Greenpeace Attempts to Halt CSIRO Experiments on GM Wheat
July 6th, 2011
|
| Share |
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation or CSIRO is the primary national body for scientific research in Australia. CSIRO is involved in a diverse range of scientific endeavors ranging from astronomy to particle physics to medical, environmental and biological research.
CSIRO has also been involved in agricultural experiments including those which involve genetically modified crops. As might be imagined, this has some people very very angry. A story has recently been making the rounds about how a group of “prominent scientists” are urging CSIRO to end what they call dangerous experiments with genetically modified food crops.
Via the Sydney Morning Herald:
Scientists reject human trials of GM wheat
A group of prominent scientists and researchers from around the world has urged Australia not to go ahead with human trials of genetically modified (GM) wheat.The CSIRO is carrying out a study of feeding GM wheat grown in the ACT to rats and pigs and could extend the trial to humans.
The modified wheat has been altered to lower its glycaemic index in an attempt to see if the grain could have health benefits such as improving blood glucose control and lowering cholesterol levels.
But eight scientists and academics from Britain, the US, India, Argentina and Australia believe not enough studies have been done on the effects of GM wheat on animals to warrant human trials.
…
In a letter to the CSIRO’s chief executive Megan Clark, the scientists expressed their “unequivocal denunciation” of the experiments.“The use of human subjects for these GM feeding experiments is completely unacceptable,” the letter said.
“The experiments may be used to dispense with concerns about the health impacts of consuming GM plants, but will not in fact address the health risks GM plants raise.
“The feeding trials should not be conducted until long-term impact assessments have been undertaken and appropriate information released to enable the scientific community to determine the value of such research, as against the risks.”
…
Greenpeace food campaigner Laura Kelly said GM experts recommended that long-term animal feeding studies of two years should be carried out before human testing to evaluate any carcinogenic, developmental, hormonal, neural and reproductive dysfunctions.
“This is the first generation of Australian children that will be exposed to GM in food for a lifetime,” she said.
“If Julia Gillard doesn’t stand up to foreign biotech companies, soon they’ll be eating it in their sandwiches and pasta, even though it has never been proven safe to eat.”
Sounds scary, doesn’t it? In fact, truth about what is being done at CSIRO is not quite as terrifying as all that.
The particular breed of wheat which is being researched was modified in a manner that alters the structure of starches, reducing the rate at which they are absorbed into the body. This has the effect of reducing the glycaemic index. It’s an important consideration because the glycaemic index of foods is directly related to the stability of blood sugar levels. Grains with a lower glycaemic index could therefore be an important part of managing diabetes and may have other dietary benefits. As with some other genetically modified organisms, the goal is not so much to improve crop yield or economics but rather to provide desirable nutritional characteristics.
Research on the breed of rice in question has been going on for more than six years. There have been no human trials and there are no immediate plans for human trials, but the grain has been fed to rats and more recently pigs. Most of the large scale feeding experiments have been fairly limited in duration, but have generally had positive results, showing that the modified starch does indeed reduce the glycaemic index of the foods.
Of course, the intention is that these crops will eventually be grown for human consumption and as such, there will be human trails at some point in the future. And that is what has a few all hot and bothered.
Despite the news being rather common, the actual names of the scientists involved and the content of the letter have not been as widely published. Thankfully, Karl Haro von Mogel of Biofortfied did some digging and discovered things to be a bit different than they were portrayed.
First, it turns out the letter was not written by a group of concerned scientists at all. It was written by Greenpeace. Greenpeace put together the letter and then went out looking for scientists to sign it. They must have searched nearly the entire world, because in the end they had to cast their net as far and wide as India, the United States, Argentina, Australia and the United Kingdom. And in this worldwide search for scientists to sign on they managed to find a whopping… eight. Yes, eight. Eight signatures is all they could manage to get, and they’re not even from what would generally be regarded as “prominent” scientists either. Not only that, but three are not really scientists at all.
So for those keeping score: In the entire world there were five real scientists and three resume-padders willing to sign Greenpeace’s letter. Most of whom, by the way, are already fixtures in the anti-GM movement.
Von Mogel also attempted to track down the contents of the letter, which did not seem to be published anywhere. Curious, it would seem, since it is supposed to be an “Open Letter.” He contacted one of the individuals listed in news items, who dismissed him as “pro-GM” and would not provide the text of the letter. He then contacted Greenpeace, who would also not provide the text of the open letter.
