RSN June Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "The animals on the genetically modified (GM) diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage, according to the peer-reviewed study which was published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology and presented at a news conference in London."

The French team has released images of tumors in mice caused by exclusively eating GM corn. (photo: The Daily Mail)
The French team has released images of tumors in mice caused by exclusively eating GM corn. (photo: The Daily Mail)


Monsanto Corn Causes Tumors, Organ Damage in Rats

By Ben Hirschler and Kate Kelland, Reuters

20 September 12

 

n a study that prompted sharp criticism from other experts, French scientists said on Wednesday that rats fed on Monsanto's genetically modified corn or exposed to its top-selling weedkiller suffered tumours and multiple organ damage.

The French government asked the country's health watchdog to investigate the findings further, although a number of scientists questioned the study's basic methods and Monsanto said it felt confident its products had been proven safe.

Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and colleagues said rats fed on a diet containing NK603 - a seed variety made tolerant to dousings of Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller - or given water with Roundup at levels permitted in the United States, died earlier than those on a standard diet.

Experts not involved in the study were sceptical, with one accusing the French scientists of going on a "statistical fishing trip" and others describing its methods as well below standard.

The animals on the genetically modified (GM) diet suffered mammary tumours, as well as severe liver and kidney damage, according to the peer-reviewed study which was published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology and presented at a news conference in London.

The researchers said 50 percent of male and 70 percent of female rats died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group.

Monsanto spokesman Thomas Helscher said the company would review the study thoroughly. However, he added: "Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies performed on biotech crops to date, including more than a hundred feeding studies, have continuously confirmed their safety, as reflected in the respective safety assessments by regulatory authorities around the world."

Experts Sceptical

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are deeply unpopular in Europe but dominate major crops in the United States after Monsanto introduced a soybean genetically altered to tolerate Roundup in 1996.

Experts asked by reporters to review the scientific paper advised caution in drawing conclusions from it.

Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London, noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were.

"This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumours particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said. "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."

Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, said the study's findings raised the question of why no previous studies have flagged up similar concerns.

"If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren't the North Americans dropping like flies? GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there - and longevity continues to increase inexorably," he said in an emailed comment.

David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge said the methods, statistics and reporting of results were all below standard. He added that the study's untreated control arm comprised only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also got tumours.

Long-Term Effects?

While supporters of GM crops say previous studies have overwhelmingly pointed to their safety, critics argue there is still limited information about the long-term effects since the crops have only been around for just over 15 years.

In France, where opposition to GMOs has led to a ban on growing such crops, the government said it had asked its health and safety agency to assess the study and had also sent it to the European Union's food safety agency (EFSA).

"Based on the conclusion ..., the government will ask the European authorities to take all necessary measures to protect human and animal health, measures that could go as far as an emergency suspension of imports of NK603 maize in the European Union," the French health, environment and farm ministries said in a joint statement.

Seralini, the scientist at the centre of the latest research, previously raised safety concerns based on a shorter rat study in 2009. His new study takes things a step further by tracking the animals throughout their two-year lifespan.

Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at King's College London, who helped draft the paper, told reporters at a London briefing that its findings highlighted the "need to test all GM crops in two-year lifelong studies".

"I feel this data is strong enough to withdraw the marketing approval for this variety of GM maize temporarily, until this study is followed up and repeated with larger number of animals to get the full statistical power that we want," he said.

Seralini believes his latest lifetime rat tests give a more realistic and authoritative view of risks than the 90-day feeding trials that form the basis of GM crop approvals, since three months is only the equivalent of early adulthood in rats.

France's Jose Bove, vice-chairman of the European Parliament's commission for agriculture and known as an opponent of GM, called for an immediate suspension of all EU cultivation and import authorisations of GM crops. "This study finally shows we are right and that it is urgent to quickly review all GMO evaluation processes," he said in a statement.

The study is also likely to create friction in the United States, where opponents of genetically engineered foods in California are fighting to have all GMOs removed from the food supply.

See Also: Read the peer-reviewed, long-term animal study of GMO foods Here


 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+49 # dkonstruction 2012-09-20 06:29
Which of the pictures do we think would be best for the GMO label that should be required to be on all products containing this poison?

Since Monsanto continues to say that their GMO products are completely safe we should demand that their executives eat the same diet as the rats and if, in twenty years, they have not developed any of these tumors (or any other negative health effects) we will consider taking the rat pictures off of the labels
 
 
+32 # Barbara K 2012-09-20 06:37
As one who has been ill the past 2 1/2 because of the poisons put on the wheat, as well as all other grains, I can tell you it doesn't feel good. Like having the stomach flu every day. At least, now that I avoid wheat, I feel much better. This is serious business. We need to get them to stop poisoning our food. I'm not the only one affected, more and more are becoming ill. Early deaths? Maybe. These GMOs and all the stuff they are putting on the plants as they grow should be enough to hold them responsible for our illnesses. Lawsuits should be happening, why are they being allowed to do this to us? We who are ill, and those who are ill and still haven't figured out why (it my doctors 2 years to figure it out), have a right to know what they are doing to us. We need to come together and put these Food Terrorists out of business.
 
