Χτες παρουσιάστηκε σε συνέδριο στο Λονδίνο μια μακράς διάρκειας έρευνα γαλλικού ερευνητικού ιδρύματος για την επίδραση 3 ποικιλιών γενετικά τροποποιημένης σιταροπούλας.
Το abstract της έρευνας που αφορούσε την σιταροπούλες
ΝΚ603 που αντέχει στο Roundap
MON810 & MON863 που παράγουν τοξικό
είναι εδώ:
A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health
Μια περίληψη των αποτελεσμάτων:
Το abstract της έρευνας που αφορούσε την σιταροπούλες
ΝΚ603 που αντέχει στο Roundap
MON810 & MON863 που παράγουν τοξικό
είναι εδώ:
A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health
Μια περίληψη των αποτελεσμάτων:
- 50% των θηλυκών και 70% των αρσενικών είχαν πρόωρο θάνατο
- Σε συνδυασμό με ίχνη από φυτοφάρμακο αυξήθηκε το μέγεθος των όγκων
- Καταστράφηκαν εσωτερικά όργανα
Σχόλια
Every time we have a study we quickly get an array pro GMO people trying to find the mistakes in the study.
The pro GMO lobby is very strong !
Άραγε, υπάρχει ελπίς;
I am not pro-GMO (and definitely I am not a member of any kind of lobby).
But I am pro-science and especially of the scientific method. There are legitimate concerns about the methodology of this study so we should take the results with a grain of salt until more studies test the conclusions.
Additionally, the general public should be made aware that this study is about specific strains, and not about ALL GMOs. That is to say, even if these results are proven to be significant, it still doesn't mean we should reject GMOs in their entirety. It just confirms the obvious, i.e. that we should be extra careful of what modifications we make and how much we test them before we make them publicly available.
My two major concerns with this study are the small sample sizes (20 rats for the control group) and the fact that this study was funded by Greenpeace. Now talk about a strong lobby!
I am pretty certain that you would not post pro-GMO research that was funded by Monsanto, would you?
Look what happened slowly in the agricultural sector in Cyprus. All the local varieties are almost extinct and farmers buy their plants only from certain places.
How long will this take to be controlled by eg Monsanto that you quote ?
And since you ask I would never publish anything by them and I need to say also that when I was invited to an event by them in Cyprus I did not go.
WRT to the actual study my point of view is very simple. I don't trust anyone!
I remember how long it took the World Health Organisation to admit that smoking is bad for your health because the tobacco industry lobby was very strong.
And the GNO lobby in EU is very very strong!
there is no doubt that the Agro corporations have a strong lobby, since there are a lot of profits to be made.
I think there are two issues here.
1. The objections that you mentioned are socio-economic and I tend to agree with you. However, the fact that local varieties are going extinct is based on the greed of ALL parts of the equation: the greed of Agro-companies trying to sell their seeds, the greed of the farmers trying to increase their profits, and the greed of the consumers who are unwilling to pay more for organic food. It's up to the consumers to vote with their money, and it seems to me that not only in Cyprus but everywhere, people are voting for cheap food.
2. My concern is the vilification of GMO technology. In Cyprus/Europe we have the luxury of being choosy about what we eat. However, GMO technology can do a lot to help people in poor countries who are severely malnourished. And GMOs are not only those that carry a pesticide (usually developed by Monsanto and the likes), but also those that carry increased levels of beneficial nutrients (usually developed by University researchers). However, the ability of scientists/NGOs/governments to implement these beneficial and harmless plants (they just have increased levels of some nutrients that they naturally have) is diminished by extremely harsh regulations in the countries where the technologies are developed (i.e. USA/Europe).
I have recently attended a talk by a Cypriot researcher (Paul Christou) who works in Spain and has developed GM corn fortified with b-carotene (if I recall correctly) and he was talking about these issues of not only being able to apply the technology in Africa but also perform his research in the EU.
My point is this:
When it comes to the socio-economic aspect, let the Governments/market/public/economists decide.
When it comes to the scientific aspect and the safety of the technology, let the scientists and the scientific method decide and not the public/market/business/lobbies. Vilifying the technology will hurt people who need it and who don't have a voice.
(Just for disclosure: I am a research scientist working in the USA at a non-profit institute and my research has absolutely nothing to do with GMOs.)
2. Low power of the study due to very small sample size. I'm wondering how they "decided" to conduct multivariate analysis with so few rats???
3. Not adjusting for factors like age for example which is associated with both outcomes and the exposure here and could lead to misleading results
4. Results from a specific rat breed and specific GMOs should not be considered generalizable.
5. Weight of evidence about GMOs and health effects is not enough for the moment to support change in regulations
6. I'm personally consuming mostly organic products which I'm trying to promote this in Cyprus (and I also run a website on that). However as a Public Health scientist I have to be realistic.
@christina, το ότι οι αρουραίοι ζουν μέχρι 2 χρόνια served to show that most of them died PREMATURELY, στον ανάμισυ χρόνο ορ σόου.