It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New 90-Day Rat Study Destroys Corporate GMO Propaganda

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 08:20 AM
a reply to: VinylTyrant

An alarm must've went off at headquarters over there.

Oh yay, a shill accusation.

Listen, I'm in the process of reading the data. I'm also formulating a list of questions for the researchers in this study.

The team involved in this study is out of Egypt so there may be a language barrier.

This is part of the process. I find it amazing that ONE study elicits so much hyperbole both from the article and folks around here.

Secondly after our previous debates I find it interesting that you would look upon this study with favor considering how much and how aggressively you and others derided the peer review process. I guess if it confirms your bias then it is viewed legitimately.

I, however, simply want to ask questions and look at further studies in the future on this issue. There are many factors here which require clarification before we make assumptions like "Destroys Corporate GMO Propaganda".

Cheering on the scientific method when it works for you and then ignoring it when it doesn't makes you a hypocrite.
edit on 5 1 17 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 08:31 AM
a reply to: projectvxn

Naah man, I'm just pullin your sack with the shill acusation.

I just have my views and they are what they are. My personal preference is to keep as much scientific experiment off my dinnerplate as possible. Whatever I can pick off my garden is a plus. The rest I would at least expect to not lead to chrons or colitis or abs or cancer or any other disaster t h at can come from "future food".
When I shop the fairway by me I shop the perimeter of the store.

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 08:59 AM
a reply to: 727Sky

By the time you get to sue them like the Cigarette industry it will be too late to send the responsible party's to jail and million's OR billion's will have suffered along with long term and perhaps even permanent eco system damage and cross pollination by genetically altered strain's of plant's with both plant and non plant species.

Green peace warned the world but OH NO it's a liberal movement shut them up and get on with poisoning the planet so we can reap a profit at there expense.

The one difference and it is very small consolation is that it will not take as long as it did for the Cigarette industry to be proven wrong and only a few decade's but in ecological term's as well as global nutritional term's that is a very long time and a hell of a lot of irreparable damage will have been done, has already been done.

Now don't get me wrong there most certainly is a place in medicine and in food for genetic modification but not on the term's of a Corporate Profit motivation and not on there short turn around in research to profit which Monsanto and other's are performing as this can only lead to poor science and harmful modification.

To be quite frank the genetically altered splices Frankenstein's monster of a product that these corporations are peddling is faulty and harmful, it is NOT grown correctly in the correct condition's and they are using the third world as there testing ground knowing full well that what they have seeded there is detrimental to the entire ecological balance of those nation's as well as harmful to the native farmers whom end up being bound to contract obliging them to buy this faulty product.

Often this too leads' to the extinction of long term locally adapted and also high yield native crops which is then a permanent loss to those region's and the nation's situated in them as well as by a knock on effect the rest of the planet.

Essentially regardless of whether they have state backing or not, own a government or not they are acting in an irresponsible and even criminal fashion, but hey just like fracking right.

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 09:23 AM
The negative effects of genetically modified corn on rats has been researched for quite a few years, and some scientists have concluded that it will impact human health, too. The particular study that I am referencing here evaluated the effects over the lifetime of the rodents in comparison to the 90 day experiment highlighted by the OP.

That abstract include this text. Note: "hepatorenal toxicity" means toxic to the liver. Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded. Learn more:

Study from 2009

Here are some quotes from the researchers: "This research shows an extraordinary number of tumors developing earlier and more aggressively - particularly in female animals. I am shocked by the extreme negative health impacts." - Dr Michael Antoniou, molecular biologist, King's College London. "We can expect that the consumption of GM maize and the herbicide Roundup, impacts seriously on human health." - Dr Antoniou. "This is the first time that a long-term animal feeding trial has examined the impact of feeding GM corn or the herbicide Roundup, or a combination of both and the results are extremely serious. In the male rats, there was liver and kidney disorders, including tumors and even more worryingly, in the female rats, there were mammary tumors at a level which is extremely concerning; up to 80 percent of the female rats had mammary tumors by the end of the trial." - Patrick Holden, Director, Sustainable Food Trust. Learn more:

Source Article

Some of you have probably heard me say this before: I hate the fact that we test on animals (period).

