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
#19 Congratulations Ah_Yea, you win today’s Bogus Logic Prize. In your case, the false dichotomy:
Either we completely trust our health to big corporations without question,
Or, Millions and billions of people will die.
You can pick up your prize at the exit.
(And no, that just makes you an idiotic wingnut.)
GlassHalfFull… now you are being ridiculous. I am 56 and have always eaten food where pesticides have been used. Like most people I wash my food before I eat it.
That does not equate with drinking “daily drinking pesticides” as you dramatically claim.
If you want to know the effects of consuming tiny amounts of pesticides… the ACTUAL amounts found on washed food… I’ll offer myself as an example. Because of an unrelated heart problem, and the various drugs I have to take, I get my blood tested 5-6 times a year. My liver and other organs are in perfect health after 56 years of eating rather indiscriminately.
Not everything Monsanto does is evil. Calm down and be reasonable.
My libertarian perspective is that the whole mess is fueled by the government issuing patents on biological organisms, not to mention the special treatment that corporations in general receive.
My practical side understands that neither of these atrocities will be going away anytime soon, so we’d better figure out how to deal with the cards we have been dealt.
First off, follow the money on any study. Second, look at sample size, controls, double blindness, etc. Also look for other studies that present confirmation or disagreement with the study in question. Is there a consensus? This will tell you whether to pay any attention to the study or not.
If you have real scientific evidence, then you can move on to corrective measures.
As for GM foods, well, I’d rather eat a Chevrolet
. But seriously, there is a role for government in that if they are going to issue patents for this stuff and therefore regulate the industry, they should go ahead and require labeling to identify the patented products. It’s not really much different from inspecting meat or enforcing accurate weights and measures. And, if government won’t do it, there are other options. Ever heard of Underwriter’s Laboratories? Society of Automotive Engineers? Heck, even Consumer Reports serves (or at least used to) the function.
Me? I don’t know which is worse. GM food or Twinkies and Capt’N Crunch!
Ah, Phydeau.
So without modern agriculture, how do we feed the world?
(BTW, what’s my prize?)
Hopefully, it’s a gun and NRA membership…
GM food is a bad idea period. Those people drove an entire car company into the ground (no pun intended) How could we ever trust them with our food? Not to mention they’re owned by the gov’t because of the bailout, and the government can’t handle s**t on its own. I say no way to this, and damn the Monsanto bastards too.
I would be a little worried if I were a rat. Otherwise, until they do more significant testing, I’ll continue to wash my food and eat whatever’s the most reasonable price at the food mart.
#23, Well said.
#13 I’m not against science per se. Just health conscious. Monsanto (prime player in the GM game) in particular has a history of producing toxic products and fighting to protect their profits while at the same time fully aware of the toxic properties and the deaths caused. Look up the history of PCB. I wouldn’t want these folks anywhere near my food, much less producing genetically modified anything.
#24 Still with the false dichotomy. No one is saying abandon modern agriculture. We’re saying, use modern agriculture, but not in ways that poison the people who eat the food.
In a sense you really can’t blame Monsanto. We the people keep demanding cheaper and cheaper food. The market speaks, and the providers listen. They’re giving us cheaper food all right… but at what price to our health?
An interesting study. I fully expect this to be followed up by other researchers and either expanded upon or discounted.
A study like this is simple enough for most High School Science Projects. Suggesting it requires a “double blind” standard only demonstrates the ignorance of the commenter.
And although I prefer not to eat GM foods, I’ll wait until there are a few more studies before I form any conclusions.
#32 An interesting study. I fully expect this to be followed up by other researchers and either expanded upon or discounted.
I fully expect scientists to be hired by Monsanto and to miraculously find that there are no problems with eating GM food whatsoever. Nope. Nuh-uh. No way. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Now, that may or may not be true, but you can count on the Monsanto scientists saying it.
IMHO the burden of proof is on GM food producers. They need to prove it’s safe to tinker with stuff that’s been the same for millions of years.
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!