Study:Tumors in Rats Fed Monsanto GM Corn

[jugoso]

A new study released Wednesday by a team of scientists in France claims to have discovered a noticeable increase in tumors and kidney disease in lab rats that have been fed GMO foods produced by big ag corporation Monsanto

The controversial study, which quickly came under fire from several GMO experts around the world, prompted France's Jose Bove, vice-chairman of the European Parliament's commission for agriculture and GMO opponent, to claim "the study finally shows we are right and that it is urgent to quickly review all GMO evaluation processes."

The study, published by the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology and conducted by scientists at the University of Caen, said rats fed on a diet containing NK603, a seed variety made tolerant to Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller, or given water with Roundup at levels permitted in the United States, died earlier than those on a standard diet.

According to the data, rats on the GM diet developed mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/09/19-4

This is my big issue with GM foods......NOBODY knows what the long-term consequences are on people or the environment.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Shocking ... an adverse reaction in a creature eating food not designed for it to eat.

[Habitat]

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the millions of Americans already eating the GM corn are a better test sample than a few lab mice, but I doubt anyone will stump up the big bucks to fund a study to keep tabs on cancer rates compared to populations elsewhere in the world eating non-GM corn.

[sickpuppy]

"population control"

[Simbi Laveau]

You beat me to it ...

Here's another link .This article has photos of the actual test rats . It's disturbing ,but people need to SEE what GMOs do .

http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html

Please everyone,be aware ,in the USA ,almost all corn and soy products,are GMO .

EVEN IF IT SAYS GROWN ORGANICALLY.

GMO is IN the seed genetics . So even if said seed,is grown with no pesticides,and with pure water and nutrients,its basic DNA,is mutated.

Organically grown ,doesn't mean non gmo .

Corn,and corn by product,98% of it ,in the USA , and 95% of all USA soy ,are in EVERYTHING .

PLEASE READ LABELS !

Corn meal,soy ,its in processed everything,from cereals to frozen foods,and most all pet foods you buy at the supermarket.

Also,many alcohols,are fermented and made with corn ,so even booze is GMO !

Don't forget popcorn either .

You just cannot eat corn,in the USA,anymore ,unless you can find non gmo Coen seeds,and grow it yourself.

This is why Obama gave Monsanto full control of our seed supply,and they sue farmers for using non gmo seeds.

This is a food dictatorship .

I do not buy anything gmo ,anything with soy or corn by product ,no carageenan,no aspartame or sucralose.

Not for me,not for my animals.

If you buy your kids processed cookies and cereals,they're eating it.

Most strawberries are gmo ,and they want to mass market wheat GMO . Orange gmo trees are being experimented with ,down in florida,as we speak.

Which would mean all other foods,including juices,breads,cakes ,all gmo .

Yes really .

This is no joke .

GMO ingestion,means possible DNA corruption ,of OUR GENES.

Studies alleged cancer is at some all time low in the USA . I dont believe that for a moment .

It's at an all time high if you ask me.

Little kids getting all kinds of weird cancers .

Demand gmo labeling.

If anyone wants the how to tell if produce is GMO,I will post it again.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Simbi Laveau

[bmk1245]

I wonder, why europeans weren't dying out en masse from all sorts of cancers when first introduced to potatoes, bananas, kiwis, etc., genomes of which are quite different from say apples, carrots, wheat, not to mention eating different (due to selection) apples.

Edited September 20, 2012 by bmk1245

[Neognosis]

given water with Roundup at levels permitted in the United States

It's the ROUNDUP, people. NOT the corn.

As well as the study being flawed. This is why peer review is good.

http://www.reuters.c...E8KJC1220120919

allow me to quote from your link:

experts strongly critical of study methods

The French government asked the country's health watchdog to investigate the findings further, although a number of scientists questioned the study's basic methods

Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and colleagues said rats fed on a diet containing NK603 - a seed variety made tolerant to dousings of Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller - or given water with Roundup at levels permitted in the United States, died earlier than those on a standard diet.

Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London, noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were.

"This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumours particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said. "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."

Come on people, be CRITICAL and don't just accept what you believe supports your preconceived notions.

So, to sum up:

These rats are from a strain known to develop mammary tumors if their diet is not restricted

The study gives no information on food amount fed the rats (gee, I wonder why? see above point)

The rats also were given water with a pesticide/herbicide in it.

GM foods have the potential to save BILLIONS of lives.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Neognosis

[Simbi Laveau]

To tell if a product is grown with GMO seeds ,you have to look at the bar code sticker with the numbers.

