The results are in from the first-ever peer-reviewed long-term health study of the most common type of genetically engineered corn – and they are worrying. For two years, researchers fed rats a diet of genetically engineered corn that is common in the US food supply, and found massive mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage, and premature death. The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology.
Read the "Summary of Findings" from the researchers here.
This research adds to the growing body of peer-reviewed research that links genetically engineered foods to allergies, organ toxicity and other illnesses.
These findings underscore the importance of giving California families the right to know whether our food has been genetically engineered in a laboratory.
Proposition 37 – which would label genetically engineered foods in California – is the answer for everyone who wants the right to know what’s in their food. And it is the best recourse available for those of us who do not wish to be subjects in a giant science experiment conducted by Monsanto and the other pesticide giants bankrolling the No on 37 campaign. (Recent contributions have topped $32 million, more than half from Monsanto and the big pesticide companies.)
Join the California Right to Know campaign -- Yes on Proposition 37
Genetically engineered foods have not been adequately studied and have not been proven safe. By requiring simple labels on these GMO’s, Prop 37 would give Californians the ability to choose whether to expose our families and children to any potential health risks. That’s why 50 countries around the world already require such labeling.
This new study is destined to raise more questions than it answers. But at this point, a few things are clear. It is outrageous and shocking that this is the first long-term feeding study, even though this genetically engineered corn has been on the market for nearly 20 years.
The reason we have been denied such critical information is that biotech companies like Monsanto have controlled and suppressed such research (because of patent restrictions on GMOs). As the editorial board at Scientific American wrote, “Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end.”
We need, and deserve, more independent research in this area. How much evidence of health risks posed by GMOs has been suppressed? What documents does Monsanto and the other agrichemical giants have in their vaults that may shed further light on the findings of this peer-reviewed study?
We are calling on the agrichemical industry to immediately release any and all internal documents linking their products to health problems -- especially tumors, kidney and liver damage, and premature death.
In the meantime, let’s demand our right to know and our right to decide for ourselves what we eat and feed our families. Vote yes on Proposition 37.
> Certainly demands study and I'd try to keep away from gm food but also > suspect problems would be showing up or have shown up in food lot > animals fed it by now.
Hosts of problems with feed lot animals - anti biotic resistance in humans
fed beef fattened on grain which is not the natural food of cattle and have
to be given anti biotics so they can digest the grain.
High cholesterol in humans can be attributed to the removal of linseeds
from the bread making process - Roundup Ready wheat - linseeds
being the natural anti cholesterol drug.
Homogenised milk and type 2 diabetes which overloads the body's
ability to process milk fats.
> And non-modified corn, when fed to lab rats in massive quantities?
> What does that do?
I assume that is the control group.
I know a bit about toxicology but am not a toxicologist.
I read an interesting book review about scientists recently and zeal to get recognition. They are not always dispassionate logical thinkers as often attributed to them. Paper says they have no conflict of interest.
What does that mean? They do acknowledge support, but what about the supporting groups inclination? Just one small reason that further study is needed.
Again, I'm not saying you should not watch what you eat. Personally I tend to avoid new stuff in my diet until it passes the test of time.