Can GM crops cause cancer?

[MarxSchmarx]

A recent study suggests rats that eat GMO derived food are likelier to develop tumours. But some scientists are disputing it, although a lot of the attacks so far are essentially ad hominems

read more about it here:

http://io9.com/5945232/controversial-study-linking-gm-corn-to-cancer-under-attack-by-scientists

There are several ways to look at this - the study has some flaws (not least of which it is murine, so inferences are limited) but also raises questions about what is the likelihood of finding a false positive if rats were fed non-gmo food? There's a fascinating question here about how this information should inform public decision making.

Perhaps the answers are obvious if the study is bogus or is vindicated. But if the evidence is ultimately ambiguous, what should be the correct response?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I find the genetical manipulation of food and animals despicable. Sadly, today most seeds are all hybrid-genetically-mutated products; the taste is truly different between natural and manipulated products. I don't doubt that the genetic manipulation causes medical problems. Scary shit...:(

[Althusser]

I'm very conflicted. If crops weren't genetically modified, wouldn't the third world completely starve and the price of food in America become immensely high?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I find the genetical manipulation of food and animals despicable. Sadly, today most seeds are all hybrid-genetically-mutated products; the taste is truly different between natural and manipulated products. I don't doubt that the genetic manipulation causes medical problems. Scary shit...:(

There's so much scientifically wrong with this, I do not know where to even begin...

I think there were numerous questionable aspects to the conduct in the mentioned study.

[MarxSchmarx]

I'm very conflicted. If crops weren't genetically modified, wouldn't the third world completely starve and the price of food in America become immensely high?

This is a hard question to answer. The problem with food in the third world still remains one of distribution - even if we omitted all GMO crops there will still be more than enough to feed everyone. But the real issue is whether under existing capitalism how a reduction in the overall food supply might disproportionately affect people in developing countries. It's hard to say, really, in part because subsistence farming still remains the main food source in much of the third world outside of a still relatively small mega urban regions.

It is very likely the price of food in America would be higher. However, it's not clear that would be a permanent thing. One issue with America in particular is that the agricultural sector is so dependent on maize/corn due to a perverse combination of crazy government subsidies and enormous investment in safeguarding the crop, including GMO technologies. If these were removed, it's possible there would be a more diversified agricultural base, so over time as the reliance on a monoculture shifts it's possible prices would come back down.


There's so much scientifically wrong with this, I do not know where to even begin...


I'm not sure about the taste part, but WCOP is correct that a lot of the maize grown in major production centers in the US (where it is a real staple for animal husbandry) is in fact genetically modified.



I think there were numerous questionable aspects to the conduct in the mentioned study.

Of those, what would you say is the most problematic? Personally I find the opacity and their refusal to be more open with the data rather suspect and dodgy. But at the same time, that kind of territorialism is sadly quite routine in biomedical research.

[Vanguard1917]

Of those, what would you say is the most problematic? Personally I find the opacity and their refusal to be more open with the data rather suspect and dodgy. But at the same time, that kind of territorialism is sadly quite routine in biomedical research.

Here are a some responses from scientists regarding the serious flaws of the research: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/press_releases/12-09-19_gm_maize_rats_tumours.htm


This is a hard question to answer. The problem with food in the third world still remains one of distribution - even if we omitted all GMO crops there will still be more than enough to feed everyone. But the real issue is whether under existing capitalism how a reduction in the overall food supply might disproportionately affect people in developing countries. It's hard to say, really, in part because subsistence farming still remains the main food source in much of the third world outside of a still relatively small mega urban regions.

As you say, there is still a dependence on subsistence farming in poor countries. So the problem is not just one of distribution. There might be enough food to feed all, but that's not the same thing as saying that production output and efficiency does not need to be improved, or that advanced agricultural techniques don't need to be more widely implemented.

[Positivist]

As you say, there is still a dependence on subsistence farming in poor countries. So the problem is not just one of distribution. There might be enough food to feed all, but that's not the same thing as saying that production output and efficiency does not need to be improved, or that advanced agricultural techniques don't need to be more widely implemented.

The problem is not necessarily of the distribution of foodstuffs produced en masse in the commercial agricultural sector, but moreso of the distribution of resources with which food is produced. Many in the periphery have been evicted from their land or atleast had part of it confiscated where it was then sold off to major corporations.

This is not to say that these peasants wouldn't have benefited more from pooling their resources and applying advanced agricultural techniques and then shared in the product, but that is not what happened and continues to happen. The problem is really "net" distribution of assets rather than concrete distribution of an physical objects.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Comrades -- under capitalism there is no way to protect the population from things like this. The answer really is to fight for socialism -- then we can actually weigh the pros and cons of biologically engineered foods -- determine that they are safe BEFORE we use them, etc. Using science to help humanity is not a bad idea, but when profit is the primary motivation, caveat emptor. I suppose it's good to inform the populace that this stuff might be harmful, but it is not like people always have a choice.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

I find the genetical manipulation of food and animals despicable. Sadly, today most seeds are all hybrid-genetically-mutated products; the taste is truly different between natural and manipulated products. I don't doubt that the genetic manipulation causes medical problems. Scary shit...:(

How can you say that genetic altering of crops is "despicable". Maize and tomatoes are not conscious beings, as opposed to animals, so you have no reason to find this "despicable".
The fact of the matter is, that the human population is growing exponentially, and sooner or later, a kind of carrying capacity will be reached. This will mean mass starvation. One way to combat this, is try and alter the genetics of various crops, so they can be able to grow in what was previously unfavorable environments.
How can that ever be a bad thing?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

A recent study suggests rats that eat GMO derived food are likelier to develop tumours.

I guess it is a good time to say:

I told you so!


There are several ways to look at this - the study has some flaws

I hope those were not huge flaws.


I'm not sure about the taste part, but WCOP is correct that a lot of the maize grown in major production centers in the US (where it is a real staple for animal husbandry) is in fact genetically modified.

I saw in a documentary that it is ilegal for american farmers to store their own seeds, so they have to buy from the big companies that geneticaly modify them.

