Tech | April 09, 2011 | 47 comments

GMOS linked to organ disruption in 19 studies

source: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/blog/1340

Image
JanforGore
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

A new paper shows that consuming genetically modified (GM) corn or soybeans leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice, particularly in livers and kidneys. By reviewing data from 19 animal studies, Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and others reveal that 9% of the measured parameters, including blood and urine biochemistry, organ weights, and microscopic analyses (histopathology), were significantly disrupted in the GM-fed animals. The kidneys of males fared the worst, with 43.5% of all the changes. The liver of females followed, with 30.8%. The report, published in Environmental Sciences Europe on March 1, 2011, confirms that “several convergent data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects.” The authors point out that livers and kidneys “are the major reactive organs” in cases of chronic food toxicity.

“Other organs may be affected too, such as the heart and spleen, or blood cells,” stated the paper. In fact some of the animals fed genetically modified organisms had altered body weights in at least one gender, which is “a very good predictor of side effects in various organs.”

The GM soybean and corn varieties used in the feeding trials “constitute 83% of the commercialized GMOs” that are currently consumed by billions of people. While the findings may have serious ramifications for the human population, the authors demonstrate how a multitude of GMO-related health problems could easily pass undetected through the superficial and largely incompetent safety assessments that are used around the world.

Feed’em longer!

One of the most glaring faults in the current regulatory regime is the short duration of animals feeding studies. The industry limits trials to 90 days at most, with some less than a month. Only two studies reviewed in this new publication were over 90 days—both were non-industry research.

Short studies could easily miss many serious effects of GMOs. It is well established that some pesticides and drugs, for example, can create effects that are passed on through generations, only showing up decades later. IN the case of the drug DES (diethylstilbestrol), “induced female genital cancers among other problems in the second generation.” The authors urge regulators to require long-term multi-generational studies, to “provide evidence of carcinogenic, developmental, hormonal, neural, and reproductive potential dysfunctions, as it does for pesticides or drugs.”

“Pesticide Plants”

Nearly all GM crops are described as “pesticide plants.” They either tolerate doses of weed killer, such as Roundup, or produce an insecticide called Bt-toxin. In both cases, the added toxin—weedkiller or bug killer—is found inside the corn or soybeans we consume.

When regulators evaluate the toxic effects of pesticides, they typically require studies using three types of animals, with at least one feeding trial lasting 2 years or more. One third or more of the side effects produced by these toxins will show up only in the longer study—not the shorter ones. But for no good reason, regulators ignore the lessons learned from pesticides and waive the GM crops-containing-pesticides onto the market with a single species tested for just 90 days. The authors affirm that “it is impossible, within only 13 weeks, to conclude about the kind of pathology that could be induced by pesticide GMOs and whether it is a major pathology or a minor one. It is therefore necessary to prolong the tests.”

GMO approvals also ignore the new understanding that toxins don’t always follow a linear dose-response. Sometimes a smaller amount of toxins have greater impact than larger doses. Approvals also overlook the fact that mixtures can be far more dangerous than single chemicals acting alone. Roundup residues, for example, have been “shown to be toxic for human placental, embryonic, and umbilical cord cells,” whereas Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate does not on its own provoke the same degree of damage. One reason for this is that the chemicals in Roundup “stabilize glyphosate and allow its penetration into cells.”

Furthermore, toxins may generate new substances (metabolites) “either in the GM plant or in the animals fed with it.” Current assessments completely ignore the potential danger from these new components in our diets, such as the “new metabolites” in GMOs engineered to withstand Roundup. The authors warn, “We consider this as a major oversight in the present regulations.”

cont.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Tech,   Green,   Current Tonight,   7 more
  2. tags:
    Environment,  Health,  Science,  GMOs,  13 more
  3.     
    |

47 comments // GMOS linked to organ disruption in 19 studies

  • TasteHi
    • 0
      TasteHi  

    • I wonder if the investors feed this stuff to their own families? maybe they're all over seas brokers.....maybe the ability to make money also robs you of the ability to make healthy decisions?

      I just don't get why we're always investing in things that are ALWAYS detrimental to our health?

      Why can't they just invest in things like non-combustible engines? or worms that can make larger quantities of dirt? instead of all the dangerous crap we keep pumping our money into....

    • 1 year ago
  • queenofit
    • 0
      queenofit  
    • TasteHi:

      I think the money does cloud ones ability to see the danger. Most of our society is programed to let others think for us, we are taught to believe that if FDA or USDA say it is safe, then it must be, and when people question that we are called kooks. (that, I believe is changing) Now the uniformed are beginning to be seen as the "kooks". In order to be fully aware of what is happening today, one must not base their knowledge on "programming" like Fox News and other msm sources. News is spoon fed in clips and quips, people who read long articles like this one, are in the minority, and so is real understanding. Food, Inc, helped the NON GMO food movement leaps and bounds, by the time the movie was out and became an academy award nomination, there was plenty of evidence to support the knowledge that the damage this food experiment was causing was heading us down a path of dangerous no man's land. This is just a tiny explanation to a very complex issue, but I am sure you see where I am leading with it. One other important point, who has the most to lose, if corporations like Monsanto lose control of their market and who has the most to gain? I see it as a health issue, corporations see it as dollar issue, which one is most important, is where one draws the line. Profits vs People.

