E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSGreenpeace, perhaps best known for its battles at sea to protect whales and the oceans, has gotten itself involved in a huge controversy over genetically modified food.
The group is charging that unsuspecting children were put at risk in a “dangerous” study of genetically engineered rice in rural China. It’s a serious claim, because it is putting research seeking to put more nutrition into food at risk.
Genetically engineered rice has the potential to help solve a big nutritional problem—vitamin A deficiency. A lack of vitamin A kills 670,000 kids under 5 every year and causes 250,000 to 500,000 to go blind. Half die within a year of losing their sight, according to the World Health Organization. I think Greenpeace is being ethically irresponsible and putting those lives at continued risk.
Research involving children is often highly controversial. Putting children at risk when there us no certainty of benefit in the hope of gaining new knowledge is, at best, ethically dubious. Research done on kids when the risk is great rightly sets all of our moral teeth on edge.
That is the charge Greenpeace is screaming ethical bloody murder about. They say Chinese children were given dangerous genetically engineered rice in a study without any consent from the kids, parents or the approval of the appropriate review bodies.
Greenpeace does not favor the use of genetic engineering to modify food. It’s been campaigning for years against plans to introduce “golden rice” in China. The claim about the experiment, if true, would drastically slow the very research that will, if successful, lead to a lot more genetically modified food being eaten in China, the U.S. and the rest of the world. Is Greenpeace’s fear of GMOs protecting kids or potentially harming them? The latter seems, sadly, more likely.
As might be expected, the charges of research abuse are causing an explosion of reaction in China. Beijing has launched an investigation, a Chinese researcher has already been suspended and a whole lot of finger-pointing is going on within China. A couple of fingers are also pointing right at the USA, since the rice study was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National Institutes of Health.
If these accusations were true, this would be one of the worst research scandals of all time. U.S.-funded research involving dangerous food made by big, greedy U.S. companies tested on poor, innocent kids in rural China with no consent— who could trust people willing to do that? The only problem with Greenpeace’s cry of scandal is that it is nonsense.
You can look at the paper on line that is setting off this international moral maelstrom. It appears in the August issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The title of the paper is “Beta-carotene in Golden Rice is as good as b-carotene in oil at providing vitamin A to children”.
Without even knowing what the heck this title means, it tells you something very important — this is an experiment that worked! The engineered rice allowed the kids in the study to get more vitamin A, Guangwen Tang of Tufts University and colleagues report.
The 68 6 to 8-year-olds in the study got either the “golden rice” or spinach.
The beta-carotene in the title is the substance in carrots that gives them their orange color. It occurs naturally in other plants, including spinach. But it does not exist in white rice. B-carotene is used by your body to help make vitamin A.
If you live in a country that relies heavily on white rice and not much else for food, you may be vitamin A deficient. The experiment involved tweaking the genes of rice so the plant produced more beta-caroten. The paper reports that when kids ate this rice in the study, they got as much or more vitamin A then they did eating their usual diet or one supplemented with other sources of carotene. The experiment worked.
Well, you may say, even if the experiment worked, it still is not right to put kids into a nutrition study without their parents’ knowledge or the proper review. True, but the study was neither risky nor lacking in review.
GMO food has been eaten by almost everyone reading this column for years. No study has shown any health danger. The researchers who conducted the China study rightly did not worry about the safety of the rice. The researchers only wanted to see if it helped put Vitamin A into the kids who ate it. It did.
What about consent and review, which Greenpeace says did not happen? The paper says otherwise.
“The study recruitment processes and protocol were approved by the Institutional Review Board–Tufts Medical Center in the United States and by the Ethics Review Committee of Zhejiang Academy of Medical Sciences in China. Both parents and pupils [children] consented to participate in the study,” the researchers wrote.
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition may not be on your bedroom table for night reading but it is a respected journal that is widely read by leading scientists and doctors interested in nutrition. Either the researchers have put into print before their peers the biggest flat-out lie since Bernie Madoff denied he was running a Ponzi scheme ,or the critics screeching about Chinese kids being used as “guinea pigs” have a whole lot of explaining to do.
Maybe, despite the researchers’ efforts, something went wrong in terms of families really understanding they were in a study. Even if there were no reason to think children were ever at any real risk, that would be a problem. It’s worth checking out, if for no other reason to inform future studies and prevent stinks like this one.
The result of the study shows that there is another tool available to fight the death and blindness caused by diets poor in food that creates vitamin A. The world’s leaders need to be sensitive to fixing real, ongoing problems in trying to do research ethically when subjects are poor and vulnerable. The world needs to tell organizations that have an irrational fear of GMO food even when it might help save kids lives and sight to head back out to sea.
Art Caplan, Ph.D., is the head of the division of medical ethics at the NYU Langone Medical Center
Related links:
China investigating GMO rice study
Leave a Comment:
This problem goes back to one thing(profit,make money).The danger of GMO'S will come back to haunt us as the problems will take years to manifest themselves to a level that paid horn blowers will finally see.
yes, how about a list of these "scores of papers" showing GM dangers? I'm sure some GM foods are dangerous, as are some non-GM foods. The question is what reaches our kitchen tables, and if the prior testing is adequate. These are scientific questions, not ideoloigical ones. As such, things boil down to statistics and some improper GM foods will slip through, just as improper non-GM foods occasionally do. It depends on the standards, and testing capacity, of our governments
It's hard to find many people who would be against helping malnourished kids get their vitamins but i've got to wonder how many of these kids are going to starve when Monsanto demands a cut of their profits for the seed.
I also take issue with his contention that GMO has proven to harmless. This is patently false based on existing research. I have come across studies where GMO corn was fed to rats and caused organ failure. Although it may be irrational to assume that GMO is harmful overall, it is equally irrational and potentially dangerous to be so enamored with the science that we throw out the scientific process in the first place. It's great to hear that trial studies have been conducted on golden rice, but what about all the other poorly researched strains that have entered our environment, proliferated, and in some cases cross-bred? It is possible that we may not fully understand the public health implications until it is too late or very expensive to undo. Will Monsanto be willing to pay potential cleanup costs?
i just did a search and could not find this study. Do you mind posting it?
sure, this research was posted in the international journal of biological sciences. the title of the paper was "A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health".
thanks.
I found the study, but it does not report what you claim. It is essentially a criticism on monsanto for not being open with their data, and pointing out shortcomings in their study (small number of subjects, short exposure time)
However, no rat suffered organ failure in any study.
And the fact that these crops are widespread and consumed by humans on a large scale for a long period of time without any apparent increase in the incidence of organ system failure also argues against your theory
Here is the study if you are curious since your link did not go through:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20941377
I believe we are looking at two separate studies. The article that I am referencing was published in 2009.
This is part of the abstract:
Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn.
These crops have been consumed for several decades at most, given that human society's have been engaged in agriculture for at least 5000 years I would hardly classify that as a long period of time. Adverse effects do not always manifest themselves immediately, the effects might be subtle and pernicious such as epigenetic changes that cause birth defects in future generations. Of course this is all speculative, my main concern is that we don't fully understand the risks and haven't developed a way to screen for them. The technology is growing at a much faster rate than our ability to understand and properly regulate it. I am loathe to trust corporate benevolence when so much is at stake.
so I just looked at the 2009 article, and its a bit strange.
A basic physiology summary is needed before looking at the data. The kidney's main job in the body is filtering blood. A convenient measure of kidney function is something called creatinine clearance--this is the measure of the kidneys ability to filter creatinine, a normal waste product of muscle metabolism
They looked at the creatinine clearance of mice fed controls vs various genetically modified foods.
When they found the creatinine level of mice higher in the GMO group, they claimed this was likely due to early kidney failure and resultant decreased filtering ability in these mice
When they found the creatinine level of mice lower in the GMO group, they claimed this was due to muscle injury, specifically heart muscle injury, thus causing the overall creatinine production to be decreased
This is fishy. It seems they were looking for any conclusion that would substantiate their hypothesis that GMO foods caused organ dysfunction. Im not impressed, although the physiologic manifestations of consumption of these products was suprising to me.
It is notable that the only group of mice that experienced these results were in the group fed a diet consisting of 33% GMO foods--this may represent a limit for which we start to experience side effects. It is noteworthy that mice fed a diet of a lower percentage, around 10%, did not differ from controls
It should be long enough to see side effects, if they were to be seen. The comparison to how long agriculture has been undertaken by humans is irrelevant.
Exposure to the potential toxin is the only relevant factor. If something is dangerous, then dose is the only factor that matters.
In this case, since the mice fed a diet of 33% GMO showed biochemical changes at just 3 months, one would reasonably conclude 10 years should be plenty to at least see some changes
There is no scientific basis to suggest the effects of GMOs are only on gametes and not autosomal cells/chromosomes. This was not observed in the trial you cited
Granted, but serious effects should be manifest. People are screened every day in drs offices (with cholesterol, cbc, BMP, liver function , thyroid, etc). If no increase has been seen, its reasonable to conclude that there is no effect as of yet
It is notable that the only group of mice that experienced these results were in the group fed a diet consisting of 33% GMO foods--this may represent a limit for which we start to experience side effects. It is noteworthy that mice fed a diet of a lower percentage, around 10%, did not differ from controls
LOL. It's bad enough that food manufactures have basically turned junk food into crack cocaine, now we have to worry about the actual molecular composition of the stuff killing us. I prefer my odds at 0% given that I prefer my health over Monsanto's profits.
It should be long enough to see side effects, if they were to be seen. The comparison to how long agriculture has been undertaken by humans is irrelevant.
Exposure to the potential toxin is the only relevant factor. If something is dangerous, then dose is the only factor that matters.
5000 years of agriculture and we still have gluten allergy's and lactose intolerance, in 10-20 years of GMO food's who even knows what types of immunological issues are occurring in people exposed to it given that no independent research is being conducted before these products are being released on us. the timeline is relevant in terms of evolutionary adaptation.
In this case, since the mice fed a diet of 33% GMO showed biochemical changes at just 3 months, one would reasonably conclude 10 years should be plenty to at least see some changes
Perhaps in a controlled clinical setting we might be able to make that determination. In the past 10 years we have seen an explosion in obesity, asthma, diabetes, etc... but how would we know if there was causality if no research is being conducted?
There is no scientific basis to suggest the effects of GMOs are only on gametes and not autosomal cells/chromosomes. This was not observed in the trial you cited
I made that example up as an analogy. I was generalizing about GMO foods and not referencing this specific case study. A person might be able to live a seemingly healthy life on vitamin laced twinkies for years, but I wouldn't assume him to be healthy even if the lab results were normal. Lab results aren't fine tuned enough to detect genetic damage on a cellular level.
I think a lot of people have an irrational fear of GMO and attach almost metaphysical importance to organic food. GMO has the potential to change the world in a positive way, it's a leap in our capability to provide for the burgeoning world population but it needs to be done in a manner where we aren't just experimenting on millions of people in the hopes that there are no ill effects. At this point Monsanto and other companies need GMO more than we do.
Unfortunately, 0% odds are not possible in this life. Keep in mind, also, that its not the genetic modification in and of itself that is causing problems, but that they are inserting a gene for pesticide production, and some of the residue is remaining on the plants. It may be that washing it before eating will help reduce this risk alone
Again, I really don't know where the 5000 years of agriculture comes in. Allergies are complex biologically and their development has nothing to do with food exposure. Its not that more or less exposure to gluten gives you an allergy--thats not how it works.
Because there is no correlation. If you cannot show correlation with retrospective analysis, then causation is impossible.
In addition, there is no plausible physiologic mechanism for the simple modification of genes to cause all the above problems. Yes, exposure to pesticide can, and inserting genes that causes pesticide production may cause problems, but not genetically modifying plants in and of itself
Um, in many cases the are. I mean, genes do something right? If you damage a gene that makes a critical protein, there is no way that effect will go unnoticed. And again, there is no plausible biological mechanism for what you are claiming. You might as well start worrying about moonbeams damaging you dna
Totally speculative. More research would be to determine what mechanism is responsible.
that seems just a little intellectually disingenuous to me. I would assume given your education and knowledge on this issue that you would understand how evolutionary adaptations occur and would not be so condescending to assume that I did not. I never did infer that exposure to gluten causes the allergy, rather that our bodies originally evolved without exposure to gluten and so for some people this exposure is maladaptive.It is conceivable that the introduction of new GMO foods may alter proteins in a way some people have difficulty processing.
Research is done in a controlled laboratory setting because there are to many externalizes involved to retrospectively analyze causation.
Again that is speculative without research to prove it. Altering key protein structures can cause maladaptive responses, this is often the key cause of many existing food allergy's. Many of these GMO variety's are effective because key proteins are changed to confer desirable traits.
There is a world of difference between shotgun splicing and selective breeding. We are altering genetic material without fully understanding the interdependency of the genes. Does that automatically make that dangerous? of course not. Does it mean that we should have a process to determine the risks? I would think that would be common sense.
Inhaling a bunch of carcinogens may seem to do nothing until key oncogenes are altered, and cancer develops as a result. Lab tests capture the results of genetic changes, they don't always show damages in real time as they are happening. Even if damages are found, it's not always easy to determine it's cause.
Actually, its not. You have to read the paper you cited
its not. If you think it is, by all means, provide evidence to the contrary
I didn't mean to be. Apologies.
Im really not sure what gluten allergies have to do with GMOs.
I mean, talk about speculative. If you just want to invent any possible reaction from any possible mechanism, you can just about do that for anything
Not always. Some research is done using chart review or population studies. This is especially useful for analyzing fairly rare effects or "real world effects.
You can read more about this type of research here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-sectional_study
Its not. There is no plausible mechanism, period. If you think differently, please provide a plausible mechanism
Citation?
do you have evidence that GMOs are carcinogenic, and affect oncogenes like p53? if so, please share. If not, then you are generalizing something that, while may be true in some cases, does not apply here.