[Skyhilist]

The world already makes enough food to feed 12 billion people, we just waste so much of it on feeding cows and other animals in the meat industry. We don't need GM crops... besides despite claims that they increase yield and reduce pesticides, they've failed entirely to deliver on both of these issues and have had a very negative ecological impact as well.

[Skyhilist]

How can you say that genetic altering of crops is "despicable". Maize and tomatoes are not conscious beings, as opposed to animals, so you have no reason to find this "despicable".
The fact of the matter is, that the human population is growing exponentially, and sooner or later, a kind of carrying capacity will be reached. This will mean mass starvation. One way to combat this, is try and alter the genetics of various crops, so they can be able to grow in what was previously unfavorable environments.
How can that ever be a bad thing?

He means that it's despicable the way that corporations manipulate genes for profit I believe. Plus for the "overpopulation" and "starvation" thing, see my above post. Plus, look at it this way. These plants have been molded into their current genetic makeup by hundreds millions of years of evolution. How arrogant to think that we can improve something that evolution has already been naturally improving through natural selection for that long! I'm really surprised to see such a lack of environmental awareness in a thread such as this.

[JoeySteel]

Some problems with this study: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gm-corn-rat-study/

[Permanent Revolutionary]

The world already makes enough food to feed 12 billion people, we just waste so much of it on feeding cows and other animals in the meat industry. We don't need GM crops... besides despite claims that they increase yield and reduce pesticides, they've failed entirely to deliver on both of these issues and have had a very negative ecological impact as well.

If you read what I wrote, you would notice, that I said that humanity would reach a carrying capacity in the future
Is feeding cows a waste now? But where will we get meat for all the Big Macs? :crying:

And you would like to see some scientific sources, which claim that GMO crops have destroyed ecosystems. If not, don't make such ludicrous claims.

[Revoltorb]

I guess it is a good time to say:

I told you so!

You really shouldn't because:


I hope those were not huge flaws.

they are.

Besides, crops that we grow today that aren't labelled as GM are anyway. Wild corn back before we started cultivating it barely resembles what we know today as corn. Genetic modification by humans at its finest, though we didn't have the technology to do it at the rate we can now or select for specific things the way we can now.

[Skyhilist]

If you read what I wrote, you would notice, that I said that humanity would reach a carrying capacity in the future
Is feeding cows a waste now? But where will we get meat for all the Big Macs? :crying:

And you would like to see some scientific sources, which claim that GMO crops have destroyed ecosystems. If not, don't make such ludicrous claims.

Where to begin. First of all, feeding cows and other animals is a waste, as it is simply filtering nutrients through another animal, that you can get from any plant source. A basic scientific knowledge will also tell you that 90% of energy is lost at eat trophic level. This means 10% is left. So if cows consume something with 100%, and then we consume the cows, we get 1% of the original nutrients (1 X 0.1 X 0.1), while if we eat the plants we get 10% (1 X 0.1). This means that it takes about 10 times the energy to produce equivalent amounts of energy from eating cows, rather than eating plants. Humans are also physiologically vegan as we have carbohydrate digestive enzymes (which no omnivore or carnivore has), and no carnivorous instincts (chase down squirrel with your bare hands and eat the entire thing raw, brains and all, I dare you). Having said this, it's completely illogical that over 70% of grains go to feeding animals in the meat industry while a child starves to death every few seconds. Here's a good video about that, in case you're still not getting it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTS2Yp-UgI0

As for your overpopulation issue, it's estimated by most or at least many that the population will likely sharply decline at around 10 billion people, do to overshooting the carrying capacity (a fairly simple concept in population growth/loss patterns). Therefore, even if all of the benefits of GM foods are as claimed and none of the risks are, there is still no need for them as we already produce enough to feed 12 billion people. I will admit though that the study mentioned in this thread is not at all credible and has been debunked by numerous sources. That's irrelevant though.
Here are some additional sources on the risks of GMOs and their negative ecological impacts:

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/environmental-effects-of.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14976259?dopt=Abstract

http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.

[Homo Songun]

It doesn't matter how terrible this study was, we already knew that these GMO crops are a bad deal for farmers, for the environment, and for food security. That fake studies will be discredited does not mean we have to accept as an axiom that whatever is "new technology" is thereby progress.

GMO is about profits, bottom line.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Where to begin. First of all, feeding cows and other animals is a waste, as it is simply filtering nutrients through another animal, that you can get from any plant source. A basic scientific knowledge will also tell you that 90% of energy is lost at eat trophic level. This means 10% is left. So if cows consume something with 100%, and then we consume the cows, we get 1% of the original nutrients (1 X 0.1 X 0.1), while if we eat the plants we get 10% (1 X 0.1). This means that it takes about 10 times the energy to produce equivalent amounts of energy from eating cows, rather than eating plants. Humans are also physiologically vegan as we have carbohydrate digestive enzymes (which no omnivore or carnivore has), and no carnivorous instincts (chase down squirrel with your bare hands and eat the entire thing raw, brains and all, I dare you). Having said this, it's completely illogical that over 70% of grains go to feeding animals in the meat industry while a child starves to death every few seconds. Here's a good video about that, in case you're still not getting it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTS2Yp-UgI0

As for your overpopulation issue, it's estimated by most or at least many that the population will likely sharply decline at around 10 billion people, do to overshooting the carrying capacity (a fairly simple concept in population growth/loss patterns). Therefore, even if all of the benefits of GM foods are as claimed and none of the risks are, there is still no need for them as we already produce enough to feed 12 billion people. I will admit though that the study mentioned in this thread is not at all credible and has been debunked by numerous sources. That's irrelevant though.
Here are some additional sources on the risks of GMOs and their negative ecological impacts:

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/environmental-effects-of.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14976259?dopt=Abstract

http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.

You're arguing with a biologist here, matey.
1) Energy is not "lost" between trophic levels. Yes, 90% of the energy exits the trophic level as respiration, urine and feces, but this enerhy can be reused. It is not lost.
But which do you think is more beneficial for humans to eat. 1 t-bone steak, or tens of pounds of sellery? Humans do need proteins, ya know.

