Genetically Modified Maize Is Toxic — Greenpeace 655
gandracu writes "It appears that a variety of genetically modified maize produced by Monsanto is toxic for the liver and kidneys. What's worse, Monsanto knew about it and tried to conceal the facts in its own publications. Greenpeace fought in court to obtain the data and had it analyzed by a team of experts. MON863, the variety of GM maze in question, has been authorized for markets in the US, EU, Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines. Here are Greenpeace's brief on the study and their account of how the story was unearthed (both PDFs)."
Summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Monsanto says "cases of liver and kedney damage not statistically significant."
greenpeace says "liver and kidney damage cases are statistically significant." Rats not fat.
No data is given.
Maybe judgement should be reserved until someone has seen this data. I believe both sides here would have no problem with manipulating data for thier own interests.
Re:Cant we just eat corn as it was created by natu (Score:5, Insightful)
Genetic engenerring just speeds up the process a lot. Not that we shouldn't be careful: There are dangers in modifying foods, and the amount of change has a direct bearing on the amount of danger.
Just don't claim that 'non-GM' corn is 'as nature intended'. It just took humans longer to modify it.
Not conclusive (Score:4, Insightful)
However, it is also apparent that no experiments have been carried out to investigate this product's effect on human subjects. The toxicity symptoms found in rats should have been a springboard for further investigation, but it seems it was not (unless this has been covered up).
Unfortunately these days corporate dishonesty is not seen as unusual or unacceptable in any way, so what we need is smoking gun evidence of toxicity in human beings, exceeding such toxicity as may be found naturally in other foodstuffs.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cant we just eat corn as it was created by natu (Score:2, Insightful)
We've been (trying to) improving nature as long as we exist. That corn you think was created by nature is already the result of careful breeding for centuries.
Wow, Greenpeace did something constructive! (Score:3, Insightful)
Progress ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't call whaling "technological progress". Also, I haven't seen Greenpeace protest against technological progress in the field of, say, solar power.
Re:Cant we just eat corn as it was created by natu (Score:1, Insightful)
You would not recognize 'natural' corn if it slapped you in the face. It took thousands of years of humans messing with it's genetical makeup before it became what it is now.
Same for maize and other crops. The tomato you know is nothing like a 'natural' tomato. And don't get me started on cows.
Not saying GM is ok, just that humans have been messing with crops and cattle since the dawn of time and really only the technology used to mess around is new.
Re:Summary? (Score:4, Insightful)
Credibility (Score:1, Insightful)
I'd go with an exclusive diet of GM foods before I'd trust the ramblings of Greenpeace.
Greenpeace? (Score:5, Insightful)
This may or may not be true (I'm skeptical when it's just one single study that had some ambiguous questions), but Greenpeace is not the one that ought to report it. Yes, the messenger does matter. If this is really true, give it to a mainstream organization and let them figure it out.
Of course, we know Greenpeace won't do that, since they're all about the publicity.
Nixtamalization (yes, really). (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're looking for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamalization [wikipedia.org]
the problem is (Score:1, Insightful)
gm food promises to put vitamin A in rice, develop crops that grow in the desert, etc.: a benefit for mankind
of course, like any technology, it can be abused and treated neglectfully in a way that might make... hepatotoxic corn for example
but this is an argument against IRRESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION, not an argument against a scientitic concept
but luddite idiots won't see it this way
they think they live in the plot of a bad hollywood movie
Re:Toxicity based on what? (Score:1, Insightful)
Certainly it cannot be the modification process itself, since it uses natural enzymes.
Certainly it cannot be the carbohydrates and fats that cannot have changed.
Certainly it cannot be the proteins that were not altered.
^ What are they claiming is the cause of the toxicity? There has to be a biochemical basis for it, and while they can scream to the press and be believed by the sheep of the general population, I can hardly see a scientific basis for it.
It just seems to me that Greenpeace is following the formula of the religions - find something that is mysterious and unsettling to the average person, vilify it, then profit.