    • 1 year ago
  • Jeremy_Benson
    • 0
      Jeremy_Benson  

    • Corn and soybeans are one of the largest GMO crops. The reason is that our society is dependent on these products for a large part of our food products, and therefor dependent on large and consistent crops. These crops are genetically modified to withstand massive sprayings by pesticides such as roundup. Washing such poison inundated produce accomplishes little, as much of the poison is absorbed and stored by the plant during growth

      So my question is: are the organ disruptions linked GMOs by virtue of their modification or by virtue of higher amounts of poison?

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
  • queenofit
    • +1
      queenofit  
    • Jeremy_Benson:

      click on the link and the question you ask is addressed under the heading "What’s the culprit, pesticide or plant?" As this article so eloquently spells out, the GMO and Roundup have capability to cause health issues.

      Now then, the fact that Monsanto/Govt have fought us tooth and nail to keep from labeling GMO food is (in my opinion) a calculated move to continue hiding the truth of the serious health risk this food is causing, but as usual. the cream eventually rises to the top. Soon the demand will be so great it will have to be labeled, and then watch the walls of Monsanto come tumbling down.

    • 1 year ago
  • Jeremy_Benson
    • 0
      Jeremy_Benson  
    • queenofit:

      Ah, I see. Rarely is such a question addressed, and so I rarely look nowadays. Give me a minute..

      "The shortcomings of the feeding studies make it impossible to determine whether a particular problem is due to the added pesticide, such as Roundup residues or Bt-toxin, or due to the genetic changes in the modified plants’ DNA."

      So, I didn't really get an answer to my question. Which outlines the idea that this testing is inadequate (and not just with GMOs; FDA testing is pretty lackluster in general, if you ask me). The problem is that pure GMOs, pesticides aside, may be fine. If that's the case, than the pesticide deal has the potential to disrupt what may very well be a legitimate and lifesaving science, as it produces people who are staunchly against the idea of genetic modification in any form. Those who are anti-GMO tend to disregard the idea that some GMOs are helpful, and just assume all of them are bad. But genetic modification produces plants that do more than handle/produce pesticides, they also produce plants that are resistant to disease or fungus. This has diverted many potential global food crises in the past. Too, technically seed-saving and other home grown done to maximize taste methods are a form of genetic modification, effectively demonstrating that, while some modifications may possibly be harmful in and of themselves, certainly not all are.

    • 1 year ago
  • corderodedios
    • 0
      corderodedios  

    • You say: "But for no good reason, regulators ignore the lessons learned from pesticides and waive the GM crops-containing-pesticides onto the market with a single species tested for just 90 days."

      Corporate America considers greed a good reason.

    • 1 year ago
  • UtopianSky
    • 0
      UtopianSky  

    • I would like to point this out, again:

      Articles like this confuse two distint topics: Genetic Engineering as a whole concept, and pesticide resistance.

      That article stated, quite clearly:

      Nearly all GM crops are described as “pesticide plants.” They either tolerate doses of weed killer, such as Roundup, or produce an insecticide called Bt-toxin. In both cases, the added toxin—weedkiller or bug killer—is found inside the corn or soybeans we consume.

      THAT is the problem, THAT is the issue, not genetic engineering. They used genetic engineering to put a poison in the food, but the problem is the poison in the food, NOT genetic engineering.

      It's like blaming the messenger for a bad message.

      The messenger delivered the poisonous message as instructed, and the messenger did his job well.

      This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with cows genetically engineered to produce nutritious milk, or crops genetically engineered to produce healthier produce.

      That's because the messenger can send GOOD messages too.

      Fear-mongering about Genetic Engineering just sets back the ability for genetic engineering to result in technological advancements that will benefit us all.

      Instead of complaining about "GM crops" or "GMOs", the complaint should be about "pesticide plants" or "pesticide-resistant strains".

      Painting with too broad a brush is NEVER a good thing, and there are too many people, even on this website, who do not understand the diference; even to the point of confusing genetically modified plants with genetically modified animals.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
  • UtopianSky
    • 0
      UtopianSky  
    • JanforGore:

      Jan, I don't think you even understand what my point is at all- because if you did, you would definitely not have made the post you just made in reply.

      You say:
      "Post the peer reviewed studies proving GMOS are safe and you may have a point."

      Again, by the basic laws of Logic, this is an impossible task that you demand for you to no longer be afraid of genetic engineering.

      As I said, Genetic Engineering is the messenger- in your examples, poison is the message.

      What you are asking for is a guarantee that the Post Office will never ever send a letter bomb to justify anyone sending any letters at all ever.

