7 ms·

Peer Reviewed Trial Finds "Safe" Levels Of GM Maize and Roundup Can Cause Tumors

20 points by 1337biz 14y ago

ck2 14y ago
Can we get a non-registration link? I guess any of these https://news.google.com/news/story?hl=en&gl=us&q=gmo+tumors&gbv=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dpTut_LMcoQUa3MIZB0EhOkmW3fSM&sa=X&ei=NDhbUPfZMZKl2AXFiIDoAw&ved=0CCYQqgIwAQ https://news.google.com/news/story?hl=en&gl=us&q=gmo...
fuzzix 14y ago
Here's a peer review: http://michaelgrayer.posterous.com/in-which-i-blow-a-gasket-and-get-very-uppity http://michaelgrayer.posterous.com/in-which-i-blow-a-gasket-... Since PRNewswire/Sustainable Food Trust didn't seem to employ a critical eye to examine the conclusions of the study. edit Further criticism of the design of the experiment and the statistics: http://understandinguncertainty.org/rats-and-gm http://understandinguncertainty.org/rats-and-gm
- DannyBee 14y ago
  PRNewsWire can be forgiven, they literally just publish press releases, they don't offer opinions on them.
palmtree3000 14y ago
It's interesting that the headline, and the article, seem to focus on the fact that the crops were genetically modified, rather than that they were treated with roundup. This seems questionable; I would guess (although I'm no biologist), that the Roundup was likely very relevant (the article indicated that water with Roundup in it also caused tumors).
- raintrees 14y ago
  Isn't it a reference to the maize's treatment to grow with Roundup being applied? 'The researchers hypothesize that the reason why NK603 GM maize, NK603 sprayed with Roundup, and Roundup on its own, all produced very similar negative health outcomes, is that both the GM maize and the weedkiller Roundup "may cause hormonal disturbances in the same biochemical and physiological pathway."'
bunderbunder 14y ago
Edit: Nope. I got some of the facts wrong, so the below is mostly hooey, in substance if not in conclusions. Read the Reddit post that saurik links, it's much higher quality. --- Misleading title is misleading. What the article's describing is not a study that's looking for toxicity in GM food. It's a study that's looking for toxicity in Roundup, delivered in both drinking water and on food. The food does happen to be a Roundup-resistant variety of maize. But there weren't any study groups for non-GM maize with similar levels of the agent, nor do there seem to have been any study groups for resistant maize grown without Roundup. So the effects of the agent and the maize that's been engineered to resist it have not been isolated from each other, meaning that the study doesn't actually provide any data to address the question of whether "GM Maize Can Cause Tumors." However, there were groups that were given Roundup in the water but no GM maize. Which is suggestive - it suggests that this study was never designed to study whether "GM maize can cause tumors." It was testing Roundup, and the maize was only being included in the study because Roundup-resistant maize is obviously a good way for Roundup to enter a person's diet.
saurik 14y ago
On reddit, the user akefay provided some useful comments on this that people might want to take a look at. http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/104uen/study_finds_tumors_in_rats_fed_on_monsantos_gm/c6ajq5h http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/104uen/study_finds_... http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/104v50/recent_compelling_gmo_study_shows_that_rats_fed_a/c6amoyz http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/104v50/recent_com...
- driverdan 14y ago
  One sentence summary: The results aren't statistically significant and don't take into account the known effects of Roundup on rodents.
DannyBee 14y ago
"The authors declare that there are no conﬂicts of interest." As a few bloggers noticed, I guess publishing multiple sensationalist books about the dangers of genetically modified crops (with wonderful titles like "Genetically incorrect") is not a conflict of interest: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Gilles-%C3%89ric+S%C3%A9ralini&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3AGilles-%C3%89ric+S%C3%A9ralini http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3D...
- pessimizer 14y ago
  I'm not sure how the publication of books is a conflict of interest in the publication of papers on the same subject. If he's selling or being paid by someone who is selling a special line of non-GM cornstuffs, that would make sense. A conflict of interest isn't simply doing more than one activity in a field, it's setting yourself up as someone who is only judging on the merits when you have a financial interest in the judgement going a particular way. He could have just as easily written 50 books on how GM food is wonderful, and then published studies on how GM food is wonderful. If he was on Monsanto's payroll, that's where the conflict would happen.
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    Given that he makes money off his books, and his books are only succeed or fail based on the strength of research supporting his point of view, he has a financial interest in seeing a particular point of view succeed or fail. He isn't simply "doing more than one activity in a field", he is, as you say, "setting yourself up as someone who is only judging on the merits when you have a financial interest in the judgement going a particular way". BTW, conflicts of interest are not always monetary. At least in most fields, emotional (and other kinds) conflicts of interest are also prohibited. Even ignoring him making money off his books, i'm not sure how you can say that, given his very passionate, subjective, argument in favor of one particular point of view in his books, he doesn't have an emotional conflict of interest in seeing his point of view succeed. The idea that he can just "turn it on and off" so that when he's doing "science time" he's magically objective, and when he's doing "book time", he's not, would require a bit of straining to believe. This is why, for example, in the legal field, judges are required to avoid the appearance of bias, not just bias.
thirdtruck 14y ago
A scientist and regular public critiquer of studies reviews this one: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gm-corn-rat-study/ http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gm-corn-rat...