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 10:12 AM
Was the non-GMO organic, and the GMO treated with Roundup?

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 10:26 AM
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Those are great questions, but I am unable to provide an answer because I just could not locate that exact information. Here is what I was able to extract:

The study fed these rats NK603, the Monsanto variety of GM corn that's grown across North America and widely fed to animals and humans. This is the same corn that's in your corn-based breakfast cereal, corn tortillas and corn snack chips. Learn more:

The three animal feeding studies were conducted in two different laboratories and at two different dates; at Monsanto (Missouri, USA) for NK 603 and MON 810 (June 7, 2000) and at Covance Laboratories Inc. (Virginia, USA) for MON 863 (March 14, 2001) on behalf of Monsanto. The young adult male and female rats, approximately 4-6 week-old, were of the Sprague-Dawley albino strain Crl:CD(SD)IGS BR®, (obtained from Charles River Laboratories Inc., NY, USA). The animals (400 per GMO; 200 for each sex) were randomized for similar body weight distribution. In fact, there were only two treated groups for each sex (20 animals each consuming specific GM maize feed). Only 10 rats were measured per group for blood and urine parameters and served as the basis for the major statistical analyses conducted. In addition, the investigators claimed that OECD guidelines and standards were followed. For each type of GM maize, only two feeding doses were tested per sex. This consisted of either 11 or 33% GM maize in an otherwise equivalent equilibrated diet; that is when the diet contained only 11% GM maize, the difference was made up by adding 22% non-GM maize (varieties not indicated). There were also two comparative control groups fed diets containing similar quantities of the closest isogenic or parental maize variety. Furthermore, groups of animals were also fed with diets containing one of six other normal (non-GM) reference maize lines; the same lines for the NK 603 and MON 810 tests, but different types for the MON 863 trials. We note that these unrelated, different non-GM maize types were not shown to be substantially equivalent to the GMOs. The quantity of some sugars, ions, salts, and pesticide residues, do in fact differ from line to line, for example in the non-GM reference groups. This not only introduced unnecessary sources of variability but also increased considerably the number of rats fed a normal non-GM diet (320) compared to the GM-fed groups (80) per transformation event, which considerably unbalances the experimental design. A group consisting of the same number of animals fed a mixture of these test diets would have been a better and more appropriate control. In addition, no data is shown to demonstrate that the diets fed to the control and reference groups were indeed free of GM feed.

edit on 152017 by seattlerat because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 10:33 AM
a reply to: seattlerat

As a general rule of thumb if the crop is Monsanto it is almost always sold as a seed package with roundup the infamous cancer causing weed killer but given that this was a scientific study they probably avoided all outside influence so it was probably the naked crop with NO weed killer, they may even have had a control sample of a natural grain, a genetically modified test run and also one using Roundup.

Roundup is of course already noted to cause deformity and cancer as well as poison the ground it is used on and the run of water from that ground with knock on effect's on local and non local drainage water such as river's and lake's.

IT would have needed to be a naked grain for the scientific analysis to be regarded as valid especially in light of peer review as to use contaminated grain would have invalidated the result's of the experiment therefore I should strongly suspect naked grain untreated by roundup BUT if they sourced it from a farmer growing Monsanto provided grain then immediatly it is 99.99 percent likely to have also been treated with Roundup which of course then schew's the result's of the test and invalidates the finding's as the cause of the damage could be related to other than the GM grain and simply down to the pesticide also provided by the same corporation as part of there seed and pesticide sales pitch.

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 11:08 AM
Good to see rational heads in here.

I happen to have a good head for chemistry, and horticulture, and over the years I've always kept my eyes open towards this issue in regards to anyone anywhere ever offering some ind of chemistry arguments about the end results of GMO vs. NON in terms of a different chemical makeup, in general, but especially in terms of what new chemistry could possibly be involved between one and the other.