      Again, you are simply spreading fear of a huge broad concept of genetic engineering, when ALL you have to show for it is plants that have poisons genetically engineered into them.

      These companies, on purpose, put poison into the plants.

      POISON.

      Pesticides and herbicides.

      POISON.

      That's the problem, Jan: POISON, not HOW they put the poison in.

      No mater how many articles you post about how awful it is for poison to be in plants, it does not prove you point in the least.

      Again- that is fearmongering, not facts.

      You are taking one very small subset of genetic engineering, and blaming all of genetic engineering for it.

      When if you think about it, what these companies intended to do was awful- and it worked.

      It worked in the awful way they wanted to make the awful things.

      That means it can also work to do GOOD things- as I said repeatedly.

      And I think deep down on some level you realize that; and that your REAL motivation is based on your BELIEF that nature is perfect and should remain untouched by human hands.

      And there are NO peer reviewed studies proving that.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • UtopianSky:

      Great way to backtrack. And I understood you perfectly. You simply accept something without proof because it fits in with your view. And you dare to criticize people here for believing in God without proof? You are no better regarding this. Funny though how you have no problem regarding quoting the science behind climate change. But this, no need to care. "Can" is not a word something real scientists use when it is putting out something into the world that will effect it without knowing how far the boundaries will be breached. And what are your qualifications to make an assertion that all GMOs are good? Again, where's your back up? If you cannot prove it is safe for the environment and for humans as a whole, you fail. And you will fail because there are no tests to prove they are safe which requires us to err on the side of caution, especially in light of scientific tests coming to the fore which you also ignore. And attacking my love for the environment is predictable and shows your own disdain for it.This however, is also about protecting food sovereignty, biodiversity, democracy and the health of humans and others, all of which you seem to forget in your quest to see this world monoculture and antiseptic.

      And marking my comment down is immature and meanspirited and speaks volumes about you.

    • 1 year ago
  • UtopianSky
    • 0
      UtopianSky  
    • JanforGore:

      I did not backtrack, You did not understand a single word I said, as evidenced by this reply of yours, just like your previous one.

      There was nothing in it that had anything to do with anything I said.

      There was nothing even bordering at rational dialog- just emotional venting.

      You say:
      "You simply accept something without proof because it fits in with your view."

      False. The point is that I do NOT accept something without proof because it fits in with my view- you do.

      You have no proof that genetic engineering is in any way harmful, but you blindly believe it is.

      You only have proof that poison is harmful, and that is not disputed.

      "And what are your qualifications to make an assertion that all GMOs are good?"

      Jan, you keep proving you have absolutely no idea what I am saying, even though I write things in clear and simple english.

      I NEVER said genetic engineering is harmless, so I have nothing to prove.
      Again- a postman CAN deliver a letter bomb.

      There is no way anyone reading my comments could ever come to the conclusions you do.

      "And attacking my love for the environment is predictable and shows your own disdain for it."

      Again, Jan, you have no rational argumentation here- just personal attacks. Repeated personal attacks- with imaginary claims about attacks I made.

      My words are right there in the comment above yours- scroll up.

      " in your quest to see this world monoculture and antiseptic."

      All you can do is strawmen and personal attacks-
      Jan, you do not have a clue what I am saying, you don not understand science, you do not understand genetics.

      In your bizarre world, I'm some evil megalomanic who wants to destroy all nature and poison the food supply with plants under corporate control, when ANYONE reading my comments knows that is the furthest thing from the truth.

      Jan, your replies speak volumes about you.

      They do not address any of the points I made, they go off on wild tangents in an attempt to paint me as an imaginary boogyman.

      They show you are either incapable of rational dialog, or afraid to do it.

      Which is it?

      How about this- in your own words, write what you think my views are. If you start to paint a picture that looks like Mr Burns from the Simpsons, you know you are on the wrong track.

      Are you capable of rational, civil dialog, with no straw men, slippery slopes, or personal attacks?

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • UtopianSky:

      There was nothing irrational about my comments. I guess the truth of them hit too close to home for you. So be it. The reality is that testing is showing the ill effects from genetic modification of our food due to the bacterias and viruses used to invade them and the poisons being inserted in them. Choose to be in denial if you wish. I don't need nor wish to entertain your long tirades here as you once again preach to someone you think is inferior to you to try to prove you are more intelligent on something you've shown you actually know little about.

      added:

      http://www.newtimes.org/issue/0305/suzuki.htm

      For the past 30 years, Dr. David Suzuki has been recognized as an internationally-renowned environmental activist. An award-winning scientist and broadcaster, his acclaimed television documentaries — including the ever-popular The Nature of Things, which explains the complexities of the natural sciences in a compelling, easily understood way — have been shown in more than 80 countries. A world leader in sustainable ecology, he is also the author of 30 books, including Introduction to Genetic Analysis, Genethics, and 10 children’s books. We recently spoke with Dr. Suzuki at the David Suzuki Foundation in Vancouver, British Columbia.

