Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Study Linking Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors Is Retracted

Posted by on Dec. 1, 2013 at 8:36 AM
  • 35 Replies
Sorry about quality, on a tablet...but the link should help...

Scientific American

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer

Study Linking Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors Is Retracted

Publisher withdraws paper despite authors' objections, citing weak evidence
By Barbara Casassus
 and Nature magazine
  | Friday, November 29, 2013 | 30





Bowing to scientists' near-universal scorn, the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology today fulfilled its threat to retract a controversial paper claiming that a genetically modified (GM) maize causes serious disease in rats, after the authors refused to withdraw it.
The paper, from a research group led by Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen, France, and published in 2012,  showed “no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data,” said a statement from Elsevier
, which publishes the journal. But the small number and type of animals used in the study mean that “no definitive conclusions can be reached.” The known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague–Dawley strain of rat ”cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups,” it added.
Today’s move came as no surprise. Earlier this month, the journal’s editor-in-chief Wallace Hayes threatened retraction if Séralini refused to withdraw the paper. Hayes announced the retraction at a press conference in Brussels this morning. Séralini and his team stand by their results, and allege that the retraction derives from the journal's editorial appointment of biologist Richard Goodman, who previously worked for biotechnology giant Monsanto for seven years.
Goodman however denies any involvement in the decision to retract the paper. "Food and Chemical Toxicology asked me to become an associate editor in January 2013 because of my extensive experience in the area, and after I complained about the Séralini study,” he says. “I am paid a small honorarium for handling manuscripts about biotechnology on a part-time basis, after hours. But I did not review the data in the Séralini study, nor did I have anything to do with the determination that the paper should be withdrawn from or retained by the journal. “The magazine reviewed our paper more than any other,” says co-author and physician Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, who is also president of the Paris-based Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), which collaborated in the study. The retraction is “a public-health scandal," he says.
The study found that rats fed for two years with Monsanto’s glyphosate-resistant NK603 maize (corn) developed many more tumors and died earlier than controls. It also found that the rats developed tumors when glyphosate (Roundup), the herbicide used with GM maize, was added to their drinking water. (See "Rat study sparks GM furore
").
At the November 28 press conference, Corinne Lepage, a Member of the European Parliament and former French environment minister, said that Séralini’s paper asked “good questions about the long-term toxicity of GMOs [GM organisms] and the Roundup herbicide.” Retraction of the paper “will not make these questions disappear," added Lepage, who is also a co-founder of CRIIGEN.
Alleged conflicts of interest are at the center of the latest round of controversy. Lepage called for the resignation of  Anne Glover, who was appointed chief scientific adviser to the European Commission two years ago and whom Lepage says is an advocate of GMOs. Since then, Lepage noted, the commission has proposed, for the first time since 1996, to authorize cultivation of GM maize in Europe. Conflicts of interest with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in Parma, Italy, which is responsible for assessing the risks of GMOs, “remain numerous,” she added.
The paper’s retraction was the latest in a series of setbacks for Séralini and his group. The publication of his team's study was greeted by a storm of protest from scientists, and both the EFSA and Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment In Berlin slammed the paper for providing inadequate data to support its conclusions.
This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published
 on November 28, 2013.risk free title graphic
by on Dec. 1, 2013 at 8:36 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
stringtheory
by Gold Member on Dec. 1, 2013 at 9:31 AM
Bump
AtiFreeFalls
by Silver Member on Dec. 1, 2013 at 10:41 AM

 Interesting.  I have a whole slew of hippie friends who were posting that paper right and left last year. 

In the article it says that the reason for retraction was that the type of rat used is more prone to cancer and tumors than most other types of rats, and that there was inadequate data to support the conclusions reached by Seralini.  I have maintained as well that if you feed rat chow to the control group and NOTHING but GMO corn to the other OF COURSE you will see increased mortality and morbidity, because rats are not meant to eat nothing but corn their whole lives.  It woudl be like feeding humans nothing but corn.

