Republished study: GMO Corn Can Cause Damage to Liver and Kidneys, and Severe Hormonal Disruption
Last edited Fri Jul 11, 2014, 01:19 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.alternet.org/food/major-study-demonstrates-monsanto-gmo-corn-product-can-cause-damage-liver-and-kidneys-andJuly 9, 2014
A scientific study that identified serious health impacts on rats fed on 'Roundup ready' GMO maize has been republished following its controversial retraction under strong commercial pressure. Now regulators must respond and review GMO and agro-chemical licenses, and licensing procedures.
A highly controversial paper by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini and colleagues has been republished after a stringent peer review process.
The chronic toxicity study examines the health impacts on rats of eating a commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize, Monsanto's NK603 glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup.
The original study, published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) in September 2012, found severe liver and kidney damage and hormonal disturbances in rats fed the GM maize and low levels of Roundup that are below those permitted in drinking water in the EU.
However it was retracted by the editor-in-chief of the Journal in November 2013 after a sustained campaign of criticism and defamation by pro-GMO scientists.
..more..
= new reply since forum marked as read
No matter how many times Seralini pays to have his study republished, or DUers post articles about it, it's still crap.
Sid
How much did monsanto pay for publishing pro gmo studies?
I know any science against GMO is anti science. 
In a few days some other gullible believer of everything they read on the internet will again post some fawning report of Seralini, from some agenda driven writer or publication that has no clue what they're writing about.
And credulous DUers will lap it up.
Sid
According to Patrick Holden, Chief Executive of the Sustainable Food Trust (SFT) the study highlights the inadequacy of current safety testing:
"The most obvious deficiency relates to the fact that the current approval process is based on animal feeding trials of only 90 days, a totally inadequate duration when one considers that chronic diseases in animals and humans do not usually manifest until mid-life."
A second deficiency, he added, relates to the newly emerging science of epigenetics - which demonstrates that endocrine systems can be seriously disrupted by the presence of chemical residues at concentrations as low as a few parts per billion.
"This turns on its head the logic of an approval process based on MRL (maximum residue levels), since it is becoming increasingly apparent that these chemicals have patterns of non-linear response."
It would seem that these are significant issues.
And it would seem that condescending attacks on this publication divert attention from these issues.
Could it be true that the current approval process is based on 90 days feeding trials?
If this is, in fact, the case, do those criticizing this publication have reason to believe that this is adequate to determine long term renal, hepatic, and endocrine effects?
Humans have been eating GMOs for a few centuries now. For example, corn is an utterly artificial creation. The plant can not survive without human intervention. Also, there's many hybrids of other plants that people have been breeding for years that form the basis of many food crops.
If you want to get to GMOs where we directly manipulated the DNA, most people have been eating them for around 5 to 10 years.
If you'd like to prove GMOs are harmful, first you'll have to come up with some mechanism by which they could actually cause harm. Because then you'd have something to look for. That's been the big problem with the folks opposed to GMOs - they have lots of scary sounding stories, but they don't have a mechanism where the GMO can affect your body. Well, affect your body in a way other than being food.
ETA:
"They should have to study it first before releasing it!!"
They did. Before a GMO is planted in the wild, studies are done to see if the genes spread in unexpected ways. Or if the plant develops unexpected traits.
And then they ship it, and people demand more study.
GMOs sound spooky to people who don't understand what's being done. And unfortunately, our crappy education system means lots of people fall into that category. As a result, there's demands for "more studies". The problem is you can call for more studies forever. There will always be someone with a claim that a product is terrible. Heck, there's a large group of people who insist all food and drink are awful (the "Breatharians"
.
So, find a way where they can cause harm. Then it can be studied.
Last edited Sat Jul 12, 2014, 12:54 AM - Edit history (1)
First of all, you assert "They did not feed rats just the crop under test. They always fed the rats RoundUp. RoundUp is known to be toxic."
However, the article linked in the OP clearly states- "Toxic effects were found from the GM maize tested alone, as well as from Roundup tested alone and together with the maize."
Because of your statement that ""They did not feed rats just the crop under test. They always fed the rats RoundUp." (directly contradicting the article), I examined the study itself to see if the OP article had misreported in regard to whether Monsanto's Roundup ready corn was also tested without Roundup as well as with Roundup. Here's the result:
Background
The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant NK603 genetically modified (GM) maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup application and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb of the full pesticide containing glyphosate and adjuvants) in drinking water, were evaluated for 2 years in rats. This study constitutes a follow-up investigation of a 90-day feeding study conducted by Monsanto in order to obtain commercial release of this GMO, employing the same rat strain and analyzing biochemical parameters on the same number of animals per group as our investigation. Our research represents the first chronic study on these substances...