This entire perspective I find seems to always be absent. It doesn't make for as good as a boogeymen when forced to accept the fact that DNA only equals blueprint, and that it's the resulting chemistry from said blueprint that is the actual topic.

Now Bt itself would such a argument...

Animal models have been used to assess human health risk from consumption of products containing Cry proteins. The United States Environmental Protection Agency recognizes mouse acute oral feeding studies where doses as high as 5,000 mg/kg body weight resulted in no observed adverse effects.[52] Research on other known toxic proteins suggests that toxicity occurs at much lower doses, further suggesting that Bt toxins are not toxic to mammals.[53] The results of toxicology studies are further strengthened by the lack of observed toxicity from decades of use of B. thuringiensis and its crystalline proteins as an insecticidal spray.[citation needed]
Allergenicity studies

Introduction of a new protein raised concerns regarding the potential for allergic responses in sensitive individuals. Bioinformatic analysis of known allergens has indicated there is no concern of allergic reactions as a result of consumption of Bt toxins.[54] Additionally, skin prick testing using purified Bt protein resulted in no detectable production of toxin-specific IgE antibodies, even in atopic patients.[55]
Digestibility studies

Studies have been conducted to evaluate the fate of Bt toxins that are ingested in foods. Bt toxin proteins have been shown to digest within minutes of exposure to simulated gastric fluids.[56] The instability of the proteins in digestive fluids is an additional indication that Cry proteins are unlikely to be allergenic, since most known food allergens resist degradation and are ultimately absorbed in the small intestine.[57]

But when I hear these arguments I envision corporate crops grown industrially, versus some Grade A home hobbiest grown matter. Or something along those lines. And now you bring in Roundup, or who knows what other fungicides, etc, and well.

Now assuming my entire spiel here is totally valid, it still doesnt inherently speak well to the industrial chem food at the store, in totality, but in terms of actual chemistry and the whole GMO IS GONNA GET US argument...

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 11:20 AM
a reply to: Chadwickus

Regarding the last line in your cut and paste, many thing's in the past were found to be safe.. and then later very much not safe.

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 11:23 AM
a reply to: Timely

Health professionals use to recommend Camels..I don't believe

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 01:33 PM
a reply to: vonclod

For me its quite simple.

No matter who is right, at this stage I DEMAND:

1. We should have a choice ( That means clear honest labeling ) and a fair price difference.
2. Manufactures should guarantee ( on personal and their relatives / siblings death sentence penalty's ) their product will not contaminate / cross bread or spread in nature.

So, if they then still want to, they can experiment, and do extensive testing, while keeping us informed and with a everlasting choice!

Everybody happy.

Edit: Actually, second thought.. It still is giving me a unheimlich feeling people are messing with nature on creator levels.
edit on 5-1-2017 by EartOccupant because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 02:15 PM
a reply to: DJW001

Extrapolate that to 300 million Americans...i'd say 30 million with intestinal damage was pretty significant.

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 05:14 PM
a reply to: Bedlam

a reply to: Chadwickus
I read the whole thing, but that was the one thing that stuck out to me. In regards to GMO's for pesticide purposes I'm still on the fence. I simply don't know either way. What kind of mutations in the vegetables are caused? Are they potentially harmful to humans and animals? Lots of pertinent questions that I haven't seen any answers to.

GMO's could be perfectly safe, but they also could be potentially harmful.

Remember, there was a point in time that asbestos was a great insulator and leaded gas was perfectly fine.

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 05:19 PM
a reply to: 727Sky

How are they even able to call it a study with only 10 rats? That isn't even a high school science project.

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 05:36 PM
a reply to: MysterX

Well that's the problem, you can't. The statistical power is too low in the original study.

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 07:48 PM
a reply to: Vector99

There are often good reason's to try to genetically modify a crop, disease resistance, higher yield, grow it and have it thrive in environment's were the natural variety simply can not grow but to do this they have to alter it's gene's and often splice in genetic material that is taken from other species, both plant and animan in origin.