 
+10 # warrior woman 2012-09-21 04:55
Barbara, I'm gluten and dairy free and as free of GMO's as I can be. One thing I've learned is not only are the GMO's imbedded w/ pesticide (Bt Toxin or Bacillus Thurengiensis), they are being sprayed with systemic pesticides. An example is clothiandin, a Bayer product. There was an article a week or so ago in the Chicago Tribune about the FDA, and I would add the EPA and USDA not conducting their own tests on chemicals, it is left to the results of the manufacturers testing, which is, of course, lacking or none on human safety.
 
 
+4 # Barbara K 2012-09-21 06:08
warrior woman: The thing is that I'm not allergic to wheat or gluten, it is the stuff they put on the wheat that makes me sick. Consequently, purely because of what they put on it is why I cannot tolerate it. But the only way to avoid the poisons is not to eat it. Gee, I miss bread, cakes, pies, etc. lol.
 
 
+5 # Barbara K 2012-09-21 07:23
A real eye opener on how Romney built MONSANTO that I just found on AlterNet:

http://www.alternet.org/food/how-mitt-romney-and-bain-helped-grow-monsanto-biotech-giant


A Must see.
 
 
+27 # Barkingcarpet 2012-09-20 07:05
GMO foods, Yummie Yum Yum. Vote YES on California 37 and at least label the frankenfoods folks. Better yet, BAN them.

Monsanto IS the AntiChrist.
 
 
+3 # noitall 2012-09-20 11:53
Monsanto is just like Romney and taxes; they're "playing by the rules". Its the rules that are screwed up...but then it's their ilk that are making the rules. Why aren't the words "Catch-22" found anywhere in our constitution, or pledge of allegiance, or on the use agreements that we daily agree to without reading on the internet? You have to be rich to not screw yourself in this country. I'll have my lawyer talk to your lawyer.
 
 
+20 # Bill Clements 2012-09-20 07:09
I have to say that I'm sickened by these pictures and frankly disgusted that we are still using animals (who are helpless to resist) for experiments like this one? And yes, I have a big problem with factor farms, etc. It's simply obscene and inhumane to subject other sentient beings to such suffering all for the supposed "noble" purpose of benefiting humans (who many of us deem superior in all respects). There are other non-invasive ways.
 
 
+8 # demongel17 2012-09-20 09:30
Quoting Bill Clements:
I have to say that I'm sickened by these pictures and frankly disgusted that we are still using animals (who are helpless to resist) for experiments like this one? And yes, I have a big problem with factor farms, etc. It's simply obscene and inhumane to subject other sentient beings to such suffering all for the supposed "noble" purpose of benefiting humans (who many of us deem superior in all respects). There are other non-invasive ways.

Demongel,
Ditto! What makes us 'sentient beings' sooooo special anyway??? I have more than one friend who keep rats as pets and they are delightful animals. As far as the larger picture with Monsanto and the evils in general, VOTE YES ON CA. 37 AND TAKE A FIRST POSITIVE STEP!
 
 
-14 # noitall 2012-09-20 11:41
What makes us "sentient beings" so special? The bible tells us so. We're created in the image of God, above all other creatures who were created for our exploitation. We are what this Earth is all about. The bible apparently forgot to mention that we depend on the rest of God's Creatures for our own life and happiness...oop s! "God's Creatures" (the small print) What is He some kind of Native American giver (always P.C.)? He giveith and he takeith away. How are we supposed to build a viable business around such things?! I guess we're only safe with exploiting ourselves...pro blem solved.
 
 
-1 # cafetomo 2012-09-20 10:37
Yep. And you're elected, bunkie.
 
 
+1 # lincolnimp 2012-09-22 15:00
Bill Clements....I was laboring on submitting a comment concerning the continued use of innocent animals to solve the problems we create...but I stopped when I read your comment...thank you for saying what I wanted to say in a much more coherent and meaningful way.
 
 
+14 # chuckw38 2012-09-20 08:21
Ahhh, what would we do without Monsanto, poisoning our animal brothers & sisters, us, you...
the whole friggin' World...
Monsanto, thy name be "EVIL"!!!
 
 
+13 # lisamoskow 2012-09-20 08:44
Yes on 37!!!

