
Study: GM corn causes organ failure in mice - georgecmu
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11
======
Sniffnoy
Even if this is true, the way it's written qualifies it as (not necessarily
deliberate) scaremongering, as it identifies the commonality between the
experimental varieties of corn as being that they were genetically modified,
rather than that they were genetically modified to produce pesticides. The
latter could plausibly have such a uniform effect, whereas the former could
not. They need to be precise and say what they mean.

~~~
NHQ
The real results are the meta-results: that such a small and narrow study is
all we have in the way of research into the possible effects of GM foods.

~~~
dandelany
This is far from the only study that's been done on the matter:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_contr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Present_knowledge_on_GM_food_safety)

"However, an article in 2007 by Vain found 692 research studies focusing on GM
crop and food safety and identified a strong increase in the publication of
such articles in recent years"

Though the veracity (and funding sources) of said studies is a different
matter entirely.

------
unpolloloco
This probably has to be one of the least-controlled experiments I've ever seen
published! It did the experiments at different labs with different non-GM
feeds with what was likely different strains of mice. Also, sample sizes were
rather small...

There's a chance that there are effects. However, this study proves nothing.

~~~
bugsy
Hey Monsanto rep, how's it hanging? Glad you could create your new account an
hour ago and post a single time using it.

~~~
FiReaNG3L
Wow, at least try to argue the points he puts forward, or go back to Youtube
to post comment.

~~~
allenp
I agree that the comment wasn't helpful but it is somewhat suspicious that an
account was created just to refute this study.

------
Tomco
This study has been debunked. It was paid for by an environmentalist group and
the people behind the study used a faulty methodology to get the results that
they wanted.

~~~
derwiki
Citation?

~~~
theodore
Here is Monsanto's response to a more recent paper by the same authors:

"The authors present no new information, raise no new issues, and reiterate
theoretical concerns that already have been dismissed by experts and
regulatory authorities around the world."

[http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/IJBS-GMO-health-
risk...](http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/IJBS-GMO-health-risk-article-
not-backed-by-data.aspx)

~~~
GrooveStomp
That is what you'd expect from the company who produces GM corn. Any third-
party non-partial analyses of papers by those same authors?

~~~
pygy_
Sorry, accidental downvote (big thumb, small screen).

I'd like to add that, partiality aside, the Monsanto's argument is fallatious
and unconvincing (appeal to authority). Give me data from independent,
properly designed studies, not the mere opinion of experts.

~~~
varjag
Consider a set of politicized disciplines, S1, S2, .. Sn (e.g. climate
science, GM foods research). Let P1, P2.. Pn be proponents of prevailing
theory in respective discipline, and D1, D2, ...Dn be their detractors.

Define _coherence_ K as cardinality of (P1 & P2 &... &Pn) | (D1 & D2 &...&Dn).

Varjag's conjecture: as n approaches infinity, K asymptotically approaches
zero. Therefore if true, the argument from authority is rendered relevant.

(the proof is left as an exercise to a reader)

~~~
pygy_
I'm not sure I follow you.

P_i and D_i are sets of proponenents/detractors for discipline S_i, right?

I so, I assume that the & and | boolean operators you use are substitutes for
set union and intersection, respectively.

Assuming that the opinions on the various topics are independent, I would
rather see K tend to

    
    
        \sum |P_i| == \sum |D_i|
    

What am I missing?

___

Also, for my previous post:

    
    
        s/(appeal to authority)/(appeal to potentially corrupt authority)/

~~~
varjag
The point was: people are incoherent in their dismissal of argument from
authority. E.g. many (most?) in anti-GM movement also acknowledge
anthropogenic global warming as true, obviously having no issue with IPCC
authority on it.

Given enough controversial subjects people care for, no one is going to be
knowledgeable in all of them. But people invoke "arguing from authority is a
fallacy" only when they are not sided with the said authority.

~~~
narrator
>The point was: people are incoherent in their dismissal of argument from
authority. E.g. many (most?) in anti-GM movement also acknowledge
anthropogenic global warming as true, obviously having no issue with IPCC
authority on it.

This is just using an ad hominem to attack people who cite the argument from
authority fallacy. Science is also based on careful examination of empirical
evidence, not unsubstantiated pronouncements by authority figures.

~~~
varjag
Oh, if only it was that easy!

Consider how long it took to get rid of phlogiston theory in physics, even
when falsified by experiments. The physicists of the day were careful and
rigorous, honest scientists, and their opponents did not have (initially) any
alternative theory to replace it with.

And perhaps we are giving too much credit to most people involved in public
debates for examination of empirical evidence. I can say honestly that I tried
to read the whole IPCC report, but got barely 1/4th in (it is incredibly thick
and dense with facts). Very few of my peers though even glanced as the cover,
yet their opinions on it are not any less strong.

------
ck2
We are doomed because big business is protected by politicians on both sides.

It's too late now and it will never be banned.

And why the heck does the USA continue to do welfare for the corn industry
which is massively profitable.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Corn is an Iowa thing; Iowa has the first Presidential caucus in the nation:
U.S. Presidents are beholden to corn.

Bear in mind, this is a gross over-simplification of the core problem (e.g.
Archer-Daniels-Midland seems to have an amazingly powerful set of lobbyists),
but it should still give you a sense of what's what.

Setting aside native sons (Tom Harkin 1992; plus, Clinton's 'bimbo eruptions'
didn't help), you have to go all the way back to 1988 to find a Presidential
candidate who won without carrying Iowa.

~~~
watchandwait
The wasteful corn ethanol subsidy is another example of American agri-
corporatism.

------
rfugger
Study from 2009. I wonder why I haven't heard much about this.

~~~
pyre
Either because it was debunked or because corn farmers have a large
lobby/subsidies/etc. Take your pick, though the first theory is probably
easier to prove that the second one.

~~~
luu
You can see studies which cite that study (which would include debunkings) by
doing a google scholar search:
[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=3661119272352849363&...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=3661119272352849363&as_sdt=5,44&sciodt=0,44&hl=en)

One of the those studies has this to say about the study linked by the OP:
"Weaknesses in the statistical methods used for reanalysis (see Doull et al. .
.) " [1].

That paper also has a nice summary of other studies on GM foods.

[1] G. Flachowsky and C. Wenk, The role of animal feeding trials for the
nutritionaland safety assessment of feeds from genetically modified plants –
Present stage and future challenges, Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 19,
2010, 149–170

------
middayc
Similar results described here:
[http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/23/wikileaks_cables_reve...](http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/23/wikileaks_cables_reveal_us_sought_to)
at 18:10

British scientist (GMO advocate) that was payed by gov to figure out how to
test for safety at GMO foods. He discovered that generic process (not the
insecticide) of GM was probably the reason for smaller brains, livers and
testicles..

------
mkup
There is a clearer evidence of GM-soya hazardousness.

[http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Modified-Soya-
Rats10oct05.h...](http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Modified-Soya-
Rats10oct05.htm)

Similar to this case, it is also probably caused by RoundUp herbicide, rather
that GM itself, but anyway numbers are dreadful.

------
davidw
"The scientists concluded that orally administering one kilogram of the corn
into the mice was fatal in 100% of cases"

~~~
stcredzero
Still, this was nothing compared to the results from the _alternate
administration_ groups.

------
tehwalrus
The paper itself says it can't separate out the effects of the pesticides on
the corn (or produced by the corn) and the GMness of the corn itself - you
think greenpeace would fake a paper this inconclusive?

(That said, I have no special knowledge of the concept or this field.)

~~~
bugsy
How is that inconclusive?

------
tibbon
Rats- not mice. Huge difference

