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)."
Cigarette makers concealed smoking is addictive (Score:5, Interesting)
There are two sides to this:
(1) GM is bad, and this corn is a good example - see the potential damage
(2) GM is new, some food are bad for you, this is an example where some people are sensitive to...(blah blah blah)
GM peanuts would be pretty toxic to a small percentage of the population, and might even have a (small but barely significant) increase in reaction from those sensitive.
TFA is light on detail, and I'm not a biogeneticist. I think I'll pass on judgement here right now. I don't trust Monsanto to tell the truth, but I also don't trust GreenPeace to not have an agenda.
Re:Cant we just eat corn as it was created by natu (Score:2, Interesting)
GA Foods and Environmentalism (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Starvation (Score:3, Interesting)
So ? How is GM going to solve the problems of distribution (as in: how do you get food to people in a frickin war zone ?) ? Starvation isn't a problem of there being not enough food on this planet (not yet, anyways. This might change with the growing world population, overfishing of the oceans and climate change). It's a problem of getting the food where it is needed. Usually, the people there could feed themselves just fines if it weren't for the idiots making war.
Re:Summary? (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe the judgment not be reserved until the data is seen and the assumption should always be that genetically modified material needs to be tested vigorously and that any potential problems be assumed dangerous. There is enough room in the genetically modified realm to stick to things that don't exhibit any bad effects to spend any time with ones that do.
What about the BEES ??????? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't want to be sounding like a luddite but I have some really bad feeling about GM foods now. These bees just disappear. Empty hives and no clues?! WTF? And, so far none of the usual suspects are to blame.
That 2012 date is sure looming more real to me.
cheers
Re:Toxicity based on what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bt toxin? (Score:1, Interesting)
1. This GM maize contains Bt toxins not present in natural maize so as to kill predatory insects.
2. Unlike insecticide spray it can't be just washed off because it permeates the food.
3. We're very careful (these days) about insecticides getting in the food chain because we know (now) they poison us
4. So now our food contains poisons we otherwise like to keep out of our food
5. Doh!
Sounds like GM is a move we would need to be very careful about hey?
Re:Progress ? (Score:2, Interesting)
That doesn't mean the issues are bad, just the way Greenpeace does it is.
Just for the record, I'm pro animal rights and ANTI- PETA too. It has something to do with fundamentalism. My experience is that fundamentalists leave their brains at the door. It doesn't seem to matter what the fundamentalist is active in; Religion, Environmentalism, politcal activism, Scuba Diving, Windows, Macs, Linux, take your pick.
Greenpeace is an organization dedicated to cultivating and directing environmental fundamentalists....... Don't expect rationality... That doesn't mean they are wrong either. Trading Rainforests for ag land with sugar cane isn't a good trade environmentally. Just because one advocate saving the rain forests and speaks out against trading the acreage for sugar cane plantation doesn't mean they are advocating continued reliance on Petroleum. Not is it necessary to destroy rainforest acreage to generate ethanol. in fact, switching away from petroleum AND saving the rain forests will probably be more beneficial than trading than the either/or proposal you seem to be in favor of.
Terminator technology. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Summary? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is all the data I need:
the variety of GM maze in question, has been authorized for markets in the US, EU, Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines.
So this corn has been eaten in all these places and no one has gotten sick yet? Now here comes Greenpeace, who has proven [mindfully.org] that they would rather see populations starve to death than have them eat GM foods, claiming that these foods caused liver problems in rats, and therefor should be banned, even though in all these countries, no one has gotten sick off this corn. I call Bullshit! [imdb.com]
Re:GA Foods and Environmentalism (Score:1, Interesting)
First, enough food is already produced and producing more food per hectare is not much of an advantage in almost any location (desert land would come to mind as an exception, but I haven't seen a GM solution for that yet).
Second, a lot of GM food is designed to be used with more pesticides - not less. It's a way for Monsanto and others to sell more pesticides and cause even more environmental damage.
Third, organic farms use no or few pesticides so it seems unlikely - as GM crops boost the amount of pesticides used compared with "non-organic" farming - that they would somehow use less pesticides than organic farming. In other words, if organic farming = OF and non-organic farming = F, then in terms of pesticide usage:
OF X*F 1 with most GM crops
Also, organic farming tends to preserve the utility of the land through more sustainable practices. While they're far less beneficial to a land than forests, they are less of a "desert" as you put it, than non-organic farms.