It's either 4 or 5 numbers long .

Produce with a number code,starting with the number 4,is grown under normal conditions,and the seeds are not GMO.I

It's usually a four digit code .

Most other numbers are 5 digits .

If the number starts with an 8 ,its from a genetically modified seed .

Do not buy !

If it starts with a 9 ,its pure organic . The seeds are non GMO ,and its grown organically .

Some codes start with 6 or 7,my understanding is,its the same as starting with a 4 ,but I have not confirmed this .

http://soundofheart.org/galacticfreepress/content/produce-stickers-decoded-how-tell-if-your-produce-genetically-modified

Here are some lists of common modified foods .read labels ,is all I can say

http://www.naturalnews.com/035734_GMOs_foods_dangers.html

http://ybertaud9.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/genetically-modified-foods-list-of-gm-grocery-frankenfoods/

.

http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/gmo/genetically-modified-foods-alert/

Edited September 20, 2012 by Simbi Laveau

[Simbi Laveau]

It's the ROUNDUP, people. NOT the corn.

As well as the study being flawed. This is why peer review is good.

http://www.reuters.c...E8KJC1220120919

allow me to quote from your link:

Come on people, be CRITICAL and don't just accept what you believe supports your preconceived notions.

So, to sum up:

These rats are from a strain known to develop mammary tumors if their diet is not restricted

The study gives no information on food amount fed the rats (gee, I wonder why? see above point)

The rats also were given water with a pesticide/herbicide in it.

GM foods have the potential to save BILLIONS of lives.

Growing plain old crops can save billions of lives. There's no reason for it to be modified,at all .Explain why these modified seeds ,are any better ,than heirloom seeds ?

Again,why are no gmo foods whatsoever,served in cafeterias of Monsanto facilities .

Why won't they eat,what they are FORCING ,us to eat ?

And the herbicides are in everything we eat too so giving them water with it ,is pretty much reproducing what the average American invests daily .,

The round up is what's killing are bees btw,but before you even say it,yeah yeah,conspiracy theory .

*chortle and guffaw*

[Simbi Laveau]

I wonder, why europeans weren't dying out en masse from all sorts of cancers when first introduced to potatoes, bananas, kiwis, etc., genomes of which are quite different from say apples, carrots, wheat, not to mention eating different (due to selection) apples.

.. http://www.ghorganics.com/GM%20food%20can%20cause%20cancer.htm

. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/07July/Pages/uk-cancer-trends-examined.aspx

Cancer rates in the UK have risen quite a lot in the last 20 year's. GMOs were introduced in the early 1990s.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Simbi Laveau

[synchronomy]

Interesting...

As I'm reading this thread the following ad appears above the reply box:

Roundup Ready Corn

Superior corn borer protection. The leading Genuity traits provider

www.monsanto.ca

....great Canadian ingenuity!

As part of their drive to take over global agriculture, they also provide FREE roundup to landowners in South America to clear rainforest for agricultural use, if they sign a long term agreement to purchase Roundup ready corn and soybean seed.

So...when you hear Canada places importance on preserving the environment...BTW we also have the filthiest industrial pollution project on the planet, the Alberta Tarsands.

...but it's ok, because we have curbside recycling for plastics and paper etc.

[bmk1245]

.. http://www.ghorganic...ause cancer.htm

. http://www.nhs.uk/ne...s-examined.aspx

Cancer rates in the UK have risen quite a lot in the last 20 year's. GMOs were introduced in the early 1990s.

How about other sources:

The number of people diagnosed with and dying from cancer is increasing.

Actually, the number of new diagnoses of all cancers combined decreased steadily between 1999 and 2006, and the number of deaths from all cancers combined decreased steadily between 2001 and 2006, according to the most recent study by the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Cancer Society, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. More people with cancer are now living longer lives with a better quality of life due to early diagnosis, lifestyle changes, and better treatment options.

(link)

And read Neognosis' info one more time.

Edited September 20, 2012 by bmk1245

[Simbi Laveau]

How about other sources:

(link)

And read Neognosis' info one more time.

Well ,this is the problem ,now isn't it.Who pays for these studies and so forth .

Many studies are skewed ,by the interested parties .That's why I picked a link that just stated the incidences .

I never said anything about death rate,just new cases. The article I posted just said cancer rates went up ,due to life style ,but it happened to fall into the time frame .

