Last week in a discussion with one of my anti-GMO friends, she presented me with what she believed was more evidence of GMO danger from a peer-reviewed journal. She sent me the following:
Here is another one from a few days ago out of Germany
http://www.criigen.org/
There is contact info at the bottom for the researchers.
Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide
Authors: Mesnage R., Clair E., Gress S., Then C., Székács A. and Séralini G.-E.
Journal of Applied Toxicology. 2011; (accepted)
http://www.criigen.org/
There is contact info at the bottom for the researchers.
Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide
Authors: Mesnage R., Clair E., Gress S., Then C., Székács A. and Séralini G.-E.
Journal of Applied Toxicology. 2011; (accepted)
At the time the link worked swimmingly and I read a press release at the Criigen website that presented the results of this work. Details were few, but as I recall the group used cells in culture and mixed them with increasing amounts of Bt protein and/or glyphosate. They found effects on the cells at high dosages.
The reason I can’t recall specifics is because I tried to find the actual paper in the Journal of Applied Toxicology. It was not in the New Papers Online section either, which is where it would be if it was accepted and ready for publication.
Worse, within two days the link was dead and I was unable to access the press release. Hmmm.
What does this possibly mean?
1. Someone in the CRIIGEN PR department was excite about getting their work out, so they pulled the trigger too soon on the release. That happened to us with the USDA and the strawberrygenome, so I completely understand. If that’s true, then the paper should agree with the claims in the press release.
2. The press release was intended to stir the runaway anti-GMO machine. They don’t read the papers and usually don’t critically read the press releases, so a sensational headline furthers the agenda. It does it in the absence of the actual report, so nobody can actually read and evaluate the science.
Time will tell what the real story is. The point is that in a discussion of transgenics someone provided me with this sterling new evidence that GMOs are dangerous, yet they clearly could not have read the paper and only gauged their opinion on a press release that has since been taken down.
The take home messages.
1. The anti-GMO interests don’t read or understand the science, they parrot the points they want to believe with no scrutiny of their own.
2. Authors potentially with an agenda (this group may be classified in that light) may use press releases to spread a non-story and do so in a way that the conclusions cannot be reviewed and validated by others in the field. That could stand for pro- or anti-transgenics too.
That last point is a pretty damning allegation and I put it out there only as speculation. I give these authors the benefit of the doubt. I could not find the original press release, but if the paper does not match what I read it will confirm that dark suspicion.
5 comments:
Thank google for google cache! ;-)
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_5MBusGVK7YJ:www.criigen.org/SiteEn/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D351%26Itemid%3D32+http://www.criigen.org/SiteEn/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D351%26Itemid%3D32&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari
There was a guy in my grad school class who clearly wasn't reading the papers assigned. At one point the professor said to him, "Did you read the paper?" The hapless student replied, "Abstract and conclusions only."
We all groaned. And it became a mocking point for all of my cohorts for the rest of our time there. Shortcuts and crap thinking became "abstract and conclusions only!"
In the real world now it's "press release and HuffPo only!"
Some things never change.
Oh yeah, I found the google cache and saved the press release as html on my computer. It will be nice to read the paper when it is actually published, if at all, but it already sounds bizarre - that Bt reduced the toxicity of roundup on human cells? It makes me wonder if the cells being used are an appropriate model for anything. I am also curious to read just how high they had to crank up the Bt to see any kind of effect. It's all about the dosage - for everything.
I'm interested in the actual paper details too. Since I've done cell culture--both plant and animal cells--it's clear that animal cells are way more fragile. No walls, strict temperature requirements, sensitive to contaminants way more...sigh.
If we had been smart we would have evolved differently.
Jeroen,
Awesome. I tried to pull this from my cache and could not get it. Now I'll have a comparator for the work when it comes out. Seems like a complex story.
Post a Comment