Finally, he contacted CSIRO, who were more than willing to provide a copy of the letter they received.
Open letter from scientists and doctors around the world regarding human
feeding trials of genetically modified wheat in AustraliaWe are writing to express our unequivocal denunciation of the experiments being conducted by your colleagues that involve feeding genetically modified (GM) wheat to human subjects. We are all senior scientists/academics with a professional interest in the health and environmental effects of GMOs. We refer to the trials described on the website of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR):
• DIR 093 – Limited and controlled release of wheat and barley genetically modified for altered grain starch composition
The biological and biochemical characterisation of the GM wheat being used in these experiments is inadequately described in the publicly available literature. Much of the information required to conduct adequate pre-clinical evaluation is withheld on the basis that it is ‘confidential commercial information’.
Genetically modified products have not been shown to be distinctive, uniform and stable over time. There is a large body of evidence that shows that GM crop / food production is highly prone to inadvertent and unpredictable pleiotropic effects, which can result in health damaging effects when GM food products are fed to animals (Pusztai and Bardocz, 2006; Schubert, 2008; Dona and Arvanitoyannis, 2009).
The feeding trials, as described in the documents from the OGTR, are completely inadequate to assess these risks. Feeding trials on rats, pigs and humans are proposed for a period of 1 to 28 days. The intention of these trials is to assess the altered grain starch composition of the wheat, but not to test for any unintended results. We have seen in the independent research conducted on consumption of GM plants to date that unintended effects may appear in later generations (Velimirov et al, 2008).
The use of human subjects for these GM feeding experiments is completely unacceptable. The experiments may be used to dispense with concerns about the health impacts of consuming GM plants, but will not in fact, address the health risks GM plants raise.
The feeding trials should not be conducted until long-term impact assessments have been undertaken and appropriate information released to enable the scientific community to determine the value of such research, as against the risks.
Yours sincerely,
The undersigned signatories:Dr Michael Antoniou
Gene expression and Therapy Group
King’s College London School of Medicine
Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics
8th Floor, Tower Wing
Guy’s Hospital
Great Maze Pond
London
SE1 9RT, UKDr Vandana Shiva Ph D
Navdanya
Research Foundation for Science Technology and Ecology
105 Rajpur Road
Dehra Dun, IndiaDr George Crisp MBBS MRCGP
General Practitioner
Western AustraliaProfessor Andres Carrasco
Lab Molecular Embryology
School of Medicine UBA – CONICET
ArgentinaProfessor Carlo Leifert
Res Dev Prof of Ecological Agriculture
Newcastle University School of Agriculture,
Food and Rural Development (SAFRD)
Nafferton Farm
Stocksfield
Northumberland, NE43 7XD, UKProfessor David Schubert
Salk Institute for Biological Studies
10010 N. Torrey Pines Road,
La. Jolla, CA 92037
USADr Benjamin Ticehurst BSc(Med) MBBS MPH FRACGP
General medical practitioner & senior lecturer
School of Medicine, Sydney
University of Notre Dame AustraliaJohn B. Fagan, Ph.D.
Professor of Molecular Biology
Maharishi University of Management
(Maharishi International University 1971 to 1995)
1000 North Fourth Street
Fairfield, Iowa, 52557-10
There is some additional information available from Biofortified. On closer examination, it appears that the letter was actually mostly recycled text of a similar letter to Tufts University denouncing scientific research on genetically engineered Golden Rice. It also seems that this letter is part of a recent Greenpeace media campaign against genetic research in Australia, including a press release entitled “Australia’s wheat scandal: The biotech takeover of our daily bread,” which resulted in some media backlash when it was revealed that the group had targeted the report at certain media outlets and made a number of exaggerated claims.
In fact, there is no “scandal” involving a takeover of Australian grain crops by untested genetically modified organisms. The crops in question are not being grown for human consumption, they are only in the early phase of research and development. The research itself is not being done secretly or in any deceptive manner. It’s a legitimate, open part of CSIRO’s agricultural research operation.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 6th, 2011 at 6:03 pm and is filed under Agriculture, Bad Science, Enviornment, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
July 6th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Above all, what is masked in the environmental criticism of GM foods is a morbid hatred of ambition and inventiveness. A visitor from another planet would be amazed at the ill will-shown towards scientists and their spectacular achievements. The weakness of the environmentalists’ anti GM campaign is that, while they scold big companies, they end up endorsing the market system at its most backward and parochial. Far from treating food as a communal good, marginal farmers are concerned to protect their high prices against cheap foreign imports, no matter what the cost to the landless poor in the region.
