Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

[Tapio]

Got this link through some anti-GMO people. I have no idea on how to evaluate the actual study. For all I can tell it seems legit, and will raise eyebrows for sure. Any help?

Link: http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11

Some quotes which made me want to get to the bottom of this.

We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity. This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded [42]. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown.

More...

In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods. Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.

I'd like to quote a few other things as well.

The raw data have been obtained by European governments and made publically available for scrutiny and counter-evaluation. These studies constitute a model to investigate possible subchronic toxicological effects of these GM cereals in mammals and humans. These are the longest in vivo tests performed with mammals consuming these GMOs.

The raw biochemical data, necessary to allow a statistical re-evaluation, should be made publically available according to European Union Directive CE/2001/18 but unfortunately this is not always the case in practice. On this occasion, the data we required for this analysis were obtained either through court actions (lost by Monsanto) to obtain the MON 863 feeding study material (June 2005), or by courtesy of governments or Greenpeace lawyers. We thank the Swedish Board of Agriculture, May 30, 2006 for making public the NK 603 data upon request from Greenpeace Denmark and lawyers from Greenpeace Germany, November 8, 2006 for MON 810 material. This allowed us to conduct for the first time a precise and direct side-by-side comparison of these data from the three feeding trials with these GMOs.

So..what's the deal?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded [42]

I've read the paper in question before, and the statement above casts doubt on their methodology. If they can't separate out the effects of pesticide residue from any effects of the GM maize itself, then the entire study is flawed do to improper control of variables.

 

[!Kaggen]

I've read the paper in question before, and the statement above casts doubt on their methodology. If they can't separate out the effects of pesticide residue from any effects of the GM maize itself, then the entire study is flawed do to improper control of variables.

Well yes, Monsanto who did the study in the first place had a poor experimental design, poor statistics and poor interpretation.

This was the whole point of this article which is a re-analyses of the original Monsanto studies.

This is not news to those that are not buying into GMO pseudoscience.

So what is your point again?

 

[ThunderChunky]

Good summary:

In 2009 three scientists (Vendômois et al) published a statistical re-analysis of three feeding trials that had previously been published by others as establishing the safety of genetically modified corn.[96][97][98] The new article claimed that their statistics instead showed that the three patented crops (Mon 810, Mon 863, and NK 603) developed and owned by Monsanto cause liver, kidney, and heart damage in mammals.[99] A 2007 analysis of part of this data by the same group of scientists funded by Greenpeace[100] was assessed by a panel of independent toxicologists in a study funded by Monsanto and published in the journal Food and chemical toxicology. The reviewers reported that the study was statistically flawed and providing no evidence of adverse effects.[101] The French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee reviewed the 2009 Vendômois et al study and concluded that it "..presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs."[102][103] An evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority of the 2009 and 2007 studies noted that most of the results were within natural variation and they did not consider any of the effects reported biologically relevant.[104][105] A review by Food Standards Australia New Zealand of the 2009 Vendômois et al study concluded that the results were due to chance alone.[106]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#Health_risks

Keep in mind that 15+ years of millions of people eating GM food and no health effects is pretty strong evidence.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I've read the paper in question before, and the statement above casts doubt on their methodology. If they can't separate out the effects of pesticide residue from any effects of the GM maize itself, then the entire study is flawed do to improper control of variables.

Aren't they referring to the pesticides engineered in to the plant?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Aren't they referring to the pesticides engineered in to the plant?

No, I'm pretty sure the paragraph in question refers to OTHER pesticides/herbicides on the corn as residue. The Bt toxin is a separate issue.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

No, I'm pretty sure the paragraph in question refers to OTHER pesticides/herbicides on the corn as residue. The Bt toxin is a separate issue.

You quoted a sentence. The paragraph it comes from (Section 5. Conclusions) has two other sentences, the very next ones, about pesticides and they are very specific about talking about the genetically engineered pesticides. The sentence you quoted also doesn't use the word "residue" (which I think they are using in a confusing way) and says "present specifically in each type of GM maize". Sounds like they are referring to the GM engineered pesticides there to me.

 

[DC]

misread sorry

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

You quoted a sentence. The paragraph it comes from (Section 5. Conclusions) has two other sentences, the very next ones, about pesticides and they are very specific about talking about the genetically engineered pesticides. The sentence you quoted also doesn't use the word "residue" (which I think they are using in a confusing way) and says "present specifically in each type of GM maize". Sounds like they are referring to the GM engineered pesticides there to me.

I'll thoroughly reread the paper later. I've read it a couple of times over the years and I've never been quite sure what the conclusion means. Seems to me they were hedging their bets.

 

[The Don]

This is not news to those that are not buying into GMO pseudoscience.

What do you mean by pseudoscience ?

Are you claiming that they cannot insert genetic material from one organism into another ? If that's your claim I think it's effectively disproved by these glow in the dark puddy tats

Are you claiming that GMOs are in some way harmful to human health ? In which case present your evidence.

Are you claiming that the benefits of GMOs have been overstated ? If that's your claim then you're probably right - it is after all a business with a business's tendency to over-sell, but that hardly makes it a pseudoscience.

 

[!Kaggen]

Good summary:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#Health_risks

Keep in mind that 15+ years of millions of people eating GM food and no health effects is pretty strong evidence.

Control?
Statistics?

 

[!Kaggen]

Are you claiming that the benefits of GMOs have been overstated ? If that's your claim then you're probably right - it is after all a business with a business's tendency to over-sell, but that hardly makes it a pseudoscience.

This is another problem, yes.

The pseudoscience is the dogma that understanding genetics alone is more than sufficient for the commercialization of GMO's. It is whole organisms that interacts with the environment and not genes. After all a particle physicist does not build motorcars.

 

[The Don]

This is another problem, yes.

The pseudoscience is the dogma that understanding genetics alone is more than sufficient for the commercialization of GMO's. It is whole organisms that interacts with the environment and not genes. After all a particle physicist does not build motorcars.

Sorry, took me a while to find this thread again. You made a sweeping statement about the "pesudoscience" of GMOs

What is your problem with GMOs ? You seem to be implying that there are problems with the way in which GMOs interact with the ecosystem. Could you me more specific because as it stands I don't know what kind of evidence to provide to try and get you to change your mind.

It is my understanding that genetic splicing has been conducted successfully and so of itself, GM is not a pseudoscience.

It is also my understanding that large scale trials have been undertaken to attempt to determine the effect of GMOs on the ecosystem. Are you seeking to extend these trials so that we can gather more information or dogmatically refuse to allow these trials to take place on the grounds that someting bad might happen ?

 

[Taffer]

Well yes, Monsanto who did the study in the first place had a poor experimental design, poor statistics and poor interpretation.

This was the whole point of this article which is a re-analyses of the original Monsanto studies.

This is not news to those that are not buying into GMO pseudoscience.

So what is your point again?

Wait, what? Do you know anything about genetics at all?

 

[Michael Mozina]

What is your problem with GMOs ? You seem to be implying that there are problems with the way in which GMOs interact with the ecosystem. Could you me more specific because as it stands I don't know what kind of evidence to provide to try and get you to change your mind.

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/12687-resistant-weeds-spreading-in-canada

IMO I don't think anyone *REALLY* knows what the long term human health effects, or the long term environmental effects might be. IMO that alone, makes me uncomfortable. I don't like being a human guinipig.

These sorts of studies only point out HOW LITTLE we really understand about the long term health effects of modifying our food sources might be, not only on humans, but on the environment as well.

 

[DC]

i am still trying to avoid the stuff.

 

[ThunderChunky]

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/12687-resistant-weeds-spreading-in-canada

IMO I don't think anyone *REALLY* knows what the long term human health effects, or the long term environmental effects might be. IMO that alone, makes me uncomfortable. I don't like being a human guinipig.

These sorts of studies only point out HOW LITTLE we really understand about the long term health effects of modifying our food sources might be, not only on humans, but on the environment as well.

In terms of health, GM is nothing special. They key factor is what is the GM adding? If it's adding a known compound, then we know.

 

[Slimething]

IMO I don't think anyone *REALLY* knows what the long term human health effects, or the long term environmental effects might be. IMO that alone, makes me uncomfortable. I don't like being a human guinipig.

You've been eating genetically modified foods all your life. The only difference between a person cross-breeding specific traits into a crop over, say, 20 years and someone in a lab doing the same thing in minutes is the degree of selectivity. BTW, the GMO crops are tested for toxic effects before they're approved for sale and distribution. You can't say that for the new varieties of "traditional" crops that are offered for sale every year.

These sorts of studies only point out HOW LITTLE we really understand about the long term health effects of modifying our food sources might be, not only on humans, but on the environment as well.

The original study added to our knowledge of the effects of tweaking a certain gene. The meta-study that is the subject of this thread shows how dangerous that type of retrospective is in the hands of people with agendas. You do know that meta-analysis has been used to establish the veracity of ESP, right?

 

[The Don]

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/12687-resistant-weeds-spreading-in-canada

IMO I don't think anyone *REALLY* knows what the long term human health effects, or the long term environmental effects might be. IMO that alone, makes me uncomfortable. I don't like being a human guinipig.

These sorts of studies only point out HOW LITTLE we really understand about the long term health effects of modifying our food sources might be, not only on humans, but on the environment as well.

Reading that article from that very partial source, I'm not entirely sure what GMO specifically has to do with the problem.

from the article....

The University of Guelph researchers explained last year "Resistance evolves after a weed population has been subjected to intense selection pressure in the form of repeated use of a single herbicide. The herbicide controls all the susceptible weeds, leaving only those with a resistant gene to reproduce."

Which seems to relate to which herbicide, which I guess has a relationship to monoculture but which is not an issue of GMO per se.

It seems that the problems of the world are being laid at the door of GMO in an attempt to discredit it as a technology.

• If you believe that Monsanto (and other agriconglomerates) have unfair business practices then this is a problem with big business not with GMO
• If you feel monoculture has a negative impact on biodiversity and that this is a bad thing then that's an issue with intensive (and for intensive read "highly productive in order to feed the world") agriculture in general rather than GMO in particular
• If you feel that over use of pesticides is harmful to human health and/or is contributing to the evolution of pesticide resistant strains then that's a problem with pesticide use and in fact something that engineering disease resistance into plants is supposed to address (because less pesticide will be needed)

 

[DC]

If you feel that over use of pesticides is harmful to human health and/or is contributing to the evolution of pesticide resistant strains then that's a problem with pesticide use and in fact something that engineering disease resistance into plants is supposed to address (because less pesticide will be needed)

oh yeah?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/b...all&adxnnlx=1296644862-esQuGzXh1KSygAw7stV1ZQ

Just as the heavy use of antibiotics contributed to the rise of drug-resistant supergerms, American farmers’ near-ubiquitous use of the weedkiller Roundup has led to the rapid growth of tenacious new superweeds.

To fight them, Mr. Anderson and farmers throughout the East, Midwest and South are being forced to spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing.

“We’re back to where we were 20 years ago,” said Mr. Anderson, who will plow about one-third of his 3,000 acres of soybean fields this spring, more than he has in years. “We’re trying to find out what works.”