Image: nysm.nysed.gov/
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
From Nature magazine
The storm of scientific criticism over claims that a genetically modified (GM) maize causes severe disease in rats shows no signs of abating.
Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen, France, is under intense pressure to report the full data behind his team’s finding that rats fed for two years with Monsanto’s glyphosate-resistant NK603 maize (corn) developed many more tumours and died earlier than controls (see Nature 489, 484; 2012). The study, run in collaboration with the Paris-based Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), also found that rats developed tumours when their drinking water was spiked with glyphosate, the herbicide that is used with the GM maize. The findings have had a huge public impact in Europe, empowering those opposed more broadly to GM foods, and leading some politicians to call for tighter regulations or outright bans of the maize.
Last week, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in Parma, Italy, and Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin both issued initial assessments slamming the paper, bluntly asserting that its conclusions are not supported by the data presented. “The design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate,” says the EFSA in a press release, adding that the paper is “of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment”.
The biggest criticism from both reviews is that Séralini and his team used only ten rats of each sex in their treatment groups. That is a similar number of rats per group to that used in most previous toxicity tests of GM foods, including Missouri-based Monsanto’s own tests of NK603 maize. Such regulatory tests monitor rats for 90 days, and guidelines from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) state that ten rats of each sex per group over that time span is sufficient because the rats are relatively young. But Séralini’s study was over two years — almost a rat’s lifespan — and for tests of this duration, the OECD recommends at least 20 rats of each sex per group for chemical-toxicity studies, and at least 50 for carcinogenicity studies.
Moreover, the study used Sprague-Dawley rats, which both reviews note are prone to developing spontaneous tumours. Data provided to Nature by Harlan Laboratories, which supplied the rats in the study, show that only one-third of males, and less than one-half of females, live to 104 weeks. By comparison, its Han Wistar rats have greater than 70% survival at 104 weeks, and fewer tumours. OECD guidelines state that for two-year experiments, rats should have a survival rate of at least 50% at 104 weeks. If they do not, each treatment group should include even more animals — 65 or more of each sex.
“There is a high probability that the findings in relation to the tumour incidence are due to chance, given the low number of animals and the spontaneous occurrence of tumours in Sprague-Dawley rats,” concludes the EFSA report. In response to the EFSA’s assessment, the European Federation of Biotechnology — an umbrella body in Barcelona, Spain, that represents biotech researchers, institutes and companies across Europe — called for the study to be retracted, describing its publication as a “dangerous case of failure of the peer-review system”.
Séralini argues that a battery of observations in the study reinforces his tumour-incidence and mortality claims. “Of course, this should be replicated by others, but we believe in these results,” he says. He agrees that more rats would have boosted his study’s statistical power, but says that he did not design the experiment to show differences in tumour incidences, because he was not expecting to find any — no previous tests on GM foods had suggested a cancer risk.
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add CommentCan anyone say "agenda?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA cogent question. If Sprague-Dawley rats are so prone to spntaneous tumors, and are, therefore, so unreliable in determining carcinogenic dangers of products, why even keep them as a group? Why not let the strain simply filter out? The answer seems to be that they are kept around for use in "experiments" to "prove" that substances currently being targeted by the New World Order are dangerous! Note how many "rank and file" even remember hearing about Sprague-Dawley rats six months from now! A false claim of carcinogenic properties will be lodged and many if not most "rank and file" won't even know that the Sprague-Dawley rats used apparently develop spontaneous tumors quite frequently!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNaturally it's all political denial on the findings of GM Corn that is reported.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLuckily, the Cows don't get to eat corn as much anymore due to the rising Cost, as corn for food is competing with the Bio-fuel conversion for which it can be used.
Did you know How Much is invested into corn crop growing to maximize output and resources?
The technology involved with Corn growing (for the corn Barons) is amazing, controlled by computers. Computers survey and measures were more or less rain has fallen, and additional fertilizers is needed in the entire corn-field. Still believe they ever going to acknowledge any substantial evidence that there is a health problem with the GM corn or other GM grown vegetable or Bean.
Kind of like the Army for Super powers it can only recruit more personnel and ask for more efficient Weapons for the Crew, regardless any advice that the casualties getting more and the reward is Less.
No turning back here either.
I am sure if you read about all the related chemicals, the soaps... they mix with Roundup are VERY toxic, and the fact that these chemicals are used so that they can use even more weed killers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre these weeds less toxic than the poisons?
Monsanto also made DDT, Agent Orange and other products that have been banned. Look them up...you might be shocked.
See how much $$ they make. Read the related links. and think for your self,is GM seeds really good for people.
It's likely that ALL the GM seeds in general are not good for food. It seem to show that glyphosate prevents fats from being converted to energy by the muscles. It seems to contribute to so many people being fat...they can't convert the food to energy and it collects as fat.
I am having a hard time just losing 10 lbs. Why?
I have been reading everything related to the subjects and there seems to be a problem between facts, what Monsanto, their lawyers, and other people who make big $$$$ say is true. There are just too many spaces between the data that they a basing the facts on.
