[Marxism] Study finds strong GM corn-cancer link

Jeff meisner at xs4all.nl
Thu Sep 20 17:16:54 MDT 2012

At 15:48 20-09-12 +1000, Stuart Munckton wrote:

For the sake of those who read the shocking subject line but didn't check
out the article, let me mention that this result appears very suspect. What
should have been mentioned is that they weren't testing only the GM strain,
but the herbicide Roundup (which is intended to be used with this strain
which is resistant to it). I would be unsurprised if that chemical was
found to be carcinogenic, but to have engineered a naturally growing food
that is carcinogenic would not only be shocking (since it is fed to people)
but would also be a first I believe, and thus of great interest
scientifically in itself. But a few aspects of the research, even as
reported in this general news report, merit skepticism:

>The researchers found that NK603 and Roundup both caused similar damage to 
>the rats' health, whether they were consumed together or on their own. 

In other words, they had some test groups eating only the GM corn, and
others eating only a chemical herbicide, and found the identical effect
from two very different substances! That would be an extremely remarkable
coincidence, so unlikely that one would have to ask what else they were
doing to these rats that made them so susceptible to cancer. And:

>"By the beginning of the 24th month, 50-80 percent of female animals had
>developed tumours in all treated groups, with up to three tumours per
>animal, whereas only 30 percent of controls were affected," it said

What? Of the control group who received neither agent, 30% of them got
cancer? I don't believe the cancer rate for rats could be that high. So it
seems like they should start by demonstrating that they can care for rats
without giving 30% of them cancer, and then think about forming test groups.

What's more, the release of the results to the press was also suspicious:
>Breaking with a long tradition in scientific journalism, the authors 
>allowed a selected group of reporters to have access to the paper, provided 
>they signed confidentiality agreements that prevented them from consulting 
>other experts about the research before publication. 

Bad sign. If they had confidence in their results, they shouldn't have
feared feedback from their counterparts. Nor would they have had to go to
the general press before proper publication of their results and review by
other scientists. In every respect it appears that they had a political
agenda and acted on it, thereby tarnishing the name of science.

- Jeff

More information about the Marxism mailing list