Genetic engineering is not a panacea, but nor is it a boogieman. Genetically modified foods still contain the same amino acids in their proteins as all the other foods, so unless you modify their biochemistry to an extent where they'll produce real toxins, they will be digested just the same.
You mean like Aspartame? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aspartame has some of the "smoking gun" evidence you mention, yet it is still on the market. The number of people actually poisoned by Aspartame are very low, and treated as "statistically insignificant", so the product continues to be used.
Even if the GMO corn is used by humans and someone is killed by it (not just poisoned), there would just be a number of studies and some finger pointing to show that it was actually something else that may have been responsible for the poisoning. As long as something else may be responsible, there is reasonable doubt and the GMO food would remain on the market.
You need a lot of "smoking guns" to get a product off the market after it's been established. It's much easier to keep such products off the market in the first place.
Re:Progress ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cleared rainforest land doesn't stay productive for very long due to the very thin layer of fertile soil underneath the rainforest. If you want to keep production up, you need to keep clearing rainforest (until you run out), and essentially leave behind an unproductive desert.
Essentially, you can play this game for maybe a handful of decades, then you're back at the starting point, minus all of the rainforest you started with. I wouldn't call that sustainable, exactly.
Re:Cant we just eat corn as it was created by natu (Score:5, Insightful)
Corn and tomatoes are indigenous to the Americas. When the settlers from Europe or wherever arrived, they ate corn and tomatoes, that had been selectively grown for centuries. They were not accustomed to eating the variations over the centuries and yet they suffered no ill effects.
Have you ever eaten anything for the first time?
Re:Cant we just eat corn as it was created by natu (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's the case, if it's nothing new, how can it be patented?
Re:Summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
So don't spout the industry line at me, that any requirement for them to share data which they damn well collect will cause all prices to go through the roof and end food production as we know it...Hell they said that when the inspections to make sure that meat was freshly killed and relatively free of human fingers were instituted (a hundred and one years ago), and it doesn't seem to have destroyed the industry, despite what the industry maintained at the time.
You may be happy to have people feed you whatever they want to, but I'd at least like to know.
Re:the problem is (Score:1, Insightful)
The issue is that the tech is really only capable of being utilized by corporations, who given the choice between releasing a product which will slowly poison a large population undetected or doing a little more R&D, are bound by their obligation to shareholders to choose the mass poisoning.
Not all apples are bad, except in a land where they are only sold by hags in a forest.
Re:Toxicity based on what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Toxicity based on what? (Score:2, Insightful)
And I don't think Greenpeace has ever profited from anything.
Re:What are the chances? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Summary? (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you like to eat products containing this? I think the problem here is not 'do we have clear proof' - this is about whether it is right or not to sell foodstuffs that can be suspected of being poisonous. This is like the BSE infected cattle - for a long time nodoby was actually sure that eating the meat from a cow with BSE was dangerous, but UK still slaughtered just about every cow in the country and burned them, because of the risk.
If this modified variant of corn turns out to be poisonous and you feed it to potentially billions of people, isn't that serious enough to stop it here and now? Millions could die from it, even if it only kills one in 1000, hundreds of millions might get serious liver or kidney damage. Living with kidney- or liverdamage is not at all fun; there is a lot of things you simply can't do, and it's not just about having to cut back on your alcohol comsumption.
I have said it before - in my opinion companies that endanger lives in their ruthless pursuit of profit no matter what the cost should be punished very hard. Jail the leaders in charge - including the stockholders - and confiscate the company.
Re:Toxicity based on what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because it's natural does not mean that its non-toxic. There are a lot of poisonous enzymes that occur naturally in the environment. For example, naturally occurring almonds have a poisonous enzyme. A quote from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almond):
Re:Cant we just eat corn as it was created by natu (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not the water that gives you the runs, it is the bacteria in the water. Small traces of bacteria are far more likely to cause illness than a new food, or even a food with small traces of chemical toxins, because bacteria are capable of reproducing within your body to large numbers. Over time, your intestinal bacteria reach a new balance and your body adjusts to them.