Remember that Monsanto is spending millions to stop this.

I would bet that they were behind a program on NPR that claims that there is no difference between organic and conventional food.

I can't tell you how many people I know who can no longer eat wheat. Now we must avoid corn, soy and canola oil--oh and rice because of the high arsenic content in it.

And the government is arresting people who produce raw milk....
 
 
+11 # Street Level 2012-09-20 08:50
We have been the industry's lab rats for years. Without disclosure, we blindly stumble through the aisles with our children while being bombarded with advertisements and lies like "natural" and "wholesome".
The evidence is still irrefutable. No living thing should be eating this stuff and we should not have this forced upon us any longer.
The California Right to Know campaign needs your endorsement in solidarity of labeling. http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements
 
 
+4 # MsAnnaNOLA 2012-09-20 09:05
You guys need to read "The Secret History of the War on Cancer" the author Devra Davis is an epidemiologist. She goes into great detail how these mouse studies showing harm are not enough to get products and chemicals pulled from the market here in USA. They do use these studies to "prove things are safe" by exposing the animals to the toxins for a short period of time. So on the one hand if it shows harm it is not enough evidence, but on the other hand if it does not show harm it is acceptable evidence.

The sad thing is that in the USA if you read this book you will come to the conculusion that vast numbers of people must die and be poisioned for any product to be pulled from the market.

Do yourself a favor and avoid chemicals, GMOs and pesticide. You will feel better and live longer.
 
 
+3 # mackochee 2012-09-20 09:16
Let me start by saying I do not support GMO in any way. Let me also ad that I am not a scientist. However, this study smells bad. The premise of the study, as quoted in this article, is that GMO foods were fed to rats, and, water mixed with Roundup was given to rats. They got tumors. While it is easy to believe that a Roundup cocktail could cause tumors and I would like to believe that GMO does as well, how does this study implicate either if it is actually being done in the manner the author suggests? How can you conduct a scientific study if you do so by throwing all of the Monsanto products at a rat and then declaring one of those products as the toxic element when the products have all been studied together? All we know is that Monsanto makes a product that increases the risk of cancer but we don't know which one.


We can't win a fight against GMO with this kind of flawed thinking by the scientists who are anti-GMO if, in fact, the author is correct sand the study was actually performed in this manner. Drinking Roundup and eating a GMO food engineered to be resistant to Roundup prove nothing about GMO or Roundup unless the food and the Roundup solution are tested separately.
 
 
-2 # ColeyPee 2012-09-20 15:51
The Round-up given was the amount that is approved by the US government (scaled for rats). I think this study is pretty scientific: it had a control group, a GMO only group, a Round-Up only group, and a GMO and Round-Up group. That covers all of the bases. I'm not sure where you think the science is flawed.
 
 
+1 # ColeyPee 2012-09-21 09:35
Not sure why I got a negative point for my comment, but for anyone interested, the lead author had this to say of the study's criticism:

"This study has been evaluated by the world's best food toxicology magazine, which took much more time than people who reacted within 24 hours without reading the study,"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/sns-rt-us-eu-gmo-safetybre88j0wg-20120920,0,1830412.story
 
 
0 # ColeyPee 2012-09-21 09:51
Quoting mackochee:
Drinking Roundup and eating a GMO food engineered to be resistant to Roundup prove nothing about GMO or Roundup unless the food and the Roundup solution are tested separately.


Point is, they WERE tested separately. Follow the link at the bottom of the article if you think that wasn't clear in this one.
 
 
-13 # happycamper690 2012-09-20 09:56
Did anyone actually bother to read this article? I found it miraculously unbiased and actually pointed out many things that contradict the validity of the study (like using a breed of rat prone to mammary tumors). Since no other study, and there have been many, has not seen these affects, it is far too soon to condemn Monsanto, to call them the anitChrist and to believe, based on this work, that GMOs are Frankenfood. There is way too much hysteria in this discussion due to a lack of real scientific knowledge in the general public.
 
 
+3 # Artemis 2012-09-20 11:43
The article is unbiased, as it should be, but if you bother to do some research on Monsanto, you will quickly understand that they are a real evil bunch.
 
 
0 # jedson 2012-09-23 04:44
Actually the article is not unbiased. The opening sentence begins with mentining that the study is being attacked even before it tells us what the study shows. The news is the study -- not the attack on it. Obviously Monsanto will attack it. That's not news.
 
 
0 # cafetomo 2012-09-20 10:30
They're just trying to help, folks. The poor people are breeding too much. The fat and ignorant are burdening the health system. This way, a leaner, smarter working caste will emerge to serve their betters, while undocumented immigrants and other invisible poor are welcomed to extra helpings of shortened lifespan. All as they aspire to a minimum wage that ensures a specific set of dietary options subsidized by government. Aldous Huxley & George Orwell weren't thinking big enough.
 