Discussion
"... in our study presented here, in addition to extending the treatment period from 90 days to 2 years and in order to better ascertain the source of any ill health observed, we included additional test feeding groups. These consisted of NK603 maize grown without as well as with R application and R alone administered via drinking water. Furthermore, we used three levels of dosing in all cases rather than the two previously used [3], in order to highlight any dose response effects of a given treatment. It is also important to note that our study is the first to conduct blood, urine, and organ analyses from animals treated with the complete agricultural formulation of R and not just G alone, as measured by the manufacturer.
http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14
So it would appear that your assertions that " They did not feed rats just the crop under test. They always fed the rats RoundUp..... Food from RoundUp Ready crops is not normally coated in RoundUp - they added RoundUp to the food in this study." are simply not correct.
Second, this study was designed to look for possible renal, hepatic, and endocrine toxicities over an exposure time longer than the 90 days of Monsanto's study, and was not designed as a carcinogenic study.
What is perhaps more disturbing (than your misrepresentation of whether the crop had been tested without Roundup, your focus on carcinogenesis rather than renal and hepatic effects, and your apparent lack of concern regarding the adequacy of a feeding trial limited to 90 days), however, is your opening question "'Do you have evidence that they aren't?", which implies that the burden of proof should be, not with the corporation seeking approval to market products such as Roundup and Roundup ready corn, but with others.
Certainly, you must not believe that the burden of proof belongs with anyone other than Monsanto... But why then such readiness to criticize those bold enough to undertake overdue long-term studies?
It would seem that the essential issue remains that pointed out in the OP,;
According to Patrick Holden, Chief Executive of the Sustainable Food Trust (SFT) the study highlights the inadequacy of current safety testing:
"The most obvious deficiency relates to the fact that the current approval process is based on animal feeding trials of only 90 days, a totally inadequate duration when one considers that chronic diseases in animals and humans do not usually manifest until mid-life."
Is this not a concern you find reasonable?
Monsanto should have done real science before releasing their GMO products? Monsanto releases whatever they want and it is up to others to do the study?
Wow, what excellent advice for systemic pesticides! You're all, like, science-y and expert-y. Phooey on those anti-GMO Luddites!
Hey jeff47, do you even know what 'systemic' means? Systemics travel through the plant. Washing produce does NOTHING to remove systemics. So when squash seed is treated with Admire (imidacloprid - a systemic) or wheat is dried-down using RoundUp (glyphosate - a systemic) or GMO corn & soy are grown under continuous spraying of RoundUp (glyphosate - again, a *&%$*#* systemic), these chemicals are INSIDE of the vegetable or grain. Those Admire-treated squash blossoms have toxic pollen that kills bees. But the squash is surely safe for us because corpo-agri-business says so... (/sarcasm again).
Nice RW trope to blame the individual consumer and their washing habits, btw. Do you always blame the end-user who unwittingly buys and suffers from harmful corporate products masquerading as essential inputs for life itself?
Here's a radical idea: why don't we focus on growing food that, y'know, nourishes us instead of poisoning us if not treated like hazardous waste first? And then maybe the ongoing extinctions of many bees and birds and bats and frogs and Monarch butterflies might just slow down a mite.
No, no, that would be too much trouble. Fuck you, bees. And all you bats? Fuck off and die - Monsanto has a quarterly earnings target to meet. Fuck you too, frogs. I would say fuck you to a Monarch personally, but I can't find one anymore. (Well, sarcasm except not being able to find any Monarchs - I've left every Milkweed plant I can in my garden, but no Monarch caterpillars yet.)
-app
Nicely done. 
Depends on the plant and the systemic. For example, some systemics do not show up in the fruit. Also, some systemics can be used a while before the harvest, because the systemic breaks down before the crop is harvested.
Nope. RoundUp isn't a pesticide. You can tell because it kills plants instead of animals.
Oh wait, you changed the subject again to keep attacking, hoping people didn't notice.
Yes, a snarky comment is casting blame.
Because we can't grow enough.
Really, it's that simple. We've reached this point in modern agriculture because we need a certain yield per acre to keep everyone fed for a reasonable cost. So we're dumping toxic chemicals on the ground, depleting topsoil and draining aquifers in an attempt to keep it going.
Obviously, that's not going to last. So we either need to start slaughtering large numbers of people, or we can start engineering plants for drought tolerance and higher yield.
You're free to select "option #1".
Monsanto does not make all GMOs. Just like Disney does not make all cartoons.
Monsanto engineers plants to then turn around and sell RoundUp to the farmers. As a result, they aren't part of the solution.
