Look who's squealing now: GMO lovers freak over new study of sick pigs

Look who's squealing now: GMO lovers freak over new study of sick pigs

grist.org

Researchers said there were no differences seen between pigs fed the GM and non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine blood biochemistry measurements.

But those pigs that ate the GM diet had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation — 32 percent of GM-fed pigs compared to 12 percent of non-GM-fed pigs. The inflammation was worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0, and GM-fed females compared to non-GM-fed females by a factor of 2.2. As well, GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25 percent heavier than non-GM fed pigs, the study said.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.reuters.com
www.organic-systems.org

Well this is great news in the GMO debate (for those anti transgenic GMO.)

This is just a ~23 week, peer review, blinded study to study the effects of pigs eating GMO food. The results are undeniable, so one can only imagine the effects of a lifetime consumption of transgenic GMO foods, since I don't think there are any scientific studies on it, as it is a new technology.



In a nutshell, those are the definitive results with a pic.

You can read the report [here].

Thoughts everyone?

grist.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

Monsanto and our corrupt government simply ignore studies like this because they are inconvenient.

The truth is the only way to stop the mass poisoning of the population is to vote with your dollars and avoid all of the products containing this filthy GMO crap.

The good news is that even main stream retailers like Kroger and Wal-mart are now offering a variety of non-gmo products.

reply to post by Philippines


Posted 4 days ago.

Evidence of GMO Harm in Pig Study

reply to post by Carreau


Oh wow thanks =)

More and more studies will come out, revealing the dangers of GMO. (I predict)

How to Avoid Genetically Modified Foods

It's not as easy as reading labels, because in the US, there is no law that the foods must be labeled. And states cannot legally require labels warning of GMOs:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

(Actually, I don't know yet if this amendment passed and is contained in the Farm Bill or not... )

CT just past a law to require GMO product to be labeled as such. The only requirement is that surrounding states do the same.

Not perfect but a step in the right direction.

reply to post by Philippines


Stomach inflammation? No more detail than that? I take it we are actually talking about the organ, the stomach? Surely there must be some reason for the inflammation which can be tested for by running a metric ton of blood examinations, and testing chunks of the stomach, lining, and all exits and entries in and out of the stomach too? There must be more to whats happening to these pigs which would explain the inflammation.

It is unacceptable that more has not been done to find out what precise medical cause the inflammation has.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by Philippines

 

Stomach inflammation? No more detail than that? I take it we are actually talking about the organ, the stomach? Surely there must be some reason for the inflammation which can be tested for by running a metric ton of blood examinations, and testing chunks of the stomach, lining, and all exits and entries in and out of the stomach too? There must be more to whats happening to these pigs which would explain the inflammation.

It is unacceptable that more has not been done to find out what precise medical cause the inflammation has.

There is more explanation, in the discussion section of the study. I agree with you - there need to be more tests across the entire spectrum, with full transparency, especially from private firms

One explanation for the inflammation results could lie with the Cry 3Bb1 and Cry 1Ab proteins that these GM corn varieties are engineered to produce. They act as insecticides by inducing pore formation and disintegration of the gut tissue (Spok et al., 2007) of certain grubs that attack corn plants. It has been argued that these proteins cannot harm the gastrointestinal tract of mammals because mammals lack the necessary gut environment and receptors (ANZFA, 2000). However, Vazquez-Padron et al. (2000) found six proteins in the mouse small intestine that could bind to a Cry protein (Cry 1Ac). Furthermore, when the Cry protein bound to these proteins, it resulted in hyperpolarisation of the intestine, which is consistent with the formation of cationic channels, as occurs in the insect gut (Vazquez-Padron et al., 2000). In addition, an independent in vivo study found structural changes and hyperplasia in the ileum of mice fed a Cry protein for two weeks (Fares & El-Sayed, 1998). Chowdhury et al. (2003) and Walsh et al. (2012b) found the Cry1Ab protein (which was present in the feed in our study) throughout the digestive tract of pigs. Chowdhury et al. (2003) found the protein (and sections of the gene that codes for it) in the stomach, duodenum, ileum, caecum and rectum of pigs fed Bt11 corn for four weeks, while Walsh et al. (2012b) found the protein in the stomach, caecum and colon of pigs fed MON810 corn for 110 days (they appear not to have looked in the rectum), indicating that this protein is resistant to digestion in pigs. In our study, stomach inflammation may be due to one or both of the Cry proteins fed in the study and future studies may provide answers.

Conclusion
Pigs fed a GMO diet exhibited heavier uteri and a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation than pigs fed a comparable non-GMO diet. Given the widespread use of GMO feed for livestock as well as humans this is a cause for concern. The results indicate that it would be prudent for GM crops that are destined for human food and animal feed, including stacked GM crops, to undergo long-term animal feeding studies preferably before commercial planting, particularly for toxicological and reproductive effects. Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and these GM crops are widely consumed by people, particularly in the USA, so it would be be prudent to determine if the findings of this study are applicable to humans.

