Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Three Approved GMOs Linked to Organ Damage

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Three Approved GMOs Linked to Organ Damage
  • Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 12:08:12 -0700


Three Approved GMOs Linked to Organ Damage
By Rady Ananda
03 January, 2010
http://www.countercurrents.org/ananda030110.htm

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,” 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.”

[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.]

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.”

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. [See “How Subchronic and
Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals.”
IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]

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.”

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.”

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





  • [Livingontheland] Three Approved GMOs Linked to Organ Damage, Tradingpost, 01/03/2010

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page