Massive Tumors in Rats Fed Monsanto’s Genetically Engineered Corn in First Long Term Study
Now more than ever it's important to join this historic right to know campaign!
By Gary Ruskin -- The results are in from the first-ever peer-reviewed long-term health study of the most common type of genetically engineered corn – and they are worrying. For two years, researchers fed rats a diet of genetically engineered corn that is common in the US food supply, and found massive mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage, and premature death. The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology.
Read the "Summary of Findings" from the researchers here.
These findings underscore the importance of giving California families the right to know whether our food has been genetically engineered in a laboratory.
Proposition 37 – which would label genetically engineered foods in California – is the answer for everyone who wants the right to know what’s in their food. And it is the best recourse available for those of us who do not wish to be subjects in a giant science experiment conducted by Monsanto and the other pesticide giants that are bankrolling the No on 37 campaign. (Recent contributions have topped $32 million, more than half from Monsanto and the big pesticide companies.)
This is the food fight of our lives. Prop 37 is our best chance to bring fairness and transparency to our food system. Join the Yes on 37 California Right to Know campaign.
Genetically engineered foods have not been adequately studied and have not been proven safe. By requiring simple labels on these GMO’s, Prop 37 would give Californians the ability to choose whether to expose our families and children to any potential health risks. That’s why 50 countries around the world already require such labeling.
This new study is destined to raise more questions than it answers. 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 this genetically engineered corn has been on the market for nearly 20 years.
The reason we have been denied such critical information is that biotech companies like Monsanto have controlled and suppressed research (because of patent restrictions on GMOs). As the editorial board at Scientific American wrote, “Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end.”
We need, and deserve, more independent research in this area. How much evidence of health risks posed by GMOs has been suppressed? What documents does Monsanto and the other agrichemical giants have in their vaults that may shed further light on the findings of this peer-reviewed study?
We are calling on the agrichemical industry to immediately release any and all internal documents linking their products to health problems -- especially tumors, kidney and liver damage, and premature death.
In the meantime, let’s demand our right to know and our right to decide for ourselves what we eat and feed our families. Vote yes on Proposition 37.
For more information about this historic campaign: http://www.carighttoknow.org/
Gary Ruskin is the campaign manager for the Yes on Proposition 37 California Right to Know Campaign.
Join the Yes on 37 California Right to Know campaign.
And Russ, while I am sad to hear that you and your family were sick, I believe you are still getting confused. You seem to think that GM and fast food are synonymous. While GM crops are in fact used in fast food, you neglect the fact that fast food uses so many additives, preservatives and other things that are unhealthy and cause people to be sick. The glyphosphate you mention that is the primary component of weed killer is known to cause cancer and kill people. We know this, the company knows this, it’s even on the side of the bottle to not drink it. Nobody in their right mind would drink it straight. This is why they advise you to wash your fruits and vegetables before you eat them, not because they’re dirty. This says absolutely nothing about GM, it says that herbicides kill people. We know that. If you have a problem with that, then write a letter to a farmer to not be so lazy and tell them to use better management strategies and not to use round up as a crutch. I am sad to hear of your son’s liver cancer, and hope that he gets better.
Just one last thing to mention that is directed to all who take a stand for/against this controversy. Remember that GM isn’t the problem, it is pesticides and farmers using it as a crutch. Also don’t just take what some website/salesperson/or news channel has to say, there are so many junk sources out there that don’t even use science to back their claim. Expect your knowledge to be from an unbiased professional that will present all of the facts as is. Don’t always trust the analysis/overview that is provided to you. There are so many loaded experiments where the data is corrupt because the experimenter uses some outside knowledge that is not known to the general public, and strategically sets out to prove their position using botched science. I have shown in this study alone that the data was selectively presented in favor of their position, but when looked at as a whole, it is a garbage project that proves nothing. Just don’t be mindless, ignorant, and lazy. Really look at the data, not the analysis or opinions, but the cold hard facts of the experiment and use your common sense from that. See through the bullshit that is being fed to you by an uninformed and biased media, then see the truth. The funny thing about science is that it’s always true, unlike people’s opinions or perceptions.