Re:Not conclusive (Score:4, Insightful)
Since you are typing on a computer with Internet access, I assume you live in an area where you are free to eat whatever you want. Unfortunately, not everyone has that luxury. There are places in the world where the best meal a family can hope for is a spoon full of rice that Sally Struthers provided. Granted, it's something to eat, but it has little nutritional value other than the carbohydrates. Now let's say you can genetically modify this rice to contain vitamins (such as "Golden rice" [goldenrice.org]) and even human breast-milk protein [dailymail.co.uk]. Now, this bit of rice can be a nutritionally complete meal that could possibly be grown in these local areas to feed starving populations.
Unfortunately, in the meantime [mindfully.org], groups like Greenpeace have convinced the governments of starving nations to reject GM foods and allow their populations to starve. Yes, that is correct. Greenpeace would rather let men, women and children starve to death than have them eat GM foods. And people wonder why I think that Greenpeace is more concerned with their own political agendas than the welfare of the people they claim to be trying to help.
Re:What are the chances? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:the problem is (Score:1, Insightful)
But the smart people will use this as one of many arguments against GMO food.
>gm food promises to put vitamin A in rice, develop crops that grow in the desert, etc.: a benefit for mankind
The vitamin A in rice is widely touted (though it's relatively ineffective, you can't process vitamin A without other vitamins, so overloading on it doesn't really help), but isn't the real reason that GMO is being pushed. GMO is all about the patents and owning seeds. And hey, if those patented plants happen to naturally cross breed with your non-gmo plant, the way the law currently stands, you're seen as stealing patented seeds. That's the primary motivator for Monsanto, et al to develop GMO food. So that they can OWN it.
Desert crops are not the goals of GMO companies.
> of course, like any technology, it can be abused and treated neglectfully in a way that might make... hepatotoxic corn for example
> but this is an argument against IRRESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION, not an argument against a scientitic concept
I'm not going to trust any GMO food until I see a responsible implementation of it. I agree that GMO may have some benefit to the world, however in it's current implementation, it's a total disaster. And to top it off, there's no way to know or differentiate between GMO, so you can't even pick and choose good from bad. So in my mind the only choice is to avoid it altogether.
I'm not anti-science at all, but at some point you need to see when a particular science has just become politicking/profiteering.
>but luddite idiots won't see it this way
>they think they live in the plot of a bad hollywood movie
Oops, gotta go. Bruce Willis just swung by my cube and told me there's a bomb in the building.
Re:the problem is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Summary? (Score:3, Insightful)
Meat inspections done by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) do not check for all drugs and hormones used on cattle. They only check for things that are known to be harmful (i.e. Mad Cow) and that can be determined by simply inspecting a carcass.
While a single farmer may know what they give to their cattle, a single slaugterhouse will have cattle from multiple farmers. My father is a cattle farmer and our butcher is a close friend. While my father may know what feed was given to his cattle, our butcher doesnt. He had no idea what hormones are used. And if my father was to get cattle feed from a supplier rather than from his own corn crop, he might not even know what hormones are used.
I think I recall a batch of e coli-contaminated spinach that they traced down to one field.
No, it was traced to three counties in California. It isnt really clear which county(s) caused to problem, so they recalled all of it. And it took some time (a week or so) to track this down, and that was with the full might of the FDA searching for one source of spinach. I dont want my local Walmart to spend a week searching for the source of their poultry just to check what types of hormones were given to them while feeding.
So don't spout the industry line at me, that any requirement for them to share data which they damn well collect
Again, you assume they collect it. Where is your cited study? What makes you believe they collect it? From my time working with companies and writing software to help with distribution/invoicing/etc, I am constantly suprised with how little record keeping is actually done in some industries. Expecially when they do not think the data is important.
