Gilles-Eric Seralini, et. al just published a study in Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicity purportedly showing that rats on a diet of Monsanto's Roundup-tolerant genetically engineered corn developed more tumors and died sooner than rats on a non-GMO diet. The 'purportedly' modifier is included in the previous sentence intentionally. It turns out that the data do not seem to actually support these conclusions--at least not the published results.
The study's publication and Seralini's subsequent press conference at the European Parliament a day later lead to a flurry of coverage from groups concerned about GMOs. It also precipitated serious criticism from a range of scientists who questioned the methods, gaps in the reported data, and the way the data was analyzed. Hank Campbell, on the Science 2.0 website, conveniently cataloged many of the specific concerns and comments from other scientists about the study.
Nevertheless, the report has prompted the French Prime Minister, Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault to ask the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to look into the study. Also, promising that, if the results are confirmed, he would seek a European ban on GMOs. The EFSA may have difficulty confirming the results though since the lead author, Dr. Seralini, has reportedly refused to release the data to the agency. He has concerns that they are biased since they approved the corn previously.
University of Caen's researcher Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini has been a longstanding critic of GMOs. He co-founded the Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering. The group describes itself on their English-version website as, "an independent non-profit organization of scientific counter-expertise to study GMOs, pesticides and impacts of pollutants on health and environment, and to develop non polluting [sic] alternatives."
For a detailed analysis of the study, take a look at Scicurious's critique on the Discover Magazine website. Also, it is worth it to check out Andrew Kniss' illuminating statistical analysis on the viability of the Sprague-Dawley rats used in the study. It seems that two year old rats develop tumors about 72% of the time.
Comments
Monsanto would never lie.remember when they told us DDT was safe.
“For a detailed analysis of the study…”
compare it to the other 2 year rat studies. Or, compare it to the multi-generational studies. And, when you can’t find either of those…
Really? You can’t find either of those? That’s the real news. Report it.
“If the effects are as big as claimed, why have none of the previous 100+ plus studies by reputable scientists, in refereed journals, noticed anything at all?” -Prof Mark Tester, University of Adelaide, Australia
“Most toxicology studies are terminated at normal lifespan i.e. 2 years. Immortality is not an alternative. (…)
No food intake data is provided or growth data. This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumours particularly when food intake is not restricted. ” -Prof Tom Sanders, King’s College, London
Read more criticism of this poorly-done study here http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/press_releases/12-09-19_gm_maize_rats_tumours.htm
Interestingly enough, Monsanto themselves used similar cohorts of the same rat in their own labs to demonstrate the safety of their crops, but they only ran the trial for 90 days.
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
I repeat what another commentator said:
“Monsanto would never lie.remember when they told us DDT was safe”.
It is clear that monsanto and other GMO and pollutant pesticide producers have a lot of money and power. They can buy their own scientists, they can buy senators, politicians and they can also buy media to discard the results that independent and non biased scientists produce after years of scientific research.
The truth is and common sense should help us here, that how can genetically modified and genetically pesticide modified elements could be healthy for us ????
The next thing happening after this important study will be a total denial by the “competent authorities”, that is all the vested interests in governments, regulating bodies and decision makers who are in bed with multinational criminal corporations like monsanto.
I hope , though, that the E>U parliament won’t be fooled and not as corrupted in this matter than it use to be in others, and will forbid for good this sh*t.
But it’s like the financial crisis, as we see it, the main culprits (big banks and financial corps.) are using the governments (starting by Obama administration) to make us pay for their mistakes and corrupted practices. As usual socializing the risks while privatizing the benefits.
In the case of GMO, it is not our money they rob with the help of elected crooks, but it is our health and lives.
So happy cancer to everybody and continue to say nothing and vote the same.
I find it interesting how many in the science community are looking to find fault with this study. Do these same people consider the 90 day study Monsanto used to get this stuff on the market, be adequate before unleashing this new and unproven food to the masses? If nothing else, this study shows that these gmos need to have long term studies done, not only on rats, but on livestock and humans as well; and I don’t mean the current study we are all being subjected to as guinea pigs. Do these same scientists accept that the rise in cancer rates, obesity, diabetes, gastric problems, autism, skin disorders and allergies, that have spiked since the introduction of gmos is a mere coincidence?