As Ignoranceisbliss point's out this alters the biochemistry of the crop/product and that in term alters how it affect's the consumer.

It can also cause reaction's and allergic responses in the consumer in some case's.

The difference is that wheat is no longer really wheat it is a hybrid that can taste different and cook differently even if it look's similar, have potential side effect's and because it is a hybrid infect the natural wheat through cross pollination.

Now the best comparison is to take genetic modified VS naturally adapted.

Naturally adapted crop's, a farmer over generation's chooses the sample's of his crop that are healthy and grow best in his local environment through selective breeding/growing and this often mean's that it is also highly nutritious and can be cross polyinated with other farmers crop's to create natural hybrid's, there is no genetic modification as it is the natural wheat gene's that have mutated or adapted to the environment in which it has been grown.

G.M. crops take a different ethos, combining DNA to try to create the desired function in a laboratory, giving the plant arctic fish gene's for example so that it's cell's can resist the cold more effectively and not be damaged by frost which of course sound's great, clever and good BUT it can lead to rogue genetic alteration's and there is no way to knowing how this un natural blend of genetic material is going to mutate or how the consumer will react to the strange new chemical/enzymatic reaction's which may occur after they ingest this.

Rogue Enzyme's that are not natural in either the plant or the fish can often be produced by these hybrid creation's, now to explain an Enzyme is a molecule that act's like a Catalyst (help's to break down organic compound's and chemical's) and we produce them in our own digestion process to help us to break down food, it is a problem though if the food is trying to break YOU down.

Virus use Enzyme's in there shell's (Protine sheath's) to help them both pass through cell wall's and to help them integrate into and hijack a cell's nucleus or cytoblast's) so random unknown artificial enzyme's as well as chemical's to which our own digestion has not adapted and can not resist or exploit in our food is a very bad idea (We live in a symbiosis with our food supply, we are adapted to it and choose what we can eat not what we can not eat, as an example in europe milk is consumed and european people are usually lactose tollerant, other group's of human's consume less milk and lack the genetic mutation which allow's european's to break down that lactose so food in each region is also adapted to the native people and vice versa and a one size fit's all shoe made by that genetic cobbler Monsanto and his ilk simply does not and can not fit all feet to draw a crude analogy, some people would suffer bunion's with that shoe and other's would become lame if you catch my drift, it is a corse analogy but you understant my meaning).

But in the march for ever greater profit these megalomaniac pharmaceutical company's such as Monsanto simply do not care, perfectly good food crop's that may never be grown again are going extinct (Because they need to be tended and sown by there farmer's), that is completely extinct as monsanto are pushing this crap onto the third and the first world.

edit on 5-1-2017 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 08:38 PM
a reply to: MysterX

Did you catch the comment to tbe effect that the levels of damage showed patterns that were sex-dependent... In other words, the female rats had higher amounts of abnormal pathology than did the male rats?

Feminist activists damn-near riot when Steve Martin pays a sexist compliment as a posthumous honor, yet not a peep about how 50% of the population's bodies have some potential toward an abnormal biological response to some of the most prevalent ingredients in some of the most common food items, and crickets....

I swear I live in some kind of alternate dystopian reality and hope to wake up some day.

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 09:16 PM
a reply to: Vector99

Feed it to the politicians on a three year trial, then we will have a clearer assessment.

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 09:30 PM
a reply to: LABTECH767

Now don't get me wrong there most certainly is a place in medicine and in food for genetic modification but not on the term's of a Corporate Profit motivation and not on there short turn around in research to profit which Monsanto and other's are performing as this can only lead to poor science and harmful modification.

I think this is where the biggest issue lies, under really controlled conditions with rigorous testing GM may be fine but as you say in the above quote, the profit machine is what will drive this and it cares not who gets hurt in the process...

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 09:33 PM
a reply to: berenike

Rats are actually pretty sweet critters, I never knew until I had to purchase them as food for a snake I have. I feel bad every time I have to feed my python. At least it's quick and painless when I feed the snake, unlike that gmo garbage.

new topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in