 
+2 # noitall 2012-09-20 11:47
I think the plan is working. The population is too distracted (by sports, reality shows, you name it) to collectively demand knowing what they put into their own personal palace. Most American bodies look like their junk room (and I don't exclude the emaciated). So where do the rich people shop? Are there labels there? Probably cheaper too because you know how the rich watch the pennies.
 
 
0 # rockieball 2012-09-22 05:08
I think whom ever gave you the thumbs down does not recognize satire.
 
 
+4 # Artemis 2012-09-20 11:41
Europeans simply DO NOT WANT genetically engineered crops and why should they? Nor do they want Monsanto in Europe or anywhere else. Full stop. Is that so hard to understand.
 
 
-1 # noitall 2012-09-20 11:43
So there's the deal: If I was in the business of building boats that disintegrated in water, I wouldn't want the ingredients I use blared out for all to see on LABELS either!
 
 
+3 # trevorlasvegas 2012-09-20 12:04
If you don't eat it, they can't sell it.
 
 
-4 # wrodwell 2012-09-20 13:04
Hmmm-mmmm...... .these study results could turn out to be a good thing. First, if the greater Rat Community finds out that they'll get cancer if they eat genetically modified corn, that news will no doubt make every cornfield and corn storage facility in the world rat-free. More appropriate than using rats as test subjects would be to conduct a controlled environment study on every human who works for Monsanto. The requirement would be to eat at least one helping a day of genetically-mod ified corn for a period of 6 months. (Corn dogs, polenta, grits, you name it.) As part of this new study, daily showers of "Roundup" would also be required. (One can't be too clean and protected.) If, for some reason, someone does by chance get cancer, the Affordable Care Act will probably kick-in just as the study ends. But fear not, there are no pre-existing condition caveats, so everyone will be completely covered.
 
 
+3 # tref 2012-09-20 14:09
I live in CA. I WILL vote for Prop 37.

That said, blatant ignorance, whether by pro or con GMO people, is not helpful in arriving at the truth. "As one who has been ill the past 2 1/2 because of the poisons put on the wheat..." makes me shudder. GMO foods don't have anything PUT ON them. They are the result of inserting the DNA from one species of plant or animal into the genes of a different plant or animal.

Is Barbara K allergic to GMOs or wheat? Did she regularly eat non-GMO wheat for a year with no ill effects, then switch to GMO wheat and suddenly start getting sick again?

The big-AG ads are beginning to hit the airwaves here. They have over $10 million to spend and there are a lot of stupid people here who are registered to vote. If you are in favor of labeling GMO foods, you had better put your money where your mouth is and support the yes on 37 campaign because if this measure fails, it will be a long, cold winter for labeling efforts across the country.

BTW, don't fall for the hysterical ban-all-GMOs hype. It is just as flawed as the GMOs-are-perfec tly-safe hype.

PS: Currently, the article's last statement, "... opponents of genetically engineered foods in California are fighting to have all GMOs removed from the food supply" is not true. We want LABELING, not a ban.
 
 
+2 # coffeewriter 2012-09-20 15:06
"If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren't the North Americans dropping like flies? GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there - and longevity continues to increase inexorably," he said in an emailed comment.

Actually, they ARE (dropping like flies). Watch this: http://geneticroulettemovie.com/
 
 
0 # WolfTotem 2012-09-21 05:09
Quoted among the skeptical responses to this research:

"If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren't the North Americans dropping like flies? GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there - and longevity continues to increase inexorably."

Here's something in today's news on the "inexorable increase" in Americans' longevity:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/us/life-expectancy-for-less-educated-whites-in-us-is-shrinking.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120921

The article quotes a comparison between the five-year decline for white women and the catastrophic seven-year drop for Russian men in the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Of course, this doesn't link up directly with GMO, which is just one aspect of America's disastrous industry-led feeding patterns. A cross between eugenics and the feedstock trough...
 
 
+1 # Idonthavealabel 2012-09-22 05:19
[quote name="lisamosko w"]Yes on 37!!!

Remember that Monsanto is spending millions to stop this.

I would bet that they were behind a program on NPR that claims that there is no difference between organic and conventional food.


They "support" NPR. I've heard the commercials before.
 
 
0 # RnR 2012-09-23 03:37
Just remember there *is* gene transfer between species. Meaning you and yours may be treated to the incorporation of pesticide genes *in your body* isn't that special? Thanks Monsanto we couldn't have done it on our own. Oh, not to forget, thanks to your governmental enablers for paving the way for your most totally irresponsible and treacherous business model.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN