Log in

View Full Version : Shocking new GM corn study (graphic pictures!)


Elenin
September 21st, 2012, 01:57 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Cancer-row-GM-foods-French-study-claims-did-THIS-rats--cause-organ-damage-early-death-humans.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html%3Fs%3D%26authornamef%3DSean%2B Poulter

Rats fed a lifelong diet of one of the bestselling strains of genetically modified corn suffered tumours and multiple organ damage, according to a controversial French study published today.

Scientists said the results raised serious questions about the safety of GM foods and the assurances offered by biotech companies and governments.

The first lifetime trials involving rats fed on GM corn found a raised incidence of breast tumours, liver and kidney damage.
The French team has released shocking images of tumours in mice caused by exclusively eating GM corn. However, the research has been criticised as being of 'no value' by other researchers

The French team has released shocking images of tumours in mice caused by exclusively eating GM corn. However, the research has been criticised as being of 'no value' by other scientists

Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at King’s College, London, and an expert on GM foods, said: ‘It shows an extraordinary number of tumours developing earlier and more aggressively – particularly in female animals. I am shocked by the extreme negative health impacts.’

The research was carried out by Caen University in France, and has been peer reviewed by independent scientists to guarantee the experiments were properly conducted and the results are valid.

More...

'Frankenstein' meat could get go-ahead in EU: Safety fears over the use of GM animals
Fears over GM wheat that fends off greenfly

It is the first to look at the impact of eating a GM diet over a lifetime in rats, which is two years. To date, safety assessments of GM crops have been based on rat feeding trials lasting 90 days.

The corn was genetically modified to withstand spraying with glyphosate, the main chemical in the weedkiller Roundup, developed by Monsanto. The idea is that the corn can be sprayed without being damaged, while weeds are destroyed.

The tests looked at the impact of several scenarios including eating the GM corn (NK603), eating the GM corn sprayed with Roundup, and consuming Roundup at low doses in water.

The results were compared against those for a control group fed a ‘clean’ diet without GM or Roundup.
Public concerns: A GM food protestor dressed as the grim reaper in a field of GM maize crops in Over Compton near Sherborne, Dorset

Public concerns: A GM food protestor dressed as the grim reaper in a field of GM maize crops in Over Compton near Sherborne, Dorset

The researchers found:

Between 50 to 80 per cent of female rats developed large tumours by the beginning of the 24th month, with up to three tumours per animal. Only 30 per cent of the control rats developed tumours
Up to 70 per cent of females died prematurely compared with only 20 per cent in the control group
Tumours in rats of both sexes fed the GM corn were two to three times larger than in the control group
The large tumours appeared in females after seven months, compared to 14 months in the control group. The team said the tumours were ‘deleterious to health due to a very large size’, making it difficult for the rats to breathe and causing digestive problems.

Significantly, the majority of tumours were detectable only after 18 months – meaning they could be discovered only in long-term feeding trials.
Agent orange to kill GM weed

The study – led by molecular biologist Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, a critic of GM technology, and published yesterday in US journal Food and Chemical Toxicology – said the GM corn and Roundup weedkiller ‘may cause hormonal disturbances in the same biochemical and physiological pathway’.

The Daily Mail’s Frankenstein Food Watch campaign has long highlighted problems with the lack of rigorous safety assessments for GM crops and food.

Although GM corn is widely used in the US, British consumers have turned their backs on the technology because of concerns about its impact on human health and the environment.

Although it is not available in British supermarkets, it is fed to farm animals including chickens, pigs and dairy cows.

Mustafa Djamgoz, professor of Cancer Biology at Imperial College, London, said the findings relating to eating GM corn were a surprise.

‘We are what we eat,’ he added. ‘I work at the molecular level on cancer. There is evidence what we eat affects our genetic make-up and turns genes on and off.

‘We are not scaremongering here. More research is warranted.’

Dr Julian Little, of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, which speaks for the GM industry, insisted GM foods were safe, adding: ‘The industry takes all health concerns regarding biotech food and feed very seriously.’

Anthony Trewavas, professor of cell biology at Edinburgh University, questioned the way the research had been conducted, saying the number of rats involved in the study – 200 – was too small to draw any meaningful conclusions.

‘To be frank, it looks like random variation to me in a rodent line likely to develop tumours anyway,’ he said.

He also claimed Professor Seralini was an anti-GM campaigner and that previous studies questioning the technology’s safety had not withstood scrutiny.
Major doubts have been raised over the safety of GM foods by a new study which found they can cause tumours and organ damage in mice

Major doubts have been raised over the safety of GM foods by a new study which found they can cause tumours and organ damage in mice

Mortal Coil
September 22nd, 2012, 06:13 AM
Those poor mice ;~; And up until now I thought GMO foods were basically harmless... wow, I was an idiot.