This suggests that, despite their anti-GM rhetoric, the real object of their fury lies elsewhere.
Nature and the natural order features so large in the emotional arguments of the environmentalists because it seems to be emblematic of a lost harmony. The myth of a natural harmony in which genes remain static was exploded as long ago as Darwin’s discovery of evolution. But the facts are less important than the sentiment. And the sentiment is that GM is disturbing the natural order by messing with the gene-line.
In this fairytale version of events, the wicked corporation stands for disruption of the natural order. As they turn their fire from entirely unproven health risks to the more visible risk of social harm, it appears that environmentalists are making sense. But actually the same prejudice persists, about there being a natural and organic order that we disrupt at our peril. Only this time, it is a social Arcadia that must be preserved at all costs. What GM stands for in this narrative is not so much risk as disruption. The precarious standpoint of the nervous environmentalist deplores change and disruption, seeing only bad coming from it.
Quote Comment
July 6th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Good article, but the typo in the headline is a bit grating. It should say “halt”, not “hault”.
Quote Comment
July 6th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Brian-M said:
corrected
Quote Comment
July 6th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
I don’t see how this can be taken as anything other than ANTI SCIENCE, ANTI RESEARCH, ANTI KNOWLEDGE.
They are not opposing a product actually being marketed. It is a purely research project aimed at establishing the potential of this method and its safety, efficiency etc. How can they claim to be anything other than blind fear-mongering zealots when they tell us it is wrong to even research and learn about these things? They demand we gain no knowledge of these areas because they have already decided for everyone else that they’re no good.
There are no human trails yet. Sure there will be some day, but why are they going after it when it has not happened and the protocol and time is not even established yet? Because it’s not ready yet? So we should be sure it never is?
I have no ethical problem with humans eating this stuff either, since it has all appearances of being safe. Someone has to volunteer to be the first human test subject and I gladly would do so. As long as any volunteers are told what the experiment is and they fully consent what is the problem?
This is one of those things where I can’t see how anyone can morally oppose it. It’s science for the purpose of improving health and lives. I have several family members with diabetes. Diet is important for keeping blood sugar from spiking and if we can tailor foods better to manage it then that’s a big benefit. They believe we should be forbidden from even researching this possibility. How dare they! Science should never be told that a certain area is taboo because some group said so, especially when it can help make life better and address health problems.
What if these idiots had insisted penicillin was unsafe, untested in humans and therefore should never be researched or ever given to a human? We’d never have discovered the benefits of antibiotics and people would still be dying of infections that could be cured.
Quote Comment
July 6th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
Russ – Remember, this is Greenpeace. “It really isn’t a question of science” is their motto.
Quote Comment
July 6th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
I is hard to fully grasp the callous disdain these radical activists have for the world’s underclasses. These enemies of the poor say they are “stakeholders” who want to “preserve” indigenous people and villages. They never consider what the real stakeholders want — the people who actually live in these impoverished communities and must endure the consequences of harmful environmentalist campaigns that are being waged all over the world–from Europe to Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the United States. These activists pervert “sustainable development” to mean no development, and they ignore how surplus food lays the economic foundation for modern schools, hospitals, libraries, and businesses that can sustain prosperity and better living standards for generations
Quote Comment
July 6th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Do you think if the notion of profits and big corporations were taken out of the equation it would be more palatable? Some research I did on this topic: there are some gene modifications that are enforced to be sold fairly. Some were made at a university that has a policy that they will license it to companies to sell but the companies have to deal within their limits for what they consider fair practices and have limited licenses and also they demand that the genes not be charged extra for when it is used for non profit organizations like UNICEF and the world food organization. And also there a few genes that were made available open source by some research organizations and universities but these are only a few. So a lot of them are owned by companies, but not all.
Do you think they could stand behind ones that are done in a way that avoids the possibility of corporate power issues and over profiting?
Quote Comment
July 6th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Brian: I don’t think that is really the problem. They may make that out to be the problem because it is based on an existing public distrust, but I’ve never seen them going nuts over the fact that John Deere or Caterpillar make so much money selling tractors and combines.
Some of the GMO issues have indeed targeted what are really pure research projects or ones like “Golden Rice” which was aimed at improving nutrition. There are non-profits and universities which are involved in this and have been fairly liberal in their licensing.
It doesn’t seem to really change anything.