      Despite continued public concern, governments still support the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) into the food supply. The multi-billion dollar industry behind biotechnology stimulates the economy, but there must be risks. Are we being used as human guinea pigs?

      Of course we are. We’ve been eating genetically modified food now for over five years. It’s in our food stream, but the consumer has no opportunity to make an informed decision because it isn’t noted on the labels. Government understands very well, as does industry, that if notice were put on the labels, the use of these foods would drop. So they make all kinds of excuses about how it’s too complicated, or it can’t be done, but we already put all kinds of things on labels. You know, we learned from experiments done on people during the ‘50s and ‘60s how we really shouldn’t put people into an experimental situation without first telling them and getting their permission. I think the terrible aspect of this is that we are involved in an experiment, and we’ve never been informed and never been asked.

      What of the possibility that Frankenstein genetic crossovers may happen in GMO foods?

      I don’t tend to get caught up in the specifics because I think that’s a dangerous situation. You undercut yourself in trying to prove that there are hazards. For example, I never use the word Frankenfoods; the dangers and benefits are equally conjectural. Looking at it in a broader way, every technology — whether it’s DDT [Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane], or CFCs [Chlorofluorocarbons] — has revealed that we don’t understand the big world when we start using the technology. There are totally unexpected effects that result because our knowledge is too limited. Just imagine if you start flipping genes from one specific organism that has evolved over millions of years into a completely different context: if you take a gene from a flounder, a fish, and you put it into a tomato plant. Now, the biotechnologists say, ‘This is just DNA. We’re moving it the way that you shuffle DNA in every new generation when you reproduce.’ Well, this is absolute nonsense. Of course, it’s just DNA, but DNA isn’t selected on a gene for gene basis. Nature doesn’t act on every gene alone. Nature acts on the total expression of the genes in a genome over time. So fertilization happens; a certain suite of genes is turned on, others are turned off, but they continue to function. Then as they continue to function, others are turned on and off. That’s how the genome is expressed, in this very finely orchestrated way. Nature acts on the total expression of those genes. The genome is the unit of selection. If you take a gene out of a flounder and put it into a tomato plant, that gene finds itself in a completely different context. It’s like taking Bono out of U-2 and putting him in with a Victorian Philharmonic orchestra and saying, ‘Okay, everybody play music.’ You’re going to get sound, but what’s the nature of that music going to be? We’ve no idea. And this is what we’re doing with genetic engineering. We’re creating situations where we have no idea what the long-term outcomes are going to be.

      What are the dangers — loss of antibiotic resistance? Super-bug potential? Loss of eco-diversity?

      All of those things can happen. There’s already plenty of evidence that surprising things are happening. Monsanto produces 90 percent of the genetically engineered crops that are planted around the world, and those crops, by and large, are selected so that they carry genes which are resistant to Monsanto’s chemical Round-Up. Glyposate, this compound, can be sprayed over an area, and the crop plant will be saved, and everything else will die. Well, there’s a thing called pollen drift, and whether it’s wheat or corn, whatever, pollen is very light; it flies in the air. It can drift a kilometre away and fall on weeds or related species and transfer those genes. We know that happens. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that we should be cautious because unexpected, negative things are happening.

      We’re seeing companies trying to patent traditionally wild crops — basmati rice, for example. Isn’t this an insidious new "corporate" colonialism? Should companies be able to patent life forms?

      It’s absurd. These companies are making a claim that they are discovering or isolating a gene. This is no [less absurd] than finding oxygen in the air and deciding to patent it. We’d be outraged if someone suggested that — outraged. Why isn’t it every bit as outrageous to take what nature has produced, isolate it, and claim that you’ve made an invention? It’s patently absurd.

      Are we witnessing a critical historical transition — from agriculture as a biological process to its becoming an industrial process?

      It’s been that way for a number of decades now. The so-called "Green Revolution" has certainly increased productivity, but it did so by creating a situation where farmers have to buy into a different paradigm. Out went small-scale family farms; in came large-scale industrial agriculture. In order to realize the benefits of the green revolution, you had to use specifically selected genetic strains, then use high-inputs of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides: in other words, big technology. This has transformed agriculture into industrial agriculture. What genetic engineering does is to take you to the next level where a few multinational corporations like Novartis and Monsanto are essentially trying to corral the genome of all agriculturally useful organisms. They want to own them. And once they own them, we’ll have the right to "access" those genomes by paying for them.

      The ultimate cartel?

      It’s the ultimate cartel — owning the very thing that keeps us alive.
      ___
      Dr. David Suzuki IS a geneticist. He knows of what he speaks, as does Dr. Vandana Shiva and many others in this field. I support them and believe them before I will ever believe someone only here to present an alternate view without any evidence to support it, and then accusing me of being irrational and attacking them after they got done calling me an environmental zealot. I don't speak out against this simply because of my love for the environment, biodiversity and the health of others and my own, I speak out against it because I respect responsible science, not junk science put out by biotechnology whores who are only in it for the cash. And any scientist worth his or her salt knows that there is a natural process and order to things and when you mess with that not caring for the consequences but only the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ that is not science.