I buy sides of cattle from a local butcher instead of from the supermarket most of the time. One time I only got 180lb of beef from a 410 lb side of beef (44% yield, 60% is more standard). The butcher said he has been being sent Certified Angus beef recently for no price increase for a few months, so I asked if he has noticed less of a yield from that type of cattle. He had no idea, because it never donned on him to even keep track.
You may be happy to have people feed you whatever they want to, but I'd at least like to know.
Letting people know things that only cause hysteria is not always a good idea either. MRIs used to be referred to as NMRIs (nuclear magnetic resonance imaging), but they had to remove the nuclear part because people associated it with ionizing radiation exposure (which is not used in MRIs).
Food irradiation has a similar problem. Much of our food is not irradiated (such as milk) because it must be labelled as such and people are generally scared of such terminology. Food used as ingredients in restaurants and food processing does not have the labeling requirement, so that is the main area where such foods can be used. If the labeling wasnt necessary then we wouldnt have as much problems with food spoilage as we currently do. And it is primarily caused by unnecessary food labeling.
--
Re:Cigarette makers concealed smoking is addictive (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Greenpeace? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hypothetical timeline of inconvenient fact dissemination:
+0 days: greenpeace reports it
+5 days: fox news denies it
+6 days: daily show lambasts fox for denial
+10 days: CNN reports that inconvenient fact may or may not probably be verifiable, "scientists say," but "detractors detract"
+35 days: Science includes an article detailing the overwhelming, peer reviewed obvious correctness of evidence supporting the inconvenient fact
+37 days: WSJ publishes cleverly rehashed but thouroughly debunked fox news talking points; states but does not state that inconvenient fact is a convenient scam promelgated by liberals, homosexuals and communists
+38 days: my boss makes fun of me for supporting communist conspiracies & continues drinking only pure grain alcohol
Everything is toxic - Especially Greenpeace (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is the problem with GM (Score:3, Insightful)
There have been cases of selective breeding gone wrong, in both plants and animals -- I'm not sure any of those cases lead to toxicity in human foodstuffs (though I'm not sure they didn't either) but they have lead to inferior breeds of plants and animals. Take almost any breed of show dog, or hybrid African bees, or several varieties of plants we previously grew intentionally that are now considered non-native weeds.
I'm not saying we shouldn't test new foods, I just don't see why the method of creation is a significant influence in the diligence we should have in testing.
Re:Journal looks high quality: Springer published (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why, IMHO, these studies should be independent and any oversight at arms length. The FDA should ask the NIH to award the research to a qualified lab based on competence and independence, and the award should be funded through the NIH using the funds of the firm that needs the research. A second lab would in charge of reviewing the result. Though this would be add an unfortunate level of bureaucracy, it would also help improve the reputation of these firms, a reputation that has been tarnished over the past decade by an effort to put goods on the market that do not provide a net benefit, as defined by the FDA.
Re:Toxicity based on what? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think we need to clarify what we mean by the terms "natural" and "non-natural" before we can debate which of those categories Monsanto's GM food products fall into.
Re:Toxicity based on what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Assume for a second that Greenpeace is correct, and that rates of liver damage are statistically significant. That means that, all things being equal, eating this corn is harmful to the rats' livers. Case closed. Aside from figuring out what that reason is in order to fix it, there's no reason to go through all of that--it is a simple application of Occam's Razor.
It looks like you're going through troubleshooting steps..."It can't possibly be this...and it can't possibly be that either!" DO NOT make the mistake of discounting the study because you cannot come up with a root cause right away. First off, in biology it's typically a bad idea to conclude, a priori, that certain variables are not an issue: it's simply a more complex and less well-understood discipline than something as clean-cut as, say, orbital mechanics. Second, you have a much greater potential for interaction effects and emergent properties--stuff you can never predict, but which becomes blatantly obvious once you see it and characterize it...for example, ant colony behavior: if you get some huge number of ants together, the coordination and patterned behavior is fascinating, but it's not obvious from the random behavior of a single ant that such behavior would ever emerge. Once you see it, however, you can easily experiment and track it back to things like pheremones.
