![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health
This is not new research, but a re-analysis of the original studies done for the approval process when these varieties were introduced. It involves one Roundup-Ready variety and two Bt-protein synthesizing varieties. These varieties are all currently part of the food supply.
The conclusions (do read the "Discussion" section, it's not totally opaque for the layman especially if you read the first paragraph and the last two) were that the experimental design by the Monsanto researchers was quite flawed, and the original analysis of the results was imperfect at best. When this team reweighed the data to compensate for the experimental flaws, and ran an appropriate statistical analysis on the result, they got totally different trends than the original researchers did. From my somewhat limited knowledge of experimental design and analysis -- I had a teacher who focused on what mistakes are commonly made, and how to spot them -- this was a very thorough and appropriate correction of the statistical techniques and design.
( A few highlights: )
I'm not an opponent of genetically-modified crops -- far from it -- but I've been concerned from the get-go that insufficient testing has been done on all aspects of the safety of the resulting plants. The possibility that Bt proteins could be toxic to humans makes sense to me, as we've never eaten large amounts of the stuff before and who knows what our bodies think of it; we already know that Roundup is toxic, and crops which can be sprayed with impunity will naturally have higher levels of residue in them. We need to look at these potential issues before these crops are released to the public, and assure ourselves that the risk is minimal or none. We, as scientists, owe it to ourselves and the public to do this, no matter how small we think the risks may be -- even with a "safe" bet, we're still gambling with huge stakes.
I hope this spurs a flood of animal-toxicity studies, particularly long-term ones. I hope it prompts studies of other crops, such as soy and canola. We can't afford to wait.
Lastly, I hope this serves as a reminder: don't take any single study at face value, whether you like or dislike the results. Unless you can critically examine the methods and analysis that were done, you have no idea whether the data was good or the conclusions were reasonable. Bad studies and analysis don't even have to be from malicious or sneaky intent (I can tell you that a distressing number of researchers figure that slapping all the numbers into a table and running ANOVA is the best way to handle any data). Wait until the study has been picked apart and corroborated by others before treating it as anything approaching fact.
This is not new research, but a re-analysis of the original studies done for the approval process when these varieties were introduced. It involves one Roundup-Ready variety and two Bt-protein synthesizing varieties. These varieties are all currently part of the food supply.
The conclusions (do read the "Discussion" section, it's not totally opaque for the layman especially if you read the first paragraph and the last two) were that the experimental design by the Monsanto researchers was quite flawed, and the original analysis of the results was imperfect at best. When this team reweighed the data to compensate for the experimental flaws, and ran an appropriate statistical analysis on the result, they got totally different trends than the original researchers did. From my somewhat limited knowledge of experimental design and analysis -- I had a teacher who focused on what mistakes are commonly made, and how to spot them -- this was a very thorough and appropriate correction of the statistical techniques and design.
( A few highlights: )
I'm not an opponent of genetically-modified crops -- far from it -- but I've been concerned from the get-go that insufficient testing has been done on all aspects of the safety of the resulting plants. The possibility that Bt proteins could be toxic to humans makes sense to me, as we've never eaten large amounts of the stuff before and who knows what our bodies think of it; we already know that Roundup is toxic, and crops which can be sprayed with impunity will naturally have higher levels of residue in them. We need to look at these potential issues before these crops are released to the public, and assure ourselves that the risk is minimal or none. We, as scientists, owe it to ourselves and the public to do this, no matter how small we think the risks may be -- even with a "safe" bet, we're still gambling with huge stakes.
I hope this spurs a flood of animal-toxicity studies, particularly long-term ones. I hope it prompts studies of other crops, such as soy and canola. We can't afford to wait.
Lastly, I hope this serves as a reminder: don't take any single study at face value, whether you like or dislike the results. Unless you can critically examine the methods and analysis that were done, you have no idea whether the data was good or the conclusions were reasonable. Bad studies and analysis don't even have to be from malicious or sneaky intent (I can tell you that a distressing number of researchers figure that slapping all the numbers into a table and running ANOVA is the best way to handle any data). Wait until the study has been picked apart and corroborated by others before treating it as anything approaching fact.