    • 1 year ago
  • UtopianSky
    • -1
      UtopianSky  
    • JanforGore:

      So, I'll take that as a no, you are not able to have a civil, rational discussion; and as a no, that you are unable to even put my views into your own words.

      Jan, again- I pointed out specifically, in detail, the flaws in your reasoning, and your irrational statements.

      I would hope you would have some introspection and would want to learn from them, so you can have a beter grasp of an issue you care so much about.

      But instead you want to take the route of the zealot, and just attack anyone who thinks differently from you.

      That is very sad Jan.

    • 1 year ago
  • cclark_productions
  • JanforGore
  • theknopfknows
    • +1
      theknopfknows  
    • Image

    • This is all part of shortening your lifespan, population control by Corporations Yes the 1% owns 90% of everything wants to exterminate large populations So we have 6.7 billion and by 2050 they want only ONE BILLION so who goes first You go first, Blacks browns yellow that is New World Order. Carve down whittle down down size from super size, Super size shortens your life, vaccinations, food water air all is designed for you to live short, by compromising your natural immune system, A doctors degree is a license to kill. All Population control methods.

    • 1 year ago
  • telcod
  • coolplanet
    • -1
      coolplanet  

    • This is my first response to a GMO story because I don't feel educated enough to offer an informed opinion, although on a gut level the pesticide-ready seed and genes sliced from animals into plants just seems really wrong!
      I am writing now because I strongly object to the testing of GMOs on animals for several reasons. First it is animal abuse. Second, animal testing is a very unreliable way to learn how these substances react in humans and plants.
      GMOs certainly sound bad and I will continue to read and vote up these disturbing stories. But as of yet I have not read the hard science from a journal like Nature.
      Perhaps this is my form of denial. There are just so many horrible things happening right now that it is all a bit overwhelming and totally depressing.
      No wonder so many people choose not to think!

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +3
      JanforGore  
    • coolplanet:

      It isn't depressing as much as it is outrageous, and needs to be fought. That is why I post this information here and have been doing so for the last two plus years. I find it hard to believe you have missed the information if you post here with any sort of frequency. And actually, even though these corporations are getting away with foisting these organisms into our environment and our bodies without our consent, activism is making a headway as the acreage of GMOS being planted is far below what these entities had hoped it would be right now, and there is global resistance and protest to them which is also making headway because this information is being disseminated. And while I too do not particularly like the idea that they test these organisms on animals (and posting this isn't a statement of acceptance of that) it wouldn't be necessary if we stood up to ban them instead of just talking.

      As far as publications, is this good enough? This is located at the end of the scientific abstract I already posted in the above post, and there are more at the Monsanto tag here and also at the link for the Institute for Responsible Technology.

      1.EFSA: Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials.

      Food Chem Toxicol 2008, 46:S2-70.

      Return to text

      2.Séralini GE, Cellier D, Spiroux J: New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity.

      Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 2007, 52:596-602. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      3.Séralini G-E: Comment on Transgenic aubergines put on ice.

      Naturenews 2009.

      Return to text

      4.Séralini GE, Spiroux J, Cellier D, Sultan C, Buiatti M, Gallagher L, Antoniou M, Dronamraju KR: How subchronic and chronic health effects can be neglected for GMOs, pesticides or chemicals.

      Int J Biol Sci 2009, 5:438-443. PubMed Abstract | PubMed Central Full Text

      Return to text

      5.Spiroux J, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE: A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health.

      Int J Biol Sci 2009, 5:706-726. PubMed Abstract | PubMed Central Full Text

      Return to text

      6.Spiroux J, Cellier D, Vélot C, Clair E, Mesnage R, Séralini GE: Debate on GMOs health risks after statistical findings in regulatory tests.

      Int J Biol Sci 2010, 6:590-598. PubMed Abstract | PubMed Central Full Text

      Return to text

      7.James C: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops.

      ISAAA Brief 41 2009.

      Return to text

      8.Vom Saal FS, Hughes C: An extensive new literature concerning low-dose effects of bisphenol A shows the need for a new risk assessment.

      Environ Health Perspect 2005, 113:926-933. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text

      Return to text

      9.Myers JP, vom Saal FS, Akingbemi BT, Arizono K, Belcher S, Colborn T, Chahoud I, Crain DA, Farabollini F, Guillette LJ Jr, Hassold T, Ho SM, Hunt PA, Iguchi T, Jobling S, Kanno J, Laufer H, Marcus M, McLachlan JA, Nadal A, Oehlmann J, Olea N, Palanza P, Parmigiani S, Rubin BS, Schoenfelder G, Sonnenschein C, Soto AM, Talsness CE, Taylor JA, Vandenberg LN, Vandenbergh JG, Vogel S, Watson CS, Welshons WV, Zoeller RT: Why public health agencies cannot depend on good laboratory practices as a criterion for selecting data: the case of bisphenol A.

