Lemmiwinks Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 so I don't know if you guys followed the news lately, they have made a new long-term study showing the evolution of health in rats after eating genetically modified food and it turn out that "The researchers said 50% of male and 70% of female rats died prematurely, compared with only 30% and 20% in the control group."... pretty shocking... don't click if you're the sensitive type... OK, I have my own questions on the study like the fact that rats having been given normal food ALSO developped tumors (but less frequently) so it's pretty hard to draw conclusions on the study. Plus apparently the researcher has a reputation for making "shocking" discoveries to get the media's attention... Still, interesting study IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procyon Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 If it was not published then there's something not clearly explained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolmot Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 So in that corner of the web we have an extremely biased nutjob quoting Daily Mail for scientific results? While in slightly more sensible media, we have something like this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-gmcrops-safety-idUSBRE88I0L020120919 I think I'll wait for better reviewing and reporting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemmiwinks Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 So in that corner of the web we have an extremely biased nutjob quoting Daily Mail for scientific results? While in slightly more sensible media, we have something like this: http://www.reuters.c...E88I0L020120919 I think I'll wait for better reviewing and reporting. Well, I'm not going to say that I fully support the study, however skepticism should be raised on both sides. It is a well-known fact that most studies deeming GMOs safe are conducted BY the GMO makers themselves! Obviously they will never deem their own products unsafe... In the end, both sides will have a hidden political agenda: those who say it's safe want to sell more products, those who say it's unsafe are looking for publicity for their labs which will ultimately result in more funding, since they're both money-driven, it's hard to say which part is more objective... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
needle ninja Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 so I don't know if you guys followed the news lately, they have made a new long-term study showing the evolution of health in rats after eating genetically modified food and it turn out that "The researchers said 50% of male and 70% of female rats died prematurely, compared with only 30% and 20% in the control group."... pretty shocking... don't click if you're the sensitive type... OK, I have my own questions on the study like the fact that rats having been given normal food ALSO developped tumors (but less frequently) so it's pretty hard to draw conclusions on the study. Plus apparently the researcher has a reputation for making "shocking" discoveries to get the media's attention... Still, interesting study IMO Scientific sudies are not wearth reading unless, and only unless, their results have beed duplicated by other, non-affiliated scientists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotwang Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Scientific sudies are not wearth reading unless, and only unless, their results have beed duplicated by other, non-affiliated scientists. How will those other, non-affiliated scientists know what they should be trying to duplicate if they don't read the original study? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
needle ninja Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 How will those other, non-affiliated scientists know what they should be trying to duplicate if they don't read the original study? Take the text out of the context of a casual users forum on the internet and it can sound wrong. I am not speaking to scientists in this forum, I am speaking to the laymen, or casual observer. I hope that I do not always have to state the obvious here, but it appears that I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
needle ninja Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 If it was not published then there's something not clearly explained. Acually not being published is a potential sign of something wrong because all the major publishers review the studies to check the science. It has been an unfortunite effect of the money from large corporations that science has been turned to supporting the adenda of a particular set of people. However, I still think that there are independant labs that are not funded by a single, large corporation that can support or refute the claims made here. The problem is that science takes time and long-term studies need a lot of time (and money) to complete. I like the German idea of the Precautionary Principle when it comes to the implimentation of new technology in the environment. We do not have any evidence of real, harmful effects of GM crops at this time, but the complexities of the natural world dictate that long term studies should be done to find the unexpected. The promise of more productivity per acre of land is such that genetically modified plants are a good investment both now and in the future, but in the end, the consumer will decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotwang Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Take the text out of the context of a casual users forum on the internet and it can sound wrong. I am not speaking to scientists in this forum, I am speaking to the laymen, or casual observer. Point taken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panoptes Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 those poor rats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reger Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Every animal, food, bug treated with GM or any other commercial thing created with GM should be banned forever. Im totally against GM and nobody will convince me otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
