French Study Finds Tumours In Rats Fed GM Corn, Reuters, 19 September 2012
"Rats fed on a diet containing NK603 - a seed variety made tolerant to dousings of Roundup - or given water containing Roundup at levels permitted in the United States died earlier than those on a standard diet.
The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumours, as well as severe liver and kidney damage.
The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group."
These are the results of the first ever peer-reviewed, long-term animal study of GMO corn. The findings were published today:
Long Term Toxicity Of A Roundup Herbicide And A Roundup-Tolerant Genetically Modified Maize, Food and Chemical Toxicology, 19 September 2012.
"All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable.So, it was exposure to either the pesticide (technically herbicide) Roundup, or the corn which was engineered to be resistant to Roundup, which led to tumors in rats.
Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments.
In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy.
Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related.
These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences."
Here's that endocrine-disrupting factor again. I should start a list of all the chemicals we're exposed to which are proving to be endocrine disruptors (EDs). Bisphenol A (BPA) is one. DDT, PCBs, and Phthalates are others. You have to wonder what the body burden of the entire fleet of EDs are.
The study’s authors will be hosting a press conference today to discuss the study at 11:30 am PDT.
50 countries have labeling requirements for genetically engineered food. The US doesn't. Monsanto is afraid that we will not buy GMOs if we knew, I imagine.
ReplyDeleteCalifornia has a labeling initiative on the November ballot. If California gets labeling, perhaps the whole country will by default. If the California initiative passes, I am sure the agriculture and food industries will file lawsuits to block its implementation. Right now the food industry is pouring a lot of money into California to defeat the labeling initiative.
ReplyDeleteMy feeling is that the food/agriculture industry should make the case why GMO food is safe and beneficial. They should be proud of their biotechnology and GMO foods unless there is something to hide.
Bix,
ReplyDeleteI lean towards a labeling mandate. There's just too much that concerns me with GMOs.
But here is an opposing view (for arguments sake):
http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2012/06/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html
shaun
Leave it to shaun to offer a dissenting view. :)
ReplyDeleteOne point he made:
"listing or labeling GMO ingredients could have a similar effect on consumer sentiment if this conveyed a false sense of risk or harm associated with GMO foods."
Reminded me of Monsanto's lawsuit against a dairy that marketed its milk as being free of genetically engineered growth hormone.
http://healthfreedoms.org/2010/06/18/monsanto-sues-oakhurst-dairy-over-advertising/
If the FDA chooses not to require labels differentiating foods which contain GMO from foods that don't, and FDA maintains, as their defense, that there is no difference between these foods ... then do companies that wish to voluntarily label their product as GMO-free open themselves to litigation from GMO makers who argue that the non-GMO label is deceptive and disparages Monsanto’s products with the inference that non-GMO food is better than food produced using biotechnology?
I'm just gabbing, throwing my thoughts out there.
Labels are also good for people who want to buy non-GMO for religious and ethical reasons.
Why is this the first long-term study of GMO corn in the 15 years we've been consuming it? What's the resistance to studying it?
ReplyDelete