They say cancer rates in the USA have gone down,and given how many of my friends have had it,or have it now ,I don't believe that at all .

Of just my closest frieds ,ones parents ,and brother,all died of it,my uncle had 3 different kinds ,3 have had breast cancer ,one died of mesothelioma .ones husband had a brain tumor .A close pal in Japan is dying from it .

I mean a LOT of people .,and we are not that old .

Of say my moms friends ,dunno,maybe one had cancer .....

Most died of heart attacks in my moms set.

I dont believe the statistics ,the powers that be,claim are true,at all.

This past week alone,I found out about two more old friends,having cancer .

Lots of cancer going around ,as far as I can see.

You can believe what you want,but its the kids that will pay for all this,as they will eat it from day one .

Not good....

[Imaginarynumber1]

Well ,this is the problem ,now isn't it.Who pays for these studies and so forth .

Many studies are skewed ,by the interested parties .That's why I picked a link that just stated the incidences .

I never said anything about death rate,just new cases. The article I posted just said cancer rates went up ,due to life style ,but it happened to fall into the time frame .

They say cancer rates in the USA have gone down,and given how many of my friends have had it,or have it now ,I don't believe that at all .

Of just my closest frieds ,ones parents ,and brother,all died of it,my uncle had 3 different kinds ,3 have had breast cancer ,one died of mesothelioma .ones husband had a brain tumor .A close pal in Japan is dying from it .

I mean a LOT of people .,and we are not that old .

Of say my moms friends ,dunno,maybe one had cancer .....

Most died of heart attacks in my moms set.

I dont believe the statistics ,the powers that be,claim are true,at all.

This past week alone,I found out about two more old friends,having cancer .

Lots of cancer going around ,as far as I can see.

You can believe what you want,but its the kids that will pay for all this,as they will eat it from day one .

Not good....

Correlation =/= Causation

[bmk1245]

Well ,this is the problem ,now isn't it.Who pays for these studies and so forth .

Many studies are skewed ,by the interested parties .That's why I picked a link that just stated the incidences .

I never said anything about death rate,just new cases. The article I posted just said cancer rates went up ,due to life style ,but it happened to fall into the time frame .

They say cancer rates in the USA have gone down,and given how many of my friends have had it,or have it now ,I don't believe that at all .

Of just my closest frieds ,ones parents ,and brother,all died of it,my uncle had 3 different kinds ,3 have had breast cancer ,one died of mesothelioma .ones husband had a brain tumor .A close pal in Japan is dying from it .

I mean a LOT of people .,and we are not that old .

Of say my moms friends ,dunno,maybe one had cancer .....

Most died of heart attacks in my moms set.

I dont believe the statistics ,the powers that be,claim are true,at all.

This past week alone,I found out about two more old friends,having cancer .

Lots of cancer going around ,as far as I can see.

You can believe what you want,but its the kids that will pay for all this,as they will eat it from day one .

Not good....

You forgot one small detail - we are all ageing, thus, more family members, friends die, its inevitable. As for your attitude to GM, its like saying "If Amanita phalloides (Death cap) is deadly, then all mushrooms are deadly". Edited September 20, 2012 by bmk1245

[Neognosis]

Growing plain old crops can save billions of lives. There's no reason for it to be modified,at all .Explain why these modified seeds ,are any better ,than heirloom seeds ?

Drought resistance: Areas that previously yielded low food supplies can grow more food.

Pest resistance: Crops can be grown that do NOT require the use of pesticides if they are designed to be unpalatable to their common insect pests

PH soil adaptation: Crops that usually only thrive in more acidic soil can be modified to grow in more PH neutral or basic soil, increasing the potential yield

These are just three that come to mind immediately.

A rice that can be grown in less wet areas could save BILLIONS. One is in the works and close to being perfected, I hear, but is being held back by nonsense of the type illustrated in this thread. So, thank you for contributing to the death of real human beings while you entertain yourself with unfounded conspiracy theories.

Again,why are no gmo foods whatsoever,served in cafeterias of Monsanto facilities . Why won't they eat,what they are FORCING ,us to eat ?

I suspect this is a a bit of misinformation that conspiracy theorists bandy about without ever questioning.

And the herbicides are in everything we eat too so giving them water with it ,is pretty much reproducing what the average American invests daily .,

That's fine. But then it is misleading to write articles and make posts claiming that it is the genetically modified food. It also is completely disregarding the fact that people wash their fruits and vegetables. And if corn is not washed of the roundup before cattle eat it, and we eat the cattle, that's two digestion cycles that the chemicals have been through by the time we get it. Hardly the equivalent of feeding rats roundup in their water.