If these problems occur for ingesting GMO food for ~23 weeks ingestion, what about 23+ years?

reply to post by Philippines


Looking at the autopsy proceedure, I am somewhat confused as to why it was done the way it was done. First of all, although I am aware that vets, like doctors, learn about the processes of the anatomy of thier chosen lifeforms by cutting up dead bodies of that lifeform, I highly doubt there is anything as specialised as an animal coroner. That shouldnt mean that autopsy proceedure for a live stock animal should be any different than the proceedure used on a person, that is to say that bodies should remain largely intact before examination.

In my veiw the bodies should have remained whole until the time of the autopsy, which would have removed one level of possible error from the trial as a whole. Also, the autopsies should have been performed in thier entirety by one doctor to one autopsy, that is, the whole animal being disected, examined and understood by the same person. Obviously an assistant would have been required but that is by the by.

With the proceedure being broken up like it was, details which might have been important may have been overlooked. Its like when a mechanic looks inside the engine of a car. If all he sees is the piston block and the fan, he is unlikely to be able to explain an alternator malfunction, or even identify one. Autopsy is supposed to consist of a total mapping of a body, resulting in data being extracted by the examiner, which leads to an understanding of the whole physical condition of the subject.

Why split the process up? It doesnt seem to be a measure which promotes accuracy and validity in my opinion. Also, there was mention in the report of some inability to examine certain sections of the digestive tract because they were full of excreta , hours after the deaths. I have been interested in human anatomy for some time, and as a result I am aware that when an organ or length of intestine or digestive tract is full of matter, there are methods to remove that matter. In fact that matter should probably have been removed from whatever part of the body it was in, so that it could be in its turn, examined, catalogued, tested and pored over. Surely running a tube up there and pumping the item clean would have been an idea. Either that or squeeze it like a bag of icing? I mean what kind of an autopsy doesnt account for all material within the body? I would want blood product, stools, liver and kidney content, an examination of the blood brain barrier, central nervous system fluid, just for starters mind you.... Sheesh!

It seems as if these autopsy proceedures were designed to be as needlessly over complicated, stunted, and incapable of finding anything suggestive as possible. That any identification, no matter how rudimentary or theroretical, of the presence of an unusual protien was made, is in my opinion near miraculous.

I dont like the idea of GM crops any more than any one around here. But that doesnt mean I would take on face value, anything that came out of such a fractured examination process.

A very poorly designed experiment. Let's feed pigs diets from different sources and see what happens. Maybe we can find something.

Animals fed different diets showed different characteristics. Not too surprising really. Were the differences due to the GMO component? No way to tell from the way the experiment was conducted. Apparently there was no actual analysis of the diets. Just an assumption on the part of the experimenters:

there should be no phenotypical variation between the GM and non-GM varieties used in this study that could influence the outcomes measured in this study.

gmojudycarman.org...
An odd statement since there are a number of factors other than genetics involved in phenotypical characteristics in crops. For example, it is known that hormone levels in soybean crops can vary (unrelated to the GMO factor).

Soy research is complicated because there’s considerable variation in isoflavone exposure among people classified as soy consumers. Agronomic factors (such as the soybean cultivar and the environmental conditions under which the crop grew) affect a food’s isoflavone profile, as does the way a soy food is processed.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


An interesting "Conflict of Interest Statement" in the report too.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest

That's a pretty odd thing to see in a scientific article. Pre-emptive denial?
But right after that it says funding came from Verity Farms. Verity Farms is quite openly anti-GMO,


I see no indication that normal variation was accounted for in the statistical analysis but I do see that the non-GMO fed animals had more stomach inflammation overall than the GMO fed animals.

Originally posted by Phage
A very poorly designed experiment. Let's feed pigs diets from different sources and see what happens. Maybe we can find something.

Animals fed different diets showed different characteristics. Not too surprising really. Were the differences due to the GMO component? No way to tell from the way the experiment was conducted. Apparently there was no actual analysis of the diets. Just an assumption on the part of the experimenters:

there should be no phenotypical variation between the GM and non-GM varieties used in this study that could influence the outcomes measured in this study.

gmojudycarman.org...
An odd statement since there are a number of factors other than genetics involved in phenotypical characteristics in crops. For example, it is known that hormone levels in soybean crops can vary (unrelated to the GMO factor).

Soy research is complicated because there’s considerable variation in isoflavone exposure among people classified as soy consumers. Agronomic factors (such as the soybean cultivar and the environmental conditions under which the crop grew) affect a food’s isoflavone profile, as does the way a soy food is processed.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


An interesting "Conflict of Interest Statement" in the report too.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest

That's a pretty odd thing to see in a scientific article. Pre-emptive denial?
But right after that it says funding came from Verity Farms. Verity Farms is quite openly anti-GMO,


I see no indication that normal variation was accounted for in the statistical analysis but I do see that the non-GMO fed animals had more stomach inflammation overall than the GMO fed animals.

edit on 6/15/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Phage
A very poorly designed experiment. Let's feed pigs diets from different sources and see what happens. Maybe we can find something.