I really think that if it is properly regulated then most of the issues people have with corporate power can be resolved. Patents will expire and genes can become generically available. The technology is improving so rapidly it is becoming more and more possible for small operations to compete with the big well funded companies and because you can achieve similar traits with different genes, this is going to mean that a lot of products will be out there competing and nobody will be able to gain too much control. We may yet see more open source type efforts.
Science and technology move forward. You can’t stop that.
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2011 at 1:34 am
[...] more from the original source: Depleted Cranium » Blog Archive » Greenpeace Attempts to Hault … This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged does-indeed, fairly-limited, foods, [...]
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2011 at 2:55 am
I’m sorry to say this, but the first thing that jumped out at me from this article is that graph about high and low GI.
Now, I’m no biologist / nutritionist, but the explanation I’d always heard of GI is the one presented in the text here, that it slows the uptake of sugars. Slows. Not simply reduces by 50%. Surely an accurate representation of calorie-equivalent foods with varying GIs would give rather different profiles – sharper peaks for high GI, wider spread for low GI. And presumably roughly the same area contained below them?
With respect to Greenpeace, long may they continue to make ludicrous demands and stand in the way of the unstoppable advance of science. Because if they tried to be at all sensible in what they say and ask for then people might have to take them vaguely seriously.
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2011 at 3:06 am
I’mnotreallyhere said:
Problem is that far too many people do take them seriously (and not just vaguely either).
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2011 at 6:04 am
I’mnotreallyhere said:
I don’t know whether or not the graph is actually accurate, but I would argue two points in it’s favor. First, the graph only shows two hours of digestion time. If it showed four hours, the lines might cross over. Second, the graph is showing how much glucose is in the blood at a given time, not how much glucose is being absorbed into the bloodstream, which is a different thing altogether.
Only if the chart was showing amount of glucose being absorbed at any moment would the area under the lines have to be the same, but instead the chart is showing the amount of glucose present.
As an analogy, think of a chart showing a river filling a dam during a flash-flood by the same amount at two different times. If you’re charting the the amount of water flowing into the dam at any moment, then both charts would have the same area under the line. But if you’re charting the amount of water in the river at any moment, then the area under the lines can differ. Now instead of water in a riverbed, think glucose in the bloodstream.
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2011 at 6:10 am
DV82XL said:
The problem is that almost none of them have ever had a real job in their life. For them, pretending to do subsistence farming is a hobby, not a way of life.
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2011 at 6:43 am
How evil! People using genetic modification to try to make foods more nutritious and safer! Whatever is the world coming to? Before we know it, the world is going to be overrun by hideous, mutated versions of plants like oleander, Crab’s eye and wolfsbane that [i]don’t[/i] contain deadly toxins that will quickly kill anyone who eats them. Heck, if we’re not careful with this evil, irresponsible use of genetic engineering to make frankenplants, we might find ourselves living in a world in which deadly nightshade isn’t deadly! Can you imagine living in such a perverse, terrifying world?
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2011 at 7:45 am
I’mnotreallyhere said:
I found the graph on some sites about diabeties and nutrition. It showed up on a bunch of sites so i figured it was either public domain or whoever made it was not terribly concerned about its reuse. The sources seemned reputable.
I can’t really attest to the accuracy beyond that, but the point about the GI being an important nutritional concern stands.
I’mnotreallyhere said:
An important point here is that the letter was not signed by Greenpeace, never mentioned Greenpeace and the news stories don’t say anything about Greenpeace. It says “A group of prominent scientists.” The fact that Greenpeace sponsored the letter only came out after some digging was done and one of those who signed it stated that they had been the ones who sought the signatures.
I see a lot of dishonesty here. Not only are they creating an issue that really does not exist, but by using front groups and supposedly independent scientists, they are making it seem as if there are multiple parties who are independently voicing concern, which is not really the case.
It is almost as if the newspaper reported that “Several individuals have come forward to voice there concern. A blogger from the site Depleted Cranium first expressed alarm. He was joined by Steve Packard who agreed. Letters were also written by Mr. S. Michael Packard, Stephen M Packard, SM Packard, S. M. Packard Jr. Steve M Packard II, Steve P, S Packard the Second and an internet author who uses the handle Drbuzz0″
Of course, in the above case, there are not multiple persons voicing concern, only one. But when Greenpeace does it, they’re not nearly as obvious about that fact.
A reader could easily think “Wow, this stuff mist be dangerous. Just look at all these different groups and scientists who oppose it.”
