheeses produced in Ireland use Rennet produced by GMOs. It would seem, therefore, that GMOs are not intrinsically bad.
In respect of the proposed trial by Teagasc, Ms Coffey would seem to have little knowledge of the sexual life of the potato or of the blight organism. The chances of gene transfer from potato giving rise to any super organism are beyond my comprehension and if she can offer a mechanism for such an event I am all ears. Over 100 million have been consuming the extensively grown GMO plants and many of our farm animals have been doing likewise. The absence of her threatening forecasts is striking. Perhaps the American consumption of GMOs has led to behavioural problems that gave rise to the war in Afghanistan. Such a claim would not be more outlandish than some of the claims made by the Apostles of Humus in regard to GMOs.
Which would the Irish people prefer: A potato with an extra protein which would be digested normally the same as any other protein, or a potato that came from plants treated with heavy, nay, even toxic, levels of copper applied to prevent blight? Inadequate phytosanitary measures have led to the decline of the once thriving seed potato industry in Ireland. To espouse slack preventative regimes that allow the rapidly evolving pathogens to outpace disease prevention seems a very unwise choice.
Simply look at the superbug situation in our hospitals.
A salient epidemiological feature of much of our green organic growing of potatoes is that, due to inadequate use of insecticides, the growers provide and maintain a reservoir of plant viruses. They also provide them free of charge to hapless commercial growers.
The same applies to a certain extent with blight. Crops such as those proposed for trial by Teagasc may in the long term benefit both organic and conventional growers. There is nothing to prevent GMO crops being grown under an organic regime.
I believe these trials should be approved and I hope that if they are, the crops will not be destroyed by Green Luddites. – Yours, etc,
MATTHEW A HARMEY, Emeritus Professor of Plant Molecular Biology, UCD, Pleasants Street, Dublin 8 .

Capt'n Midnight · 22-09-2012 11:37PM

Ziphius wrote: »

I don't see feeding people as the problem. It's setting an acceptable cost that's the issue.

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'm interested in what your standing is with regard to the use of GMOs Capt'n Midnight. Not only with regard to food production but also basic science, medicinal uses, and so on. Could you provide a brief sketch of your views?

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.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-09-2012 12:22AM

This just in. GM plants incorporating Agent Orange.

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

Dow Agrosciences says its new GM product is based on a chemical that was once a component of the Vietnam war defoliant, Agent Orange.
...
Thousands of farmers across the US now face similar problems with weeds that can withstand powerful herbicides. Scientists say it is because of the success of GM crops that were introduced in the mid 1990s.
...
What is causing controversy though is the new trait which makes the crops resistant to a chemical called 2,4-D. Developed by a British team during the war, this powerful weed killer was a component part of Agent Orange, the defoliant used extensively by the US Army during the Vietnam war.
...

squod · 23-09-2012 12:28AM

All I've learned from that is Americans can say ''biotechnology'' but can't say ''aluminium''.

superweeds

lol

Sarky · 23-09-2012 01:01AM

There is a staggering level of ignorance in this thread. Most of it is on the "against GM foods" side. I mean, nobody's surprised about rtdh, but seriously, the misconceptions about basic biology are amazing, a half-decent leaving cert pupil would know better. What is wrong with you guys? For the love of Bog read up on a subject before offering an opinion, because stupid opinions are no good to anyone.

Chorcai · 23-09-2012 01:10AM

The main problem I have with Monsanto et al, is the patent on food/ seeds (i.e round-up ready -corn seed) and the implications this has on the whole system of farming.

kowloon · 23-09-2012 01:24AM

Threads like this are something I enjoy about boards, and After Hours in general. I just stumble into a thread and find new things.

Carry on...

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

Comments