Despite these concerns, I do believe that GMOs have not been adequately studied for their safety or environmental impact, and I avoid them as much as possible.  I just wish we could get some real science on this issue, rather than studies either underfunded and/or basically bunk or studies funded by Monstanto.  This is an important issue, with important ramifications, and we need to know, damn it.

I'm tempted to post this to my wall, but know that it will be met with "But they said questions still remain about the safety!"  Duh.  Of course there are still questions, but THIS study is bunk.

stringtheory
by Gold Member on Dec. 1, 2013 at 10:50 AM
1 mom liked this
Yes, I believe it is probably likely that mother nature feeds us better than science right now (after all, our digestive system evolved eating mother nature's food), but this is THE study for decrying the ills of GMO foods and I knew of it's questionability so I am glad it was retracted. I really wish Monsanto didn't monopolize the market so there could be some incentive to study this more.

Quoting AtiFreeFalls:

 Interesting.  I have a whole slew of hippie friends who were posting that paper right and left last year. 

In the article it says that the reason for retraction was that the type of rat used is more prone to cancer and tumors than most other types of rats, and that there was inadequate data to support the conclusions reached by Seralini.  I have maintained as well that if you feed rat chow to the control group and NOTHING but GMO corn to the other OF COURSE you will see increased mortality and morbidity, because rats are not meant to eat nothing but corn their whole lives.  It woudl be like feeding humans nothing but corn.

Despite these concerns, I do believe that GMOs have not been adequately studied for their safety or environmental impact, and I avoid them as much as possible.  I just wish we could get some real science on this issue, rather than studies either underfunded and/or basically bunk or studies funded by Monstanto.  This is an important issue, with important ramifications, and we need to know, damn it.

I'm tempted to post this to my wall, but know that it will be met with "But they said questions still remain about the safety!"  Duh.  Of course there are still questions, but THIS study is bunk.

AtiFreeFalls
by Silver Member on Dec. 1, 2013 at 10:54 AM

 Yeah... that's why I buy almost entirely organic or local.  When I can get local.  I live in the beef capital of the US (Amarillo, TX) and cannot find local meat to save my life.  Anyway, I figure the more I support NOT Monsanto the more likely we are to get some real evidence on this issue some day.

Quoting stringtheory:

Yes, I believe it is probably likely that mother nature feeds us better than science right now (after all, our digestive system evolved eating mother nature's food), but this is THE study for decrying the ills of GMO foods and I knew of it's questionability so I am glad it was retracted. I really wish Monsanto didn't monopolize the market so there could be some incentive to study this more.

Quoting AtiFreeFalls:

 Interesting.  I have a whole slew of hippie friends who were posting that paper right and left last year. 

In the article it says that the reason for retraction was that the type of rat used is more prone to cancer and tumors than most other types of rats, and that there was inadequate data to support the conclusions reached by Seralini.  I have maintained as well that if you feed rat chow to the control group and NOTHING but GMO corn to the other OF COURSE you will see increased mortality and morbidity, because rats are not meant to eat nothing but corn their whole lives.  It woudl be like feeding humans nothing but corn.

Despite these concerns, I do believe that GMOs have not been adequately studied for their safety or environmental impact, and I avoid them as much as possible.  I just wish we could get some real science on this issue, rather than studies either underfunded and/or basically bunk or studies funded by Monstanto.  This is an important issue, with important ramifications, and we need to know, damn it.

I'm tempted to post this to my wall, but know that it will be met with "But they said questions still remain about the safety!"  Duh.  Of course there are still questions, but THIS study is bunk.

 

LiveinJoy
by on Dec. 1, 2013 at 11:50 AM

As skeptical and cynical as I am about GMO nd Monsanto I would prefer the data and the info to be accurate and as complete as possible leaving less wiggle room and deniability.

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Dec. 1, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Idiots.  This is a classic example of bias.