Have some common sense when reading these things and understand that they want you to focus on GM, and they can manipulate the analysis by using weed killer.
I am currently looking at the individual results posted in a youtube documentary on this very experiment, published by the company. And I am finding a few interesting things. First off, the trend that one would rationally figure based on mortality rates, being that those fed the lowest amount of RR corn/round up, would be lower and those fed with higher amounts to have higher mortality rates, is not present. In fact, here is the exact point in the video where the data is presented: http://youtu.be/Njd0RugGjAg?t=5m28s . As you can clearly see, from this, the dotted line represents the control for males and females, the thinnest lines represent the 11% diet, medium lines 22%, and thick lines 33%. Now if you look at this data, it would argue that the males are actually rather healthier when they have eaten GMO or round up by the end of the 24 month experiment, seeing as how the control has the highest mortality rate out of the 4 different trials, regardless of the dietary concentration differences. And the trend among the females is that a 22% diet of: GMO, GMO+R, or even R alone, have the highest mortality rate, but bump it up to 33% and they don’t die nearly as often. In fact, the conclusion you would draw off this set of data is that eating more round up and GMO actually lowers the mortality rate for females.
The video cleverly tries to get sneaky by highlighting the one lucky set of “good” data that is quite the obvious statistical outlier for the experiment, which is the control group for females that only had two deaths by the end of the 2 year experiment. But wait, thats odd, the fact that 90% of the males in the control group died by the 24th month seems to be irrelevant to mention in the overview.
OH!, and here is something fun to mention, in the overview of research findings, it states “Up to 50% of males and 70% of females died prematurely, before deaths could be put down to
normal aging, compared with only 30% and 20% in the control group.” I see an inconsistency in the data presented by the company in the video and the data presented by the Overview of research findings. While 90% of the males actually died in the control group by the end of the 24 month trial (higher than the groups being compared), the overview states that 30% died due to natural causes. The graphs do show a shaded vertical bar that indicates a point in time that natural death does begin to occur, which for males is around two months before females. When this is factored into the equation, then yes, the overview is correct. But look at the graphs, after that, the mortality rate of the control group skyrockets while the variables are lower. Seeing as how they only chose to do this experiment once, and used small sample sizes, it makes you wonder if these guys would have factored this little tid-bit of information into their results if the mortality rate of their control group was actually lower than the variables after this point. Its fair to say that they would most likely take the shortcut and would try to argue the point that GM/ herbicide consumption shortens life instead of presenting this set of data. Prime example of how selective presentation of the data can make an experiment seem much more in your favor than if you interpret everything in its entirety.
The truth is, this data doesn’t represent anything significant. This experiment was not repeated so it does not have scientific validity. The outliers in this data clearly show this is corrupt data. No trends are noted. Any statistical analysis cannot be compiled because there is no way to perform averages, or standard deviations based on the data. As a direct quote: “some will challenge the relevance of such results, but what is undeniable is that in those animals that had eaten GMO, there was a 600% increase in death. As far as medicinal biology is concerned, there is no need for further testing.” It flat out says that they only did this experiment once and they got the results that favored what they wanted the first time so they called it quits afterwards!
They did a test on 10 rats for each group, which in the context of comparing this to 7 billion humans, I’d say this a little unfair and rather small sample size. The only legitimate trend is that most of the rats started dying off after around 600 days, whether in the control group or not, which shouldn’t be statistically significant because in the video, it states that the lifespan is around 2 years. They’re drawing conclusions off of natural biology, not a correlation between the consumption of GMO and health.