2) Why is a "victory" of GM-species over wildtypes a "negative" impact on the ecosystem, if they're both the same species.
We also have to remember that ecosystems are continually changing, even if humans do not interfere. This is the way of nature.

[Revoltorb]

It doesn't matter how terrible this study was, we already knew that these GMO crops are a bad deal for farmers, for the environment, and for food security. That fake studies will be discredited does not mean we have to accept as an axiom that whatever is "new technology" is thereby progress.

GMO is about profits, bottom line.

So what if it's about profits right now? Everything under the capitalist system is about profits but that doesn't mean it's not useful as a technology. Sure, maybe the current line of GM crops have some problems but that doesn't mean we should discard the idea of making crops resistant to disease and pests entirely. All it means is we should change our approach.

[maskerade]

I'm very conflicted. If crops weren't genetically modified, wouldn't the third world completely starve and the price of food in America become immensely high?

The use of GMOs is highly political. for example, the world food program is run by the Americans - informally, that is. This means that a lot of the seeds and food they bring in to the third world are GMOs, and this is extremely problematic. A major reason for this is the fact that GMOs plants that are grown for food production don't produce any seeds, which makes a lot of third world farmers dependent on US food aid to keep getting seeds.

Once you've started growing GMO crops you're trapped into a cycle of dependency, and we can all figure out why this is an intentional policy of US bureaucrats.

[Mr. Natural]

Do GM crops cause cancer? You bet! Gm crops are an invasive tumor that is enabling the cancer of capitalism to metastasize the human food supply.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Do GM crops cause cancer? You bet! Gm crops are an invasive tumor that is enabling the cancer of capitalism to metastasize the human food supply.

And every other food supplier is not part of the capitalist system?

[Skyhilist]

You're arguing with a biologist here, matey.
1) Energy is not "lost" between trophic levels. Yes, 90% of the energy exits the trophic level as respiration, urine and feces, but this enerhy can be reused. It is not lost.
But which do you think is more beneficial for humans to eat. 1 t-bone steak, or tens of pounds of sellery? Humans do need proteins, ya know.

2) Why is a "victory" of GM-species over wildtypes a "negative" impact on the ecosystem, if they're both the same species.
We also have to remember that ecosystems are continually changing, even if humans do not interfere. This is the way of nature.

1. I don't care who I'm arguing with. Being a biologist doesn't make you automatically right. Are creationist biologists right, because they're biologists? Of course not. "Energy is lost" was a bad statement, what I meant by that is that 90% of usable energy is lost due to heat. Besides, even ignoring that argument, it's still way more efficient to eat at a lower trophic level. Even your argument about proteins is a logical fallacy. Animal proteins actually cause the blood to be overly acidic, so to counteract that, we leach calcium phosphate out of our bones (the phosphate is used to counteract it), which leads to increased rates of osteoporosis. That's why societies that eat very little meat have significantly lower rates of osteoporosis. Yes we need protein, but other sources like nuts are way healthier... but hell, even veggies like cauliflower have a significant amount of protein if you wanna talk about only them.

2. It's a negative, because it's only a human "victory", not an ecological one, and only for the people really who are profiting from GM crops (who don't give a shit about world hunger in the first place!) Also, yes, ecosystems are usually changing; through natural selection which has essentially chosen the best overall genes over hundreds of millions of years. This is completely different from the artificial selection that is imposed on plants through genetically modifying them.

[Raúl Duke]

While GMOs, particularly under a class system, are problematic for a few reasons...
The research about rats and tumors has been under questioned and criticized heavily under peer-review (according to an article from Slate.http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_scien ce_to_scare_people_.html)

So don't feel that the non-organic produce you're buying might end up killing you anytime soon.

[JoeySteel]

2. It's a negative, because it's only a human "victory", not an ecological one, and only for the people really who are profiting from GM crops (who don't give a shit about world hunger in the first place!) Also, yes, ecosystems are usually changing; through natural selection which has essentially chosen the best overall genes over hundreds of millions of years. This is completely different from the artificial selection that is imposed on plants through genetically modifying them.

FYI, artificial selection in agriculture has been practiced for thousands of years and is responsible for the existence of countless, if not all staple crops of the modern era such as maize. Before modern genetic modification, which is simply a more refined form of artificial selection, scientists literally just blasted seeds with radiation to see what happened, and that's where ruby red grapefruit and many varieties of rice come from for instance. Genetic modification done by scientists who actually have some clue what they're doing sounds a lot better than that. Your main fallacy is positing an identity between artificial selection and GMO; human agriculture is and always has been artificial selection.

[Skyhilist]

FYI, artificial selection in agriculture has been practiced for thousands of years and is responsible for the existence of countless, if not all staple crops of the modern era such as maize. Before modern genetic modification, which is simply a more refined form of artificial selection, scientists literally just blasted seeds with radiation to see what happened, and that's where ruby red grapefruit and many varieties of rice come from for instance. Genetic modification done by scientists who actually have some clue what they're doing sounds a lot better than that. Your main fallacy is positing an identity between artificial selection and GMO; human agriculture is and always has been artificial selection.

I wasn't denying that, I was replying to his "This is the way of nature" quote.

[JoeySteel]

I wasn't denying that, I was replying to his "This is the way of nature" quote.

Well it is the "way of nature" of humans to artificially select.

[Skyhilist]

Well it is the "way of nature" of humans to artificially select.

By that logic, anything humans do is the "way of nature." Oh it's okay to over consume and pollute, increasing global warming is just a way of nature! I mean c'mon dude, obviously there's gotta be a distinction.

[JoeySteel]

By that logic, anything humans do is the "way of nature."

Correct, i.e. the distinction between natural and unnatural is tenuous at best.


Oh it's okay to over consume and pollute, increasing global warming is just a way of nature! I mean c'mon dude, obviously there's gotta be a distinction.

No. That's an example of the naturalistic fallacy/appeal to nature fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature). Something being "natural" doesn't mean it's "good" nor does "unnatural" mean bad in and of itself. The confusion is common though and it's not unsurprising that people would associate what's "natural" with what's good, and all manner of charlatans take advantage of the confusing nature of the word itself to sell "natural" products.

[Skyhilist]

Hold on, so first you argue that it's natural, and now you're arguing that "unnatural" and "natural" are tenuous comparisons. If so, then why even argue that it's natural in the first place. It's not even like that was a major part of my argument, I was simply saying that it's different from the usually occurring natural selection, which usually drives forces of evolution and creates much better genetic traits overall because it's a mechanism that's had hundreds of millions of years to do so. If you want to go after my argument, at least go after the main points. It's kind of trivial to waste so much time arguing about what constitutes being "natural", when that doesn't affect whether GMO's are appropriate or not anyways (as you even just stated in your most recent post). If you're really that upset about me calling it "unnatural", then fine all call it "exclusively anthropogenic" instead.

[JoeySteel]

Hold on, so first you argue that it's natural, and now you're arguing that "unnatural" and "natural" are tenuous comparisons. If so, then why even argue that it's natural in the first place. It's not even like that was a major part of my argument, I was simply saying that it's different from the usually occurring natural selection, which usually drives forces of evolution and creates much better genetic traits overall because it's a mechanism that's had hundreds of millions of years to do so. If you want to go after my argument, at least go after the main points. It's kind of trivial to waste so much time arguing about what constitutes being "natural", when that doesn't affect whether GMO's are appropriate or not anyways (as you even just stated in your most recent post). If you're really that upset about me calling it "unnatural", then fine all call it "exclusively anthropogenic" instead.

Natural selection is a specific term with a specific meaning in biology. The broad concepts "natural" and "unnatural" to describe human behaviour and interaction with the rest of the world are faulty categories, specifically "unnatural" is a faulty category (not to mention antiquated) that is clearly indefinable and historically prone to abuse. For illustrative purposes sometimes the phrase "natural phenomena" or some variant is used to refer to phenomena on earth that occurs without the interaction of humans, but this too is a specific term with a specific meaning. The use of "unnatural" to imply something negative or harmful is a fallacy as I said in the last post. It's quite right that whether something fits into an artificial distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" does not affect my appraisal of something. Is pollution a big problem and certainly bad? Yes! Is it "unnatural"? No, as a matter of fact pollution is created as a result of an animal (homo sapiens sapiens) interacting in a certain way with the rest of the environment. Many things that this animal has does can hurt it and other parts of the environment. It doesn't make them "unnatural." It certainly doesn't make sense to classify agriculture as unnatural and the idea of a great wall between genetically modified artificial selection and previous types of artificial selection is even more tenuous. I guess I wasted so much time making the point because this distinction between natural and unnatural as broad concepts is unscientific and contrary to materialism, a scientific materialist explanation of the development of human society and history and marxism-leninism.

[Skyhilist]

Natural selection is a specific term with a specific meaning in biology. The broad concepts "natural" and "unnatural" to describe human behaviour and interaction with the rest of the world are faulty categories, specifically "unnatural" is a faulty category that is clearly indefinable and historically prone to abuse. The use of "unnatural" to imply something negative or harmful is a fallacy as I said in the last post. It's quite right that whether something fits into an artificial distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" does not affect my appraisal of something. Is pollution a big problem and certainly bad? Yes! Is it "unnatural"? No, as a matter of fact pollution is created as a result of an animal (homo sapiens sapiens) interacting in a certain way with the rest of the environment. Many things that this animal has does can hurt it and other parts of the environment. It doesn't make them "unnatural."

I never said it was bad BECAUSE it was unnatural, I claimed it was bad for other reasons. Again, you're not even going after the trivial distinction between "purely anthropogenic" and "unnatural", despite the fact that it was quite clear that when I said unnatural I meant not naturally occurring in the environment outside of humans. I don't know why you're still holding on to this so much, you're basically just repeating what you said in your last post. I already said I'd use a different term if it REALLY bothers you that much, despite the fact that it was pretty obvious that I was referring to something not occurring outside of what humans do when I said that. If you'd like to argue my actual points instead of repeating over and over again why you don't like the word "unnatural" in that context, then fine. But the trivialness of this topic is just getting ridiculous...

[JoeySteel]

I never said it was bad BECAUSE it was unnatural, I claimed it was bad for other reasons. Again, you're not even going after the trivial distinction between "purely anthropogenic" and "unnatural", despite the fact that it was quite clear that when I said unnatural I meant not naturally occurring in the environment outside of humans. I don't know why you're still holding on to this so much, you're basically just repeating what you said in your last post. I already said I'd use a different term if it REALLY bothers you that much, despite the fact that it was pretty obvious that I was referring to something not occurring outside of what humans do when I said that. If you'd like to argue my actual points instead of repeating over and over again why you don't like the word "unnatural" in that context, then fine. But the trivialness of this topic is just getting ridiculous...

Perhaps I misunderstood your argument. It seemed to me that the last part of your latter point - "Also, yes, ecosystems are usually changing; through natural selection which has essentially chosen the best overall genes over hundreds of millions of years. This is completely different from the artificial selection that is imposed on plants through genetically modifying them." - contrasted natural and artificially selected changes to the environment with one choosing "the best" genes and the other clearly more negative inherently. Perhaps I read too much into it and I apologize if so. But it certainly doesn't make sense to classify agriculture as unnatural and the idea of a great wall between genetically modified artificial selection and previous types of artificial selection is even more tenuous. I guess I wasted so much time making the point because this distinction between natural and unnatural as broad concepts is unscientific and contrary to materialism, a scientific materialist explanation of the development of the universe, human society and history, and marxism-leninism, and this isn't just a general debate forum about whether GMO is bad (it's a revolutionary leftist internet forum, at least in name, and you've gone and done attracted a leftist geek on his computer who doesn't even like posting much to your comment D: Sorry if I derailed the thread, most people in it probably have a better understanding of the subject anyway :)

[Skyhilist]

