French Study Finds Tumors and Organ Damage in Rats Fed Monsanto Corn

robert l. bentham

robert l. bentham

Active Member
Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
863
The study, published in a reputable American journal, links varying levels of both the Roundup herbicide and the transgenes in Monsanto's patented NK603 corn to mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage.
The rats were either fed the NK603 corn alone, corn treated with agricultural levels of Roundup, or given water treated with Roundup at low levels commonly found in contaminated drinking water and used in agriculture in the United States. In each group, there were two to three more deaths compared to control groups, and the rats on the Monsanto diet died more quickly.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/1163...rs-and-organ-damage-in-rats-fed-monsanto-corn
 
Interesting. My question is that we know animals studies do not always map onto humans. What work has been done to demonstrate the same processes must take place within humans? Also what's the dose equivalent? If the rats were getting 'normal' exposure of herbicides we apply since we're 80x larger are we getting 1/80th of their exposure? If so can we conduct experiments that give a dosage that's more comparable to an actual level?
 
looking at the study... here

http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf

they gave them just the feed in some cases and when they dd use direct consumption of roundup they used levels actually lower than what regulatory guidelines say is currently a "safe" amount..

We have
tested also for the first time 3 doses (rather than two in the usual
90 day long protocols) of the R-tolerant NK603 GM maize alone,
the GM maize treated with R, and R alone at very low environmentally relevant doses starting below the range of levels permitted by
regulatory authorities in drinking water and in GM feed.
 
faethor said:
What work has been done to demonstrate the same processes must take place within humans?
Click to expand...

Interesting that you should ask that question. Why don't you ask what studies were done to show that GMOs are safe for humans? The industry lobbied hard to get patent protection for their "inventions" but they also lobbied hard to create the legal concept of "substantial equivalence" so they wouldn't have to do human safety testing.
 
Welcome to the club. You will find Fluffy slightly concerned about GMO and me very concered. Everyone else here either doesn't care or think GMO is a good thing no matter what.
 
That's interesting, however, the lead scientist is clearly not impartial here. Perhaps this issue is too emotional for impartiality? But I certainly wouldn't make any major decisions based on this research. It seems that those who are pro-GMO will continue to be so and those anti-GMO will also continue to be so.
 
Glaucus said:
That's interesting, however, the lead scientist is clearly not impartial here.
Click to expand...
Impartiality? The American government will back Monsanto to the hilt (so long as Monsanto is allowed to continuing owning so much of it) and the rest of the world will decide partly on the merits of the product and partly on the economic stranglehold patent regulations will put on their food supply. This is an economic and imperial power game to control food more than it is an exercise in science. Even if GMOs were miracle food they would still be evil because feeding people is not what they are about, but controlling the food supply. But, hey, oil won't last forever, but people will always need to eat.
 
redrumloa said:
Welcome to the club. You will find Fluffy slightly concerned about GMO and me very concered. Everyone else here either doesn't care or think GMO is a good thing no matter what.
Click to expand...

I read an excellent book called "The Collapse of Chaos" once. It is part written by a biologist and explains what we know about how genetics works. It might be better now but after reading that I wouldn't touch GMO with a long pole.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Impartiality? The American government will back Monsanto to the hilt (so long as Monsanto is allowed to continuing owning so much of it) and the rest of the world will decide partly on the merits of the product and partly on the economic stranglehold patent regulations will put on their food supply. This is an economic and imperial power game to control food more than it is an exercise in science. Even if GMOs were miracle food they would still be evil because feeding people is not what they are about, but controlling the food supply. But, hey, oil won't last forever, but people will always need to eat.
Click to expand...
I agree with that Fluffy, but that really doesn't fit in with the science now does it? I oppose Monsanto mostly for political reasons. But should that factor into scientific research? I'd argue that it should not.
 
Glaucus said:
I agree with that Fluffy, but that really doesn't fit in with the science now does it? I oppose Monsanto mostly for political reasons. But should that factor into scientific research? I'd argue that it should not.
Click to expand...
It does though. Monsanto can buy as much scientific research as it wants and it can buy as much coverage of "good" scientific research in the news and as much criticism of "bad" research as it cares to. Monsanto is bigger than the Tobacco lobby ever was. It doesn't matter what the science is, the results will be the results. But that's not what you, the consumer, get to see. The consumer does not have the time or expertise to wade through the papers nor do they have the time and expertise to do the experiments themselves. Governments do and they have at least some mandate to look out for the public good but many government departments that would have done this sort of research have been closed or had all the "non loyal" scientists routed - even in Canada. This fight has almost nothing to do with science and everything to do with commercial interests, government corruption and giant PR companies.

Someone comes out and shows that some product gave rats cancer, who benefits? No-one with with more than an ideological stake. On the other side is a multibillion dollar business. Who has the motivation, who has the resources. It's the same dynamic as the environmentalists. Energy industry has all the power - it doesn't matter what the science says, it all amounts to "no evidence" or it's "inconclusive". Just because Monsanto claims to be "science based" doesn't mean that it is. It is profit based.
 
yeah... another thing to consider is that those companies give much money to get people elected and when they do, they expect "their people" to get those jobs in the regulatory agencies. this way they can fiddle with standards, reject studies they don't like, and outright stonewall any implementation should some pesky rule get passed, that will thwart that almighty bottom line from looking better. face it folks, we've been so complacent to the corruption we allowed our government and our country to be stolen from us... apple is rotted str8t to the core, and the whole world can see the outside but us i guess...
 
Final Paper.pdf

From the opening paragraph

The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated
with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In
females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly.
Click to expand...

most mammals only die once, it would seem that feeding GMO maize results in reincarnation in rats!

ROFLSMALL.gif


the results were very odd, the male rats which ate the most GMO corn and drank the most Roundup had fewer tumors than the control group!

I am grateful for the authors for publishing this paper, as it provides a fine case study for teaching a statistics class about poor design, analysis and reporting. I shall start using it immediately.
 
So it seems this study is crap: Anti-GMO researchers used science publication to manipulate the press

We looked into the study immediately after it began appearing in a variety of outlets. While we didn't have the sort of expertise in toxicology needed to critique some of the details, a few things stood out. First, there appeared to be no dose sensitivity for either Roundup or the level of GMO food provided—they saw the same effects at any of the doses they tested. In addition, the GMO food produced the exact same effects as the Roundup, something the authors didn't provide a reasonable explanation for.

But these problems were only the beginning. As more critical reports began to appear and scientist/bloggers looked at the results, huge issues were made clear. The authors used a strain of rats that is prone to tumors late in life. Every single experimental condition was compared to a single control group of only 10 rats, and some of the experimental groups were actually healthier than the controls. The authors didn't use a standard statistical analysis to determine whether any of the experimental groups had significantly different health problems. And so on.

The experts who weighed in were dismissive. One called the work "a statistical fishing trip" while another said the lack of proper controls meant "these results are of no value." One report quoted a scientist at UC Davis as saying, "There is very little scientific credibility to this paper. The flaws in the test are just incredible to me."

However, by this point, the promotion of the paper already had its desired effect. Both the European Union and French governments were asking their food safety organizations to look into the results, which may have implications for France's attempt to ban GM crops.
Click to expand...
It seems like this is another "vaccines are evil" moment all over again. :rolleyes:
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
And that would be bad because ...
Click to expand...
Opponents are attempting to use regulation to make producing GM foods prohibitively costly. They know that a mandated system in California would require the construction of parallel production, processing and distribution systems to keep every crop separate dramatically raising prices – and ending the cost benefits of GM foods.

What I see as happening is if Prop 37 passes, is that producers would label all foods GMO, whether they are or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top