Study says genetically modified corn causes tumors, but other scientists skeptical about research
(GRAPHIC) This image a study by Seralini et al. in the journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, shows female rats with mammary tumors that purportedly grew after being fed genetically modified corn with and without Roundup herbicide. Other scientists have questioned the article's findings.
/ Food and Chemical ToxicologyThe two-year study, which was published on Sept. 19 in Food and Chemical Toxicology, revealed that mice who were fed either a diet of Monsanto's genetically modified maize sprayed with Roundup - the company's brand of weed killer - or drank water with levels of Roundup similar to what is found in U.S. tap water were much more likely to die and at an earlier age, in addition to other health problems.
Watch: Flap over "Agent Orange corn"
Watch: New GMO crops proposed, consumers want labeling
Genetically modified crops resistant to 2,4-D spur debate labeling
According to the USDA Economic Research Service, as of 2011, 76 to 96 percent of corn crops had some sort of genetic modification, depending on which state they were grown.
The study involved 200 albino Sprague-Dawley rats - 100 hundred females, 100 males. The rats where then divided into groups of 10.
Six of the groups were fed varied diets with genetically modified products. Six groups - three male and three female - were fed Monsanto GM maize with Roundup weed killer consisting of 11 percent of their diet, 22 percent or 33 percent. Six other groups were given Monsanto GM maize in the same percentage amounts, but had no Roundup sprayed on them. Another six groups were given Roundup weed killer in their water similar to the levels found in U.S. tap water.
The remaining two groups acted as control groups and were fed non-genetically modified maize and water without Roundup weed killer.
The results showed that female rats were two to three times more likely to die than the control group. Fifty percent of the males and 70 percent of the females eating Monsanto GM maize died earlier compared to 30 percent of males and 20 percent of females not eating genetically modified products. Female rats seemed to be more negatively affected by genetically modified corn diets whether it was sprayed with Roundup or not.
Tumors seemed to be late-developing, large mammary tumors, and the affected rats suffered from severe liver and kidney damage. The tumors did not metastasize or spread to other body parts, but were so large they blocked organ function in the rats.
"After one year, there was a . . . high increase in the number of tumors," lead author Gilles-Eric Seralini, a biologist at Caen University in Caen, France and president of CRII-GEN's scientific board, said in a press call with the Washington Post.
He added that most of the female rats had two or three tumors, and most developed tumors after the fourth month in the study.
There were some reported findings some considered strange, however. Rats that ate the higher percentages of genetically modified corn did not get as sick as those who were eating the lower percentages.
Critics also have taken issue with the study's methodology. Specifically the researchers' choice of rats are known for their propensity to develop mammary tumors if their diet is not controlled. Also, the control group of just 20 mice is rather small and makes it hard to draw conclusions from comparisons.
Some experts pointed out to the BBC that the pictures of the rats with the tumors were misleading.
"The most evocative part of the paper is those pictures of tumorigenesis," said Maurice Moloney, a research biologist at Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, England, said to the BBC.
He said the authors mislead readers to believe that these tumors never happen in control groups.
"I'd be surprised if it didn't, but that ought to be explicitly demonstrated, and if there was a control that ended up showing similar kinds of tumorigenesis then a picture of that rat should be shown as well, just so we can see if there are any qualitative differences between them," Moloney said.
Monsanto spokesman Thomas Helscher said the company would review the study and asserted the products' safety, according to Reuters.
"Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies performed on biotech crops to date, including more than a hundred feeding studies, have continuously confirmed their safety, as reflected in the respective safety assessments by regulatory authorities around the world," he said.
The FDA added that the agency is neutral on the report to the Washington Post.
"We will be in a better position to respond after we have more data and have had time to review the paper," Shelly L. Burgess, a spokeswoman for the agency, said to the paper.
However, some people feel that the results are being dismissed too quickly.
Reuters reports that the French government has asked the country's watchdog to investigate the findings. It also reports Austria's minister for agriculture and the environment called on the European Commission to review its approval process for GM foods.