Magical
September 24th, 2012, 06:59 AM
What a WORTHLESS test. They say: 'raised incidence of breast tumours, liver and kidney damage'. Compared to what? A control. Fed what? A clean diet. Of something.

Rats fed exclusively one food would not be healthy. People fed one their whole lives wouldn't be healthy. So what does this mean?

Nothing.

Mortal Coil
September 24th, 2012, 07:38 AM
What a WORTHLESS test. They say: 'raised incidence of breast tumours, liver and kidney damage'. Compared to what? A control. Fed what? A clean diet. Of something.

Rats fed exclusively one food would not be healthy. People fed one their whole lives wouldn't be healthy. So what does this mean?

Nothing.

Well, yeah, except that almost all commercial food products like corn and soy and wheat are GM. It's damn near impossible to find non-GM food these days.

May_Star
September 24th, 2012, 10:03 AM
Oh no. I don't want to die from sickness!!

The Mockingjay
September 24th, 2012, 10:37 AM
I don't agree with GM anyway, this study just affirms my belief. Humans have been surviving on food from the land since the start of our race, why change something that has worked well for thousands and thousands of years? Why put an entire generation at risk by playing God with food? It's a stupid risk to take in my opinion, but unfortunately one that is probably with us for good now.

Sugaree
September 24th, 2012, 01:09 PM
You guys know animal testing is happening all the time, right? GM isn't the only company performing their little science projects on mice, thousands of companies do it. I don't want to see another comment in this thread about the mice.

TigerBoy
September 24th, 2012, 03:08 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Cancer-row-GM-foods-French-study-claims-did-THIS-rats--cause-organ-damage-early-death-humans.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html%3Fs%3D%26authornamef%3DSean%2B Poulter

The source is the Daily Mail - most people just point and laugh at anything they print in there. It specialises in hysteria and bigotry.

It was them who ran an article following the death from natural causes of Stephen Gately essentially trying to suggest his death was because of his "dangerous (gay) lifestyle". It drew 22,000 complaints. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/19/jan-moir-complain-stephen-gately)

I'm sure if the sources they've used have credibility we'll hear about it more widely, but until then I'm happy to ignore it.

Sugaree
September 24th, 2012, 03:28 PM
The source is the Daily Mail - most people just point and laugh at anything they print in there. It specialises in hysteria and bigotry.

It was them who ran an article following the death from natural causes of Stephen Gately essentially trying to suggest his death was because of his "dangerous (gay) lifestyle". It drew 22,000 complaints. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/19/jan-moir-complain-stephen-gately)

I'm sure if the sources they've used have credibility we'll hear about it more widely, but until then I'm happy to ignore it.

For some reason, The Daily Mail is being accepted as a source here in the Daily Chronicle. It's frightening.

Gigablue
September 24th, 2012, 03:37 PM
The source is the Daily Mail - most people just point and laugh at anything they print in there. It specialises in hysteria and bigotry.

This is too true. Their science reporting is especially terrible. Some of what they say is true, but much of it isn't.

There are numerous flaws in the study. 30 percent of the control group developed tumours. This is very high, and suggests a potential flaw. They never mention a sample site or p value. Based on this alone, the study is basically worthless. The biggest problem is at it's not a human study. Very few mouse or rat studies actually scale up to humans.

GM food has an unfair reputation in my opinion. It is basically the same as artificial selection, which we have done for millennia, just much faster. The foods still have to be approved in the same way. There haven't really been negative consequences shown to be caused by GM food.

Magical
September 24th, 2012, 04:57 PM
Also, 50 - 80% developed tumors? So certain rats developed tumors and....didn't?

Come on, that's stupid. Either 50, or 51, or 52 etc developed tumors. It seems to me that 50% developed tumors, and they're simply trying to exaggerate.

So 50% to 30%. That's not really that bad.

xXJust Jump ItXx
September 24th, 2012, 07:08 PM
Damn you GM, giving me tumors! :P No Im kidding... But I do have a tumor though.

Skyhawk
September 24th, 2012, 07:51 PM
It's old news that GM foods can be risky. Most Americans simply don't care. "Organic" food here is expensive compared to the high yield food (aka GM) which are very cheap.

It's no wonder that Wonder bread isn't good for you! It's a wonder how many chemicals were used in the production of it.

Gigablue
September 25th, 2012, 03:39 PM
It's old news that GM foods can be risky. Most Americans simply don't care. "Organic" food here is expensive compared to the high yield food (aka GM) which are very cheap.

It's no wonder that Wonder bread isn't good for you! It's a wonder how many chemicals were used in the production of it.

GM food really isn't that dangerous. It can have some problems but has to be tested like any other food. Organic food hasn't been shown to be any healthier than regular food.

Wonder bread isn't good for you because of the lack of nutrients and high fat and calories. Chemicals don't really have anything to do with it.