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
eight scientists and academics is a pretty small “group of prominent scientists”.
I doubt they’re very prominent, either – or certainly not the most prominent in their fields.
If it was anything like a real issue, we’d see many more than eight, I think.
(And Maharishi University of Management? That should count as negative five.)
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Okay, before the pro-gm lobby gets so loud and preachy on this lets ask you all a question. Since someone has to be the first person to eat this stuff, which no person has ever eaten before and has never existed on earth before it was cooked up in the lab, what if it were you? Would you ever consider it? What if they were looking for people to be the first ones for the human experiment and they came to you and said they wanted to feed it to you to see if it was safe? Would you say okay or no way?
If you say no, how many other people would you want to eat it and for how long before you decide it might be okay for you to eat it?
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Otti said:
No problem. I’d do it in an instant. Why?n Because I understand enough chemistry and biology to know that as long as analysis shows that there are no toxins in the wheat, and it was baked into bread (because we cannot eat this food raw) the carbs will turn into glucose, and the proteins will break down into amino acids in my gut. That the starches have changed are no big deal, we can handle several, and do on a daily bases when we eat different foods.
The fact is that all of the cereal grains we eat are products of GM, none of them are anywhere near their wild progenitors. The only difference is that the old way takes a very long time. Current techniques just speed up the process. There is no risk with this sort of food unless one has specific allergies to gluten, which I do not.
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
DV82XL said:
Couldn’t have said it better and I will be right behind you in line if they need more test subjects.
And as you said, virtually all current foods, vegetable and animal, that are eaten in Modern societies are the result of genetic modification. Pick the cows that produces the most milk to be the parents of the next generation of milk cows and over time the cow genome will be modified to give a cow that produces significantly more milk than the original species.
Pets, especially dogs and cats, are probably an even better example. From just a few basic wolf/coyote species we have gotten to everything from a 200+ pound Great Dane to a 6 pound Chihuahua.
True some GMO work involves taking genes from one species and adding them to another (resistance to specific insects as an example) which isn’t really possible with selective breeding (although plant grafting is sort of similar in some ways). But if a gene naturally found in plant A doesn’t cause harm when humans eat plant A, then if it is added to plant B you wouldn’t expect it to suddenly become deadly or even harmful to eat plant B. Not saying there couldn’t be some combined effect but that is why animal testing is done first. The article does mention pig testing and from what I have read pigs are very good analogs for humans and are susceptible to many of the same diseases and toxins which is why they are used in these type tests.
Quote Comment
July 7th, 2011 at 10:37 pm
Otti said:
To quote a famous TV personality: “OM NOM NOM NOM”
I also love how we’re the ‘pro-gm lobby’, as though no one would EVER actually support engineered crops because of SCIENCE or LOGIC.
Pshh, as if, perish the very thought.
Quote Comment
July 8th, 2011 at 12:31 am
Otti said:
I would jump at the chance to be part of an experiment like that and have the experience of participating directly in science as well as the satisfaction of personally contributing like that, especially since I could blog about it
So yeah, I’d have no objection!
Quote Comment
July 8th, 2011 at 3:26 am
@Iamnotreallyhere and others
Greenpeace does not deserve any respect what so ever. They are a non democratic organisation who deliberatly and repeatedly break national and international laws, yet again against democratic principles. They do net shy away from outright lies, misinformation, propaganda stunts and scaremongering. I find it rather curious that nobody points this out to the masses of suckers who supply this criminal gang with funding.
//Sarcasm and irony
GMO-Lobby, Big-Pharma-Lobby and Nuclear-Lobby, blimming heck! Dr. Buzzy and the rest of us must be raking in the dough by the truck load!?
//Sarcasm and irony off
Quote Comment
July 8th, 2011 at 5:15 am
Otti said:
So far genetic engineering has a perfect safety record with no environmental or public health problems caused by the technology since it first started being used.
Why should I fear it? Because a few idiots who don’t understand it fear it? Not good enough.
Matte said:
I still haven’t received any money from that.
If I weren’t so moral I could make money just like all the Luddites, all I’d have to do is set up an organisation, publish some crap and get the donations (most of which would probably come from foundations set up to hide the source of the funding).
Quote Comment
July 8th, 2011 at 10:19 am
You can add me to the list of people who would be happy to be the first human to try this. Like others here, I understand enough chemistry and biology not to have an irrational fear of GM food products.