"One thing is clear: Given this study the European Commission has to rethink its verification practices and the approval process must get an in-depth review," Austria's Niki Berlakovich said in a statement.
Gary Ruskin, campaign manager for Yes on Proposition 37 - a California initiative that aims to get labels placed on genetically modified food - said in a statement that the study was the first-ever, peer-reviewed research that took a look at the effects of genetically modified products over a long period of time. Calling the results worrying on the Right To Know blog, he pointed out that genetically engineered foods have not been adequately researched, and it is still unknown if they are safe.
"This new study is destined to raise more questions than it answers," he said. But at this point, a few things are clear. It is outrageous and shocking that this is the first long-term feeding study, even though genetically engineered foods have been on the market for nearly 20 years."
Ruskin pointed out that 50 countries around the world already require labeling.
"These findings underscore the importance of giving California families the right to know whether our food has been genetically engineered in a laboratory," he added.
"I think these are very important findings," added Dr. Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at Kings College, London who acted as an adviser to Seralini's team, said to the BBC.
"At the very least, what this study highlights is: firstly, the need to test all GM crops in two-year, lifelong studies; and, secondly, when looking at testing the toxicity of herbicides/pesticides, we need to test the full agricultural formulation and not just the active ingredient," he added.
Popular in Health
- Skin cancer self-exam: What to look for (PHOTOS)
- Handbags may contain more germs than average toilet flush
- Flesh-eating disease victim gets bionic hands
- Controversial update to psychiatry manual, DSM-5, arrives
- Doctor: Gel manicures a potential skin cancer risk
- Handbags have more germs than toilet seats, study finds Play Video
- Shocking study: Math skills improved by electric stimulus
- CDC: One in five U.S. kids has mental health disorder
"It is not appropriate scientific inquiry to simply accept without question the proof offered by the companies which are reaping millions by selling these products." "Innocent until proven guilty." Monsanto is taking the fifth, and rightly so. The people that want to persecute GMO must either put up or shut up. A good rule of thumb is "Follow the money." Ask the starving refugees if they want it rather than arbitrarily destroying it.
"-- The federal law mandating that gasoline contain 10 percent ethanol - 13.2 billion gallons this year - has an escape clause. In an emergency, it can be lifted temporarily by the Environmental Protection Agency. Six states have petitioned for relief. The dairy industry looks on this as an emergency - ethanol consumes one-third of the nation's corn crop, and next year the share could be higher."
1992 fuel price about $1.40 per gallon.
Ethanol push from fed EPA and friends pushed ethanol to 5.6% and we paid more for our fuel.
Fed EPA and Big oil refiners pushed the oxygenate to 10% and we paid more.
Now BP GMO fuel is pushing for over $1.00 in corporate welfare with 15% of the fuel market while cutting back Oil and refining
Will BP GMO fuel patents generate credit trade income from the Big oil industry with the Queen Mother help.
The Queen banker friends may want a share.
So. how big does California ethanol bill need to be to qualify for the EPA waiver?
Can Mary Nichols and Governor Brown support a fuel ethanol waiver? Motorcycle, Classic car, Lawn tool engines, Boat, & the beef just might like a choice of fuel ethanol opinion, a waiver. Can Governor Brown use the 10th amendment to support California Waiver.
Here is a very well written summation of GMO fear-mongering going on here and the general opinion of real scientists on the matter. This french study is bogus, and its author is a known anti-GMO nut, known to have manipulated data to help his cause in the past. Also @UMOJARESEARCH, your sources are comical. Try google scholar and read a peer reviewed article based on real science. Look how biased even the titles of your so called "references" are. OPEN your eyes!
