Study finds tumors in rats fed on Monsanto's GM corn

Study finds tumors in rats fed on Monsanto's GM corn

news.yahoo.com

In a study that prompted criticism from other experts, French scientists said on Wednesday that rats fed on Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) corn or exposed to its top-selling weedkiller suffered tumors and multiple organ damage.

Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and colleagues said ra]ts fed on a diet containing NK603 - a seed variety made tolerant to dousings of Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller - or given water with Roundup at levels permitted in the United States, died earlier than those on a standard diet.

Experts not involved in the study were highly skeptical about

(visit the link for the full news article)

Roundup is poison and it needs to be taken out of our food supply. The people who are meant to protect us allow it to be used so they are part of the problem.

Many of our children have been eating this crap for years and I hope this trend does not find it's way to humans. Of course Monsanto weren't available for comment.

Monsanto needs to go!

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I meant to add more to my opening post but I kept on getting syntax errors so I decided to keep the post as simple as possible.

Here are some additional links to the story:

www.reuters.com...

www.cnbc.com...

www.chicagotribune.com...

Here are some related threads:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Does roundup have any relation to the agent orange corn that is being grown now?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We're being poisoned overtly.

It's all out war against the human race it seems.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Does Not surprise me one bit! And of course it has found it's way to us. I believe that was an intentional 'side effect' of why they created the GMO's to begin with!? And aren't there some of our Gov Officials, past and/or present, like high count Stock Holders/Board Members at Monsanto?
I know, here come the Flames.......
Great Thread here! Thanx, Later, Syx.

I would presume that these other "experts" whom are critical against this study, are very deep in Monsanto´s pocket. But nothing surprising about that really.

Everyone needs to fully understand how severely important it is, to find food in our own ways. If not, I wish they would at least carefully investigate what they are buying. Many don't heed but, there are many who stand like us, knowing how dangerous it is to go out there eating anything that sits on a shelf or popping any medication the FDA approves. Why people seem to not take responsibility for their own lives, but instead leave it up to monsanto & the FDA is beyond me. Not everything that exists within our supermarkets is hardly considered safe. If they do not grow their own foods, they are better off buying from neighboring farms somewhere in the country or state they live in or visiting a farmers market. Unfortunately though, fewer of these farms are considered safe anymore due to Monsanto. This is sickening and indeed, very real. Farmers are being sued all around the world, as well as farmers suing Monsanto. This is a ongoing battle where in the meantime, close to NONE escape the reach of Monsanto. I think people should at least have the right to know if their food contains GMO or not. Of course, people should find out themselves, yes.. either way there should be labels. My fiance called Monsanto & had huge debates with them numerous times. They get mad and silent alot. Meh. www.centerforfoodsafety.org...

I know i am probably going to catch flak for this but...

I consider myself among the camp in support of genetic modification. Let me add that though i am in favor of genetic modification, i only support it for the greater good of our species.

Genetically modified foods, in a ideal sense, could potentially yield larger volumes of crops, perhaps provide more nutritional foods and things of the like.

Additionally, the potential for the genetic manipulation of the human genome has almost limitless potential and is inevitable in my opinion.

Now as for the genetic modification as per the OP, it is pure exploitation of current scientific means to improve the economic bottom line. Assuming the study is yielding accurate results, Monsanto has obviously rushed into things far to quickly and could potentially harm the global population.

I will conclude this post by reiterating that genetic modification will one day be reliable enough to potentially solve world hunger, disease and human suffering and companies like Monsanto are unfortunately building a bad reputation for this field.

reply to post by MDDoxs


I also believe it can be used in good ways, so I see your point.
But it should be done in a nonprofit manner by open-source organizations. Taking time to do it the right way.

reply to post by MDDoxs


There is a HUGE difference between genetic modification for the purpose of good versus using poisonous pesticides on our food supply.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


I agree, though i am not to sure how your comment directly relates to my post, as nowhere did i say the two ends of the spectrum were close.

Further, i was addressing the issue of creating a false image around genetic modification. As per the OP, the genetically modified crops were altered to tolerate the "Round-Up" pesticide. The pesticide is most likely the culprit in the growth of these tumors, but because the two work in conjunction with one another, GE Corn + Pesticide, the article appears to infer that the GE produce is just as responsible.

Don’t get me wrong, the blatant attempts by Monsanto to increase profits is sickening and it could tarnish the future development of this field.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005

Food and Chemical Toxicology

Available online 19 September 2012

In Press, Corrected Proof

Article history
Received 11 April 2012
Accepted 2 August 2012
Available online 19 September 2012

Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize

Gilles-Eric Séralini a,
Emilie Clair a,
Robin Mesnage a,
Steeve Gress a,
Nicolas Defarge a,
Manuela Malatesta b,
Didier Hennequin c,
Joël Spiroux de Vendômois a

a University of Caen, Institute of Biology, CRIIGEN and Risk Pole, MRSH-CNRS, EA 2608, Esplanade de la Paix, Caen Cedex 14032, France

b University of Verona, Department of Neurological, Neuropsychological, Morphological and Motor Sciences, Verona 37134, Italy

c University of Caen, UR ABTE, EA 4651, Bd Maréchal Juin, Caen Cedex 14032, France

Abstract

The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.

