http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html
what the topic title says.
also, wonderful quote from the article:
QuoteIn an attempt to offer her sympathy, one of her colleagues suggested that maybe the GM soy will solve the over population problem!
and, in other news, @dangerousmeme appears to be back on Twitter :) not as busy as before, but still!
Well, good thing I'm not a hamster, then.
QuoteScientists who discover adverse findings from GMOs are regularly attacked, ridiculed, denied funding, and even fired. When Ermakova reported the high infant mortality among GM soy fed offspring, for example, she appealed to the scientific community to repeat and verify her preliminary results. She also sought additional funds to analyze preserved organs. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Samples were stolen from her lab, papers were burnt on her desk, and she said that her boss, under pressure from his boss, told her to stop doing any more GMO research. No one has yet repeated Ermakova's simple, inexpensive studies.
:argh!:
It is good to know the people that provide us with food care about our health.
My question is: GM /WHAT/?
This is not some sort of Frankenstein experiment where an assortment of genes for no reason are pieced together into one organism and then forgotten, people. Is this Bt Soy we're talking about, or is it some other gene insertion?
Articles like this are the emotional driven stuffs that cause panic.
On the OTHER hand, industry has put a real damper on scientific research on the ill effects of various GM strains, including Bt corn. The attacks on scientists has been horrendous, but that's the sort of thing monkeys do to make a profit. And damn the consequences.
What was interesting, and I've never heard before, is the scope of species affected by apparent GMO-related infertility, on several continents. If cattle and bison are apparently affected as well as mice, hamsters and rats, it seems like it would be absolutely urgent to do more studies on the effects of GMO on the reproductive system, especially since they're seeing effects largely in the 2nd and 3rd generation; which wouldn't be manifesting in humans for another 40-60 years.
One of the things I can't help wondering is if there could be a possible link to the fairly dramatic and mysterious increase in preterm births, and associated infant mortality, since 2000.
One of my biology instructors claimed that scientists don't really know how blasting portions of DNA into plants results in that DNA being incorporated in its genome.
I wonder how accurate that is.
I always assumed it was much more calculated than just blasting it in there and hoping for the best.
It's pretty damned calculated. But that doesn't mean they know how it'll effect everything. Even really basic stuff sometimes really surprises experts in the field, and genetic modification is pretty new, there's not 80 years of work leading up to a theory of final result. So shit like the hamster study is how you find out what the end results are going to be.
That doesn't get into things like making plants that produce high levels of pesticides, where there are very obvious ways for it to adversely effect humans.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 15, 2010, 07:47:10 AM
It's pretty damned calculated. But that doesn't mean they know how it'll effect everything. Even really basic stuff sometimes really surprises experts in the field, and genetic modification is pretty new, there's not 80 years of work leading up to a theory of final result. So shit like the hamster study is how you find out what the end results are going to be.
That doesn't get into things like making plants that produce high levels of pesticides, where there are very obvious ways for it to adversely effect humans.
Again, what pesticides? Bt? Because the bacillus thurengiansis gene used doesn't interact with the human gut, only with the guts of lepidoptera and related organisms that have really high pH.
I really REALLY hate the blanket assumptions that get said about GM crops, because people never specify exactly what strain or gene they are upset about, because it MATTERS. This is not a random shot in the dark, what they are doing, but a very specific concerted process of bioinformatics (by which they actually find a gene of interest), and genetic modification by transposable elements. Very expensive too. Bitching about Monsanto and their horrible corporate practices is an entirely different issue.
It doesn't interact in the same way, but its still adding a new chemical to the human diet.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 15, 2010, 08:21:56 PM
It doesn't interact in the same way, but its still adding a new chemical to the human diet.
Which, if inert in low pH environments (like Bt happens to be, in crystal form) it will pass through and out the same way cellulose does.
Green potatoes are more of a health issue than Bt crops, but I don't see people getting in uproar over green potatoes.
Kai, could you describe the mechanism that incorporates modified portions of DNA into the original genome? Or link me to something?
I'm under the impression that this is one of the unpredictable elements in GM. Where and how that DNA gets incorporated seems very guess and check.
Also, what's the deal with green potatoes?
Kai, I think they're specifically talking about effects on fertility in animals fed transgenic Bt soy and corn. What the connection itself is, is not even being speculated on, as far as I can tell from what I've read, only that there seems to be one, and that further research is called for.
I don't know why anyone would be opposed to further research, except for Monsanto.
Green potato skins contain the alkaloid toxins solanine and chaconine. They are not an especially large health risk. The claim that green potatoes are "more of a health risk than Bt crops"; :cn:
Bt crops aren't a health risk (no I don't have a citation). But soy hasn't been Bt transformed, which I didn't understand.
The particular transformation involved in this is a gene from a strain of Agrobacterium, which codes an enzyme called 5-enolpyruvoyl-shikimate-3-phosphate synthetase (ESPS). This stops inhibition caused by the pesticide glyphosate, the primary ingredient of roundup. Which is why these are called "roundup ready".
Okay, now that I understand this, I can see why there is an uproar. Here I was focused on Bt, which I still hold is only an issue for lepidopteran (and trichopteran, ironically) larvae that feed on the plants, the only evidence of effect we have so far. It's been effective in controlling moth caterpilar pests that feed on corn and/or cotton, and as long as people don't plant the whole field with it and keep a small portion with non-Bt crops, there is little likelyhood of evolved resistance.
I've attended several seminars over the last year dealing with Bt corn and cotton, so I'm pretty confident I understand the current evidence for risks and benefits, including the study on trichoptera larvae that the authors got harrassed and ruined by the GM corps for publishing.
So, as it is I'm done with this conversation, because I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to ESPS soy.
Quote from: LMNO on May 12, 2010, 04:01:59 PM
Well, good thing I'm not a hamster, then.
How do you think I feel? :argh!: :argh!:
Mansanto is pretty evil anyway, I avoid their stuff at all costs. Like my little dollar matters, but hey...
Quote from: Kai on May 12, 2010, 04:42:05 PM
My question is: GM /WHAT/?
This is not some sort of Frankenstein experiment where an assortment of genes for no reason are pieced together into one organism and then forgotten, people. Is this Bt Soy we're talking about, or is it some other gene insertion?
Articles like this are the emotional driven stuffs that cause panic.
On the OTHER hand, industry has put a real damper on scientific research on the ill effects of various GM strains, including Bt corn. The attacks on scientists has been horrendous, but that's the sort of thing monkeys do to make a profit. And damn the consequences.
From the article I gathered it was roundup ready soy. That wasn't stated perfectly explicitly, but it was the conclusion I reached.