The following is the conclusion section from the research paper.
[In] the three GM maize varieties that formed the basis of this investigation, new side effects linked to the consumption of these cereals were revealed, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others [4]. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity. This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize.
[…] These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown. […] In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods. Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.
This post not brought to you courtesy of
Phydeau,
I agree with your #31, but you completely ducked giving an answer to #24.
You are saying you are for modern agriculture. Modern agriculture uses herbicides, pesticides, and even some GMO’s to produce significant crop yields.
Yet apparently you are against all of these. So apparently you have some information on a method of agriculture which uses none of the above yet still yields enough produce to feed a hungry planet.
So, what is this great advance in agriculture that you have a knowledge of which nobody else seems to comprehend??
Please include links.
GM maize that produces insecticide, when eaten by rats looks like the rats have eaten insecticide. There are dozens of other edible varieties of GM maize, one in particular will feed millions of people in drought hit areas of Africa. http://bit.ly/5T5oPd
I pointed something out to a few persons in my area..
1. make crops that are insect resistant, where do the insects GO?? to the m\nearest area WITHOUT the problem.
Which means those areas NOT using then, including your small towns and small farms.
2. crops that poison/pest repellent.
SAME PROBLEM..
3. and if the ANIMALS/insects cant/wont eat it, WHAT MAKE YOU THINK HUMANS CAN??
4. plants USED to grow very well, to make them GROW in closer/MORE/GREATER quantity(insted of 1 acre of grain we now get 4-10 times the amount), we have to ADD to the soil. ADDING WHAT?? its not just fertilizer.
It costs almost as MUCH to grow crops in 1 acre at 4 times the crop rate, as it does to grow NATURALLY/organic.
And what is the cost to NUTRITION from the plant?? Look up an article about companion plants..
NOW to an interesting fact. it was 30-40 years ago that BEFORE a chemical/drug could be released to the market, it had to have LONG TERM studies.. 10-20 years. and ALLOT of them never got that far.
NOW.. you ARE the TEST subject..JUST as bad as BETA WARE GAMES..
#33, Phydeau,
Ahhh, the tobacco defense. No argument. A simple experiment of feeding rats a diet consisting of one type of food is too easy for every High School / 4H kid not to replicate.
Studies cost money. They also expose dangerous side effects and that the product might not do what they say it does. Plus they take time. So yes, I doubt Monsanto will jump full force into more studies.
#34 You are saying you are for modern agriculture. Modern agriculture uses herbicides, pesticides, and even some GMO’s to produce significant crop yields.
Yes, I’m in favor of all of the above, except I think we should proceed with MUCH caution on GMOs. What’s so hard to understand about that?
Although if you google “phosphorus shortage” you’ll see indications that our dependence on miracle fertilizers might be in trouble.
#3 To Bill who did not major in biology. They stuck a fungus gene into corn. It makes its own pesticide. The good news is that less of the same stuff is being sprayed.
The bad news is the only way to avid this chemical is eat organically grown non GM crops but studies have shown genes get around. GM genes have been demonstrated to show up in the middle of nowhere in crops grown by people who have been planting seeds they saved from the previous crop for generations. Cross pollination occurs and all it takes is one GM plant near a your none GM plants. The pesticide that is sprayed also gets around but laws do try to limit this.
Just remember the anti GM coverage on No Agenda/DU (depleted uranium?) when you bash the “greenies” 🙂
Damn those “greenies”, always protesting hard working companies that just want to make the world a better place, for their profit margins, while pumping out a dangerous product!
Ah, hell with it … genetically modified foods FOREVAR!
It’s really no different than the quick version of selective breeding except you get the result faster.
And if it kills all the humans somehow, the aliens who discover our planet probably can eat the stuff and watch our YouTube videos so our culture will live on.
@Phyteau
If your goal in your posts is to further, I guess, your anti-GM agenda you might consider not posting as a more effective alternative.
If some agendaless university were to make an “anti-GM study” just out of the bleu, fine. But everyone knows that Europe looks for any reason to reject US agricultural trade to protect their markets within the scope of what trade agreements allow.
I don’t city stalks of brocolli attacking cities.
#41
“It’s really no different than the quick version of selective breeding except you get the result faster.”
WELL, there is a problem..
AS the world changes PEOPLE are supposed to adapt..WITH THE PLANTS.
WE havnt been doing that for 75-100 years.
Soon, there will be 2 types of plants..
WORLD modified and HUMAN modified..and if they CROSS pollinate, we wont know WHAT IS WHAT..
So, we advance our food, but NOT the creatures..which takes a couple 100 years.
My previous points STILL stand. #36.
WE are over growing the ground..for what REASON?? MONEY!!
the USA supplies 30% of the worlds food. but at WHAT LOSS? Nutrient value is going to DECLINE. we will need MORE to supplement. which makes the food cost MORE, NOT less.
Organic farmers growing 1/2-1/10 the crop are starting to get MORE money. NO CHEMICALS, no NUTRIENT LOSS. They get the SAME price per ACRE for a lower amount of food.
Something many of you may not know about the body. IF it wants something and ISNT getting it, you will CRAVE. Your body will FORCE you to run around EATING EVERYTHING to find that missing THING it wants.
#41 If your goal in your posts is to further, I guess, your anti-GM agenda you might consider not posting as a more effective alternative.
You seem to have a knee-jerk accusation toward anyone who is wary of GM foods, accusing them of an “anti-GM agenda”. I’m just saying we should follow the research where it leads, even if it affects Monsanto’s profit margin. You seem to want to dismiss concerns as “hysteria” and “anti-GM agendas”. So the only question in my mind is, are you a paid employee of Monsanto or just a fanboy?
#43, Phydeau,
It just occurred to me after reading this post that the same people in favor of using GM foods also deny global warming and like tea parties.
why do the right wing nuts hate science?