The mindset issue comes down to the difference between bottom-up and top-down analysis. Bottom-up analysis will tell you facts, but is poor for integrating those facts. That's what I think you're looking to do. At some point you have to look at the big picture--a view that doesn't tell you much aside from how the facts fit together, and where you should look next. Good analysts do both. Bad analysts either never research facts (this is in fact what you are accusing "religions" of doing) or they fall into the trap of extreme reductionism, wherein you discount observations if your radically simplistic understanding of the universe cannot explain them.
This last is what a friend of mine, who is an aero engineer, does all the time. He knows that physics informs chemistry informs biology informs psychology informs political science--but since he cannot explain election results in terms of the Newtonian motion of atoms, he dismisses any such study as bullshit, as well as the conclusions draw from that bullshit. But you don't have to explain things at the lowest level possible in order to draw meaningful conclusions, such as in this case: Better hold off on eating that Monsanto corn for the time being.
That doesn't seem too alarmist, nor am I trying to vilify genetic engineering. The fact that Monsanto apparently should have made that announcement and instead decided to gloss over it, and thereby profit from others' loss (what you accuse Greenpeace of doing), does tend to make them somewhat vile in my eyes, however.
Re:the problem is (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, nice ad homenim attack you've got there. "All people who disagree with me are doody heads, neener neener neener"
Has it occured to you that people are leery of GM products because there is no evidence to suggest it is safe? The people making this stuff say "you have no evidence it's unsafe", and dismiss any criticism of putting things which have been barely studied into our food supply. Some of us would like the proof this stuff is safe to come from actual tests before we've eaten it. You know, feed it to a bunch of rats and make sure they don't get any unusual ailments at a minimum. Certainly, not supressing evidence you have which suggests it might actually be known to be unsafe.
Expressing doubt about the safety of something which is untested and merely presumed to be safe is neither idiotic or showing signs of being a luddite. It's showing a little skepticism against unsupported claims and erring on the side of caution where human health is concerned. Because, when you get this horribly wrong, people might end up dead for no good reason other than corporate profits.
But, I guess maybe the morons in the pro-anything-technology camp are incapable of seeing the difference.
Cheers
Re:Toxicity based on what? (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't give those nations a hand up, we put them on life support.
Just another example of how free enterprise and secular science benefit the poor by the innate goodness of their natures...
Ok, maybe that was a poor troll. But only for being obvious, not for being false
starvation an GM crops (Score:2, Insightful)
You have a choice: Import food from outside or find a crop that does grow. Thanks to Monsanto, you can grow GM crops.
Now suppose the food-distribution system is a mess and you can't import enough food to feed all your people.
NOW you have a choice: Grow GM crops or let the people starve.
Disclaimer: Real life is a lot more complicated than this example. There are almost always other choices.
Re:Toxicity based on what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real issue with genetic modification is the increases scope and speed of such changes. A person breeding corn might be able to breed to different strains to produce a new one and it could conceivable result in higher levels of some dangerous toxin corn naturally produces. But, given both strains of corn have existed for some time and have presumably been safe to eat, it is a lot less likely than if someone actually targets the genetic code that controls toxicity levels. GM opens up whole new avenues of change that selective breeding and random mutation are highly unlikely to ever touch and as such more caution is required.
When people go to the store and buy a corn, they have expectations. Those expectations include that the corn is from one of the many strains that have been being consumed for a long time, or a combination of those strains. They don't expect that corn to have significant changes to its genetic code, and unless it has been exposed to a significant mutagen they are right. I'd argue that passing of corn that has been genetically modified or heavily exposed to mutagens as "normal" corn is not in their best interests and is deceitful. There is a real difference in the risk posed between "natural" corn and GM corn, although to most people educated on the subject that delta is pretty small. By being honest, however, companies investing in such products are motivated both to produce benefits end users care about and to make sure the testing process is thorough so that GM foods earn/develop a reputation for safety.