Look up Monsanto. Look at all the law suits against farmers, regular people, all over the world. Look at the people who were Monsanto lawyers and now work to pave the way for copy writes.
If you think these GM foods are the same, you are not reading enough about the whole subject. Just because a someone says this or that does not make it a fact. People have been so busy doing other stuff that GM seeds have polluted the world one area at a time. Look up the facts for yourself and see if you still think the same.
Sorry about the typo's, I was in too much of a hurry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you read all background information on the subject and think for yourself.
Greeting Bops,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will confine my comments to DDT.
If you had been around at the end of WW2 you would have noticed that DDT was used extensivelly for things like delousing the released prisoners from Concentration Camps.
It was the wonder product of the era,good for killing Cockroaches,Fleas,Flys(or it Flies?),Mosquitoes and lots of undesirable insects.
Yes , I know about the book "Silent Spring", which is a rather exaggerated account of effect of DDT on Birds.
I also know that there were "Envirenmentalists" who deliberately bred resistant Insects to DDT.
I know also that Monsanto is like a lot of Corporations,and are greedy ,degenerate etc.
Just a small question - What is a Genetically Modified Crop , can you provide a definition for me?
Of course GM 'frankenfood' kills humans; cancer, obesity, and autism may just be tips of icebergs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI grow all my veggies organically. I would love to see a healthier world. But I am really pissed that so many people on either side of the issues regarding food and water are more interested in proving a point than doing good science. When will we find people who want to do good science and let the chips fall where they may?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAren't you the anti-vaxxer who thinks that electricity is tiny aliens in power wires?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, the study was flawed. But that's no reason to cry conspiracy. It's really quite simple: some unethical chemists/cancer biologists took money to ensure that the study ended up a particular way, and now no one will fully trust them again.
After reading all the negative reactions to the study, I've come to believe that the study must have reached the wrong conclusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously, since the study used tumor prone mice later in their lives than previous studies did, one must conclude that non-GM maize will prevent late developing cancers in genetically susceptible people as it must have in the study's controls which were the SAME TUMOR PRONE MICE.
"""Greeting Bops,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will confine my comments to DDT.
If you had been around at the end of WW2 you would have noticed that DDT was used extensivelly for things like delousing the released prisoners from Concentration Camps."""
So?
"""It was the wonder product of the era,good for killing Cockroaches,Fleas,Flys(or it Flies?),Mosquitoes and lots of undesirable insects."""
Undesirable insects that are food for many bird, insect, bat, and occasionally lizard species.
"""Yes , I know about the book "Silent Spring", which is a rather exaggerated account of effect of DDT on Birds."""
Wrong. It wasn't exxagerated. Osprey and Peregrine Falcon numbers are still low because of the mass hatching failures caused by DDT accumulation.
"""I also know that there were "Envirenmentalists" who deliberately bred resistant Insects to DDT."""
Conspiracist garbage. That is a complete fabrication; no one EVER bred resistant insects.
"""I know also that Monsanto is like a lot of Corporations,and are greedy ,degenerate etc."""
...Well, many corporations are greedy, but not all. You need to look closely. Also, financial firms (Bain Capital, Goldman Sachs, etc.) are almost always greedy and corrupt, but manufacturing firms, especially medical devices firms, tend to focus on the good of their employees (not always, but much of the time).
"""Just a small question - What is a Genetically Modified Crop , can you provide a definition for me?"""
It's a crop plant that has had DNA from another organism inserted into its genome through lab-based artificial means.
Can anyone specify how many millions of shareholders' money Monsanto, DuPont, and the rest have spent in California alone trying to defeat a voter's measure on the 11/12 ballot to require accurate labeling of foods?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am curious why the EFSA refuses to make public all the data under-pinning its 2003 approval of NK603 maize for human consumption and animal feed. The only reason that one can conclude that they would refuse to make public that data is that it contains something showing NK603 maize should NOT have been approved for human consumption and animal feed. Hopefully the FDA will do a 2 year study on hundreds of rats/mice/primates and see if they can replicate the results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ability for us to differentiate the real, the credible, from the crap/agendaed/junk science on behalf of those who would move GM forward for profit-at-any-cost becomes increasingly more difficult. Having studied and researched what goes into food; water and the poisons poured into it; and Monsanto (both the "old, bad" Monsanto as well as the "new, greener" Monsanto) for more than 20 years, to say I am skeptical of anything the Biotech Boys and their minion entities say would be a massive understatement. Good science discredited; junk science lauded...and all the while my question remains unanswered: If you had the cure for world hunger...if you could lift the Global South especially, out of starvation; if you could make the world better by these marvelous gm foods...would you not be flying huge banners across the sky? would you not be blitzing the airwaves and the internet with announcements? Finally...would you not be INSISTING that ALL foods containing these miracle foods be labeled so clearly that all the world could see how great they were and how altruistic the corporation is - which would make even more money for them? Let's get real. Please.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this