Perhaps I misunderstood your argument. It seemed to me that the last part of your latter point - "Also, yes, ecosystems are usually changing; through natural selection which has essentially chosen the best overall genes over hundreds of millions of years. This is completely different from the artificial selection that is imposed on plants through genetically modifying them." - contrasted natural and artificially selected changes to the environment with one choosing "the best" genes and the other clearly more negative inherently. Perhaps I read too much into it and I apologize if so. But it certainly doesn't make sense to classify agriculture as unnatural and the idea of a great wall between genetically modified artificial selection and previous types of artificial selection is even more tenuous. I guess I wasted so much time making the point because this distinction between natural and unnatural as broad concepts is unscientific and contrary to materialism, a scientific materialist explanation of the development of the universe, human society and history, and marxism-leninism, and this isn't just a general debate forum about whether GMO is bad (it's a revolutionary leftist internet forum, at least in name, and you've gone and done attracted a leftist geek on his computer who doesn't even like posting much to your comment D: Sorry if I derailed the thread, most people in it probably have a better understanding of the subject anyway :)

Well I think at least most of us agreed that this study wasn't legit (there have been multiple studies proving it wrong), so I didn't really feel too badly talking about other reasons of why GMO's are bad, since I figured it's still the same basic topic at least. Again by unnatural, I mean entirely anthropogenic; sorry if you found that to be unscientific, but I really don't feel the need to write the same way in a general discussion as I would on a scientific paper. Anyways my main points were that a) We already make enough food that we don't need GMO's, we just waste a lot of it on stupid things b) GMO's have failed to deliver on their promises and c) GMO's aren't going towards helping end world hunger; really just filling up the pockets of the rich even further who have patents on such organisms. Those obviously are very simplified versions of what I was saying, but those were essentially my main points. Well I'm going to bed comrade, so sorry if I don't reply for awhile. No worries about any misunderstandings, I probably should've been clearer.

[Homo Songun]

It doesn't matter how terrible this study was, we already knew that these GMO crops are a bad deal for farmers, for the environment, and for food security. That fake studies will be discredited does not mean we have to accept as an axiom that whatever is "new technology" is thereby progress.

GMO is about profits, bottom line. So what if it's about profits right now? Everything under the capitalist system is about profits but that doesn't mean it's not useful as a technology.

I never said it's not useful technology. It is useful indeed for it's actual purpose, which is profit-making for capitalists. The rest is corporate propaganda -- aka good old bourgeois lies.


Sure, maybe the current line of GM crops have some problems but that doesn't mean we should discard the idea of making crops resistant to disease and pests entirely. All it means is we should change our approach.Hm, somehow I'm reminded of Marx's bit about "circumstances not of our own choosing" and "borrowed language" from the 18th Brumaire. We're not talking about the transition from wooden to steel plows. We're not even talking about the Green Revolution of the non-aligned countries in the 1950s.

The "technophiles" should watch this short film. it's about the impact of GMO farming on US farmers. One can only imagine the magnified effect on farmers in developing countries, the people in whose interest we supposedly fight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEX654gN3c4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jEX654gN3c4#)

[Mr. Natural]

Permanent Revolutionary, You seem to have taken a misaimed shot at me for liberalism. Of course capitalist relations now own the human food supply in general, but GM crops threaten us with new, devastating forms of capitalist control--a complete control.

I often post that with globalization, capitalism is now primed to control all forms of life on Earth. Capitalist relations have become human relations, and this represents a mental as well as a physical capture of humanity.

One measure of this mental capture of humanity within capitalist relations is a left that hasn't had a new idea in decades. Rather than recognize the need to re-radicalize their minds and re-revolutionize Marxism in response to capitalism's globalization, most leftists seem content to take nitpicky potshots at each other or show off their ancient Marxological chops.

We do seem to agree that GM crops under capitalist relations can only be a disaster. For that matter, what won't ultimately become a disaster within capitalist relations? I'll end on that note.

My red-green, deeply radical best.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm very conflicted. If crops weren't genetically modified, wouldn't the third world completely starve and the price of food in America become immensely high?

No. Why would that be true?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

A recent study suggests rats that eat GMO derived food are likelier to develop tumours.

Why would genetical modified food cause cancer? Whatever genetical material we (or other animals) ingest is destroyed in the process of digestion, so it doesn't seem to follow at all.

What GM does is a completely different thing: it ultimately enslaves peasants (and even bigger agricultural units of production) to companies owning the patents of GM seeds. Other effects are evidently possible, but they do not derive from the general quality of being genetically modified, being instead related to the specific genetic modifications that are implemented (for instance, genes that allow for a greater resistance to pesticides may result in increased use of these chemicals).

Luís Henrique

[Revoltorb]

I never said it's not useful technology. It is useful indeed for it's actual purpose, which is profit-making for capitalists. The rest is corporate propaganda -- aka good old bourgeois lies.

Hm, somehow I'm reminded of Marx's bit about "circumstances not of our own choosing" and "borrowed language" from the 18th Brumaire. We're not talking about the transition from wooden to steel plows. We're not even talking about the Green Revolution of the non-aligned countries in the 1950s.

Just because the bourgeoisie uses it for its purposes doesn't mean we can't subvert that and use it for our own. In a post-capitalist society, GMOs could be very useful for reducing the total amount of labour used to produce the same, if not more, amount of food to the world. And Christ, corporate propaganda? Yes, it exists, but surely every technological development in the past 300 years is not going to be discarded after the revolution because the bourgeoisie used it to increase its profit margin. Or is that what you're looking for?


The "technophiles" should watch this short film. it's about the impact of GMO farming on US farmers. One can only imagine the magnified effect on farmers in developing countries, the people in whose interest we supposedly fight.

URL REMOVED (I can't post links yet)

I'm in meetings/class all day so I'll watch the short clip when I get out of work. Although based on your description I would assume it's about the fact that big farming companies (Monsanto, et al.) are bad for local/small farmers. I don't dispute that GMOs, like all technology, can be used by the bourgeoisie to enforce its class hegemony. What I dispute is that GMOs are inherently bad.

Also, I don't fight in anyone's supposed interest but mine. Substitutionism is bad.

[Revoltorb]

I just watched the video and as far as I can tell it just says that current GMOs in the current (capitalist) system are bad for farmers. Yup. But that doesn't mean the GMOs are bad in general or that the technology should be avoided. I'd rather be a technophile than a luddite any day.

