Three Approved GMOs Linked to Organ Damage
Moldleg333
effects are also in play. Ninety-nine percent of GMO crops either
tolerate or produce insecticide. This may be the reason we see bee
colony collapse disorder and massive butterfly deaths. If GMOs are
wiping out Earth's pollinators, they are far more disastrous than the
threat they pose to humans and other mammals.
Three Approved GMOs Linked to Organ Damage
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/01/three-approved-gmos-linked-to-organ-damage/
by Rady Ananda / January 3rd, 2010
In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive
study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian
health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of
Monsanto’s GM maize.
All three varieties of GM corn, Mon 810, Mon 863 and NK 603, were
approved for consumption by US, European and several other national
food safety authorities. Made public by European authorities in 2005,
Monsanto’s confidential raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats
that these researchers analyzed is the same data, ironically, that was
used to approve them in different parts of the world.
The Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering
(CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen studied Monsanto’s 90-
day feeding trials data of insecticide producing Mon 810, Mon 863 and
Roundup® herbicide absorbing NK 603 varieties of GM maize.
The data “clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver,
the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages
to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system,â€
reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the
University of Caen.
Although different levels of adverse impact on vital organs were
noticed between the three GMOs, the 2009 research shows specific
effects associated with consumption of each GMO, differentiated by sex
and dose.
Their December 2009 study appears in the International Journal of
Biological Sciences (IJBS). This latest study conforms with a 2007
analysis by CRIIGEN on Mon 863, published in Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology, using the same data.
Monsanto rejected the 2007 conclusions, stating: “The analyses
conducted by these authors are not consistent with what has been
traditionally accepted for use by regulatory toxicologists for
analysis of rat toxicology data.†1
In an email to me, Séralini explained that their study goes beyond
Monsanto’s analysis by exploring the sex-differentiated health
effects on mammals, which Doull, et al. ignored:
“Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto
systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are
different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the
dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This
is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful
reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data.â€
Other problems with Monsanto’s conclusions
When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to
use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet
won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.
Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such
tests run for up to two years. Tests “lasting longer than three
months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune,
hormonal or cancer diseases,†wrote Seralini et al. in their Doull
rebuttal. 2
Further, Monsanto’s analysis compared unrelated feeding groups,
muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, “In order to
isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other
variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-
GM equivalent.â€
The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies
reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and
may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.
They have called for “an immediate ban on the import and cultivation
of these GMOs and strongly recommend additional long-term (up to two
years) and multi-generational animal feeding studies on at least three
species to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and
chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods.â€
Human health, of course, is of primary import to us, but ecological
effects are also in play. Ninety-nine percent of GMO crops either
tolerate or produce insecticide. This may be the reason we see bee
colony collapse disorder and massive butterfly deaths. If GMOs are
wiping out Earth’s pollinators, they are far more disastrous than
the threat they pose to humans and other mammals.
Further Reading
Health Risks of GM Foods, Jeffrey M. Smith
Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered
Crops, Union of Concerned Scientists
Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First
Thirteen Years, The Organic Center
Also see Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, et al. “Report of an expert
panel on the reanalysis by Séralini et al. (2007) of a 90-day study
conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically
modified corn variety (MON 863).†Food Chem Toxicol. 2007;
45:2073-2085. [ ↩]
See “How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for
GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals.†IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443. [ ↩]