• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

GMO Foods; What's the general scientific opinion?

Here's another lead -

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871678412008801

Despite the fact that a thorough, lengthy and costly evaluation of genetically engineered (GE) crop plants (including compositional analysis and toxicological tests) is imposed before marketing some European citizens remain sceptical of the safety of GE food and feed. In this context, are additional tests necessary? If so, what can we learn from them? To address these questions, we examined data from 60 recent high-throughput ‘-omics’ comparisons between GE and non-GE crop lines and 17 recent long-term animal feeding studies (longer than the classical 90-day subchronic toxicological tests), as well as 16 multigenerational studies on animals.
Click to expand...
 
Another review of whole food (WF) feeding studies. Plenty of references to various feeding studies that have been done.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3833814/

"We reviewed available GM crop WF studies and considered the extent to which they add to the information from agronomic and compositional analyses. No WF toxicity study was identified that convincingly demonstrated toxicological concern or that called into question the adequacy, sufficiency, and reliability of safety assessments based on crop molecular characterization, transgene source, agronomic characteristics, and/or compositional analysis of the GM crop and its near-isogenic line"

"Thus, based on the comparative robustness and reliability of compositional and agronomic considerations and on the absence of any scientific basis for a significant potential for de novo generation of toxicologically significant compositional alterations as a sole result of transgene insertion, the conclusion of this review is that WF animal toxicity studies are unnecessary and scientifically unjustifiable."
 
Do millions of consumers eating GM food qualify as evidence of safety? I would have thought so.
 
cosmicaug said:
I'm not very clear on your comment. Are you making any actual claims regarding transgenic crops? Hydroxyproline, a handy amino acid which makes the structural properties of collagens, would require a very specific enzyme which animals have (vitamin C is a co-factor, thus its deficiency state condition, scurvy, involves connective tissue dysfunction). This enzyme has not been introduced into any transgenic crop that I know of. If you are finding this amino acid in crops it would be rather extraordinary since, as far as I know, none should have this enzyme.
Click to expand...

Hydroxyproline was just used as an example. It is found in some plant material, but it is unusual, and it's presence in a sample of plant tissue of unknown provenance would trigger an automatic retest in my lab.

Perhaps a better example would be the detection of C13 fatty acids. This was an actual case in my lab that had us scratching our heads. We thought something was wrong with our equipment or our methods. It turns out that client had genetically engineered a crop to contain C13 fatty acids as a marker for some GMO grain. AFAIK, this was pure research on their part.
 
Last edited:
And it gets messy in Australia

An Aus farmer of conventional crops is suing his neighbour after GM canola 'seed' (the article says) blows onto his land, causing our man to lose much of his "organic" certification even though he doesn't grow canola. Oats get a mention as one crop he does grow.

BBC website

Not sure what to think of this. I suppose there's no law against people choosing not to eat GM stuff, and none against specialist farming to cater for that. But in this case the canola seed/pollen would seem to need to affect the oats in some homeopathic manner. Looks like the certification process is spectacularly stupid.
 
Last edited:
John Jones said:
Hydroxyproline was just used as an example. It is found in some plant material, but it is unusual, and it's presence in a sample of plant tissue of unknown provenance would trigger an automatic retest in my lab.

Perhaps a better example would be the detection of C13 fatty acids. This was an actual case in my lab that had us scratching our heads. We thought something was wrong with our equipment or our methods. It turns out that client had genetically engineered a crop to contain C13 fatty acids as a marker for some GMO grain. AFAIK, this was pure research on their part.
Click to expand...
Ah, cool! I assume this means you do mass spec? I've played with that in the past to identify proteins but let's just say, to put it mildly, that I have a lot to learn.
 
cosmicaug said:
Ah, cool! I assume this means you do mass spec? I've played with that in the past to identify proteins but let's just say, to put it mildly, that I have a lot to learn.
Click to expand...

Yes. In fact, we just got a Waters Xevo TQ-S UPLC MS/MS -- the neatest toy I've ever gotten to play with.
 
cosmicaug said:
Ah, cool! I assume this means you do mass spec? I've played with that in the past to identify proteins but let's just say, to put it mildly, that I have a lot to learn.
Click to expand...

To clarify what I posted earlier, I meant fatty acids 13 carbon atoms long, not fatty acids composed of or enriched with 13C isotopes. That's been bothering me all day.

Odd-numbered fatty acids are uncommon because of the way they are formed biologically.

Sorry for any confusion.
 
John Jones said:
To clarify what I posted earlier, I meant fatty acids 13 carbon atoms long, not fatty acids composed of or enriched with 13C isotopes. That's been bothering me all day.