Re:Toxicity based on what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, I'm not clear on what this has to do with whether or not it's a good thing to give people "Terminator" corn. You could give people seeds that grow golden Cadillacs, but if the cars all break down after a year you're not really addressing a transportation issue with them, are you? And while you're fielding questions, can you tell me what my own charitable donations have to do with whether or not it's ethical for Monsanto to sell Terminator seeds?
In reality, the seed most farmers get in Africa is subsidized by their government, meaning, they plant what they are given, which is what the government bought them. If you don't believe that the government officials involved are getting a payout, then I suspect you don't know much about how government works on this planet.
In any case, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. I do know that farmers in Africa consistently reject GM crops that have riders attached in favor of crops they can manage all on their own...so maybe both they and I know something you don't.
Re:Progress ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not the maze, it's the Minotaur.
Re:Terminator technology. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even worse, the Terminator genes are dominant. Which has a very devastating effect if introduced by a single farmer in places where farmers still use some of their harvest as seeds for the next year.
And even worse than that is when the seeds from a farm growing the monsanto crops gets carried (by wind/birds/whatever) over to a neighboring farmer's fields, who is NOT using Monsanto seeds to grow crops... The farmer is now violating the seed patent as his plants are partly from this other seed, and he cant get rid of them with the normal herbicide since they are resistant. Add to that, that if he is trying to re-use his seed for next year's crops, and happens to mix in some of the monsanto seeds, his whole seed crop is now violating the patent, and when Monsanto finds out, they will demand their fees for this "use" of their technology. Luckily with the terminator gene, the crops just wont grow. But then again, since pollen is spread in the wind as well, and carries the genetic info, and the pollen from the monsanto field blows across the other farmers, which then starts producing seeds with either the roundup resistance or terminator gene or both... well you see where Im going. Not that its happened or anything [percyschmeiser.com].
Tm
Re:Proteins can be toxic (Score:1, Insightful)
Serious question: Is this GMO corn sterile?
Re:Proteins can be toxic (Score:2, Insightful)
Nah, I don't believe greenpeace does their research objectively. Their research is motivated, and they're just fishing for a hype. Every nature freak that's ignorant and scared of something technological and new is a potential donor of $$$ for them. They want to put a label on genetic engineering, as if it produces toxic food.
Mutations also occur at random in nature. Mutations produced in the lab could occur spontaneously in nature as well, although some may be unlikely. And **sigh** a mutation does not make a product radioactive.
Re:Toxicity based on what? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm afraid there is a monumental difference. Selective breeding of organisms that are, by nature, biologically compatible is hardly the equivalent of splicing fish genes into rose bushes. That's just my wild example, but it's exactly the sort of thing that's being done. I didn't get super concerned about GM foods until I did some research and found out the extent of the "genetic manipulation" that's going on. They are creating mutant species that couldn't possibly occur in nature on a time frame smaller than on the order of millennia.
Think of the problems we're seeing with invasive species all over the world. e.g. someone empties a fish tank in the Mediterranean and one of the plants ends up covering tens of thousands of acres of the sea floor choking off all life in its path. Now, we're introducing these GM species into the environment that have never even been seen anywhere in the world. It's insane.
There is a very delicate balance in the biosphere which was shaped over immense periods of time with the coexistence of slowly evolving species. Adding these mutant freak genes into the mix is a catastrophe waiting to happen. The risk of unintended consequences is simply too great.
And _you_ did your research, then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now Monsanto basically says, "yeah, but it's not toxic to mammals." Greenpeace says, "whoa, actually that data says that it's somewhat toxic to rats."
Now both positions _could_ be true. It _is_ possible for something to be toxic to insects without being lethal to humans. (See coffeine. It really evolved as a paralyzing poison against insects. See why Robusta is a hardier crop than Arabica: the Robusta plant simply produces more of it. Yet a human can drink lots of it for decades without being too harmed in the process.) On the other hand, the opposite _can_ be true too. And without proper testing how would you know?
