The authors concede that Sprague-Dawley rats may not be the best model for such long-term studies, but argue that the difference between the NK603-fed rats and controls is marked, and that many fewer control rats developed tumors in middle age. The 90-day trial of Monsanto’s NK603 maize used in its authorization also used Sprague-Dawley rats, they add.
José Domingo, a toxicologist at Rovira i Virgili University in Reus, Spain, and a managing editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology, says that the study raised no red flags during peer review. Domingo, who last year authored a critical review of safety assessments of GM plants, has previously complained about the lack of independent feeding studies of GM foods.
The controversy over the findings is likely to be settled only after detailed analysis of the paper and its data, and replication of the experiments. But Séralini says he won’t release his data until the raw data underpinning the authorization of NK603 in Europe are also made public. And he wants all the data to be assessed by an independent international committee, arguing that experts involved in the authorization of the maize should not be involved. EFSA chief Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle disagreed, and said that her agency is well placed to assemble a multidisciplinary group to give an impartial assessment.
Some scientists, however, have long questioned whether such feeding studies are appropriate for testing the safety of whole foods, says Peter Kearns, head of food safety, nanosafety and chemical accidents for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris. They were designed for testing chemicals where precise doses of purified and well-characterized compounds can be administered, whereas compounds in foods are heterogeneous, and doses are difficult to control. Regulators rely mainly on more robust tests that compare the toxicological and nutritional profiles of GM foods with their non-GM counterparts to screen for potential concerns.
Resolution of the debate over the safety of GM foods can come only from rigorous science clarifying the issues, Kearns adds.
This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on September 25, 2012.
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add CommentGMO foods are fine in theory...in theory. They need to be proven 100% safe for consumption and 100% safe for the environmnet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToday they are akin to Russian Roulette.
"...in theory."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour use of this contributes to the downward spiral of the word. 'Theory' suggests that there's evidence to back it up.
The above study appears to be the strongest evidence against GMO foods but it has numerous serious statistical and structural problems that may invalidate the work.
You're not going to find foods that are 100% safe. All foods trigger allergies somewhere and all foods raised for purpose of consumption have some effect on the environment. Your standards are too high and will result in existing, lower-efficiency foods continuing to be used and possibly doing more damage than GMO foods.
Seriously geo? You mean one out of every 6 times you eat it, you die? No food is 100% safe... bacon kills people all the time. What about pizza, ton's of people eat too much pizza and it eventually kills them. 100% safe is your standard? Are pizza and bacon 100% safe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, the population keeps growing, and we have to be able to feed people, I think you should just tell them all to starve while we try to hit your 100% safe.
Sorry for the tone, but sheesh. People over-react to things and don't put things in perspective.
Wow, this isn't at all fishy. They publish just in time for one of the authors to promote a new book?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt sounds like the authors are trying to bait the conspiracy theorists when they suggest that "some [critics] may have competing interests, including working to develop transgenic crops" rather than directly addressing substantive criticisms.
For example, one of the blogs I follow, written by a Yale neurologist and a proponent of science-based medicine, Steven Novella (who has about as little connection to this as anybody), called the methods of this paper pseudoscientific:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gm-corn-rat-study/
So if Genetically Modified/Engineered food is so safe, press Governments to mandate such food be clearly labeled. No need to outlaw this food. Some will be happy to eat it, and shouldn't be prevented from doing so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen consumers have the choice as to what they eat, including labeling what animals they eat have been fed also. Monsanto lobby hard against food labeling in the US. I wonder why if it is as safe as claimed?
Franken-seeds aren't so great for Farmers either - they have to buy expensive seed every year rather than exchange fertile seed with other farmers every year to strengthen natural crops. Franken-seeds generally have to be loaded with pesticides and fertilizers to even grow ($$$). So humans eat Round-Up.
What is so wrong with crop rotation, keeping pests away naturally by not growing the same stuff every year, but by interleaving with root crops that put goodness back in the soil and reduce fertilizer use? These can be cash crops too, like Industrial Hemp.
Oh silly me, hemp rope outlasts nylon, hemp fiber is far superior to wood pulp for paper production, and the oil seed variety has 35% Bio-Diesel content. That threatens three big industries with "unfair" competition.
No wonder why it is still illegal (in practice - try to get a License) to grow Industrial Hemp in the US, despite having no effective THC.
Shame as Hemp is the perfect food for humans. All the essential Amino Acids the body can't produce, plus almost the ideal proportions of Omega Oils. Also one of the easiest foods to grow (from what I've heard!).
