Calling it a bombshell would be a bit corny
September 19, 2012 3:44 AM Subscribe
A new study on GM corn [fr], conducted in secret by a french team of researchers led by Gilles-Eric Séralini, is to be published today by Food and Chemical Toxicology. Its results are chilling.
Started in 2006, the study managed to covertly acquire bags of Monsanto's NK 603. After a few years of feeding it to rats, while maintaining secrecy (encrypted mails, no phone, misdirection through decoy studies), the results are in: GM-fed rats show an explosion of tumors with two to five times the rate of the non-GM-fed control group, and those tumors happen far earlier than in the control group: 20 months before for males, 3 for females. Considering an average life expectency of 2 years, the difference is huge.
A documentary is set to be released on the september 26, based on an upcoming book by Gilles-Eric Séralini, to be released next week.
Started in 2006, the study managed to covertly acquire bags of Monsanto's NK 603. After a few years of feeding it to rats, while maintaining secrecy (encrypted mails, no phone, misdirection through decoy studies), the results are in: GM-fed rats show an explosion of tumors with two to five times the rate of the non-GM-fed control group, and those tumors happen far earlier than in the control group: 20 months before for males, 3 for females. Considering an average life expectency of 2 years, the difference is huge.
A documentary is set to be released on the september 26, based on an upcoming book by Gilles-Eric Séralini, to be released next week.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Hi, this certainly seems interesting, but posting before the study is actually published is a problem since people can pretty much only guess about details and methodology. Please do repost when more in-depth information is available. -- taz
the study managed to covertly acquire bags of Monsanto's NK 603
And he has a book to sell.
posted by three blind mice at 3:59 AM on September 19, 2012 [3 favorites]
And he has a book to sell.
posted by three blind mice at 3:59 AM on September 19, 2012 [3 favorites]
Their studies released in 2007 and 2009 which had the same conclusions were ignored by EFSA.
"The GMO Panel
concludes that the authors’ claims, regarding new side effects indicating kidney and liver toxicity,
are not supported by the data provided in their paper"
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/event/gmo100127-m.pdf
posted by public at 4:03 AM on September 19, 2012 [3 favorites]
"The GMO Panel
concludes that the authors’ claims, regarding new side effects indicating kidney and liver toxicity,
are not supported by the data provided in their paper"
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/event/gmo100127-m.pdf
posted by public at 4:03 AM on September 19, 2012 [3 favorites]
Nothing says some quality science is being done here quite like "misdirection through decoy studies".
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 4:07 AM on September 19, 2012 [3 favorites]
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 4:07 AM on September 19, 2012 [3 favorites]
The GMO Panel further comment:
The approach used by de Vendômois et al. does not allow a proper assessment of the differences claimed between the GMOs and their respective counterparts for their toxicological relevance because: (1) results are presented exclusively in the form of percentage differences for each variable, rather than in their actual measured units; (2) the calculated values of the toxicological parameters tested are not related to the normal range for the species concerned; (3) the calculated values of the toxicological parameters tested are not compared with ranges of variation found in test animals fed with diets containing different reference varieties; (4) the statistically significant differences did not show consistency patterns over endpoint variables and doses; (5) the inconsistencies between the purely statistical arguments of de Vendômois et al., and the results for these three animal feeding studies which relate to organ pathology, histopathology and histochemistry, are not addressed.
Seems we have a poorly designed study, of inflated statistical power, which attempts to prove rather than disprove a hypothesis. Not impressive.
posted by aeshnid at 4:19 AM on September 19, 2012
The approach used by de Vendômois et al. does not allow a proper assessment of the differences claimed between the GMOs and their respective counterparts for their toxicological relevance because: (1) results are presented exclusively in the form of percentage differences for each variable, rather than in their actual measured units; (2) the calculated values of the toxicological parameters tested are not related to the normal range for the species concerned; (3) the calculated values of the toxicological parameters tested are not compared with ranges of variation found in test animals fed with diets containing different reference varieties; (4) the statistically significant differences did not show consistency patterns over endpoint variables and doses; (5) the inconsistencies between the purely statistical arguments of de Vendômois et al., and the results for these three animal feeding studies which relate to organ pathology, histopathology and histochemistry, are not addressed.
Seems we have a poorly designed study, of inflated statistical power, which attempts to prove rather than disprove a hypothesis. Not impressive.
posted by aeshnid at 4:19 AM on September 19, 2012
The French website pictures show female rats with mammary tumors. Rats are known to have really high rates of benign mammary adenoma formation as they age. Those tumors look dire, but are of little consequence to the rat until/unless they are allowed to get so big they keep the rat from eating or drinking.
I would like to know the strain/stock of rat they used, which tumors were formed, how the animals were housed, how many were used, what % of the diet was corn, etc. etc. Looking forward to picking this one apart once it's released.
Not that I'm keen on GMO corn, but really.
(But the book title is great! "All guinea pigs!")
posted by marmot at 4:19 AM on September 19, 2012
I would like to know the strain/stock of rat they used, which tumors were formed, how the animals were housed, how many were used, what % of the diet was corn, etc. etc. Looking forward to picking this one apart once it's released.
Not that I'm keen on GMO corn, but really.
(But the book title is great! "All guinea pigs!")
posted by marmot at 4:19 AM on September 19, 2012
Unless my French has gotten really bad (very possible) they didn't just feed the rats Roundup Ready Corn they also gave them a dose a roundup in their water. Nouvel Observateur article doesn't say much else about the experiment.
posted by JPD at 4:20 AM on September 19, 2012
posted by JPD at 4:20 AM on September 19, 2012
Note: this study seems to be an answer to criticism leveled at a former study, by studying rats for a longer time, et al.
As of secrecy and misdirection, it seems to come from an appreciation for Monsanto's (and other's) pressure tactics and dirty tricks.
(probably should have included it in the post..)
posted by vivelame at 4:21 AM on September 19, 2012 [1 favorite]
As of secrecy and misdirection, it seems to come from an appreciation for Monsanto's (and other's) pressure tactics and dirty tricks.
(probably should have included it in the post..)
posted by vivelame at 4:21 AM on September 19, 2012 [1 favorite]
I'll reserve judgement until I can read the actual article, but everything here so far screams terrible, agenda-driven science --- namely, the 'lone voice in the wilderness' fighting against reams of good science (while flogging a book and a documentary) angle.
posted by Tiresias at 4:33 AM on September 19, 2012
posted by Tiresias at 4:33 AM on September 19, 2012
"Note: this study seems to be an answer to criticism leveled at a former study, by studying rats for a longer time, et al.Hey, that was my post you cited, believe me when I say I have little love for corporate control of communicated science, but there really arn't any examples of shitty things that corportations do that would really be meaningfully affected by conducting research in secret - in that post or elsewhere. What would be meaningfully affected however, is the press impact and the amount of time spent by journalists, who pretty much catagorically, do not know what they are talking about, parroting the authors' talking points before competant researchers get access to the data and are able to analyze it and provide responsible expert opinions.
As of secrecy and misdirection, it seems to come from an appreciation for Monsanto's (and other's) pressure tactics and dirty tricks.
(probably should have included it in the post..)"
These guys have repeastedly published absolute shit for meaningful conclusions, that is transparently shit, and made fuck tons of hay out of what no one with a reasonable undergrad level background could call inherently significant. Perhaps we could at least wait until we have access to the paper?
posted by Blasdelb at 4:33 AM on September 19, 2012
But, but, it's GENETICALLY MODIFIED! Modified for EVIL! Like those guys in the Judge Dredd movie! Those guys were evil! And had a robot!
posted by cthuljew at 4:38 AM on September 19, 2012
posted by cthuljew at 4:38 AM on September 19, 2012
« Older Click and Drag | Cupcake Justice Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by vivelame at 3:51 AM on September 19, 2012