So, pray tell, without even seeing the research, how _do_ you know which side is right and which is wrong? Or are you just motivated enough to rant against Greenpeace even when you have no fucking clue what is it about? At least, even as motivated studies go, they did at least do and publish one. You did... what? to get your info on which to base such a swift judgment.
Hand-waving about mutations happening randomly in nature is at best brain-damaged too. Equally random mutations in plants include atropine (nightshade), ricin (deadly in 0.2mg doses and no antidote), solanine, cyanide (wild almonds), etc. And that's just the short list of the most known ones. We could go into a couple hundred other fun natural stuff, including such exotic effects as immuno-suppressors in some moulds. Just because something _could_ have occured naturally doesn't make it automatically safe. All the poisons in this paragraph occured naturally, yet _aren't_ safe at all.
Plus, it often is false as such anyway. Just because something was created via genetic engineering does _not_ automatically mean it could have occured as a natural mutation any day now. There's plenty of GM stuff, like renet-producing moulds or goats whose milk contains spider silk, which would _never_ evolve on their own, not even in another billion years. There's simply no natural advantage in producing those (wake me up when any plant needs to digest fresh milk, which is what it would take to make renet an advantage), and in fact it's a serious disadvantage to waste your energy and aminoacids on producing them.
So, you know, if you're going to go into a whole rant about who's ignorant or worse, it would be nice if you at least took the time to read a bit and have at least some minimal clue what you're talking about.
Re:Toxicity based on what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Change is the only constant.
Re:Summary? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because ever liver disease and kidney failure in these countries would have immediately been connected to the consumption of corn.
</SNARK>
Have you even put 2 seconds of thought process into this before typing your comment?
Re:In reality... Aspartame's a good example. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Proteins can be toxic (Score:2, Insightful)
People like to think that large corporations are evil. so let me tell you something: Greenpeace is nothing different. What if Greenpeace is not objective? It doesn't matter, they don't have to. They just play on people's emotions and still get their donations.
And what's this modding me flamebait? Am I not allowed to point out my perspective on Greenpeace?
not true (Score:2, Insightful)
I think that is pretty stupid.
The only "safety standards" that could apply and would work in the cases of cross species "products" would be generational long studies maintained in highly secure airtight labs, and even then it should be a default until hugely proven otherwise that they could possibly be as harmful as developed bioweapons.
And I am not a luddite, I have just been a gardener and farmer for now more than half a century, and I tell you, some of what they are doing is scarier to me than nuclear weapons proliferation to nutjob nations. because the potential for a mass "whoops" screw up is simply *huge*. Heck's windchimes, just the "normal" invasive species screwups humans have done, sometimes with the best of intentions, sometimes just accidentally, has been destructive enough. I spend enough of my time as it is now just trying to deal with multiflora rose, japanese privet and kudzu, let alone trying to deal with stuff that has been bred on purpose to be herbicide "resistant". To me, it is good science and common sense to be WAY skeptical of a lot of the GM production that is going on now, and I personally take it as a default that if it is laboratory manufactured it is suspect immediately. I save my own seeds, have done so for decades, and none of what I grow is harmful. Those guys can't make that claim with a straight face, because they don't know, this is all pretty much new science what is going on, and it is coming way too fast and hard and with too much "this quarter's profit" mentality behind it for there to be safety claims from their side of any true merit.
Re:And _you_ did your research, then? (Score:3, Insightful)
Reducing what Greenpeace does to just being fearful of technological progress seems very cynical. I'd say that in this case and most other cases as well being cautious about introducing something untested like Monsantos product to both nature and our own food supply has nothing to do with fear of technology, it's just common sense. I don't know about you, but I would be very reluctant to eat something which is surrounded by so much secrecy as MON863 seems to be, and Monsantos very poor track record on similar issues isn't exactly making me more reassured. Sad part is that most of us have probably already eaten this maize in some form without knowing it.
Re:A different take (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if deliberate, selected changes and testing to meet government safety standards makes food safer, GM food is significantly safer than non-GM food. On the other hand, if blind chance mutation and no testing is a mark of safety, non-GM is safer than GM food.