Organ Damage In Rats From Monsanto GMO Corn 766
jenningsthecat writes "A study published in December 2009 in the International Journal of Biological Sciences found that three varieties of Monsanto genetically-modified corn caused damage to the liver, kidneys, and other organs of rats. One of the corn varieties was designed to tolerate broad-spectrum herbicides, (so-called 'Roundup-ready' corn), while the other two contain bacteria-derived proteins that have insecticide properties. The study made use of Monsanto's own raw data. Quoting from the study's 'Conclusions' section: 'Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.' Given the very high prevalence of corn in processed foods, this could be a real ticking time bomb. And with food manufacturers not being required by law to declare GMO content, I think I'll do my best to avoid corn altogether. Pass the puffed rice and pour me a glass of fizzy water!"
forbes magazine's company of the year (Score:5, Interesting)
what's most disturbing about this is forbes magazine just named monsanto company of the year. [monsantoblog.com]
Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this info? (Score:5, Interesting)
Monsanto did the research in 2000 and 2001, and obviously knew the outcome. So how did they manage to suppress the data and results for 8 years?
An effect of pesticides? (Score:5, Interesting)
From their conclusions:
This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown
It sounds to me like the issue isn't the GM itself, but the over-use of novel pesticides that it permits.
High Fructose Corn Syrup (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the majority of "high prevalence of corn in processed foods" is HFCS - does this contain significant fractions of the proteins involved.
Not that I think HFCS is a health food. I'm so glad that Iowa corn lobby influence can't reach over here to the UK.
Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh God, not the bourbon. (Score:5, Interesting)
If it's going to damage my liver, I'm switching to scotch. I'm sorry, Jack, but I just can't take the chance...
Unfortunately, your scotch and bourbon is likely fortified with a corn product.
The kind of "duh" think that I'm thinking about here is that, if this corn produces these insecticide-like chemicals, one should have to show that it is non-toxic in humans...
One could feasibly find a way to splice in genes that would make the product lethal to humans... so if you're "adding" something to the corn, it should be controlled the same as any other food additive.
Although, people wishing to avoid all GM foods, corn itself has been so selectively bred that it doesn't even resemble its nearest neighbors. It's even moribund if we ever disappear, because its seeds over compete and kill each other off. If you want to talk about crazy amounts of GM, take something that's essentially a grass, and turn it into corn.
Not like corn provides all its nutritional value unless its treated with a relatively strong-ish base anyways... lime is what's mostly used to break up the proteins on the kernel to produce vitamin B12...
Not completely surprising. (Score:3, Interesting)
If they are releasing a new never before ingested product onto the market shouldn't they be forced into similar regulations as pharmaceuticals?
Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf (Score:5, Interesting)
Monsanto did the research in 2000 and 2001, and obviously knew the outcome.
You can't say "and obviously knew the outcome" unless you're Monsanto. I believe that GMO crops undergo far fewer tests for safety than pesticides. From the Wikipedia page on [wikipedia.org] one of the three crops in question (MON 863):
In 1989 a 90-day rat-feeding trial done by the FDA, 40 rats that were fed the Bt corn developed multiple reactions typically found in response to allergies, infections, toxins and diseases. Gilles-Eric Seralini reviewed the study as part of the French Commission for Biomolecular Genetics and said that the response by the rats were similar to reactions caused by pesticides. Although the Bt-toxin is a pesticide, he points out that animal research on pesticide-producing corn is nowhere as thorough as that required for approval of pesticides. Follow-up studies on these serious findings were demanded from organisations worldwide. None were conducted and the corn was approved.
MON 863 is even approved for use in the EU which is surprising considering the long history of European countries denying crops imported from other countries like the US where GMO crops are allowed on the off chance that said crops were cross pollinated with GMO plants in other fields. Very recently I believe Germany banned cultivation of GMO plants [spiegel.de]. If you want your data don't look toward Monsanto or even the underfunded FDA. Look to the European Union, I hope more studies follow in the path of this research but unfortunately it's hard to think of a source for major funding if it's not our tax dollars.
rep of Int Journal of Biological Sciences????? (Score:5, Interesting)
Science (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, I haven't read the paper in detail, but my initial impression is that, if academic researchers have found evidence that GM food damages your health, why haven't they put it in a really major journal--Nature, Science, PNAS, or something like PlosONE if the whole publication really had to be open access? I've got a degree in biology, and this is the first time I've ever come across the 'International Journal of Biological Sciences'.
