Info Service on Health Issues (Jan10/01)
GMOs linked to organ damage
controversy over GM foods refuses to go away.
a recent study researchers have linked organ damage with consumption
of Monsanto’s GM maize. The following article outlines the key aspects
of the study on three types of GM maize which were approved for consumption
in many countries.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License
Three approved GMOs linked to organ damage
By Rady Ananda*, New
York, January 2010
In what is being
described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects
of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have
linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto's GM maize.
All three varieties of GM corn - Mon 810, Mon 863 and NK 603 - were
approved for consumption by US, European and several other national
food safety authorities.
Made public by European authorities in 2005, Monsanto's confidential
raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats that these researchers analyzed
is the same data, ironically, that was used to approve them in different
parts of the world.
The Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN)
and Universities of Caen and Rouen
studied Monsanto's 90-day feeding trials data of insecticide-producing
Mon 810, Mon 863 and Roundup herbicide absorbing NK 603 varieties of
The data "clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver,
the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages
to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system," reported
Gilles-Eric Seralini, a molecular biologist at the University
Although different levels of adverse impact on vital organs were noticed
between the three GMOs, the 2009 research shows specific effects associated
with consumption of each GMO, differentiated by sex and dose.
Their December 2009 study appears in the International Journal of Biological
Sciences (IJBS). This latest study conforms with a 2007 analysis by
CRIIGEN on Mon 863, published in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology,
using the same data.
Monsanto rejected the 2007 conclusions, stating: "The analyses
conducted by these authors are not consistent with what has been traditionally
accepted for use by regulatory toxicologists for analysis of rat toxicology
[Also see Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, et al. "Report of an expert
panel on the re-analysis by Seralini et al. (2007) of a 90-day study
conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified
corn variety (MON 863)." Food Chem Toxicol. 2007; 45:2073-2085.]
In an email to me, Seralini explained that their study goes beyond Monsanto's
analysis by exploring the sex-differentiated health effects on mammals,
which Doull, et al, ignored:
"Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically
neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in
males and females eating GMO's, or not proportional to the dose. This
is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major
conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto
crude statistical data."
OTHER PROBLEMS WITH MONSANTO'S CONCLUSIONS
When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is
to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats,
yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.
Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests
run for up to two years. Tests "lasting longer than three months
give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or
cancer diseases," wrote Seralini, et al, in their Doull rebuttal.
[See "How Sub-chronic and Chronic Health Effects Can Be Neglected
for GMO's, Pesticides or Chemicals." IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]
Further, Monsanto's analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying
the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, "In order to isolate
the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it
is only valid to compare the GMO ... with its isogenic non-GM equivalent."
The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies
reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and
may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.
They have called for "an immediate ban on the import and cultivation
of these GMO's and strongly recommend additional long-term (up to two
years) and multi-generational animal feeding studies on at least three
species to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic
toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods."
Human health, of course, is of primary import to us, but ecological
effects are also in play. Ninety-nine percent of GMO crops either tolerate
or produce insecticide. This may be the reason we see bee colony collapse
disorder and massive butterfly deaths.
If GMOs are wiping out Earth's pollinators, they are far more disastrous
than the threat they pose to humans and other mammals.
(* Rady Ananda began blogging in 2004. Her work has appeared in several
online and print publications, including three books on election fraud.
Most of her career was spent working for lawyers in research, investigations
and as a paralegal. She spent seven years as an editor, two of them
as a web editor for a site with 20,000 members. In December 2003, she
graduated from The Ohio State University's School
with a BS in Natural Resources. The above article can be found at http://messenger.truthout.org/ss/link.php?M=55415&N=455&C=8f749ca33fdcff7
TO MAIN | ONLINE
BOOKSTORE | HOW TO ORDER