Finally, Organic farms usually plant a wider variety of crops which makes them - as a combined entity - more susceptible to minor crop losses but less susceptible to major losses of a single type of crop. This means that while they may be lesser in productivity compared to a GM and pesticide laden farm, they are less likely to cause or be susceptible to or perpetuate a major blight on a particular crop.
I firmly believe that GM crops should have to go through long term studies similar to drugs. If they're just let out in the food supply (and contaminating other people's crops) there are too many variables to determine whether they're causing health problems, except in the most extreme of cases.
Re:Not conclusive (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Toxicity based on what? (Score:2, Interesting)
There is not a thing preventing the industries and universities on continental Africa from producing resistant and hardy strains on their own. In the mean time, there's also nothing wrong with Monsanto and others to benefit from their efforts.
By the way... Just how much of your assets did you give to Africa?
Re:Toxicity based on what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Any process that changes the genetic composition of a plant or animal has some potential to cause problems. We need to have standards in place to ensure the food supply is safe - and it amounts to more than just banning products that use recombinant DNA. Farmers have practiced selective breeding since the age of Mendel - usually without much thought to expensive safety testing.
Arguably there is no such thing as "natural corn" these days.
In reality... Aspartame's a good example. (Score:4, Interesting)
not make the substance less problematic or any less toxic. Many people have a higher toxicity threshold
for that substance than do others.
PKU people can have severe problems from it- there's a very real reason that they put that warning on
the packaging that the stuff's in the food, a PKU person can die from much lower consumption levels.
Normally they'd avoid the foods with the Phenylalanine, but they put Aspartame into the damnedst stuff
these days. Sort of like all the HFCS they keep putting into things like bread, sodas, etc. High
Fructose Corn Syrup's actually more problematic to humans than Sucrose because refined Fructose in the
concentrations we consume makes humans fat and causes those who might have a some level of risk for
Type II Diabetes to actually GET it.
While I understand your sentiments, the things we have in our food supply is disturbing. Things we really
probably ought not to consider acceptable. Aspartame's one of a bunch of them that really do fall under
the category of, "This is probably not a good idea in the first place..." and should be pulled off the market.
I suspect Splenda may even fall under that category (Chlorinated Hydrocarbons are pesticides in most cases
and if you just straight chlorinated Sucrose, you get a deadly toxin to humans...) but since it's less
problematic on the surface for me, as a Type II Diabetic, I'm forced to choose either nothing at all (Other
choices due to market considerations and FDA not approving some viable answers are barred to me...) or Splenda
stuff.
Nice.
Re:Toxicity based on what? (Score:4, Interesting)
I own a piece of land that has some tillable acres. It had a history of rotated corn and beans sprayed with herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. I planted it to pasture. http://mikesmind.com/home/?p=33 [mikesmind.com] What amazed me more than anything is that I couldn't find an earthworm on the tillable portion! The earth was basically dead. It's starting to come back now.
Genetic modifications and the subsequent application of chemicals is poisoning our land.
Re:Toxicity based on what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Scenario.
1) Farmer A plants terminator seeds.
2) Farmer B plants non-terminator seeds in the next field over.
3) Farmer A's terminator crops cross-pollinate with Farmer B's crops, reducing Farmer B's yield.
4) Nice sales person from company M shows up at Farmer B's door offering a low introductory price on terminator seeds.
5) Profit.
You can't claim this won't happen because it already has. Cross-pollination by RoundupReady crops has already been the basis for a legal case in Canada, where a farmer noticed that some patches in his field were pesticide resistant and deliberately saved and replanted those seeds. Monsanto sued and won.
The certain truth of GM foods is that the genes will get loose, and the terminator gene in particular is nothing more than a weapon of commercial bio-terrorism, a gun aimed at the head of innocent farmers whose fields happen to be adjacent to those who choose to use terminator seeds. To employ your silly analogy, how would you feel if any Windows machine on the same subnet progressively reduced the capability of all your Linux or Mac boxes? Would you be perfectly happy with your neighbours or the company down the street buying Windows?
Personally, I think it should be considered a serious crime to allow GM crops to cross-pollinate any other crop, and that both farmers who use them and companies that sell them should be liable for triple damages for any losses that occur, and unable to claim any recompense for benefits that accrue, to innocent farmers of adjacent fields.
Re:Summary? (Score:4, Interesting)
To quote the wikipedia entry: 'On February 22 2002, Monsanto was found guilty of "negligence, wantonness, suppression of truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage" Under Alabama law the rare claim of outrage requires "conduct so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and intolerable in civilized society".'