Glancing at their results table, it doesn't seem clear cut overall. E.g. there are cases where rats fed 11% GM corn show a response, but rats fed 33% GM corn don't, cases where male rats are apparently affected, but not females, and vice versa. They also don't name the maize they used as a control, so we don't know how accurate it is.
All in all, it looks like they did a rather unconvincing study that prominent journals weren't prepared to accept, so they stuck it out there in this way. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but take it with a pinch of salt.
How did I guess this was from Kdawson? (Score:5, Interesting)
The study shows no organ damage. This is a lie by the esteemed Slashdot editor.
The study shows slight changes in some parameters which could be signs of damage. It could also not be. Eating sausages will give you different kidney readings from eating chicken, yet neither sausages nor chicken has been banned. Correspondingly the study says these are "signs of toxicity and not proof of toxicity". I would have expected KDawsons "organ damage" to imply that organ damage had been found.
Some data seems surprising - there is a significant effect for female rats consuming 11% Monsanto corn, but not male rats or female rats consuming 33%?
Although I agree that multiple year teasts should be performed, and organ damage checked for. Though it would be extremely surprising if this has not already been done by anyone.
Of course, since I write this I must be paid by Monsanto or just be evil, since all good-thinking progressives would never question criticism of an evil megacorp like Monsanto.
Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf (Score:2, Interesting)
That's the reason why it was accepted:
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620772383.htm [europa.eu]
"In conclusion, the Panel considers that the information available for MON 863 addresses the outstanding questions raised by the Member States and considers that MON 863 will not have an adverse effect on human and animal health or the environment in the context of its proposed use."
While I am not at all fan of Monsanto, I have to say that in the past research on GM crops has been highly polarized and there has been a lot of poor science from both sides. Let's wait and see how this study classifies.
distinction (Score:4, Interesting)
Correct, GM is truly a wonderful thing. But I do wonder if spot checks on produce wouldn't be advisable. Processed foods get spot checked, perhaps produce should as well. You can get a DNA sequencer on ebay for two grand now. Grabbing the sequence that produces abrin, or ricin from the rosary pea or castor bean respectively, and putting it in a couple corn plants, is within the ability of an undergrad certainly. The lab procedures are published out there, I saw them on the kindle store even. Corn is wind pollinated, so planting a few modified malcious plants upwind of a field could be really nasty. It is only going to get easier to do, and restricting the technology is the wrong way to try and prevent it. Spot checks of produce for common pathogens and dangerous chemicals would add to the price of food, so I wouldn't suggest they be mandatory. Might work kind of like an organic stamp, "Non-deadly GM" or somesuch.
Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf (Score:1, Interesting)
Any person in any country in the world could buy a bag of Monsanto corn, feed it to rats and dissect them. Controlled experiments with rats are cheap. North Korea could do it. Cuba could do it. Venezuela could do it. The African Development Bank could do it. Why haven't they? Is the lack of evidence merely a sign that capitalists have sabotaged that evidence?
Given the number of self-hating Marxists and Socialists around I would have expected at least one report of organ damage, which this study, had you bothered to read it, and contrary to the idiotic KDawson's title, does neither show nor claim.
Re:Politics of GMO (Score:3, Interesting)
The chief cheerleader in the UK is the former science minister in Tony Blair's government - Lord Sainsbury, who's family owns a supermarket chain of the same name.
Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you sure about that? I'm not a farmer, and I don't know anyone who has had anything to do with Monsanto corn, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a contract that you need to sign before buying Monsanto GM corn.
Re:Wary (Score:2, Interesting)
Huh? The corn has been modified to contain something that acts as an insecticide.
If it kills insects when they eat it, then why would it be at all surprising if it was bad for rats or humans too?
