New 90-Day Rat Study Destroys Corporate GMO Propaganda

One more test of Rats being feed GMO corn. It appears that if you are a rat and feed GMO it really does damage your intestines within 90 days.. However we are not rats and all the big boys say GMO is safe for us humans and certainly no reason to label; so nothing to see here move along ?.. Oh the corn tested is being used in Egypt..

See article for Pictures and further information if interested

The rats who were fed the GM corn were given the MON810 corn as 30% of their diet. The control group was given the same amount of non-GMO corn.

In the group fed GM corn, the finger-like structures in the intestine known as villi that absorbs nutrients from food were clearly damaged. They were both distorted and flattened and some cells were even joined together.
The study includes images and shows photographs of the damage. There were also signs of inflammation around the areas of damage in the form of white blood cell infiltration. The mucosal glands were disturbed and blood vessels were congested. There was also an increased level of shedding of mucosal cells, higher rates of division of cells lining the mucosal glands and larger numbers of mucous secreting goblet cells.

The damage to the GM-fed rats was so obvious, that the researchers concluded, “consumption of GM-corn profoundly alters the jejunal histological [microscopic] structure”

www.activistpost.com...

You're about to see that corporate propaganda rear it's ugly head in here a couple posts from now with their GMO hair on fire. How dare you talk about their poison like that.
DEATH TO MONSANTO and all their affiliates and supporters.
Long live the organic farmer!

And long live the Rats.

Poor little buggers.

Like in 10 years we will know effects on humans. I hear that over there in USA you already eat GMO food without even knowing it.

Different morphometrical parameters were assessed. Specimens from GM-corn fed group showed different forms of structural changes.

°Focal destruction and loss of the villi leaving denuded mucosal surface alternating with stratified areas were observed, while some crypts appeared totally disrupted.

°Congested blood capillaries and focal infiltration with mononuclear cells were detected. Significant upregulation of PCNA expression, increase in number of goblet cells and a significant increase in both villous height and crypt depth were detected.

°Marked ultrastructural changes of some enterocytes with focal loss of the microvillous border were observed.

°Some enterocytes had vacuolated cytoplasm, swollen mitochondria with disrupted cristae and dilated rough endoplasmic reticulum (rER).

Some cells had dark irregular nuclei with abnormally clumped chromatin. It could be concluded that consumption of GM-corn profoundly alters the jejunal histological structure.

Abstract of the OP source study as linked in the article.

The jejunum has the typical histological pattern as the entire small intestine: mucosa, .... Structure of the duodenum, including the mucosa and muscular layers.

-Source
Anatomy and physiology wise the jejunum is the "second" part of the small intestine( first 2/5ths beyond the duodenum ) in higher species

References:
www.merriam-webster.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: saadad

I bet if nothing changes you will hear nothing about it.
Maybe you hear about people dropping dead, but an Official correlation to GMO will be denied ofcourse.

They do however will charge you with excellent pricey medical treatments for the " mysterious" illness

originally posted by: saadad
Like in 10 years we will know effects on humans. I hear that over there in USA you already eat GMO food without even knowing it.

Yes, it's in 85% plus percent* of corn and soy for example. Many processed products contain corn and soy. Even products advertised as meat may contain soy.

*updated sources say towards 90% plus

Reference:
responsibletechnology.org...

Also see:

Top 7 Genetically Modified Crops

3. Cottonseed: According to the USDA, 94% of it grown in the U.S. is GMO.

4. Alfalfa: fed to cattle: source of milk, butter, yogurt, meat, etc.

5. Papaya: 75 percent of the Hawaiian papaya crop is GMO due to the papaya ringspot virus.

6. Canola: 90% GMO

7. Sugar Beets: More than half (54%) of the sugar sold in the U.S. comes from it


Source

a reply to: 727Sky

How many of the ten rats fed GMOs actually showed intestinal damage?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: 727Sky

How many of the ten rats fed GMOs actually showed intestinal damage?

I dunno why not write the authors and get back to us when they answer..