I dont see Greenpeace being beyond being manipulative, but Monsanto is in a whole different league. In fact, I have a hard time understanding why the company isnt permanently terminated and its governors banned from conducting any business anywhere.
Re:Cigarette makers concealed smoking is addictive (Score:3, Interesting)
I would probably prefer Monsanto's demise to Greenpeace's though.
Re:Summary? (Score:1, Interesting)
My sister works in the food industry. She's a doctor (veterinary). Just last week she told me of the "knowing" that goes on:
She works with breeder chickens (I think that's the term; produces eggs, not meat), and on many farms that lie along a certain highway there was a problem. Seems another state was shipping pullets (I think that's the term; produes meat) down that highway without considering the fact that a certain percentage of the pullets were infected with a virus for which the breeders had not been innoculated. The shipper is supposed to check with federal and state controllers about where they can and cannot send the trucks, since open air carries the virus making the trucks a weapon of mass destruction like a germ warfare missle with no "boom" needed.
Why did the shippers do this? It saves money on gas to use that highway.
How did my sister find out about it? Word of mouth from the ranchers and inference from the guys on the docks.
How did the shit hit the fan? She calls the shipper and asks if it's true what they've done, so she can try to quickly mass innoculate hundreds of thousands of chickens near the highway. The shipper says he'll check, but then how did my sister know he didn't and instead called the federal "veterinarian" in charge of regulating traffic?
Because both my sister and the federal regulator were sharing a hotel room at a conference in yet a third state.
Yes, like you, I want to know. "They" want to know, too.
Re:Summary? (Score:4, Interesting)
From the WP article:I've always wondered how many other interesting things have been discovered as side-effects of people attempting to off themselves.
ignorance can be toxic (Score:5, Interesting)
They need to have their incorporation charters pulled at a minimum, IMO. Just a bad news company all in all. Buying up outside seed companies then stopping production on various strains, to further eliminate competition. I mean, this list goes on and on and on. It is NOT a good idea to reduce biodiversity, that's REAL science. Trying to impose monopolies on food is just pure damn evil, stupid and retarded, no two ways about it. In fact, just from a strictly scientific viewpoint, it is *insane*.
Re:Toxicity based on what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And _you_ did your research, then? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes I am. People think that Greepeace is ideological and speaks the truth, well that's not the truth per se. Greenpeace lives on people's donations that are fed by fear of technology. I hate that they feed on that. They don't have to prove since they are ideological. Their donators believe them anyway, and the more sound Greenpeace makes, the more is donated. And guess what? Obviously you don't understand that's exactly the point I'm making. Yes, nature is very well capable of producing toxins. Now let me tell you a little secret. If you produce a medicine from plants then your drug is checked far less, and it passes the food and drug administration more easily, whereas if something is produced in the lab it is extensively tested. I'm not against the latter.
So what do some companies do? They try to get something produced by nature, increase quantities using classical plant breeding and produce a 'safe' drug. No extensive testing required and far more profitable. Now have you **ever** heard Greenpeace complaining about something like that? No. It's not something that colors with their 'nature is good' fealing.
And to me it seems that's the reason they're fighting against this. They use peoples ignorance, ideology, religion and aversion against 'changing nature and playing god' - whatever that may be - and fight against genetic engineering. That's their way, to get some greens donated.
Re:And _you_ did your research, then? (Score:5, Interesting)
Greenpeace is not driven by a fear of technology. Some new technologies are actively supported by Greenpeace, others are not. Greenpeace is motivated by conservation of our natural habitat, and that sometimes leads them to speak out against certain technologies they see as damaging. I tend to believe that if Greenpeace had existed when Tesla wanted to broadcast electricity instead of running it through a wired grid, they would have opposed that too. That's what they do.
This is a method I agree with wholeheartedly, and I think any sane and rational person with a modicum of intelligence would also agree with. They have a well publicized political position, and they assess technologies from that position and advocate or oppose accordingly.
Whether or not you agree with their political position, it's not wise to endorse or discount what they say on the basis of who they are and your prejudice about their support base; rather read their argument and make an assesment based on and limited to the case at hand.
In some cases I have disagreed with them, in particular their opposition to high temperature incineration of toxic waste, but as in this case I think it is best to keep an open mind, listen to their point of view and wait until I have read the studies and can make an informed decision. They have alerted me to a potential danger here and I need to find out more. I am thankful that someone with a vested interest is taking an opposing view to Monsanto, which also has a vested interest, because I feel it makes for a more balanced debate.
Knee jerk reactionaries have no useful place in public debate, except of course in tabloids, mainstream biased media and trolling on /.
;-P