      Environ Health Perspect 2009, 117:309-315. PubMed Abstract | PubMed Central Full Text

      Return to text

      10.Séralini G-E: Ces OGM qui changent le monde. France: Flammarion; 2004.

      Return to text

      11.EFSA: Modification of the residue definition of glyphosate in genetically modified maize grain and soybeans, and in products of animal origin on request from the European Commission.

      EFSA Journal 2009, 7:42.

      Return to text

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • JanforGore:

      12.Rosati A, Bogani P, Santarlasci A, Buiatti M: Characterisation of 3' transgene insertion site and derived mRNAs in MON810 YieldGard maize.

      Plant Mol Biol 2008, 67:271-81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      13.Manetti C, Bianchetti C, Casciani L, Castro C, Di Cocco ME, Miccheli A, Motto M, Conti F: A metabonomic study of transgenic maize (Zea mays) seeds revealed variations in osmolytes and branched amino acids.

      J Exp Bot 2006, 57:2613-2625. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      14.Zhu Y, Li D, Wang F, Yin J, Jin H: Nutritional assessment and fate of DNA of soybean meal from roundup ready or conventional soybeans using rats.

      Arch Anim Nutr 2004, 58:295-310. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      15.Vecchio L, Cisterna B, Malatesta M, Martin TE, Biggiogera M: Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean.

      Eur J Histochem 2004, 48:448-454. PubMed Abstract

      Return to text

      16.Kilic A, Akay MT: A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: biochemical and histopathological investigation.

      Food Chem Toxicol 2008, 46:1164-1170. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      17.Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MB, Serafini S, Tiberi C, Gazzanelli G: Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean.

      Cell Struct Funct 2002, 27:173-180. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      18.Malatesta M, Perdoni F, Santin G, Battistelli S, Muller S, Biggiogera M: Hepatoma tissue culture (HTC) cells as a model for investigating the effects of low concentrations of herbicide on cell structure and function.

      Toxicol In Vitro 2008, 22:1853-1860. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      19.Malatesta M, Tiberi C, Baldelli B, Battistelli S, Manuali E, Biggiogera M: Reversibility of hepatocyte nuclear modifications in mice fed on genetically modified soybean.

      Eur J Histochem 2005, 49:237-242. PubMed Abstract

      Return to text

      20.Arregui MC, Lenardon A, Sanchez D, Maitre MI, Scotta R, Enrique S: Monitoring glyphosate residues in transgenic glyphosate-resistant soybean.

      Pest Manag Sci 2004, 60:163-166. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      21.Richard S, Moslemi S, Sipahutar H, Benachour N, Séralini GE: Differential effects of glyphosate and roundup on human placental cells and aromatase.

      Environ Health Perspect 2005, 113:716-720. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text

      Return to text

      22.Benachour N, Sipahutar H, Moslemi S, Gasnier C, Travert C, Séralini GE: Time- and dose-dependent effects of roundup on human embryonic and placental cells.

      Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 2007, 53:126-133. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      23.Benachour N, Séralini GE: Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells.

      Chem Res Toxicol 2009, 22:97-105. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      24.Gasnier C, Dumont C, Benachour N, Clair E, Chagnon MC, Séralini GE: Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines.

      Toxicology 2009, 262:184-191. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      25.Hammond B, Lemen J, Dudek R, Ward D, Jiang C, Nemeth M, Burns J: Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn.

      Food Chem Toxicol 2006, 44:147-160. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • JanforGore:

      26.Braniste V, Jouault A, Gaultier E, Polizzi A, Buisson-Brenac C, Leveque M, Martin PG, Theodorou V, Fioramonti J, Houdeau E: Impact of oral bisphenol A at reference doses on intestinal barrier function and sex differences after perinatal exposure in rats.

      Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009, 107:448-453. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text

      Return to text

      27.Braun JM, Yolton K, Dietrich KN, Hornung R, Ye X, Calafat AM, Lanphear BP: Prenatal bisphenol A exposure and early childhood behavior.

      Environ Health Perspect 2009, 117:1945-1952. PubMed Abstract | PubMed Central Full Text

      Return to text

      28.Anway MD, Cupp AS, Uzumcu M, Skinner MK: Epigenetic transgenerational actions of endocrine disruptors and male fertility.

      Science 2005, 308:1466-1469. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      29.Wise LA, Palmer JR, Rowlings K, Kaufman RH, Herbst AL, Noller KL, Titus-Ernstoff L, Troisi R, Hatch EE, Robboy SJ: Risk of benign gynecologic tumors in relation to prenatal diethylstilbestrol exposure.

      Obstet Gynecol 2005, 105:167-173. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      30.Hernandez AF, Casado I, Pena G, Gil F, Villanueva E, Pla A: Low level of exposure to pesticides leads to lung dysfunction in occupationally exposed subjects.