You make a good point on your first few sentences. What should the spectrum of testing be, and what time horizon?

The biggest problem with GMO foods is that we simply don't know either way whether they cause harm or not.

However, the GMO = good because we stand to make a huge amount of money out of it mob are quite prepared to use us all as guinea pigs and run all the way to the bank maniacally laughing with our money. Then use the money gained from us to sink any of our concerns and evidence that it might be harmful in a mire of legal red tape.

This is hardly an even and balanced field we enter when trying to establish the actual truth

reply to post by markosity1973

The biggest problem with GMO foods is that we simply don't know either way whether they cause harm or not.

Can you explain why there is any reason to think that GMO foods might cause harm?

reply to post by Phage


Can you prove that putting scorpion DNA in a tomato to give it better pest resistance does not cause harm

There is no harm in selective breeding or in plant cloning, we've proved that over thousands of years, but putting animal dna into a plant is a totally different kettle of fish and we need to study it better before declaring it safe for consumption. Animals and plants don't interbreed in nature so this is uncharted territory.

Does anyone remember the 'miracle' supposedly totally safe wonder chemical DDT? That was a total disaster and is now banned for sale everywhere because it's so toxic. So please forgive me if I am dubious.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by markosity1973

 

The biggest problem with GMO foods is that we simply don't know either way whether they cause harm or not.

Can you explain why there is any reason to think that GMO foods might cause harm?

Phage,

GMO crops vs, organic crops for feed.

We have a working farm in Michigan and I can tel you from what I have seen over the years animals know the difference, whether they are domestic, or wild animals will choose not to eat GMO feed. The only time they will eat it is if there is absolutely nothing else to eat, sometimes I have seen a pile of corn go untouched for weeks.

Here is a link I think you'll find interesting.

www.i-sis.org.uk...

Re-analysis of experiments on chickens and on rats fed Chardon LL GM maize suggest that, contrary to the official conclusions, at least some individual animals do not gain weight as rapidly as they should when given a diet including GM feed. Furthermore, there appear to be irregularities in the feeding habits of at least some animals given GM feed. In the experiment on chickens, mortality was twice as high among those fed the GM maize as among those fed non-GM maize. Existing scientific evidence indicates that farm animals prefer organically produced over conventionally produced feed; while a substantial amount of anecdotal evidence on both domestic and wild animals indicates that, given a choice, they will avoid GM feed and, if forced to eat GM feed, they do not thrive.

Well, I don't need proof to avoid eating GMO food. I understand the metabolism and our evolution to food well enough to understand I am not going to eat much of it if I have a choice. It is being used in so many foods nowadays that it is ridiculous. An occasional meal containing small amounts won't hurt me but to eat it every day can cause problems. If people want to eat it, let them, it's their life. Maybe I'll buy some stock in the Pharma companies who will be profiting the most.

People don't have to complain about GMO food, just stop eating anything that has any chance of being GMO. This will throw the food industry into a turmoil and the big corporations will start loosing money and execs will start to lose their jobs. No proof needed, just spread the word about which foods are known to contain anything GMO, the social media is a great thing.

You don't need any evidence to stop buying a product, there is no law that keeps us from telling others that a product contains GMO.

reply to post by Phage


The one study done on humans with gmos,proved the DNA markers from the gmo items,transferred INTO the bacteria in our guts ,and oh yeah,kept reproducing . So even if you stopped eating gmos ,it is potentially still in your gi tract at all times.
I believe the study was done in 2002. Do google it .It's quite interesting .

This study did not biopsy the patients tissues however ,so there is no data showing that gmo foods alter our DNA at a cellular level ,and guess why there are no studies about this ...
I mean it can enter one kind of cell on a cellular level ,why not another ?

They dont do human studies ,as the truth about gmos altering our DNA on a cellular level would be EXPOSED .

Any studies Monsanto does ,are the ones that are biased ,and they cover up anyone else's studies or launch smear campaigns to disprove them on the net .

So yes folks ,gmo DNA can and does alter the DNA of other cells it comes in contact with inside our bodies after we eat it ,and then it does what DNA does ,it replicates.
What is it again that causes cancer.....wait....let me ttthhiinnkkkk *taps finger to forehead*,
It will come to me ......

LOL LOL LOL

reply to post by Philippines


Buy stock in tummy ache medicine companies.

reply to post by Metallicus

I am amazed by the shelf life of organic milk. A month or more vs. a week or so for non organic. I thought that the goal of all this fancy- shmancy technology was to make products better....