Stduy flawed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:An effect of pesticides? (Score:1, Interesting)
Good point, but I wonder if we can really decouple these two things. The whole point of most of these modifications is to allow farmers to spray the crops heavily without damaging them.
Re:Wary (Score:5, Interesting)
If you spray an insect with water containing soap you will kill it too, are you going to stop taking baths? Salt has some rather nasty effects on slugs, so you better get rid of that. Insects are different that humans.
Re:Science (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, their editor-in-chief [biolsci.org] is only the chief of mammalian genetics at NIH, and their editorial board is a bunch of slackers from the likes of Georgeton, UCLA school of medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Vancerbilt, Nortwestern, UC, etc.
OK, I haven't read the paper in detail... Glancing at their results table, it doesn't seem clear cut overall. E.g. there are cases where rats fed 11% GM corn show a response, but rats fed 33% GM corn don't, cases where male rats are apparently affected, but not females, and vice versa. They also don't name the maize they used as a control, so we don't know how accurate it is. Maybe you should read it in detail. FTFA: The raw data have been obtained by European governments and made publically available for scrutiny and counter-evaluation. So, they didn't actually perform the experiments, they're using the results of experiments that others did. It doesn't invalidate your point, but if you read further, I think they realize this:Furthermore, groups of animals were also fed with diets containing one of six other normal (non-GM) reference maize lines; the same lines for the NK 603 and MON 810 tests, but different types for the MON 863 trials. We note that these unrelated, different non-GM maize types were not shown to be substantially equivalent to the GMOs. The quantity of some sugars, ions, salts, and pesticide residues, do in fact differ from line to line, for example in the non-GM reference groups. This not only introduced unnecessary sources of variability but also increased considerably the number of rats fed a normal non-GM diet (320) compared to the GM-fed groups (80) per transformation event, which considerably unbalances the experimental design.
Yeah, I know, actually reading the article before posting your critical analysis is pretty hard to avoid.
Re:Oh God, not the bourbon. (Score:5, Interesting)
You have made the mistaken assumption that the techniques used to modify the corn and other plants works exactly as well in practice as it should in theory. The proteins that GMO foods are engineered to produce are already regulated as a food additive, but that's not enough to conclude that such products are safe. Unfortunately, Monsanto lobbied hard to ensure that they wouldn't have to prove the overall safety of the GM plants they were selling, just the safety of the specific proteins they were introducing. They've also done everything they can to ensure that studies that are critical of their products are suppressed. Without any new coverage of science specifically showing that their products are unsafe, they have successfully convinced the public (i.e. you) that their products should be safe in theory. "The World According to Monsanto" should be required viewing for people participating in this debate, it's a documentary about Monsanto's lobbying and litigation tactics, which have a history that goes further back than GM foods. For a much shorter read, see Árpád Pusztai [wikipedia.org]
Re:Why wasn't Monsanto required to reveal this inf (Score:2, Interesting)
Even the amish uses it
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/02/amish_hackers_a.php [kk.org]
Re:Oh God, not the bourbon. (Score:5, Interesting)
Companies must tell you if a food they sell contains grapes, raisins or hemlock, but if a food contains corn, they're not forced to tell you if it's "natural" or GM.
So, unless you're an ancient greek philosopher, you can choose to not introduce hemlock in your body but you haven't the choice to not introduce a possibly harmful GM substance but only the "natural" one.
Re:Is it really that surprising? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you make a crop that produces cyanide, it's going to be poisonous.
I wonder how many people caught the sarcasm of your post, revolving around apple seeds containing cyanide.
Re:Oh God, not the bourbon. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh God, not the bourbon. (Score:1, Interesting)
If it's going to damage my liver, I'm switching to scotch. I'm sorry, Jack, but I just can't take the chance...
Unfortunately, your scotch and bourbon is likely fortified with a corn product.
The kind of "duh" think that I'm thinking about here is that, if this corn produces these insecticide-like chemicals, one should have to show that it is non-toxic in humans...
One could feasibly find a way to splice in genes that would make the product lethal to humans... so if you're "adding" something to the corn, it should be controlled the same as any other food additive.