When you go to the store to buy your corn and other vegetables they have not just been sprayed with round-up. They are washed, and most of the round up is left on the farm from which your corn came. Also for all those so worried about the chemicals in your ground water, let's not forget the big picture here: Round-Up ready and other GM crops massively DECREASE the use of chemicals in agriculture. There is no longer a need for a cocktail of different chemicals needed to kill the variety of pests on farms, because round up is effective on all but the GM plants. That's not to mention other GM crops which help limit the use of antibiotics and pesticides on the plants by making them naturally resistant.
One more point I would like to make in an effort to educate some of the anti-GMO folks who really don't even know how it works: when a crop or other organism is genetically modified, a very small segment of DNA is usually inserted into a specific region of the organisms genome. A genome is like a cell's recipe book with the instructions for making proteins of many shapes and sizes. These proteins all have very specific duties within the organism and are of many shapes and sizes. You can think of many of them as little machines that do important tasks in your body.
A common example, insuline is a protein made using DNA instructions, and close to 95% of the insuline provided to diabetics in this country is provided by bacteria that we have genetically modified to contain the human gene for insuline. The bacteria produce human insuline using our DNA "recipe book" and we harvest it. DNA has the same exact structural features in every living organism that we know of. It is composed of 4 bases, you can think of as letters. The order of these letters determines the recipe, and hence the protein that is produced by the cell containing that DNA code.
Any time you eat anything that has once been living, you are consuming large amounts of protein and DNA. During the digestive process, that DNA is broken down into its parts or "letters" and they are often recycled. Some are further broken down to provide valuable nitrogen for other metabolic processes. The same happens to the protein, only there are 20 amino acids that make up protein; also the same in all organisms. These are similar to the "letters" of DNA.
To sum it all up, when you eat plant or animal material you consume DNA and protein. The building blocks for the DNA and proteins are the same in all living things. In your body, you break the DNA and protein into these pieces. When a plant is genetically modified, the DNA used is exactly the same as the natural DNA except for the order of letters. That order is lost when you eat them anyways. Someone please convince me how GM plants could possibly effect your health.
I am a biochemist at a major research university and have no affiliation with the ag industry. In fact, my specialty lies within the medical field. I do, however have a strong grasp of the genetic engineering technology used today. The comments following articles like this, and the ignorance surrounding biotechnology is hard to stand by and read without at least attempting to educate.
Reeeeally? So if ur a librarian looking for books that have been put in the wrong place, it doesn't matter either.
Ur strict scientific musings kinda falls apart when u get to the details there.
Tiptat, if I spell "imbecile" as "limcibee" does that convey the same meaning or not? It's the same with DNA or protein - once it's been digested into its component residues and absorbed, the information has been lost. The body rebuilds the DNA or protein using its own order, not the food's.
DK
"The results showed that female rats were two to three times more likely to die than the control group."
The pro-GMO slant and editorializing in this CBS news report on the CONTROVERY begins in the very first sentence with "a French study that supposedly shows..." If CBS has financial or other ties to Big Biotech, you should identify your news report as nothing more than a slanted editorial.
Why doesn't CBS point out that the French study used many of the same methods Monsanto uses in its ridiculously short 90-day trials designed not to find problems--certainly not cancers?! Why doesn't CBS address Monsanto's abusive use of its patent to decide who can research its genetically altered seeds and what findings will be published? This has resulted in some very biased research. Scientists with mortgages to pay and children to put through college do not make findings critical of biotechnology that could result in a team from Monsanto visiting their dean.
At least this CBS report does manage to mention that the French study is the FIRST EVER long-term study. Before this study, there has never been a single long-term animal study (and still no human trials)of the GMOs so quietly slipped UNLABELED into the American food supply in 1996 without our knowledge. Where was CBS been on this issue all this time?
If genuine problems with the French study are raised by independent scientists rather than by biotech lobbyists, let Monsanto release its patented seeds for truly INDEPENDENT testing with no strings attached and no rights to approval and no schemes to attack the researchers or get them fired. It will probably have to be conducted outside of the U.S. because of Monsanto's funding of and deep influence at cash-strapped U.S. universities. American scientists who dare to criticize biotechnology quickly lose their tenure.