      Inhal Toxicol 2008, 20:839-849. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      31.Benachour N, Moslemi S, Sipahutar H, Séralini GE: Cytotoxic effects and aromatase inhibition by xenobiotic endocrine disrupters alone and in combination.

      Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2007, 222:129-140. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      32.Melnick R, Lucier G, Wolfe M, Hall R, Stancel G, Prins G, Gallo M, Reuhl K, Ho SM, Brown T, Moore J, Leakey J, Haseman J, Kohn M: Summary of the National Toxicology Program's report of the endocrine disruptors low-dose peer review.

      Environ Health Perspect 2002, 110:427-431. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text

      Return to text

      33.Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, Lovell DP, Lynch B, Munro IC: Report of an Expert Panel on the reanalysis by 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(11):2073-85. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      34.Goldsmith JR, Kordysh E: Why dose-response relationships are often non-linear and some consequences.

      J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 1993, 3:259-276. PubMed Abstract

      Return to text

      35.Then C: Risk assessment of toxins derived from Bacillus thuringiensis-synergism, efficacy, and selectivity.

      Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2010, 17:791-797. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text

      Return to text

      36.Paul V, Guertler P, Wiedemann S, Meyer HH: Degradation of Cry1Ab protein from genetically modified maize (MON810) in relation to total dietary feed proteins in dairy cow digestion.

      Transgenic Res 2010, 19(4):683-689. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text

      Return to text

      37.Andrade AJ, Grande SW, Talsness CE, Grote K, Chahoud I: A dose-response study following in utero and lactational exposure to di-(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate (DEHP): non-monotonic dose-response and low dose effects on rat brain aromatase activity.

      Toxicology 2006, 227:185-192. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      38.Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Rossi L, Battistelli S, Rocchi MB, Tonucci F, Gazzanelli G: Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean.

      J Anat 2002, 201:409-415. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text

      Return to text

      39.Malatesta M, Biggiogera M, Manuali E, Rocchi MB, Baldelli B, Gazzanelli G: Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean.

      Eur J Histochem 2003, 47:385-388. PubMed Abstract

      Return to text

      40.Appenzeller LM, Munley SM, Hoban D, Sykes GP, Malley LA, Delaney B: Subchronic feeding study of herbicide-tolerant soybean DP-356O43-5 in Sprague-Dawley rats.

      Food Chem Toxicol 2008, 46:2201-2213. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      41.Sakamoto Y, Tada Y, Fukumori N, Tayama K, Ando H, Takahashi H, Kubo Y, Nagasawa A, Yano N, Yuzawa K, Ogata A: A 104-week feeding study of genetically modified soybeans in f344 rats.

      Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi 2008, 49:272-282. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      42.Appenzeller LM, Munley SM, Hoban D, Sykes GP, Malley LA, Delaney B: Subchronic feeding study of grain from herbicide-tolerant maize DP-O9814O-6 in Sprague-Dawley rats.

      Food Chem Toxicol 2009, 47:2269-2280. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      43.Hammond B, Dudek R, Lemen J, Nemeth M: Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn.

      Food Chem Toxicol 2004, 42:1003-1014. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      44.Hammond BG, Dudek R, Lemen JK, Nemeth MA: Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn.

      Food Chem Toxicol 2006, 44:1092-1099. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      45.MacKenzie SA, Lamb I, Schmidt J, Deege L, Morrisey MJ, Harper M, Layton RJ, Prochaska LM, Sanders C, Locke M, Mattsson JL, Fuentes A, Delaney B: Thirteen week feeding study with transgenic maize grain containing event DAS-O15O7-1 in Sprague-Dawley rats.

      Food Chem Toxicol 2007, 45:551-562. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      46.He XY, Huang KL, Li X, Qin W, Delaney B, Luo YB: Comparison of grain from corn rootworm resistant transgenic DAS-59122-7 maize with non-transgenic maize grain in a 90-day feeding study in Sprague-Dawley rats.

      Food Chem Toxicol 2008, 46:1994-2002. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      47.Malley LA, Everds NE, Reynolds J, Mann PC, Lamb I, Rood T, Schmidt J, Layton RJ, Prochaska LM, Hinds M, Locke M, Chui CF, Claussen F, Mattsson JL, Delaney B: Subchronic feeding study of DAS-59122-7 maize grain in Sprague-Dawley rats.

      Food Chem Toxicol 2007, 45:1277-1292. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

      48.Appenzeller LM, Malley L, Mackenzie SA, Hoban D, Delaney B: Subchronic feeding study with genetically modified stacked trait lepidopteran and coleopteran resistant (DAS-O15O7-1xDAS-59122-7) maize grain in Sprague-Dawley rats.

