Posted in: News

Scientists Discredit GMO-Fed Rat Study Results

Scientists Doubt Study Results Of GMO-Fed Rats

A French study released last week linked Genetically Modified Foods with high tumor incidences in rats- but independent scientists are in a furor.

The study was released in the reputable journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology. The study used rats and concluded that the rats who were exposed to small amounts of herbicide and fed genetically modified corn became sicker at a faster rate than those who were not.

Much longer than the typical 60-day study time period, the study conducted by team-leader Gilles-Eric Seralini lasted two years with 180 rats divided into ten groups. The length of time gave the study more validity, Seralini said.

Other scientists are criticizing the research though, saying the statistical methods and type of rat gave researchers the chance to cherry-pick their results.

According to Harry Kuiper, a Dutch scientist who formerly was in charge of the European Commission’s program which researched the safety of GMOs, Seralini has not been considered worthy of respect in the scientific community.

” “I know this guy. He has published a lot of rubbish,” he said in an NPR report.

Some scientist are saying the albino Sprague-Dawley rat is particularly prone to developing cancers, particularly the mammary tumors which were noted with some of the study subjects, BBC reported.

According to Kuiper and many of his associates, animal feeding studies do not pose as a great model for testing. They suggested the chemical in the genetically modified corn would not be easy to detect because the rats would not eat enough of the corn over their lifetimes.

At this point in time, no new toxic substances have been found in genetically modified crops, nor has any evidence been shown to link illnesses to the millions of Americans who have genetically modified-rich diets, NPR reported.

At the same time though, evidence is increasing to suggest the dangers of GMOs with the increase of research on the topic.

According to Dr. Michael Antoniou, who was an adviser to Seralini’s team and a molecular biologist at King’s College in London, the finidings are significant:

“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.”

Articles And Offers From The Web

Comments

10 Responses to “Scientists Discredit GMO-Fed Rat Study Results”

  1. Shawn Aune

    So all of the rats were prone to cancer but the cancer prone rats that ate GMO food and Roundup got even MORE cancer?

    Doesn't sound like it was discredited to me…

  2. Andres Ojeda

    Of course there will be skeptics. They get paid to discredit. There is such thing as bribery. For crying out loud! They are pesticides. What kind of pesticide is safe for human consumption. This article is ridiculous and so are any "scientists" who discredit this.

  3. Robin Banks

    that's funny… millions of Americans have the worst health in the western world….

  4. Cris Perte

    You can bet the funds allocated to the Monsano PR and lobbyist groups will be doubled shortly. This proves that safety is nowhere near their top priority as thelobbyists will do their job to coax our government(read crony-capitalism) into doing whatever the corporation wants. USFDA and western (crony)capitalism be damned for making a mockery of the democracy won with the lives and spilt blood of our forefathers. Now all these bankers that just sent us to the poor house, all they get is verbal diarrhea from the government; and what they have done is nothing short of an atrocity to mankind… and the government feeds us a (monsano GMO) poison pill to enhance the way to the poor house…

  5. Satwinder Sehjal

    you should read an article on forbe's, you will be amazed the nonsense one of their writer spit. Saying such things as, farm animals fed gmo had no difference to counter part who were fed non-gmo food, labeling food would CAUSE problems, human continue to live longer even after being introduced to GM food. This is the type of non sense and lies we are being fed. But it is great to see people have opened their eyes.

  6. Ian Dowsett

    the objection is that when you use a rat that is so prone to tumors, the incidence shown in the trial isn't as amazing as you often see reported (often without reference to the rat type or the tumor rate in the control group), and in fact not so much higher than the control group that it cannot be ruled out as a chance recurrence. apparently, there is no anti-GMO enthusiast on the internet that is capable of understanding this relatively simple fact, or even remotely interested in the opportunity to cherry pick data in this sort of study, which makes it completely undefinitive until other groups (hopefully without anti-GMO bias) replicate the results. "skeptics get paid to discredit", they say, unaware of the irony smacking them in the face as they discuss a study where skeptics got paid to discredit something. people who merrily assume that anybody who publishes results that confirm their prior beliefs must be some sort of god of truth and impartiality need to take a step back: I suggest looking at the considerable history of paranormal researchers "proving" the existence of paranormal effects before being so confident you understand biased reports of controversial research – James Randi's book Flim Flam is an interesting account of one man's career investigating the quality of paranormal research.