Although, people wishing to avoid all GM foods, corn itself has been so selectively bred that it doesn't even resemble its nearest neighbors. It's even moribund if we ever disappear, because its seeds over compete and kill each other off. If you want to talk about crazy amounts of GM, take something that's essentially a grass, and turn it into corn.
Not like corn provides all its nutritional value unless its treated with a relatively strong-ish base anyways... lime is what's mostly used to break up the proteins on the kernel to produce vitamin B12...
I think you're not understanding the goal of GM corn. The GM corn doesn't produce "insecticide-like chemicals"; it is resistant to certain pesticides.
Also, the study even admits that the health problems the rats experienced could be attributed to the pesticides used and not the genetic modification.
"This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded [42]."
That may be a small distinction on a practical level, but it is an important one. For instance, if it is the pesticide that is causing the health problems, they maybe able to use a different pesticide that is shown to be harmless to people (although that would most likely require a new type of GM corn).
Re:Food, Inc. (Score:3, Interesting)
really? Food inc? Yes base all your opinion and conclusion on heavily biased cherry picked crap.
I used to be against GMO because it is made to sound scary. When actually studying the subject and reading studies I realized the anti GMO people are ignorant fear mongers. This 'study' is a great example of the kind of crap they pull.
Re:Oh God, not the bourbon. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What GM food for hundreds of years? (Score:4, Interesting)
I dont eat dog, so I am not worried about any genetic modifications made to those.
The big problem with GM technology is not the actual technology - it is how it is being used.
I would have no problem eating GM foods if they were only modified to add say, additional vitamins, grow with salter water, or endure harsher environments, but the problem is they are making changes that do things like add pesticides into the food its self, or enable much higher levels of herbicides and insecticides to be used on crops without killing the plants (eg, "round up ready" strains)- so there are many more toxins actually in the food, or used on the food we eat.
The other big evil with GM crops is that it promotes monocultures, which puts all your eggs in one basket geneticalyl speaking - if there is then something that badly affects that strain of crops, it can have a devestating effect as entire harvests can be wiped out due to there being no natural bio diversity which would otherwise have allowed some plants to survive.
On top of that, the way that GM crops are licensed, so that often they are engineered to only produce a single generation from the seeds and can not breed true is just a disaster waiting to happen.
One good and relatively safe use of gene technology would be to use it to precisely Analise the natural variations produced by crossbreeding several different strains of the same type of crop, then selecting those that had the ideal characteristics.
we need to start cracking down on inappropriate genetic modifications to our food, and only allow modifications that enhance the flavour or health benefits of the food, or make it able to grow in harsher climates or with less water - not introduce genes which produce toxins or are designed to enable use of much higher concentrations of poisons.
Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer (Score:4, Interesting)
They say in one part: "The most fundamental point to bear in mind from the outset is that a sample size of 10 for biochemical parameters measured two times in 90 days is largely insufficient to ensure an acceptable degree of power to the statistical analysis performed and presented by Monsanto. " They say that because they think Monsanto shouldn't say the corn is safe - but then they (these researchers) are using that same "Insufficient" data to say it's unsafe. That's the way this whole paper is- it just doesn't jive together.
You might want to re-read your statistics textbook. They say that the power of the Monsanto analysis is low. That implies that if Monsanto does not see a significant result, they cannot conclude that no effect exists. However, the authors of this study see significant results nevertheless. Thus, even though power was low, the effect was large enough to show up.
In a nutshell: To demonstrate that there is a problem, all you have to do is find the problem in some instance. To demonstrate that there is no problem, you have to demonstrate that you looked very hard and yet could not find a problem. What the authors are saying is: "Monsanto didn't look very hard, and yet there is evidence of problems."
Re:Oh God, not the bourbon. (Score:3, Interesting)
Companies must tell you if a food they sell contains grapes, raisins or hemlock, but if a food contains corn, they're not forced to tell you if it's "natural" or GM.
Then buy products that do specify whether they contain GM components. If there's a product you want that isn't so labeled, try looking online or calling the company. If they won't say, chances are there's GM stuff in the product.
Yeah, that's a pain, but stop pretending that there's no way to avoid consuming something you don't want to consume just because producers aren't required by law to put it on the label. The nice thing about the market is that the more people become concerned about GM stuff, the more companies will start putting that info on their labels, even without being required to.