[Althusser]

I just watched the video and as far as I can tell it just says that current GMOs in the current (capitalist) system are bad for farmers. Yup. But that doesn't mean the GMOs are bad in general or that the technology should be avoided. I'd rather be a technophile than a luddite any day.

Couldn't agree more.

I find the issue sort of like how technological advancement allowing the complete mechanization of unskilled labor would be bad in a capitalist world, but great and liberating in a collectivist/socialist sense.

[Homo Songun]

I just watched the video and as far as I can tell it just says that current GMOs in the current (capitalist) system are bad for farmers. Yup. But that doesn't mean the GMOs are bad in general or that the technology should be avoided. I'd rather be a technophile than a luddite any day. Couldn't agree more.

I find the issue sort of like how technological advancement allowing the complete mechanization of unskilled labor would be bad in a capitalist world, but great and liberating in a collectivist/socialist sense.

I think that defending GMOs in this way, as if it were on the whole a positive instrument for the advancement of the 'means of production', and only incidentally subject to some capitalist-induced hiccups here and there, is a grave mistake.

It unjustifiably presupposes that there is an a priori standard of progress "in general" that "technological advancement" can objectively be measured against. On this view, pure and true "advancement" is perverted only once it has been practically applied under the "current (capitalist)" mode of the means of production. In other words, this line of reasoning is guilty of Platonism, which is the crudest and most primitive form of idealism.

Science cannot exist apart from the class struggle. It is a constituent part of the overall ideological superstructure, which is in turn a reflection of the state of social relations of capitalism as a whole.

I mean, on the one hand, the agribusiness industry undertakes a certain course of action that, in order to maximize profits:



ruins the livelihoods of farmers all over the world,



increases hunger,



endangers the ecology of the planet.


On the other hand, smart and good people are totally convinced that this industry is tirelessly working to increase yields and end starvation...amazing! That is really the ideological conditioning process of capitalism in a nutshell.

[Mr. Natural]

AlienatedHumour, The Luddites were not opposed to technology, but to a capitalist manufacturing technology that they correctly perceived would be their economic and social ruin. Capitalist GM crops pose a similar peril to global agriculture and humanity.

The problem is capitalism's organization of technology and GM crops, not technology and GM crops per se.

My red-green best.

[MarxSchmarx]

Here are a some responses from scientists regarding the serious flaws of the research: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/press_releases/12-09-19_gm_maize_rats_tumours.htm


If I were the editor assigned to this paper, I would have agreed with those statements. But at the same time, one has to put this in the broader context.

First, the basic line of criticism is that the results are too preliminary. I entirely agree. But that doesn't mean it is unworthy of scientific publication. In fact, science progresses by having these precisely these "seeds of doubt" sown every now and then. Only by reconciling anomolies/unexpected results can scientific development be possible. Citing the Impact Factor as one claimant does is frankly a cop-out.

Second, the issue seems to be largely statistical. This is a concern, because if the primary critique is that the inferences are based on small sample sizes, this is not really credible. There are plenty of robust statistical tests that involve small sample sizes - Fisher's exact test, for example. Thus, small sample sizes and lack of conventional statistics per se is not grounds for dismissal. Of course, conventional statistics based on huge sample sizes are the gold standard. But it doesn't mean that results that don't fit those criteria cannot be considered "evidence".

As an aside, even the kind of studies demanded of this are seen as insufficient. The debate over whether cellphones cause cancer, for instance, is about the relative merits of an inherently statistical (advanced by biologists/epidemiologists) versus an inherenetly mechanistic (advanced by Newtonian physicists/engineers) scientific practice.

What troubles me most is that opponents seem to be playing right into the hands of the anti-GM perspective. If anything, this paper has highlighted the need for conducting such analysis. By demanding more rigorous proof, the critics of the study are effectively saying: "throw more money at this question, dear god do so because these results have serious implications." That there describes just about every grant proposal that gets funded.



As you say, there is still a dependence on subsistence farming in poor countries. So the problem is not just one of distribution. There might be enough food to feed all, but that's not the same thing as saying that production output and efficiency does not need to be improved, or that advanced agricultural techniques don't need to be more widely implemented.

Yes, but the question is whether GM technologies are the optimal way to approach these issues.


Why would genetical modified food cause cancer? Whatever genetical material we (or other animals) ingest is destroyed in the process of digestion, so it doesn't seem to follow at all.


It's not well known, but there are two issues here.

The first is that an absence of mechanism does not imply causative relation. There is, despite enormous research, very superficial understanding of the precise mechanism by which whooping cough induces asphyxia or dengue kills you. But the statistical evidence is clear, despite the lack of an "A causes B which causes C story". I think such skepticism of merely statistical trends is extremely valid in social sciences (e.g., "Higher IQ scores in parents cause their children to have higher IQ scores which causes these children to have higher incomes"), but in biology it is indeed an extremely valid reason to take a closer look at precisely what the mechanisms can be (e.g., "On islands sea iguanas lay more eggs than tree iguanas which causes sea iguanas to be more common in the Galapagos" should lead to studies of why eating kelp is more energetically efficient than eating leaves on the Galapagos).

The second, and perhaps more substantive, approach is the reason is that a lot of these genetic constructs are inserted randomly into the genomes of crops. But genomes are complicated systems that integrate novel genetic contributions in different ways. In so doing, a change in one part affects change in another part. For instance, if a maize/corn plant has to survive the stress of having an unknown genetic element in its mix, it might over-compensate by producing a compound to neutralize that element. Our cells process the proteins and carbohydrates derived from different food sources differently. A cancer (abnormal) cell lineage that is able to accommodate itself particularly well to the alternative GMO crop has an inherent advantage over a regular cell that doesn't maximize it's ability to utilize the GMO-derived nutrients.

Edit: A third, much less likely possibility is that the modified element itself somehow makes it into the cell line and propagates as abnormal cells. This can happen, in theory, if a virus infecting the gmo cell can also infect a regular human cell. I don't think anybody takes this mechanism seriously, but of the mechanisms mentioned it is probably one which people can more or less readily grasp easiest, so I just wanted to make sure I covered the bases.