No rat has ever developed cancer from these in controlled lab studies. And the rates of cancer are not increasing in population studies despite introduction of GMOs (see above with questions about cross sectional studies)
Obama's EPA committed an ethical breech by testing what they declared as "kill at any concentration" pollution on human beings in North Carolina. Fortunately, the people lived because the EPA's science was all wrong, basically junk science. But they did it! Obama's people tried to kill! Now Greenpeace is know for its terrorism and junk science. Millions of kids could be saved by these GMO crops and Greenpeace wants to kill them. I don't understand how anyone can contribute to an organization that doesn't want to help poor people and third world countries who suffer because of 10th century food products. Supporting Greenpeace is like supporting Adolf Hitler.
no matter what intention of GM is or how good it is supposed to be, there's always unknown side effect, which is hidden until eventually something go wrong in your body, if you keep eating such a thing.
there's a reason against GM foods, because the side effect may not be known for long long time.
you know what, i don't want to be a test object and don't want to eat GM foods! US has to require labeling such foods as Europe has already done.
long live Greenpeace, and many people are on its side!
just think about past 20-30 years, obesity, heart disease, diabetes rates in this country and many other developed countries have increased dramatically, which must have something to do with the foods produced and planted and changed. just count how many GM foods started spread around the world since then?
just think that the bread you eat today may be entirely different from a bread you eat 20 or 30 years ago (if you're born before then) by their generic makeup.
the US housing market crashed, and greek is bankrupt
thats probably GMO's fault too...
It's Greece, not Greek.
Hmmm, so according to this article since we have been fed GMO foods without our permission for say 20 years on a timeline of human development over tens of thousands of years and we can't directly pin any modern ills on GMO, that proves it is okay. Further, it is fine to experiment on children with it without their parent's knowledge or permission. Well, maybe it is fine. I have serious doubts myself. Think about it. How long did it take for people to realize the dangers of lead or DDT? Does that mean they weren't dangerous? And what longterm controlled testing has been done on GMO? And then there's the big $$$ Montsanto and their ilk can throw around. But trust them. You've been eating GMO foods and you aren't dead yet so that proves it. And yes, DDT is good for some situations but it was mostly very bad and very overused until the brakes were put on.
if Greenpeace is against it i am for it whatever it is
People are saying that parents did know and approve, but Kaplan clearly says that parents weren't even told their children were participating:
"Well, you may say, even if the experiment worked, it still is not right to put kids into a nutrition study without their parents’ knowledge or the proper review. True, but the study was neither risky nor lacking in review."
He goes on to offer the sorry excuse that since we have been eating GMO in a hugh uncontrolled experiment for 7 years, that somehow proves that there is no risk. No it doesn't. We are seeing all kinds of negative changes in public health. Maybe they have absolutely nothing to do with GMO and maybe they do. We don't know. We don't adequately understand GMO's longterm effect. We also don't fully understand the obesity epidemic, Type 2 diabetes,
Is golden rice a good idea? Wikipedia says: "Golden rice contains beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, and was the first genetically modified crop in which an entire biosynthetic pathway was engineered."
Maybe the benefit outweighs the risk, but I still come back to a simple fact for GMO overall. It is a huge uncontrolled experiment. I don't think we will have complete answers on the food aspect of this for a number of years. I do know that Roundup ready food crops have resulted in Roundup resistant weeds and that farmers have greatly ramped up their usage of Roundup and we don't really fully understand how that is going to affect the food chain, especially pollinators.
Wikipedia can be fun and informative!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Caplan
"...He chaired the advisory committee on bioethics at Glaxo from 2005-8"
lol
The pieces where he endorsed fracking seem to be down, though google will turn up with the links still.
Apparently Greenpeace feels it is more ethically permissible to let these kids suffer from vitamin A deficiency than to provide the vitamin A through genetic engineering. Just because something is man-made doesn't mean it is bad and just because something is "natural" (whatever that means these days) doesn't mean something is necessarily good (Typhoid Fever is natural, but it certainly is not good). Why is it nobody seems to question or challenge Greenpeace's motives? Why aren't their "experts" challenged in the same way they challenge others? They certainly have not always exhibited purity of motives in the past. It seems to me this is just another one of their attempts to grab publicity.
What about the people who starve to death because they cannot afford the expensive GMO rice and are sued into bankruptcy if they try to plant the seeds they harvested the previous year?
Being “anti-GMO” is the same as being “pro-starvation.” - Dr. Barry Flinchbaugh, K-State Ag Economist
GMO is going to cause significant harm. It reminds me of the first atomic bomb. There were concerns that detonation could actually vaporize the atmospere as a result of an uncontrollable chain reaction. Real concerns from leading experts. What happened? The bomb was dropped anyway. Messing with the building blocks of the Universe does has consequences. Messing with the food supply will as well.