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Dec. 1, 2013 at 5:18 PM

You know what though?  The breed of rats was the EXACT same breed of rat Monsanto uses in its trials.  And the rate of tumor growth in the rats fed the GMO corn was substantially higher than the rate of tumor growth in the control group rats.

Quoting AtiFreeFalls:


In the article it says that the reason for retraction was that the type of rat used is more prone to cancer and tumors than most other types of rats, and that there was inadequate data to support the conclusions reached by Seralini. 

babiesbabybaby development

Hi!  My name is Jenn!

AtiFreeFalls
by Silver Member on Dec. 1, 2013 at 5:24 PM

 Yes, but I have not seen that the control group was fed ONLY non GMO corn.  The test rats were fed NOTHING but GMO corn, so...

Quoting kailu1835:

You know what though?  The breed of rats was the EXACT same breed of rat Monsanto uses in its trials.  And the rate of tumor growth in the rats fed the GMO corn was substantially higher than the rate of tumor growth in the control group rats.

Quoting AtiFreeFalls:


In the article it says that the reason for retraction was that the type of rat used is more prone to cancer and tumors than most other types of rats, and that there was inadequate data to support the conclusions reached by Seralini. 

 

Farmlady09
by Silver Member on Dec. 1, 2013 at 7:40 PM
1 mom liked this

I can't offer anything but what would be considered anecdotal evidence ~ but ~ when it comes to rabbits, goats, pigs, chickens (and other poultry), there is a growing concern among farmers who breed these animals. They are noticing increased deaths, tumors, stillbirths, etc. in animals fed feed from gmo sources, as well as from soy feeds. Wander into any forum based on problems with breeding and illness for these animals, and you will find people listing how many animals they are losing since the feed formulas have been changed.

The bottom line is that gmos are cheeper ~ and they are being fed to EVERY animal at this point, not just humans. Most of the animals have a significantly shorter lifespan than humans, so a higher death/illness rate is much easier to track.

What I can note, personally, is that a doe that produced successful litters of 9-12 kits for two years straight (8 litters) with one death out of all those kits, suddenly produced two litters in succession that were premature, malformed, and all most definitely dead. When this happend I got online looking for answers ~ which is when I realized the feed formulas were being changed (I don't normally read labels unless I'm looking for a new feed). After having 9 does produce damaged or dead litters, I went organic/soy free on my feed, as well as switching gradually to a home grown fodder based feed, grains, and hay. Those same does are back to producing large, healthy litters again.

I didn't lose any goats or pigs, but I have lost some of my poultry to unidentifiable causes ~ again, when the feeds were changed.

It's good to question these studies, but they are all bought and paid for by one side or the other. My personal conclusion is that both the gmo's and the soy based (also gmo) feeds are killing animals. If it is killing some animals, it can't be good for any animal. Since the point of raising our own meat animals, along with our own veggies and fruits was to avoid unhealthy food, what I feed my meat animals absolutely matters. I'll keep right on skipping the gmo crud, along with the soy. I have things I'd like to do with my life ~ and being a guinea pig for monsanto and it's ilk isn't on the list.

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Dec. 1, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Both rats were only fed corn.  One was only GMO, one was only non-GMO.  If the GMO corn had been safe, the GMO fed rats wouldn't have developed tumors at such an elevated rate that the non-GMO fed rats didn't.

Quoting AtiFreeFalls:

 Yes, but I have not seen that the control group was fed ONLY non GMO corn.  The test rats were fed NOTHING but GMO corn, so...

Quoting kailu1835:

You know what though?  The breed of rats was the EXACT same breed of rat Monsanto uses in its trials.  And the rate of tumor growth in the rats fed the GMO corn was substantially higher than the rate of tumor growth in the control group rats.

Quoting AtiFreeFalls:


In the article it says that the reason for retraction was that the type of rat used is more prone to cancer and tumors than most other types of rats, and that there was inadequate data to support the conclusions reached by Seralini. 

 


babiesbabybaby development

Hi!  My name is Jenn!

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)