What GM does is a completely different thing: it ultimately enslaves peasants (and even bigger agricultural units of production) to companies owning the patents of GM seeds. Other effects are evidently possible, but they do not derive from the general quality of being genetically modified, being instead related to the specific genetic modifications that are implemented (for instance, genes that allow for a greater resistance to pesticides may result in increased use of these chemicals).

Luís Henrique

Well, that's how it works under capitalism. It seems like you've raised yet one more reason for why we need to have these intellectual property belong to everyone.

[Kenco Smooth]

Second, the issue seems to be largely statistical. This is a concern, because if the primary critique is that the inferences are based on small sample sizes, this is not really credible. There are plenty of robust statistical tests that involve small sample sizes - Fisher's exact test, for example. Thus, small sample sizes and lack of conventional statistics per se is not grounds for dismissal. Of course, conventional statistics based on huge sample sizes are the gold standard. But it doesn't mean that results that don't fit those criteria cannot be considered "evidence".


Except such statistics, whilst having acceptably high power on a small scale, rest on the assumption that the sample is representative of the larger population. There's no way to control for that and that is reason enough to be very wary of such important results until further confirmation is done on a larger scale.

[MarxSchmarx]

Except such statistics, whilst having acceptably high power on a small scale, rest on the assumption that the sample is representative of the larger population. There's no way to control for that and that is reason enough to be very wary of such important results until further confirmation is done on a larger scale.

I don't know what you would qualify as the "larger population" here. The study was based on colonies of rats from laboratories. Only one scientist brought up that the strain of rats might not be representative, but that isn't a problem of the statistics, it's a problem of the model of your experiment. If the strain of rats is fundamentally prone to giving false positives, no amount of larger sampling would have sufficed to get around that problem. The only way you deal with that is to use a different strain, not add more rats to the study.

Thus it is not a randomized double blind clinical trial of hospital patients or of any human populations, or even of rat populations. But these sorts of subsampling issues are routine in medical studies involving murine models. They are quite divorced from the statistical analysis.

[Kenco Smooth]

I don't know what you would qualify as the "larger population" here. The study was based on colonies of rats from laboratories. Only one scientist brought up that the strain of rats might not be representative, but that isn't a problem of the statistics, it's a problem of the model of your experiment. If the strain of rats is fundamentally prone to giving false positives, no amount of larger sampling would have sufficed to get around that problem. The only way you deal with that is to use a different strain, not add more rats to the study.

Thus it is not a randomized double blind clinical trial of hospital patients or of any human populations, or even of rat populations. But these sorts of subsampling issues are routine in medical studies involving murine models. They are quite divorced from the statistical analysis.

The issue doesn't even need to be one of systematic bias of the kind raised above. A small sample could end up yielding significant results just by being an outlier in the normal distribution of reactions. It wouldn't happen often but then again this finding is hardly well supported not familiar with the literature but I'd expect the exact opposite in fact). The fact that the power exists to find a relation isn't the only statistical issue, false positives are constantly being published from dubiously sized samples.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think that defending GMOs in this way, as if it were on the whole a positive instrument for the advancement of the 'means of production', and only incidentally subject to some capitalist-induced hiccups here and there, is a grave mistake.

It unjustifiably presupposes that there is an a priori standard of progress "in general" that "technological advancement" can objectively be measured against. On this view, pure and true "advancement" is perverted only once it has been practically applied under the "current (capitalist)" mode of the means of production. In other words, this line of reasoning is guilty of Platonism, which is the crudest and most primitive form of idealism.

Oh get over yourself, you pretentious poseur. GM technology can enable us to develop crops capable of tolerating a greater range of conditions, to develop strains for specific purposes, and more. How the fuck is that not an improvement over breeding via artificial selection?


Science cannot exist apart from the class struggle. It is a constituent part of the overall ideological superstructure, which is in turn a reflection of the state of social relations of capitalism as a whole.

That explains why GM is being developed for profit purposes under the capitalist price system, but that does not explain how GM is inherently evil or oppressive or whatever twaddle it is you believe.


I mean, on the one hand, the agribusiness industry undertakes a certain course of action that, in order to maximize profits:



ruins the livelihoods of farmers all over the world,



increases hunger,



endangers the ecology of the planet.


None of which are inherent consequences of genetic modification. Would you like to try again?


On the other hand, smart and good people are totally convinced that this industry is tirelessly working to increase yields and end starvation...amazing! That is really the ideological conditioning process of capitalism in a nutshell.

Or maybe they just realise the potential of GM, even if it's not being fully realised.

[Homo Songun]

Oh get over yourself, you pretentious poseur.
LOL. Nothing says "I am about to read a reasoned and coherent argument" like a random insulte. Très bon!



GM technology can enable us to develop crops capable of tolerating a greater range of conditions, to develop strains for specific purposes, and more. How the fuck is that not an improvement over breeding via artificial selection?
How is Folgers not a richer, smoother blend with less bitter after-taste than Brand X? I don't see the point in getting caught up in the marketing claims from the brochure. Although there is plenty that can be said about such lies.

Capitalists like ADM and Monsanto are in the business of making money, not juicier tomatoes or what have you. That's it. From Marx on, people have have been observing that they will do literally anything they can to get away with it.


That explains why GM is being developed for profit purposes under the capitalist price system, but that does not explain how GM is inherently evil or oppressive or whatever twaddle it is you believe.

None of which are inherent consequences of genetic modification. Would you like to try again?

Or maybe they just realise the potential of GM, even if it's not being fully realised.

My answer to this is the same as in the last post. There cannot be science for sciences sake any more than there can be art for arts sake. The reason why I called the opposing position idealist is because it must in some fashion posit some kind of predicateless knowledge "out there", which is unfortunately only being temporarily "perceived" through capitalist-tinted glasses. That's just false.

This divide, between the dialectical-materialist point of view on the one hand, and yours on the other, is very profound. We can't have a sensible conversation about GMO without at least acknowledging it.

[MarxSchmarx]

The issue doesn't even need to be one of systematic bias of the kind raised above. A small sample could end up yielding significant results just by being an outlier in the normal distribution of reactions. It wouldn't happen often but then again this finding is hardly well supported not familiar with the literature but I'd expect the exact opposite in fact). The fact that the power exists to find a relation isn't the only statistical issue, false positives are constantly being published from dubiously sized samples.

