Results of Two Year Study on Genetically Modified GM Corn and Pesticide

by Mark

Are All of us Guinea Pigs (© Photo Jean-Baptiste Jaud /Graphisme LAGENCY)

Are All of us Guinea Pigs (© Photo Jean-Baptiste Jaud /Graphisme LAGENCY)

This 2 year study, by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, professor of molecular biology at Caen university in France, was designed as a direct follow-up to another 90 day study concerning NK603 GMO Maize manufactured by Monsanto.

The initial study was done by Monsanto to support its application for regulatory authorisation to sell this GMO maize seed to the public. The Monsanto study was for a duration of 90 days based on a rat feeding trial and the results of this study were released in 2004.

In the same year, the European Food safety Authority (EFSA) allowed Monsanto to sell this seed into the European market. EFSA studied the results from Monsanto's test and found that the rats displayed "differences" to the ones not fed NK603 maize.

EFSA determined that the differences were “of no biological significance” and that the maize was as safe as non-GM maize.

Séralini’s team obtained Monsanto’s raw data from their 90 day test and re-analysed it. They found signs of liver and kidney toxicity in the GM-fed rats.

Séralini carried out his 2012 study on NK603 maize and Roundup (a herbicide manufactured by Monsanto) to see whether these initial findings of potential toxicity really were of no biological significance, as EFSA claimed, or whether they developed into more serious diseases.

Experiment Differences

The overall experimental design was similar to Monsanto’s, in order to make the two experiments comparable. Some of the differences were that Séralini’s experiment was longer (two years to Monsanto’s 90 days) and far more detailed in scope.

The detailed scope measured a larger number of health effects and was also designed to separate the effects of the GM maize from those of the herbicide it is engineered to tolerate, Roundup. What made this study different was that it was the first study on a GM crop to distinguish effects in this way.

The Difference Between a 90 Day Test and a 2 year Test

Over the 2 year period, Séralini found that both GM maize NK603 and Roundup caused serious kidney and liver damage and an increased and earlier development of tumours, leading to an increased rate of mortality.

Diseases like breast cancer in humans don't develop in 90 day tests and this comparison is important to highlight the fact that 90 day tests are simply too short when trying to determine the effects of GMO crops and their associated herbicides on humans and the environment.

Even in rats, serious diseases like organ damage and tumours take time to develop.

In addition to the long term effects on rats, another objective of Séralini’s study was to show that long-term chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies are needed on all GM foods before they are commercialised.

Presently, GM food crops are authorised on the basis of short (a maximum of 90-days) feeding studies, usually carried out in rats. Long-term studies are not required by regulators anywhere in the world.

But in Séralini’s study the first large tumours were only seen four months into the trial in the case of males and seven months in the case of females. Most other tumours were only detected after 18 months.

This shows that the 90-day tests routinely done on GM crops are not long enough to detect serious health effects that take time to develop, such as cancer and organ damage.

Conclusion of the 2 Year Study

As a comparison, a 90 day food test in a rat is equivalent to only 7 – 9 years in human terms. However, it needs to be remembered that humans can eat GM foods and be exposed to herbicide residues all their lives ... especially in view of the fact that GMO supporters advocate this product as a solution to feed our ever growing world.

EFSA's Response

In November 2012, EFSA released a statement on their website saying that Séralini’s study did not meet acceptable scientific standards.

They said that "Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603."

My Conclusion

A tumour is a tumour and if this GM maize and its herbicide has ANYTHING whatsoever to do with it, in anyway, over whatever period, in any amount, it needs to be removed from the world.

Cancer is increasing, especially in industrialised economies and nobody knows why.

Maybe the rats can tell us.

Comments for Results of Two Year Study on Genetically Modified GM Corn and Pesticide

Click here to add your own comments

by: Anonymous

The European Food safety power (EFSA) has issued a rule for a two-year entire foodstuff study to charge the hazard of long-term toxicity from GM food.

by: Anonymous

The primary commercially full-grown hereditarily modified whole foodstuff harvest was the tomato called Flavor Savor, which was complete additional opposed to to decomposing by Californian corporation Cal gene.

GM foods
by: Anonymous

The downsides of GM foods is that a kernel corporation can "Program" the seeds to not create feasible seed by means of the fruit.

Seralini Validated by new EFSA Guidelines on Long-term GMO Experiments
by: Anonymous

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has issued guidelines for two-year whole food feeding studies to assess the risk of long-term toxicity from GM foods.

This document largely validates the methodology and choices of Prof, Gilles-Eric Seralini in his 2012 study on GM maize NK603 – methodology and choices that EFSA and countless other critics previously attacked him for.

Particular points to note:

1. EFSA admits that “no standardised protocol or guidelines exist for this type of study and [industry] applicants have to adapt protocols” – as Seralini did, too.

2. EFSA says the same strain of rat that was used in the 90-day study on the GM food should be used in the longer study – thus vindicating Seralini’s use of the Sprague-Dawley rat, which Monsanto used in its 90-day study on the same maize.

3. EFSA says animals should be fed ad libitum, which Seralini did, but which critics complained made it impossible to measure individual food and water consumption.

4. EFSA admits that you do not necessarily need a narrow and fixed hypothesis and that such a study can be “exploratory”, in spite of its previous claim that Seralini’s experiment was flawed because it (according to EFSA) didn’t have a clear hypothesis or objective.

5. EFSA recommends against using the extra control or “reference diet” groups commonly included by Monsanto in its 90-day studies and fed a variety of supposedly non-GM diets, on the grounds that the concurrent controls are the valid controls AND what is being tested is the difference between the GM variety and the non-GM comparator. Seralini was criticised by many for not including these spurious extra control groups and for thus having “inadequate controls”.

6. EFSA cautions strongly AGAINST relying on historical control data and if it is used, restricts it to within 5 years of the current experiment and to the same testing facility. This is a much stricter requirement than industry ever applies; industry uses ancient data from a wide variety of sources.

It’s unfortunate that in rightly condemning the use of historical control data, however, EFSA allows in those extra control or “reference” groups that it rightly condemned in point (5) above.

7. EFSA recommends a minimum of 10 animals per sex per group for the chronic toxicity phase, the same number that Seralini used.

8. EFSA recommends housing animals in pairs, as Seralini did, so individual food consumption cannot be measured.

9. EFSA requires an a priori power analysis to ensure appropriate sample size, depending on the effect size that is being looked for. We’ve never noticed the GM industry doing one of these, resulting in experiments that are virtually guaranteed not to find anything.

EFSA originally criticised Seralini's study. It is now reassuring to see that EFSA's new guidelines on these types of studies largely endorse the methods that Seralini used back in 2012.

Source -

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to Organic - Food.