Highlights

► A Roundup-tolerant maize and Roundup provoked chronic hormone and sex dependent pathologies. ► Female mortality was 2–3 times increased mostly due to large mammary tumors and disabled pituitary. ► Males had liver congestions, necrosis, severe kidney nephropathies and large palpable tumors. ► This may be due to an endocrine disruption linked to Roundup and a new metabolism due to the transgene. ► GMOs and formulated pesticides must be evaluated by long term studies to measure toxic effects..

Abbreviations

GM, genetically modified;
R, Roundup;
MRL, maximal residual levels;
GMO, genetically modified organism;
OECD, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development;
GT, glutamyl-transferase;
PCA, principal component analysis;
PLS, partial least-squares;
OPLS, orthogonal partial least-squares;
NIPALS, Nonlinear Iterative Partial Least Squares;
OPLS-DA, Orthogonal Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis;
G, glycogen;
L, lipid droplet;
N, nucleus;
R, rough endoplasmic reticulum (on microscopy pictures only);
U, urinary;
UEx, excreted in urine during 24 h;
APPT, Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time;
MCV, Mean Corpuscular Volume;
PT, Prothrombine Time;
RBC, Red Blood Cells;
ALT, alanine aminotransferase;
MCHC, Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration;
A/G, Albumin/Globulin ratio;
WBC, White Blood Cells;
AST, aspartate aminotransferase

Keywords

GMO;
Roundup;
NK603;
Rat;
Glyphosate-based herbicides;
Endocrine disrupting effects

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


CE. you are correct in all aspects of this..

No two ways about it. FDA, well its obvious their in
Monsanto back pocket, amoung others.

Warning labels they put on to their products we buy in retail outlets have a Warning, for Human and Pets to come into in contact when using it for whatever your cause in doing so.

Now is it any different in putting(poisons) the same base on our Food for the sake of preventing any growth from elements that were preventing profit.

Insects have it figured out...
That is to say they can die off by the thousands but they will adapt, we don't see that but it's known.
Meanwhile, we as humans are in a different positions to handle it. Here we can add, the Medical industry/Pharmacy is doing great!

But by Law, this was pushed somewhere down the line to protect them... presumely(Doctors) they can't tell you their real thoughts of the cause of your sicken body.

Meanwhile the masses will consume it with very little choice or insight.

Attack this with passion CE, there are many before you that had brought this to ATS table.
Make it a Movie for everyone to see... it could become a best film in all awards!
Just saying! Thats what it would take to get it out there.. MSN will only cover it afterwards.

But that would take a film company with Balls to produce it.

Thanks for showing your concern!

Jesse
.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


S & F

Monsanto is just bad news all around.

Related thread.

Monsanto - Engineering Death: Bees, Bats and You?

Well apparently the agenda is clear, here:

en.wikipedia.org...

It sterilizes rabbits!

reply to post by MDDoxs


You are correct, I didn't properly comprehend your first post and unfairly nit picked that one portion without addressing the rest of your post so I apologize. I was multi-tasking and not being as attentive as I should have been.

You did acknowledge the evils of Monsanto so I should not have jumped on you like that, even though it wasn't meant to be confrontational so I hope it did not seem that way.

I still disagree with your views on genetic modification, even though I do see potential good that can come from it. My concern is that there is far more potential for bad then good considering the people who will most likely have access to this technology.

In your defense, if this technology was put to good use with truly good intentions by non corrupted people it sure could make the world a much better place.

reply to post by jessemole


I'm glad you agree

Thankfully most people are waking up to the horrors of Monsanto (and friends) and the problems they are causing with our food supply. The whole system is so screwed up that they have managed to gain a complete monopoly on our food supply and their friends in high places make it more difficult for those who are aware to avoid their products, they also make it difficult to produce our own products that are less harmful.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Thanks for adding the thread as it is relevant to the discussion at hand

I have never seen that one before so I will need to spend some time reading up on it.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


No apology needed my friend.

I like taking the opposite side of the topic to offer a different perspective, even if that perspective is less popular.

I agree with you to an extent on the topic of exploiting genetic modification, but it seems that any new technological or scientific breakthrough has someone using it for harmful purposes. I am sure the telephone had its share of prank callers who took advantage of the new technology.

What we need to examine is the cost to benefit ratio, but perhaps that is for another thread.

reply to post by Unity_99


Wow!

I was unaware that it sterilized rabbits, but I am not surprised. Add it to the list of horrible things that their products do.

Wait until Beezer and Wrabbit find out about this