The problem is that the sample size has to be adequate for the given null hypothesis, not uniformly large for any null hypothesis. That the data turn out to be a (one in whatever) outlier is actually unlikely to arise not so much because it is by definition rare (although it is so), but because of the nature of the null hypothesis in small sample sized based inferences renders false positives unlikely. Indeed, statistical power is in many respects a safe-guard against precisely the kind of error you describe when approximations are needed, and often the basic idea applies very well to cases where inferences need to be made based on small samples and well-specified null distributions. But when approximations are not needed (I have no idea if that is the case for this study), then even small sample sizes can yield valid inferences.

For the record, I'm not defending this particular study. I'm just defending the ability to use statistics to draw meaningful inferences from small sample sizes.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How is Folgers not a richer, smoother blend with less bitter after-taste than Brand X? I don't see the point in getting caught up in the marketing claims from the brochure. Although there is plenty that can be said about such lies.

Are you denying that GM is a more powerful tool than selective breeding, which is limited to working with the genomes of those organisms that are inter-fertile? I take it you missed all those reports of genes from non-plant species being inserted into that of plants?


Capitalists like ADM and Monsanto are in the business of making money, not juicier tomatoes or what have you. That's it. From Marx on, people have have been observing that they will do literally anything they can to get away with it.

Corporations are evil, tell me something I don't fucking know already. Are you forgetting that it's not just private companies engaged in GM research?


My answer to this is the same as in the last post. There cannot be science for sciences sake any more than there can be art for arts sake. The reason why I called the opposing position idealist is because it must in some fashion posit some kind of predicateless knowledge "out there", which is unfortunately only being temporarily "perceived" through capitalist-tinted glasses. That's just false.

It's also a strawman. What you call idealism is actually a realisation that scientific methods of enquiry are tools, and tools are employed according to the objectives of those using them. People like you conflate the tool with the tool-user, and condemn both.


This divide, between the dialectical-materialist point of view on the one hand, and yours on the other, is very profound. We can't have a sensible conversation about GMO without at least acknowledging it.

Dialectical materialism can suck my left one. Try logic instead.

[Homo Songun]

How is Folgers not a richer, smoother blend with less bitter after-taste than Brand X? I don't see the point in getting caught up in the marketing claims from the brochure. Although there is plenty that can be said about such lies.
Are you denying that GM is a more powerful tool than selective breeding, which is limited to working with the genomes of those organisms that are inter-fertile?
It's impossible for me to agree or disagree with your conclusion "GM is a more powerful tool than selective breeding" as it is currently stated by you. Suppose I grant that genetic modification and selective breeding are "tools" as you say. The problem is that this is an incomplete syllogism: tools for what exactly? There is no such thing as an abstract property "tool" which things can be said to partake of. However, particular humans in a particular society are known to make tools for particular tasks. Thus, one complete syllogism could be,


Selective breeding is a tool for making money that potentially destroys the livelihoods of farmers and harms the environment.
GM is a tool for making money that actually destroys the livelihoods of farmers and harms the environment.
GM is a more powerful tool than selective breeding for destroying the livelihoods of farmers and harming the environment.

As it happens, this is not only valid logically speaking, it also happens to be true. Conversely, the alternate conclusion


GM is a more powerful tool than selective breeding for x

where x is any number of marketing claims by the agribusiness industry is logically invalid, as well as being utterly false in actual fact.



Corporations are evil, tell me something I don't fucking know already. Are you forgetting that it's not just private companies engaged in GM research?

Like what? University departments? The question of ideological hegemony is very important, but I'll set that aside for the time being, since that makes you squeamish. The idea that an entity, whose sole ostensible purpose is to make future workers for the "private companies" in question, and whose research largely operates on grant money from the same, can therefore somehow -as a rule- operate outside the ideological assumptions and requirements of those "private companies", is laughably absurd. That's like saying ballistics research or nuclear physics has nothing to do with the military-industrial complex. Not likely.

[Sir Comradical]

I don't know much of the science so I just trust people like Vandana Shiva.

[MarxSchmarx]

It's impossible for me to agree or disagree with your conclusion "GM is a more powerful tool than selective breeding" as it is currently stated by you. Suppose I grant that genetic modification and selective breeding are "tools" as you say. The problem is that this is an incomplete syllogism: tools for what exactly? There is no such thing as an abstract property "tool" which things can be said to partake of. However, particular humans in a particular society are known to make tools for particular tasks. Thus, one complete syllogism could be,


Selective breeding is a tool for making money that potentially destroys the livelihoods of farmers and harms the environment.
GM is a tool for making money that actually destroys the livelihoods of farmers and harms the environment.
GM is a more powerful tool than selective breeding for destroying the livelihoods of farmers and harming the environment.

As it happens, this is not only valid logically speaking, it also happens to be true. Conversely, the alternate conclusion


GM is a more powerful tool than selective breeding for x

where x is any number of marketing claims by the agribusiness industry is logically invalid, as well as being utterly false in actual fact.


How about "tool for producing a pest resistant crop that is safe for consumers and the environment"?

Actually on this count I think selective breeding has enormous unrealized potential thanks to modern genomics. But temporarily setting that aside, I think a lot of the people working on the technical side of transgenic crops have these kinds of interests; it's management that worries about profitability, etc... The situation isn't that different from pharmacy, where a lot, possibly even majority, of biochemists are indeed interested in curing serious diseases, but management siphons enormous resources towards marketing things like curing male pattern baldness rather than research either way.

[Homo Songun]

How about "tool for producing a pest resistant crop that is safe for consumers and the environment"? [...] think a lot of the people working on the technical side of transgenic crops have these kinds of interests; it's management that worries about profitability, etc... The situation isn't that different from pharmacy, where a lot, possibly even majority, of biochemists are indeed interested in curing serious diseases, but management siphons enormous resources towards marketing things like curing male pattern baldness rather than research either way.

I know. Harboring these kinds of illusions is critical for continuing capitalist ideological hegemony.

[Let's Get Free]

What doesn't cause cancer these days?