The round up is what's killing are bees btw,but before you even say it,yeah yeah,conspiracy theory .

There has been no evidence to support that.

I would not be surprised if there was some evidence to support that idea, but to date, there is none.

Correlation =/= Causation

Ah, a voice of reason.

I find it amusing how, not only does the data show LESS cancer, but everyone that chooses to ignore that has their own pet theory about what causes cancer. Depending on your brand of irrationality, you could pick:

computers

cell phones

genetically modified foods

pesticides

herbacides

factory farming

meat

television

radio waves

fracking

synthetic fabrics

preservatives

sugar

artificial sweeteners

etc. etc.

I do not doubt that one or more of the above might be, or are known to be, carcinogens. But, as pointed out, correlation does not equate to causation.

[jugoso]

Drought resistance: Areas that previously yielded low food supplies can grow more food.

Pest resistance: Crops can be grown that do NOT require the use of pesticides if they are designed to be unpalatable to their common insect pests

PH soil adaptation: Crops that usually only thrive in more acidic soil can be modified to grow in more PH neutral or basic soil, increasing the potential yield

These are just three that come to mind immediately.

A rice that can be grown in less wet areas could save BILLIONS. One is in the works and close to being perfected, I hear, but is being held back by nonsense of the type illustrated in this thread. So, thank you for contributing to the death of real human beings while you entertain yourself with unfounded conspiracy theories.

I suspect this is a a bit of misinformation that conspiracy theorists bandy about without ever questioning.

That's fine. But then it is misleading to write articles and make posts claiming that it is the genetically modified food. It also is completely disregarding the fact that people wash their fruits and vegetables. And if corn is not washed of the roundup before cattle eat it, and we eat the cattle, that's two digestion cycles that the chemicals have been through by the time we get it. Hardly the equivalent of feeding rats roundup in their water.

There has been no evidence to support that.

I would not be surprised if there was some evidence to support that idea, but to date, there is none.

Ah, a voice of reason.

I find it amusing how, not only does the data show LESS cancer, but everyone that chooses to ignore that has their own pet theory about what causes cancer. Depending on your brand of irrationality, you could pick:

computers

cell phones

genetically modified foods

pesticides

herbacides

factory farming

meat

television

radio waves

fracking

synthetic fabrics

preservatives

sugar

artificial sweeteners

etc. etc.

I do not doubt that one or more of the above might be, or are known to be, carcinogens. But, as pointed out, correlation does not equate to causation.

Do you believe that both the physical and environmental effects of GM food have been tested enough to be sure that they are safe?

[bmk1245]

Do you believe that both the physical and environmental effects of GM food have been tested enough to be sure that they are safe?

One question: what do you consider "safe". You eat apples, do you care what breed they are? If not, why?

[Neognosis]

Do you believe that both the physical and environmental effects of GM food have been tested enough to be sure that they are safe?

First off, this depends, of course, on the modification.

Don't forget that nature does its share of modification in the form of naturally occurring mutations anyway.

And man has done a fair amount of selective breeding up to this point as well.

The term "genetically modified" is extremely broad, and intentionally frightening.

Any time man messes with the ecosystem, there's a potential for disaster. But in this case, the potential is also for massive amounts of human lives saved.

So, the answer to your question is not a simple "yes" or "no." It depends on the modification, and the intention. A company has a modified rice grain that can grow in damp soil, and doesn't require flooded rice paddies... GO FOR IT. That will save MILLIONS of lives, and, IMO, is worth the risk of the plant "getting out" and overtaking the native flora.

A company has a corn seed that is resistant to pests, that might be viable too, as then we wouldn't have to use as much pesticide. We already KNOW how bad pesticides are for us.

A company just wants to make a corn modification that will allow corn to resist frost and will germinate early enough for there to be two harvests in a single season? Nah, we have more than enough corn in this country that we don't need such a modification.

Unfortunately, GM has been made into a huge boogeyman, and people have a lot of unrealistic misconceptions about it.

[jugoso]

First off, this depends, of course, on the modification.

Don't forget that nature does its share of modification in the form of naturally occurring mutations anyway.

And man has done a fair amount of selective breeding up to this point as well.

The term "genetically modified" is extremely broad, and intentionally frightening.