Re:Oh God, not the bourbon. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's worth noting that this is entirely different from the so-called "Roundup Ready" crops which by definition encourage the farmer to use potentially toxic doses of the herbicide.
That's odd, I have heard the exact opposite from farmers. I grew up on a farm and my father still farms. He and many other use GM corn that is 'Roundup Ready'. They love it because it lets them use less herbicide. Before, they had to pick and choose herbicides so that they didn't kill the corn. Got milkweed? Use this one. Water hemp? Sorry, use a different one. This could lead to multiple applications and lots of herbicide being used overall. Even if you use just a little, having to reapply different herbicide several times increases the overall amount.
Now, they apply Roundup once and use much less herbicide than before. It's also much more effective. It's so effective in fact that many farmers have switched to no-till farming methods. This is a tremendous gain because it saves a lot of topsoil. Tilling helps to eliminate weeds so most people practiced it so they could avoid herbicides (they're expensive!). But it didn't quite deliver good yields. My dad used to say 'No-till is easy. No-till, no-crop, no check!'. Now he uses it and swears by it. You used to see so much dust kicked up on a windy day that you thought you'd suffocate. Whenever there was a flood the runoff was black - that was our topsoil going away.
But thanks to no-till and Roundup-ready corn we are saving the topsoil and using overall fewer chemicals to grow our food. This is a tremendous win for environmentalists. It's too bad they got caught up in anti-GMO fever.
Re:An opinion by a PhD and sustainable farmer (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm surprised that you have a PhD and yet claim that reanalyzing someone else's data is "fishy". It happens all the time, and it's quite important to verify that someone's data actually backs up their claims. When the data actually supports a different interpretation, that's publishable.
Here, the authors note that the experimental design does not enable powerful tests, and that the tests that Monsanto employed were not the most powerful possible in the already weak scenario. They then established that Monsanto's results were really weak, and that applying a more powerful (but admittedly still weak) statistical methodology revealed that the data could support the opposite conclusions.
Yes, someone should do a more thorough study, which is exactly what the authors concluded. They don't so much say that their conclusions are valid, as to say that when they look at the data more closely than Monsanto did, it suggests something quite different than what Monsanto put forth.
That's science.
Re:Oh God, not the bourbon. (Score:5, Interesting)
that will cause even the safe GM foods to banned.
Personally, I don't really mind GM foods, but I'd feel much safer if anything Monsanto touched was banned. Considering their track record of deliberate contamination and knowingly poisoning employees and residents in areas they've operated I certainly wouldn't expect them to warn anyone should they discover their products were hazardous to health. In fact, I'd expect them to try to cover it up any way they could, and attempt to silence any whistle blowers or outside researchers, and probably bribe officials to let them continue to operate if they can.
Re:need a new word (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm an ex-molecular biologist and I dont trust 'em either. Modern genetic techniques do indeed have the potential to bring tremendous benefits and I'll even go so far as to say the profit motive has a role in driving the deployment of some of those benefits but thats only with the most rigorous and transparent testing and verification. THAT is what we dont have, instead we have regulators willing to take the word of the guys who stand to make a huge pile from a favorable result of the testing. The end result of this will indeed be, as you predict at the end of your comment, that some minor factor which in testing was argued away as insignificant or negligible will become significant when the product is deployed on such scales as are applicable to food production.
I hope we're both wrong, but I dont believe we are.
Re:Oh God, not the bourbon. (Score:2, Interesting)
And then about 2-3 months ago I started having sporadic asthma attacks -- having never had them before. And then they went away just about the time I started eating a little better and eating cooked food more. I wonder if there's a connection between the liver problems, the asthma, and the corn.
Re:Oh God, not the bourbon. (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree with you 100%. I've developed an intolerance to crappy food. And, believe me, it's nearly impossible to avoid corn syrup. It's in everything. It's in every single type of salad dressing. It's in mustard. Mustard. The recipe for mustard didn't change for a thousand years. Mustard seeds, vinegar, salt. Now it needs corn syrup too, for some reason.