More generally, I’ve always greatly admired Norman Borlaug. You might want to look him up, see what he accomplished, and how.
Quote Comment
July 8th, 2011 at 10:52 am
Matte said:
Sorry, to be totally clear, when I said “With respect to Greenpeace”, it was just moving to talking about Greenpeace, not meant to be a show of any actual respect to what is clearly a seriously misguided organisation of eco-zealots.
Quote Comment
July 8th, 2011 at 11:39 am
BoxNDox said:
Yeah, he’s pretty much considered to be a hero around here (not only for saving so many people from starvation but also for his opposition to the ‘organic’ farming nonsense and anti-GM mass hysteria later in his life).
Quote Comment
July 8th, 2011 at 11:48 am
I can’t see how there could possibly be any danger from a product like this in terms of the composition. Like DV82XL says, if you understand the basic chemistry its all perfectly simple stuff your body can break down and absorb no problem. I can’t see how this could possibly cause long term effects.
The only thing I can admit could maybe possibly be a problem is that a GMO product could produce an unexpected allergic reaction if some of the proteins in it triggered a food allergy. Like if you took some genes from peanuts and it turns out one or more were also responsible for some of the proteins that cause allergic reactions, then a person with a peanut allergy could have a reaction.
I don’t need to worry because I have no food allergies. As I understand it, this problem has only been seen once or twice and it was caught early and lead to that genetic modification being abandoned. It should be perfectly easy to test for that kind of thing and establish 100% that it is not a problem before the product goes to market or even has a human test subject.
Quote Comment
July 11th, 2011 at 6:07 am
Engineering Edgar said:
The logical argument is always going to be linked to uptake and retention of certain toxic chemicals or radioisotopes in a similar mechanism to fungal absorbtion of Cs137.
I’ll be the first to admit to not being a biologist / chemist / geneticist / anything related – I may be barking up entirely the wrong tree but it’s the only thing I can think of that would provide a potential health risk above and beyond the standard non-GM produce.
And yes, in principle there could be some effects here that might not be visible on a low-lifespan animal which could come up with a human (notably cancer can take time to develop, a time longer than the rat lifespan for example). Actual probability? Odds they’ve not whisked it through a mass spectrometry machine to check out what’s in it? Pretty slim.
I’d sign up, and I look forward to seeing the sensible and clear explanation of why the suggestion I’ve made above is entirely impossible.
Quote Comment
July 11th, 2011 at 6:38 am
I’mnotreallyhere said:
The fact is that such effects are just, if not more likely, in wild hybrids than they are in cultivars. Organisms that sequester heavy metals evolved to do so as a defence mechanism against high concentrations of such as a way of keeping them out of other metabolic pathways, and other toxins are concentrated or produced for the same reason, or for defence against predation. Generally an organism pays a price for such a capability which manifests as slower growth, and reduced reproductive capacity.
Ether way they are unlikely to occur as an accidental inclusion during direct genetic manipulation. Even if it did, this sort of thing would be detected early on in initial testing, long before human trials.
As was mentioned the only potential danger is the presence of some unknown allergen, but that’s the reason human trials must be done. The risk is minimal as one assumes that this would be happening under controlled conditions. So again I would have no issues participating.
Quote Comment
July 11th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Also they can test for allergic reactions before having people actually eat the stuff so even that probably isn’t much of a danger to those who would be the first to eat it.
Quote Comment
July 14th, 2011 at 6:08 am
Greenpeace destroy genetically modified wheat experiment
Greenpeace protesters whippersnippered a genetically modified wheat crop being grown as part of a CSIRO trial.
Quote Comment
July 14th, 2011 at 6:29 am
.
DV82XL said:
…
I was going to type up something slightly lengthy on the issue, but you know what?
There are no words.
Morons the lot of them.
Quote Comment
July 14th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
This is why the location of genetically modified crops (whether being tested or grown for food) shouldn’t be public knowledge.
I’ll just add http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/blog/4523/the-sad-sad-demise-greenpeace as well.
Quote Comment
July 25th, 2011 at 1:15 am
[...] You may have read a couple of weeks ago about Greenpeace attempting to halt research by CSIRO on gen… which had been engineered to produce end products with a lower glycaemic index. They did this by writing a letter which they then sent out to be signed by a number of “prominent” scientists, who weren’t all that prominent and not all of whom were really scientists. They didn’t actually mention that Greenpeace was behind the letter but it ended up coming out anyway. [...]
Quote Comment