Any time man messes with the ecosystem, there's a potential for disaster. But in this case, the potential is also for massive amounts of human lives saved.

So, the answer to your question is not a simple "yes" or "no." It depends on the modification, and the intention. A company has a modified rice grain that can grow in damp soil, and doesn't require flooded rice paddies... GO FOR IT. That will save MILLIONS of lives, and, IMO, is worth the risk of the plant "getting out" and overtaking the native flora.

A company has a corn seed that is resistant to pests, that might be viable too, as then we wouldn't have to use as much pesticide. We already KNOW how bad pesticides are for us.

A company just wants to make a corn modification that will allow corn to resist frost and will germinate early enough for there to be two harvests in a single season? Nah, we have more than enough corn in this country that we don't need such a modification.

Unfortunately, GM has been made into a huge boogeyman, and people have a lot of unrealistic misconceptions about it.

I agree with many of the points you make. To be clear, I´m not talking about selective-breeding here but rather laboratory genetic manipulation. Now, if the gene you are inserting produces a toxin as in the case of Monsanto mon 810, I strongly believe that this must be thoroughly tested and proven to cause no adverse physical or environmental effects for the simple reason that there is no turning back the clock. If the gene(s) you are inserting can no way hurt people or the environment and will increase yield then i would be in support of it.

It has taken mother-nature millions of years to achieve some sort of ecological balance. I am concerned that we are moving to quickly and using technology that has yet to be proven "safe".

And correct me if I´m wrong but Monsanto is not only creating foods resistant to pests but also resistant to their pesticide, specifically Round Up.

[jugoso]

One question: what do you consider "safe". You eat apples, do you care what breed they are? If not, why?

Safe for me means that they won´t cause irreversible damage to an individual or the environment. Yes I care what type of apples I eat.....I like Granny Smith because they are sour.

[Neognosis]

a

gree with many of the points you make. To be clear, I´m not talking about selective-breeding here but rather laboratory genetic manipulation. Now, if the gene you are inserting produces a toxin as in the case of Monsanto mon 810, I strongly believe that this must be thoroughly tested and proven to cause no adverse physical or environmental effects for the simple reason that there is no turning back the clock. If the gene(s) you are inserting can no way hurt people or the environment and will increase yield then i would be in support of it.

It has taken mother-nature millions of years to achieve some sort of ecological balance. I am concerned that we are moving to quickly and using technology that has yet to be proven "safe".

And correct me if I´m wrong but Monsanto is not only creating foods resistant to pests but also resistant to their pesticide, specifically Round Up.

That is a rational position, and I find nothing wrong with it.

Except for the fact that mother nature always is in prefect balance.... but I get your point.

I'm in favor of genetic modifications that increase yield and help plants grow in less hospitable environments. I'm not really behind genetically modifying plants to increase a company's sales of a particular product, though.

[Little Fish]

I'm in favor of genetic modifications that increase yield and help plants grow in less hospitable environments. I'm not really behind genetically modifying plants to increase a company's sales of a particular product, though.

that is the problem though. how much is actual reality and how much is corporate marketing spin. the spin does not match reality.

[Little Fish]

It's the ROUNDUP, people. NOT the corn.

I think you may have misunderstood the study.

"Not only has the consumption of a genetically modified food crop now been shown to cause tumor growth and accelerated mortality, but so has the primary herbicide these plants have been engineered to withstand exposure to: Roundup.

GMO plants actually incorporate glyphosate directly into themselves, with the herbicide residues and their metabolites persisting there, making dual exposure to transgenes and herbicide inevitable, and the synergistic amplification of their toxicities likely."

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/09/new-study-finds-gm-corn-and-roundup.html

so it's not one or the other, its both.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Little Fish

[Neognosis]

I think you may have misunderstood the study.

"Not only has the consumption of a genetically modified food crop now been shown to cause tumor growth and accelerated mortality, but so has the primary herbicide these plants have been engineered to withstand exposure to: Roundup.

GMO plants actually incorporate glyphosate directly into themselves, with the herbicide residues and their metabolites persisting there, making dual exposure to transgenes and herbicide inevitable, and the synergistic amplification of their toxicities likely."

they invalidate any conclusions about the food if they give the test rats roundup in their drinking water.

The methodology, as well as the conclusion, of these tests are very flawed.

As is the very wording of this thread title. And people are going to die because of it.

GMO plants actually incorporate glyphosate directly into themselves

THIS particular seed might do that. But it is not what all genetically modified foods do.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Neognosis