PDA

View Full Version : Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals



chauncy republicans
01-13-2010, 02:40 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html



Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html)

Huffington Post | Katherine Goldstein/Gazelle Emami Posted: 01-12-10 05:30 PM

In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences (http://www.biolsci.org/), analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers found that agricultural giant Monsanto's GM corn is linked to organ damage in rats.
According to the study (http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11), which was summarized by Adam Shake at Twilight Earth (http://twilightearth.com/environment/report-monsanto-corn-causes-organ-damage-in-mammals/), "Three varieties of Monsanto's GM corn - Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 - were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities."
Monsanto gathered its own crude statistical data after conducting a 90-day study, even though chronic problems can rarely be found after 90 days, and concluded that the corn was safe for consumption. The stamp of approval may have been premature, however.
In the conclusion of the IJBS study, researchers wrote:
"Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists *** differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity....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."Monsanto (http://www.monsanto.com/products/techandsafety/fortherecord_science/2010/monsanto_response_de_vendomois.asp) has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."
The IJBS study's author Gilles-Eric Séralini responded to the Monsanto statement on the blog, Food Freedom (http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/three-approved-gmos-linked-to-organ-damage/), "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."

maw
01-13-2010, 05:37 PM
this is not a report - it's a biased interpretation of meta data (funded by green peace) in a non peer reviewed journal.
trust me, i'm not on monsanto's christmas card list but this study and subsequent interpretation of the data fails hard.

Clockwinder
01-13-2010, 06:01 PM
I'm no fan of Monsanto either - but in the interest of full disclosure, they are HQ'd just around the corner form me and pay taxes to my city. That said, this "report" is bogus. The other side of the story is here: http://www.monsanto.com/search.asp?queryText=gm+corn+safety
Don't take a knee jerk attitude - check out both sides. You will see that the Monsanto studies are done in accordance with all Scientific protocols, including peer review and independent review, using data generated by named and know authorities in a multitude of scientific branches. Those folks are named here:http://www.monsanto.com/pdf/products/techpubs_EnvironmentalSafetyAug07.pdf

LineDoggie
01-13-2010, 06:11 PM
Ron Pauls take?

gazell
01-13-2010, 06:21 PM
Now, there is a lot of trouble with Monsanto and GM crops, but yet again, there is no substance to this particular stuff. Is there a conspiracy you do not subscribe to?

maw
01-14-2010, 10:54 AM
Now, there is a lot of trouble with Monsanto and GM crops, but yet again, there is no substance to this particular stuff. Is there a conspiracy you do not subscribe to?

i'm not sure who your question is aimed at but i'll bite. one of the biggest contentions with gmo's the way monsanto and other industry lobbyists were able to push the principle of substantial equivalence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_equivalence through the fda and congress. this was a major coup for the industry because by defining gmo's to be substantially equivalent to natural organisms they were able to bypass the usual fda testing and review process. this means that all testing is controlled by the corporations, so all of the gm corn, soy, wheat, etc out there has not not been objectively tested. furthermore, the problem lies with monsanto's consistent record of manipulating tests and suppressing harmful information, contemporaneously this started with ddt and more recently with rbgh and hfcs. let us not forget that congress wanted federal felony convictions against responsible parties at searle (now monsanto) regarding the deliberate manipulation of tests to obtain fda approval of aspartame, however corrupt doj officials sat on the case until the statute of limitations expired and then jumped over to the legal firm representing monsanto. not all gmo's are bad. the problem is that the fox is guarding the hen house.
additionally, there is a lot of concern with monsanto's very aggressive seed control and business practices. there are plenty of cases of monsanto going after a farmer whose crops have been infiltrated by seeds from a neighboring farm.
additionally 2, as someone who messes around with genetics at the hobby level i can say that monsanto's lust for locking down organic patents is scary and will prove to be constrictive to the industry as a whole.

dacanadianbomb
01-14-2010, 01:47 PM
"the problem is that the fox is guarding the hen house"

This is almost as bad as than having no guard at all.This way one can undermine the guarding whilst appearing to be a dog, and not a fox.

gazell
01-14-2010, 02:11 PM
i'm not sure who your question is aimed at but i'll bite. one of the biggest contentions with gmo's the way monsanto and other industry lobbyists were able to push the principle of substantial equivalence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_equivalence through the fda and congress. this was a major coup for the industry because by defining gmo's to be substantially equivalent to natural organisms they were able to bypass the usual fda testing and review process. this means that all testing is controlled by the corporations, so all of the gm corn, soy, wheat, etc out there has not not been objectively tested. furthermore, the problem lies with monsanto's consistent record of manipulating tests and suppressing harmful information, contemporaneously this started with ddt and more recently with rbgh and hfcs. let us not forget that congress wanted federal felony convictions against responsible parties at searle (now monsanto) regarding the deliberate manipulation of tests to obtain fda approval of aspartame, however corrupt doj officials sat on the case until the statute of limitations expired and then jumped over to the legal firm representing monsanto. not all gmo's are bad. the problem is that the fox is guarding the hen house.
additionally, there is a lot of concern with monsanto's very aggressive seed control and business practices. there are plenty of cases of monsanto going after a farmer whose crops have been infiltrated by seeds from a neighboring farm.
additionally 2, as someone who messes around with genetics at the hobby level i can say that monsanto's lust for locking down organic patents is scary and will prove to be constrictive to the industry as a whole.

No, I thought we answered in the same vein. But I do apologise for not being clear. I am aware all these serious problems you point out and they are very worrying. However, I was referring to the OP, for them causing cancer we do not as yet have any proof of. Unfortunately, as with human experiments, it can take a life time of a generation to have one.

maw
01-16-2010, 03:15 AM
update from the discover blogs site:

"In light of these concerns regarding the study, it would be an enormous stretch to say the study proves that these corn varieties cause organ damage in mammals. But none of this puts Monsanto’s GM corn totally in the clear, either. As commenters on our earlier post pointed out, Monsanto was simply following the rather laissez-faire rules for government approval, doing the 90-day trials themselves. But Séralini’s team calls for long-term studies, upwards of two years, to get reliable data."

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/15/gm-corn-organ-failure-lots-of-sensationalism-few-facts/

the "laissez-faire rules for government approval" the article refers to are primarily due to substantial equivalence.