This experiment is about as reputable as a 3rd grade science project. Nobody should take it seriously, especially since one can easily read into their biased political agenda with one reading through of their overview/analysis. While I do get that it wants to argue the increased rate of tumor production and mortality in rats, and demonstrate some detrimental effects it could possibly have on humans, I have a few things to say. First off, the biology of a rat is far different that that of a human, or a cow/pig if you wanna get into that topic and their genome is also incredibly different from our own. Just a few things to keep in mind, rats are not the ideal candidate for testing a food product as safe for human consumption. we use them because opposition towards testing on them is virtually unopposed and they go through their life cycle relatively quickly. Rat studies, while highly informative, are not meant to be representative of the response seen in humans, but to simply provide an informed background.
And Russ, if you are going to mention the Bt gene for the Bt toxin, please research this before you bring it up. The Bt toxin is a pesticide used in organic agriculture, as well as being incorporated in some GM crops, that has been USDA certified safe in organic farm systems. While some might complain of the effects it has on health, it is hypocritical to bash on the Bt toxin when it is being used in organic Ag as well. There are several specialized strains of the Bt toxin as well that are used for a variety of pests, that are pest specific. If you want to take an entomology course and argue that the digestive tract of these insects is similar in any way to that of our own, then fine, be my guest, but the toxin is utilized because of the anatomical differences between humans and insects. And if you would like to argue this against the USDA and find it unacceptable in the use of Organic ag as well, be my guest. Tell them they are wrong and provide evidence to prove so, I’m sure they would appreciate it.
As far as the article you posted, many logical fallacies are committed throughout and I couldn’t even make it to the end without feeling my IQ drop. While it does do a good job and trying to manipulate the reader into thinking the author knows their stuff by using intimidating, large, scientific words, the truth is that whoever wrote this article made many huge mistakes in just the first few paragraphs alone by first assuming that fast food and GMO are synonymous with each other. The comparison makes no sense. It fairly says “we were supposed to avoid processed food cuz it wasn’t healthy” then says “plants that don’t have chromium are called round up ready, and if you eat these you get diabetes” and then says “you can eat less organic food, be full, and some people take supplements of This, this, and that.” How any of that forms a coherent thought is beyond me but I’ll continue. The supplements listed in the last bit are all stuff that people wont even care to read about, it just sounds like intelligent mumbo jumbo because “D3 and chromium picolinate” sound intimidating. They’re all common vitamins that don’t share any correlation with each other, let alone diet, D3 is for your immune system and chromium picolinate is related to insulin balance. While that is related to metabolism, it is still a tangent nontheless.
Secondly, it blatantly ignores testing procedures required to introduce a GM crop into a testing field. The author’s understanding of GM crop testing is rudimentary at best, and the basically make the assumption that we take a shotgun approach and call it good.
This article jumps around more than a rabbit on cocaine. The points it tries to make are loose assumptions, complete misinterpretations of facts, and the amount of Red Herring fallacies in this article seriously just makes you sit and think about how ignorant people are that actually find this garbage as a reputable source of information.
Anyone who even cares to read this, go in and read the summary of findings, in the third paragraph, it says they directly fed rats roundup. If i told you to go drink weed killer straight from the bottle, you would tell me to F-off and die, because it is obvious that it kills things for a reason. You know that, I know that, we don’t need a study to spoon feed us this common knowledge.
The problem isn’t with GMO at all on a gene basis if you’ve figured this out by now. The problem at hand is that certain lazy and irresponsible farmers use this particular GM crop, and exploit this genetic manipulation and use it as a crutch for easy farm management and irresponsibly over-spray everything. And fyi, pesticides do cause cancer and mortality in humans. Actually learn about your food, its common sense really, and wash your fruits n veggies. If you took the time to read this, you are hopefully smart enough to understand that GM isn’t bad now, and your food is still safe and tasty. just know now that when people tell you to wash your fruits and veggies before you eat them, its not because there is dirt on it, but the real problem (AKA pesticides) might still be on the outside of it.