  7. Jan Woods

    How can Seralini "publish a lot of rubbish," yet be published in the most reputable of scientific journals? Those journals do not publish "rubbish." That is a non seq, absolute nonsense. Attacking the scientist and not the science?

  8. Jan Woods

    "Oh look there's a kitty ! "What does "paranormal research" have to do with Seralini's two year long study on the effects of GMO corn? All of Seralini's critics have an awfully hard time staying on topic…

  9. Will Dukes

    The most respected of scientific journals would be the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Science, and Nature. Even those journals are not free from fraud, and so say themselves: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v9/n2/full/nn0206-149.html.

    The study's findings are interesting, and hopefully will spur additional research. However, The study touts it's 200 rat population, but when you look into it, there were actually several different variables being tested, so each group was only 10 rats, which is not a substantial population to give statistically significant results. Do one study – 100 female rat controls and 100 female rats with the same diet, hell even the 33% one. Compare the frequency of tumors, their size, etc, and see if there are any with statistically significant results (those with a greater than 95% confidence interval).

    We have been eating pesticides since the beginning of our species: oxylates, pyrithrins, cyanides, aresenic compounds, nicotinoids, all are found naturally occurring in common foods (potatoes, celery, onions, garlic, etc.) and are potentially toxic. The cool thing is we have an immune and digestive system capable of breaking these things down, and excreting them before they accumulate in toxic levels. That doesn't even take into account compounds that are toxic to other animals but not humans (why can't dogs eat chocolate? Because they can't break down the theobromine in it. It's not toxic to us, though because we break it down). The same is true of the naturally occuring protein-pesticide found in all of the Bt crops. Which, btw, is the same toxin organic farmers spray on their crops.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2404325

    If we're also talking accute toxicity, the LD50 (Lethal Dose required to kill 50% of a given population) for table salt is lower than roundup.

    Why is this article defended on it's peer reviewed basis? Does that not validate the hundreds of other peer-reviewed study showing the safety of GMO's? What makes these "scientists" the good and honest ones and all the other skeptics (which is a major theme in all scientists one way or another)? Is it because they are supporting what you already have decided you want to believe? And more importantly, why do you want to believe it?

    our American health issues are indeed largely connected to our diets, but this has been true and expanding since the 50's with industrial processing of our food, making it much more available and calorie-dense, while at the same time our activity levels dropped. Classic example, come to the south and you still find obese people that eat a ton of sausage eggs and girts for breakfast every morning. "My grandad at this everyday and lived to be 87!" or something to that effect is what you'll hear a lot. Well sure, if you're out getting behind a mule with and plowing a field on foot for 10 hours a day, you can eat 5000 calories a day and still be skinny as a rail. If you're sitting behind a desk, however, and munching on chips and soda all day, it's not going to work the same. GMO's have been in our food supply for over15 years, but that's well behind the curve of diet-related health issues.

    And it's true – we have allowed the centralization of our government to be controlled by the hands of a few at the federal level, instead of having them merely provide for a nationa0l defense and settle disputes among the states, leaving the majority of the power with the states. Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, Walmart, and all of the other massive corporate interests (not to mention the national Unions, and other special interest groups) need only influence a handful of people to profligate their interests. Goldman and AIG would have problably had a more difficult time had they had to work on de-regulating themselves in 50 states… but of course that would require a massive upswing in local leadership, accountability, and personal responsibility on the people to take care of themselves as well as their neighbors, and not pass the buck to a faceless government entity. I tend to believe that a large portion of the anti-GMO movement (large, not all) is really an anti-Monsanto/Corporate Industrial Agriculture movement, but somehow we mixed the science with the economics and politics.

    So, despite some tangents, the long and the short of it is we all have to keep questioning Why about all of these things. First understand why we believe things the way we do, why we have the biases we have, and then we can start to analyze the rest of the world in a more objective way.

  10. Michelle C Lauber

    Of course they discredited it. They were paid to do so. So let me get his straight, Monsatan does a 90 day study completely off protocol but somehow that's okay. We are the guinea pigs here and unfortunately there IS no control group. The point is, with anything as important as life, how can there be anyone assuming arrogantly that genetic manipulation could end up anything but dire? As I have often heard, science has extended far beyond wisdom. Something to think about. Yet everyday we feed our children this poison and think nothing of it, trusting chemical companies who once brought us DDT, Agent Orange and the like, AND told us they were safe, who now controls most of the worlds seed. Monsanto owns 60% of the world's seed companies and their mission is to own all seed. Why don't most of us see a problem with this??? Unbelievable how stupid people are and how much money owns us and our future.