Odd-numbered fatty acids are uncommon because of the way they are formed biologically.

Sorry for any confusion.
Click to expand...
Oh, it's OK by me. I understood. You are right to correct yourself, though. One could have assumed the other (even if it had not occurred to me and even though it wouldn't make much sense in this context).
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
So basically what I seem to be reading is that glyphosate and Bt GE crops are not even given a 90 day rodent feeding test, much less a long term trial. They are simply assumed to be equivalent.
Click to expand...

Since we're all about being bothered all day, my not replying to this has been bothering me. I knew the paper I wanted to point you too, in case it may be helpful, but just hadn't gotten around to finding it. It is Unintended Compositional Changes in Genetically Modified (GM) Crops: 20 Years of Research.

I hope that it is helpful.
 
I have some carbon-13 glucose (all 6 carbons). That stuff is expensive, at least to me, at about $600/gram.
 
This may seem like a silly comment, but this is what i am curious about.

Wouldn't any scientist who conclusively proved GMO crops were harmful become the most famous scientist of this decade? It would certainly be worth the Nobel Prize, lots of attention and endless offers from universities. Even I, with my lowly Master's degree would probably be instantly be given tenure + massive grants at the institution of my choice. This is assuming my study passes peer review.

Animal feeding tests have their pitfalls, and it can be difficult to weed out the extra variables. However, the information for setting one up is easy to find and there is lots of advice out there. I could probably set one up in my basement. I doubt I would need more than $10,000.

The fact no one has done this, even though the rewards would be massive means that it's most likely impossible. Spending that amount of money and time for a negative result would be futile.

Red Baron Farms appears to believe this hasn't been done. I suggest he try it. If his hypothesis (that GMO is harmful) is correct he will have fame and fortune.
 
iamcanjim said:
This may seem like a silly comment, but this is what i am curious about.

Wouldn't any scientist who conclusively proved GMO crops were harmful become the most famous scientist of this decade? It would certainly be worth the Nobel Prize, lots of attention and endless offers from universities. Even I, with my lowly Master's degree would probably be instantly be given tenure + massive grants at the institution of my choice. This is assuming my study passes peer review.

Animal feeding tests have their pitfalls, and it can be difficult to weed out the extra variables. However, the information for setting one up is easy to find and there is lots of advice out there. I could probably set one up in my basement. I doubt I would need more than $10,000.

The fact no one has done this, even though the rewards would be massive means that it's most likely impossible. Spending that amount of money and time for a negative result would be futile.

Red Baron Farms appears to believe this hasn't been done. I suggest he try it. If his hypothesis (that GMO is harmful) is correct he will have fame and fortune.
Click to expand...


I have a problem with the part I highlighted above. I don't think it merits a verbose or lengthy rebuttal.
 
iamcanjim said:
...I could probably set one up in my basement. I doubt I would need more than $10,000...

Red Baron Farms appears to believe this hasn't been done. I suggest he try it. If his hypothesis (that GMO is harmful) is correct he will have fame and fortune.
Click to expand...
Apparently you didn't read my first post. "You just have to test on a case by case basis." So clearly I have made no such hypothesis. I don't even think it is a legit hypothesis to make, never did.

It would be like making a hypothesis that nightshades are poisonous. Well, some are, but tomatoes are not.

PS People have done "on the cheap" animal studies like you suggest, and they found that current Bt and Glyphosate resistant GMO's are actually harmful. Of course it means nothing because it is "on the cheap" studies. That's why above in previous posts I was asking for links to better studies so I could look at them. Oh and BTW I don't need a study to know what is wrong with glyphosate, and it has nothing to do with the GMO. If glyphosate does exactly what it is supposed to do with no side effects at all, it is immensely harmful to the environment. From a certain perspective, that's its purpose, to kill biodiversity so the only plant left living is the crop. It is supposed to be harmful to the environment, while hopefully not harmful to humans.

ETA: If I ever make a claim to "fame and fortune" it won't be chasing down red herrings like GMOs. I actually am doing agricultural research though. How about eliminating the need for herbicides altogether? How about eliminating the need for haber process nitrogen altogether? Don't you think those would be far more groundbreaking than proving a certain GMO causes cancer or whatever? If you prove glyphosate resistant corn causes issues in human health, you still have the same problem, ie what new pesticide to use to kill weeds? But if you develop a system that actually encourages "weeds" at the same time uses them to boost your crop yields and total productivity, then you'd have something. ;) That particular breakthrough is far closer than people realize.

living mulch
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom