Three Approved GMOs Linked to Organ Damage

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 GM maize.

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 Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.

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 data.” ((Also see Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, et al. “Report of an expert panel on the reanalysis by Séralini 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, Séralini 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 GMOs, 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 Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, 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 GMOs 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.

Further Reading

Health Risks of GM Foods, Jeffrey M. Smith
Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops, Union of Concerned Scientists
Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years, The Organic Center

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 graduated from The Ohio State University’s School of Agriculture with a B.S. in Natural Resources. Read other articles by Rady.

6 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. lichen said on January 3rd, 2010 at 6:02pm #

    We don’t need GM foods or pesticides and corporate agribusiness or imports. We have a great, global heritage of heirloom varieties saved through the ages and new and traditional organic methods that are far superior. There is already enough disease in this world without scientifically creating crops that will produce it.

  2. Rady Ananda said on January 3rd, 2010 at 6:13pm #

    right on, lichen

  3. Mulga Mumblebrain said on January 4th, 2010 at 3:42am #

    Genetically engineered poisons are being forced down our throats, despite clear evidence that they are dangerous, unnecessary and a diabolical threat to biodiversity for one reason alone. They make rich, evil capitalists even more rich. There is a mountain of evidence of these organisms dangerousness, all ignored by the Rightwing media sewer.That swamp, and its verminous inhabitants, prefers lies, cynical lies, like the’Golden Rice’ travesty, pretending that business psychopaths are motivated by simple, human,goodness (easy, stomach!)
    These ecological catastrophes, brought to us by immoral business thugs whose only motivations are greed, egotism and contempt for the rest of existence, are burgeoning. The one that is just coming to light, but will, of course, be ignored or downplayed by the media sewer, is nanotechnology. As usual there has been no independent scientific research into this technology, just the bought and paid for junk science commissioned by the industry itself. Unfortunately we already have reports of Chinese working with carbon nano-tubes suffering severe respiratory disease, with pleural granulomas (precursors, possibly, of mesothelioma)afflicting them. Apparently these nano-tubes look increasingly like asbestos in their effects on humans. Other research shows nano-particles penetrating cells, even the organelles within cells-but that must be good for us, surely? You cannot be against ‘scientific progress’, or you must be a ‘Green extremist’, propaganda against whom, particularly in the Murdoch mad-house, is reaching truly hysterical and belligerent levels.
    My current pick for most disturbing example of calamities to come is the recent discoveries concerning nano-particle sun-screens.Apparently some businessman thought it would be profitable to reduce certain sunscreens, the zinc type I believe was the first, to nano-particle size, so that they would ‘disappear’ when applied, rather than swathe the face in white goo. They have been ‘on the market’ for some time, and are ‘totally safe’ as business always says.
    Unfortunately, some time ago the manufacturers of steel roof cladding noticed that many of their roofing panels were failing, inexplicably early. When investigated it was found that the handprints of the roof installers were the source of the failure, but only the handprints of those who had used nano-particle sunscreens. Further research showed that the nano-partiv cles were causing a ‘photo-catalysis’ of sunlight, increasing its destructive effect hugely.But, of course, when this story, currently suppressed by the media, reaches the public, the business PR machine of lies and vilification will be mobilised, and the whole potential disaster will be denied out of existence.
    Market capitalism, with its sole goal of profit maximisation, is completely antithetical to life on earth, which is based on diversity and balance. If not replaced with a sustainable, ‘steady-state’ economy which puts the integrity of the biosphere first and foremost, our species will disappear,or be greatly reduced and our civilization collapse, in decades.But to do that, the current global rulers, the authoritarian psychopaths of the Right,must be removed from power. And that task, of wrestling with monsters, is, in my opinion, a very nearly impossible task to imagine being successful.

  4. Paul said on January 4th, 2010 at 4:13am #

    This is an interesting article,
    on how researchers in Australia tried to devise, using genetic engineering a contraceptive virus for mice and instead created a version of mousepox that was incredibly lethal

  5. GMO Journal said on January 11th, 2010 at 6:11pm #

    The fascinating corollary is the close tie that US government agencies have with the biotech industry. The entire regulatory framework, in fact, appears to accomodate the biotech industry at the expense of human and animal health and the environment. Technology is an important aspect of our lives, no doubt about it, but the concept of lets do it now and we’ll worry about the consequences later, and therefore let’s not “hinder” the “progress” with “unnecessarybureaucracy,” cannot be the acceptable regulatory position.
    Thanks for your thoughts on the issue.
    -GMO Journal

  6. Rady Ananda said on January 11th, 2010 at 6:17pm # has posted a petition in response to this article: