GM food: Safety tests on new products up for debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter harrylin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Food gm Safety
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a controversial study claiming to be the first long-term examination of genetically modified corn's effects on animals. Critics argue that while the study's duration is commendable, its methodology is flawed. Key criticisms include the choice of rat species known for cancer susceptibility, a small control group of only 20 animals, and the emotive presentation of results, particularly images of rats with tumors. Researchers emphasize the need for a more balanced representation of control group outcomes to validate findings. Additionally, the French research group faced backlash for requiring journalists to sign non-disclosure agreements before sharing the study, raising concerns about transparency. The debate extends to the inadequacy of standard 90-day trials for detecting long-term health effects of GM foods, with some participants expressing greater concern over intellectual property issues related to agricultural biotechnology than food safety itself.
harrylin
Messages
3,874
Reaction score
93
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/monsanto-genetically-modified-corn-study_n_1897361.html

The point that was made on the news yesterday (also somewhat mentioned in the article): this is claimed to be the first long term test of that food on animals. The main point of dispute (going far beyond this particular study) is the claim that standard studies are of too short duration to permit the detection of tumor development and other long-term effects.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
harrylin said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/monsanto-genetically-modified-corn-study_n_1897361.html

The point that was made on the news yesterday (also somewhat mentioned in the article): this is claimed to be the first long term test of that food on animals. The main point of dispute (going far beyond this particular study) is the claim that standard studies are of too short duration to permit the detection of tumor development and other long-term effects.

I don't think anybody is disputing the duration of the study, but the methodology has certainly been criticised.

But the publication of the work has met a barrage of criticism by other researchers, who have taken issue with the statistical methods employed in the paper.

They also questioned the choice of rat, which they said was well known to develop cancers, particularly if its diet was not well controlled. In addition, the small size of the control group - just 20 animals - made it difficult to draw any conclusions of significance, they argued.

And there was disapproval of the emotive way in which some of the results were presented in the paper, specifically pictures of rats with large tumours.

"The most evocative part of the paper is those pictures of tumorigenesis," said Prof Maurice Moloney from Rothamsted Research, where much UK GM study is undertaken.

"They give the impression that this never happens in controls. I'd be surprised if it didn't, but that ought to be explicitly demonstrated, and if there was a control that ended up showing similar kinds of tumorigenesis then a picture of that rat should be shown as well, just so we can see if there are any qualitative differences between them."
From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19654825

And this seems a rather strange way to do science, unless you are trying to suppress criticism of your work:
In a move regarded as unusual by the media, the French research group refused to provide copies of the journal paper to reporters in advance of its publication, unless they signed non-disclosure agreements. The NDAs would have prevented the journalists from approaching third-party researchers for comment.
 
AlephZero said:
I don't think anybody is disputing the duration of the study, but the methodology has certainly been criticised.
Sorry that I wasn't clear. The people who did this study criticize the companies and others who did earlier studies, because those were said to have endied before tumors could develop. The writer of the above article didn't quite catch that point.
From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19654825
And this seems a rather strange way to do science, unless you are trying to suppress criticism of your work:
Thanks, that one is more to the point. :smile:
I don't know what way by whom you refer to, but the criticism that I bring up here concerns the "usual 90-day trials conducted by industry". Neither of the two articles challenges the allegations that the usual trials are too short to be able to reliably detect the development of tumors.
 
I'm less worried about the safety of GM foods and more worried about the IP issues it raises. Imagine if 99% of most crops are controlled by IP and a handful of companies completely own the distribution, production, and price of our most vital crops for sustenance.
 
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-deadliest-spider-in-the-world-ends-lives-in-hours-but-its-venom-may-inspire-medical-miracles-48107 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versutoxin#Mechanism_behind_Neurotoxic_Properties https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0028390817301557 (subscription or purchase requred) he structure of versutoxin (δ-atracotoxin-Hv1) provides insights into the binding of site 3 neurotoxins to the voltage-gated sodium channel...
Popular article referring to the BA.2 variant: Popular article: (many words, little data) https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/17/health/ba-2-covid-severity/index.html Preprint article referring to the BA.2 variant: Preprint article: (At 52 pages, too many words!) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.14.480335v1.full.pdf [edited 1hr. after posting: Added preprint Abstract] Cheers, Tom
Back
Top