One must consider the purpose of "round-up ready" GM corn. It allows the farmer to spray with higher concentrations of glyphosate herbicide. I hope this possible vector is quickly eliminated, as it is one of our safest effective herbicides.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can get along with-out round-up ready corn, but glyphosate would be sorely missed. GK
We don't know if its even safe. How can we talk about the environment when human health is at risk? i don't mean to sound like someone who hates the environment it's just that our health out ways damage to the environment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolving along with the foods we eat is a natural progression of the bio-genome development. Our systems, cells and their requirements are based on this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTweaking the genome or the make up of those foods WILL have an effect.
We, Man works so arrogantly against the wave of nature.
Thanks Monsanto for all that you are doing.
"The above study appears to be the strongest evidence against GMO foods", I think that is an unjustified generalization. If there is a mechanism that causes cancer then it is likely in the products of the gene not just because a gene was added. This will have to be evaluated on a gene by gene basis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have seen confidential documents from DuPont that show they knew by the mid 80's that the use of benelate as a pesticide had the potential to cause dominant strains of aspergillus to emerge, which is a known carcenogen. A friend of mine, who was in litigation with them for many years over his farm land being ruined by its use, showed them to me shortly before his death.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as the validity of the findings of the French rat study, it is my understanding that it is supported by epidemiological research of others - who also have faced attack for speaking out of the dangers of genetically modifying crops and conflicts of interest of university funding for research of the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacio_Chapela
This one of the few times I find myself in agreement with GeoJ (and thank you for starting the thread). Their are over 80,000 industrial chemicals in use today and very few (only 550+/- show up on EPA IRIS) have been studied for their effect on human health. Read TSCA - less than a dozen chemicals banned by the EPA. This is how science works - the study will be reviewed (dissected well beyond the poor rats) and it will be replicated (or not). Over time, we will see if it holds up to scientific scrutiny. If it does - Houston we have a problem - because in the interim, untold millions have been unknowingly exposed to increased levels of a carcinogen. Anyone ever hear of the "Precautionary Principle"? This has not been (to my knowledge) in the popular US press yet they were all over the recent study that demonstrated organic foods are no healthier than non-organic yet they failed to mention that the same study demonstrated a marked difference in pesticide residue between the two. We know who buys those million dollar commercial slots!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis one of the few times I find myself in agreement with GeoJ (and thank you for starting the thread). There are over 80,000 industrial chemicals in use today and very few (only 550+/- show up on EPA IRIS) have been studied for their effect on human health. Read TSCA - less than a dozen chemicals banned by the EPA. This is how science works - the French study will be reviewed (dissected well beyond the poor rats) and it will be replicated (or not). Over time, we will see if it holds up to scientific scrutiny. If it does - Houston we have a problem - because in the interim, untold millions have been unknowingly exposed to increased levels of a carcinogen. Anyone ever hear of the "Precautionary Principle"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIF ONLY!!! It as been IMPOSSIBLE to get these products labeled, even at "Whole Foods" which "pretends to be for it but puts up obsticals everywhere you turn!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI for one would like food labeled for gmo content, AND country of oregin. But their lobbiest (just under the oil and energy in the Lobbying most powerful) have given LOADS of money to BOTH SIDES. They're an equal opportunity campaign donator.
JohnCheney88
I don't believe this study was conducted as well as it could have been conducted, but I do think it shows that more safety studies need to be done by scientist with no interest on either side of the GMO issue. I definitely do not trust any study conducted by Monsanto, considering their past. And, while I trust this most recent study more than anything coming from Monsanto, I think they do need to identify the mechanism for the increased cancer. Also, the standard 90 days is not long enough for a safety study on GMO's products. I think safety studies on GMO's need to be at least a year long, and I would like to see studies done on primates, cows, and pigs, in addition to mice/rats. Also, I don't believe that GMO products are needed in order to provide food for starving people around the world. I think the what is needed is education to these starving people and making birth control available to them. GMO roundup corn causes increase usage in herbicide, which is bad for our waterways, and is bad for the environment. At our current rate our of environmental destruction I believe the planet will be uninhabitable in a few hundred years, and I don't believe that using the need to feed starving people as an excuse for destroying our the environment and our planet is very rational. I believe that education in sustainable organic farming practices, along with education in science and math in troubled regions is the solution to starving people. Also, I believe the United States and other countries around the world should offer subsidies to farmers who use organic/sustainable farming practices, and offer subsidies for more healthy fruits and veggies, rather than corn and soybeans (both of who's low cost are big contributors to our growing obesity and health care problems). Also, corn and soybean subsides force farmers in developing countries to buy foreign grown corn/soybeans rather than grow their own, which would be more beneficial to them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this