technosomy Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 i think the results are alot worse than that! agenda - poison the population, to keep dosile, become sick and no threat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reger Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 ...to become more dependant on their masters-enslavers than before Nobody in their sane money making mind will ever create cure for disease to cure people, its far more profitable to make them addicted to your medicines/alcohol/cigaretes/music+movie industry etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veracohr Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 This other article calls foul on the researchers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reger Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I dont care tbh, I still dont support GMO, never will despite what scientists say, until I see that its really harmless... which is impossible to detect at the moment, decades will pass, perhaps generations... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procyon Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I agree with Reger: it's just like with pork, one study says it's bad for your health, the next says it's good, the other says it's good again, then a recent one says it's bad...and so on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veracohr Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 I dont care tbh, I still dont support GMO, Neither do I, but I also don't support bad or unethical science when it's being used to further an argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reger Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Thats true, it might discredit further research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolmot Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Pretty much every animal and plant grown for food in the last few centuries is a result of heavy selective breeding. Compare a chihuahua to a grey wolf or a bell pepper to a bird's eye chili to get a slight idea, how far all genes around us have been manipulated. Modern orange carrot may be a symbol of healthy, natural food but as a plant it's less than 400 years old. People created it. Natural equivalents simply don't grow so big and sweet. I find it curious that people have no problems with rather unnatural stuff like seedless cultivars as long as it's achieved by "traditional" means. Meanwhile anything happening in a lab must be evil and scary by definition. I guess it's a combination of fear of the unknown and uninterest in finding out. I'd like to find out, but publishing fraudulent fear mongering as science and getting it circulated in popular media definitely doesn't help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
needle ninja Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 i think the results are alot worse than that! agenda - poison the population, to keep dosile, become sick and no threat No, it is much more simple then that. GM crops are patented by the corporations that created them. To use the GM seeds, farmers must sign a contract with the company that they will not use any other seeds for a certain number of years. In doing that the farmer is now dependant upon the corporation which then takes over the distribution of the crops. To sell any crops to the local distributor, the farmer must be using that company's seeds, which are patented and cost more then non-GM seeds. Thus, the farmer loses thier ability to sell in the open market and are completely beholden to the corporation that owns the patent on the GM seeds. There is a good documentary on this that I can't remember the name to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veracohr Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 I find it curious that people have no problems with rather unnatural stuff like seedless cultivars as long as it's achieved by "traditional" means. Meanwhile anything happening in a lab must be evil and scary by definition. I guess it's a combination of fear of the unknown and uninterest in finding out. The kind of hybridization and selective breeding that has been around for centuries, while man-made in a sense, is still natural. If someone attempts a breeding or hybrid and it doesn't work, it's because the organisms aren't compatible in that way. Genetic modification doesn't have that check and balance from the natural world (maybe it would on a time scale of millenia), so people are afraid of that unknown. I'll admit I'm afraid of it, even though I admit it could very well turn out to be OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padmapani Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 The kind of hybridization and selective breeding that has been around for centuries, while man-made in a sense, is still natural. If someone attempts a breeding or hybrid and it doesn't work, it's because the organisms aren't compatible in that way. Genetic modification doesn't have that check and balance from the natural world (maybe it would on a time scale of millenia), so people are afraid of that unknown. I'll admit I'm afraid of it, even though I admit it could very well turn out to be OK. horizontal gene transfer has been around for way longer than selective breeding by humans. you have bacteria that take up dna from their surroundings, bacteria that forcefully inject dna into other bacteria; you have viruses that integrate into the host's genome, which can also disrupt random genes of the host that way. you have transposons (partly defunct retroviruses), which can rearrange, duplicate or delete dna segments of their "host". transposons make up about half of the human dna. there's really nothing new about GM technology. most of the tools we use to modify the genetic makeup of an organism can be found in nature. the only thing to fear is the ethics of some companies involved. it's just those practises that needle ninja mentioned that give this technology a bad reputation, but there's a lot you can do (and what is done) using genetically modified organisms, which helps us conserve ressources, minimize harm to animals or save lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panoptes Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Am I the only one who isn't shocked about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veracohr Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 horizontal gene transfer has been around for way longer than selective breeding by humans. you have bacteria that take up dna from their surroundings, bacteria that forcefully inject dna into other bacteria; you have viruses that integrate into the host's genome, which can also disrupt random genes of the host that way. you have transposons (partly defunct retroviruses), which can rearrange, duplicate or delete dna segments of their "host". transposons make up about half of the human dna. I can't say I know much about bacteria or virii in this regard, but those are non-conscious organisms carrying out a genetic imperative without regard for the consequences to other organisms. So we get lovely stuff like ebola and flesh-eating bacteria and HIV and avian flu. We as sentient beings have the opportunity to consider the consequences of our actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.