The study did say those who were fed non GMO did not suffer the same degradation of their intestines. So maybe 10 fed GMO and ten fed non GMO.. If 100% of the GMO all exhibited the same problems while none of the control group did I would say it was a pretty good test regardless of the amount of lab rats used.

a reply to: 727Sky

On the other hand, if only one of then ten rats fed GMOs had intestinal problems, that would mean 10% showed adverse effects. This might look significant, but given the size of the sample, it would not be. The experimental design is flawed; they definitely need a larger sample and at least one more control group: rats fed a different proportion of GMOs in their diet to see if there is a threshold effect.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: 727Sky

On the other hand, if only one of then ten rats fed GMOs had intestinal problems, that would mean 10% showed adverse effects. This might look significant, but given the size of the sample, it would not be. The experimental design is flawed; they definitely need a larger sample and at least one more control group: rats fed a different proportion of GMOs in their diet to see if there is a threshold effect.

If it were only one test then we could agree . The rats fed the GMO corn had only 30% GMO corn in their diets.. There were two rat test before as I read the article.

The rats who were fed the GM corn were given the MON810 corn as 30% of their diet. The control group was given the same amount of non-GMO corn.

Also this was not the first test showing there were problems

In the first study, rats fed the MON810: Ajeeb YG for 45 and 91 days showed differences in organ and body weights and in blood biochemistry, compared with rats fed the non-GM Ajeeb parent variety grown side-by-side under the same conditions. The authors noted that the changes could indicate “potential adverse health/toxic effects”, which needed further investigation.[3]

In the second study, histopathological (microscopic) investigations by the same group of researchers found toxic effects in multiple organs in the rats fed the GM MON810: Ajeeb YG Bt corn for 91 days.

a reply to: DJW001

Do I get this right?

So you start with : "if"
And you concluded with: "is" flawed.

Without reading it, and knowing anymore about it?

From what I have read into this, it's not GMO's in general that are bad, it's the GMO's designed for pesticide purposes.

Any crop that is naturally poisonous to bugs is likely going to be poisonous to humans as well, poisons usually don't discriminate.

originally posted by: Vector99
From what I have read into this, it's not GMO's in general that are bad, it's the GMO's designed for pesticide purposes.

Any crop that is naturally poisonous to bugs is likely going to be poisonous to humans as well, poisons usually don't discriminate.

IMO you just got the golden brain award for critical thinking...In other words we are in total agreement !

a reply to: EartOccupant

Speaking of ifs...

The abstract says..

It could be concluded

Could.

Since we only have access to the abstract, I don't know how anyone can make any definitive assessment.

Especially the OP who, despite the could bit in the abstract, has proudly declared that this New 90-Day Rat Study Destroys Corporate GMO Propaganda

I call BS on that.

That is fake hyperbole.

a reply to: Chadwickus

So do you assert that GMO crops that have pesticides intertwined into their DNA are safe for long term human consumption?

a reply to: Chadwickus

Fair enough!

Premature things happening on both sides.

a reply to: EartOccupant

Do I get this right?

So you start with : "if"

Correct. If... then is the correct way to lay out a logical argument.

And you concluded with: "is" flawed.

Without reading it, and knowing anymore about it?

Yes. Did I not explain my reasons clearly? The sample size was too small to be significant.

a reply to: Vector99

Well let's discuss bt corn, bt corn contains Bacillus thuringiensis genes.

And bt has been used on crops for over 50 years

Bt proteins has been used in many organic farms for over 50 years as a microbial pest control agent (MCPA). Bt proteins are allowed in organic farming as a insecticide because Bt is a natural, non-pathogenic bacterium that is found naturally in the soil. Bt has also been found to be safe to all higher animals tested.

www.bt.ucsd.edu...

a reply to: DJW001

Thats nonsense.

You have to start somewhere, and if you get differences you can upscale the sample size.
Research is selden unsignificant.

I'm not talking about the ( premature ) conclusions.

I do wonder however where premature conclusions ends and early warning signs begins...