20 points by 1337biz 14y ago

ck2 14y ago

Can we get a non-registration link? I guess any of these https://news.google.com/news/story?hl=en&gl=us&q=gmo+tumors&gbv=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dpTut_LMcoQUa3MIZB0EhOkmW3fSM&sa=X&ei=NDhbUPfZMZKl2AXFiIDoAw&ved=0CCYQqgIwAQ https://news.google.com/news/story?hl=en&gl=us&q=gmo...

fuzzix 14y ago

Here's a peer review: http://michaelgrayer.posterous.com/in-which-i-blow-a-gasket-and-get-very-uppity http://michaelgrayer.posterous.com/in-which-i-blow-a-gasket-... Since PRNewswire/Sustainable Food Trust didn't seem to employ a critical eye to examine the conclusions of the study. edit Further criticism of the design of the experiment and the statistics: http://understandinguncertainty.org/rats-and-gm http://understandinguncertainty.org/rats-and-gm

DannyBee 14y ago
PRNewsWire can be forgiven, they literally just publish press releases, they don't offer opinions on them.

palmtree3000 14y ago

It's interesting that the headline, and the article, seem to focus on the fact that the crops were genetically modified, rather than that they were treated with roundup. This seems questionable; I would guess (although I'm no biologist), that the Roundup was likely very relevant (the article indicated that water with Roundup in it also caused tumors).

raintrees 14y ago
Isn't it a reference to the maize's treatment to grow with Roundup being applied? 'The researchers hypothesize that the reason why NK603 GM maize, NK603 sprayed with Roundup, and Roundup on its own, all produced very similar negative health outcomes, is that both the GM maize and the weedkiller Roundup "may cause hormonal disturbances in the same biochemical and physiological pathway."'

bunderbunder 14y ago

Edit: Nope. I got some of the facts wrong, so the below is mostly hooey, in substance if not in conclusions. Read the Reddit post that saurik links, it's much higher quality. --- Misleading title is misleading. What the article's describing is not a study that's looking for toxicity in GM food. It's a study that's looking for toxicity in Roundup, delivered in both drinking water and on food. The food does happen to be a Roundup-resistant variety of maize. But there weren't any study groups for non-GM maize with similar levels of the agent, nor do there seem to have been any study groups for resistant maize grown without Roundup. So the effects of the agent and the maize that's been engineered to resist it have not been isolated from each other, meaning that the study doesn't actually provide any data to address the question of whether "GM Maize Can Cause Tumors." However, there were groups that were given Roundup in the water but no GM maize. Which is suggestive - it suggests that this study was never designed to study whether "GM maize can cause tumors." It was testing Roundup, and the maize was only being included in the study because Roundup-resistant maize is obviously a good way for Roundup to enter a person's diet.

saurik 14y ago

On reddit, the user akefay provided some useful comments on this that people might want to take a look at. http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/104uen/study_finds_tumors_in_rats_fed_on_monsantos_gm/c6ajq5h http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/104uen/study_finds_... http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/104v50/recent_compelling_gmo_study_shows_that_rats_fed_a/c6amoyz http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/104v50/recent_com...

driverdan 14y ago
One sentence summary: The results aren't statistically significant and don't take into account the known effects of Roundup on rodents.

DannyBee 14y ago

"The authors declare that there are no conﬂicts of interest." As a few bloggers noticed, I guess publishing multiple sensationalist books about the dangers of genetically modified crops (with wonderful titles like "Genetically incorrect") is not a conflict of interest: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Gilles-%C3%89ric+S%C3%A9ralini&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3AGilles-%C3%89ric+S%C3%A9ralini http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3D...

pessimizer 14y ago
I'm not sure how the publication of books is a conflict of interest in the publication of papers on the same subject. If he's selling or being paid by someone who is selling a special line of non-GM cornstuffs, that would make sense. A conflict of interest isn't simply doing more than one activity in a field, it's setting yourself up as someone who is only judging on the merits when you have a financial interest in the judgement going a particular way. He could have just as easily written 50 books on how GM food is wonderful, and then published studies on how GM food is wonderful. If he was on Monsanto's payroll, that's where the conflict would happen.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  Given that he makes money off his books, and his books are only succeed or fail based on the strength of research supporting his point of view, he has a financial interest in seeing a particular point of view succeed or fail. He isn't simply "doing more than one activity in a field", he is, as you say, "setting yourself up as someone who is only judging on the merits when you have a financial interest in the judgement going a particular way". BTW, conflicts of interest are not always monetary. At least in most fields, emotional (and other kinds) conflicts of interest are also prohibited. Even ignoring him making money off his books, i'm not sure how you can say that, given his very passionate, subjective, argument in favor of one particular point of view in his books, he doesn't have an emotional conflict of interest in seeing his point of view succeed. The idea that he can just "turn it on and off" so that when he's doing "science time" he's magically objective, and when he's doing "book time", he's not, would require a bit of straining to believe. This is why, for example, in the legal field, judges are required to avoid the appearance of bias, not just bias.

thirdtruck 14y ago

A scientist and regular public critiquer of studies reviews this one: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gm-corn-rat-study/ http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gm-corn-rat...