      Food Chem Toxicol 2009, 47:1512-1520. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

      Return to text

    • 1 year ago
  • SoCalFramer
    • 0
      SoCalFramer  
    • JanforGore:

      Janforgore, I don't know what you do for a living but I am sure that you have advanced degree's. Your post left me lost, it is so much information with references. Am I safe to say that I need to stay away from GMO and how do I know what I am buying ? I do appreciate your posts and please don't change them.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • SoCalFramer:

      No advanced degrees, one degree and a willingness to seek out truth and learn all I can about that which is my passion. The link to this article can point you in the direction of how you can avoid GMOS in your food. It isn't easy, but it is possible.

    • 1 year ago
  • coolplanet
    • -1
      coolplanet  
    • JanforGore:

      I didn't intend to strike such a nerve.
      And I don't mean to challenge your passion and dedication for this important subject.
      I AGREE THAT GENETIC MANIPULATION IS OFTEN REALLY BAD.
      My point is that there is no scientific concensus on GMOs that I've heard of yet.
      I do know that all of our crops are the result of genetic engneering by Cro-Magnons some 10,000 to 8,000 years ago. Our livestock too.
      I even suspect that the domestication of wheat, rice, corn, cows, pigs and turkeys was the fall of man, causing overpopulation, deforestation, malnutrition, famine and plagues throughout modern history. (Jared Diamond taught me that.)
      I guess what bothers me is the vilification.
      As a gnostic I somehow know that we are all responsible for this massive mess.
      As a scientist I question everything.

    • 1 year ago
  • PzLuvHappeniz
  • JanforGore
  • jubal
    • +1
      jubal  

    • Imagine this GMO problem combined with the harmful effects of sugar and transfat and you have death lurking about. Its a heartattack or even a stroke. No wonder we have so much illness in this country and a huge corrupt healthcare system. Its a nasty simbiotic relationship.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • jubal:

      Oh yes, and relationships between these companies and pharmaceutical companies that make the medications to "treat" the ailments but never really cure them. That is why it is so crucial to know this in order to know what crap to avoid eating.

    • 1 year ago
  • NiceN
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • NiceN:

      Yes, our old friends who did so much good being dropped from planes during the last wars... And never left for generations...Come again to protect your food from those nasty little bugs in that thing we call "nature".... Nothing like the taste of Agent Orange on your cereal in the mornin, eh?.

    • 1 year ago
  • jiajfj
  • simplecj
  • JanforGore
  • August_K
    • 0
      August_K  

    • I suspect that all the food tampering and chemicals that they put in our food is the reason that diabetes is at epidemic levels.
      An article I read a few months back stated that in a few decades HALF the adults in this country will be diabetic and that's just the adults.
      Childhood diabetes is raging out of control as well and weight isn't necessarily a factor.

      I personally know of quite a few slender people who are diabetic..... they never had weight issues and thought they were healthy and eating right.

      It's getting pretty obvious that it's the crap they put in the food, the pesticides on our food and the genetic modification of our food that is causing changes in our chemistry and that's what's making it hard for our bodies to properly deal with carbs.
      And it's not just humans, I've read about PETS having diabetes!
      Meat and some veggies are carb free but nearly all other food has carbohydrates and your body converts ALL carbs into sugar (glucose).

      These chemicals can and do alter genes. That's why you hear of diabetes "running in the family". Prior to WW1..... diabetes was considered Rare.
      How many more decades will it be before "everyone" has diabetes?

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • August_K:

      Increases in Diabetes, obesity, allergies and digestive tract diseases as well as early puberty ( soy)... All can be plausibly denied because they got their fancy phrases to hide behind.

    • 1 year ago
  • August_K
  • August_K
  • JanforGore
    • +3
      JanforGore  
    • Image
    • August_K:

      http://current.com/technology/93142657_separate-shelves-for-gm-foods-now-law-in-...

      Yes by all means keep writing your legislators in your state to call for labelling of GMOs in our food.

      Look at what was accomplished in Cyprus. A bill was passed calling for separate shelves for GM foods. This can be done in any grocery store in this country. We can do that in our own communities by approaching our grocers with our concerns. The grocery store I shop at now has an entire aisle of non GMO foods.

      And joining Millions Against Monsanto and The Institute For Responsible Technology is good too. The Institute site has an entire section on non GMO foods and retailers.

      I'll also be sending the link to this story to every major media outlet and asking them why they aren't reporting about this.

    • 1 year ago
  • August_K
    • +1
      August_K  
    • JanforGore:

      Thank You! Good idea about sending it to MSM.
      They have NO excuse not to inform us about this.

      If they an report about food recalls, they can also report about this.
      Both are in the best interests of their viewers.

    • 1 year ago
  • Milieu
    • +1
      Milieu  

    • Well, after all, the point is to make money, not to keep the customers alive.

      What's killing off a few thousand customers, between friends?

    • 1 year ago
  • PIANORAMA
  • bailey78
  • Dagum
  • JanforGore
    • +5
      JanforGore  
    • Dagum:

      I wish any media would carry it. And it is insidious because people who have kidney or liver problems, or develop diabetes, acid reflux disease ( never heard of that growing up), or some other malady already considered "mainstream" will never have it attributed to ingesting these organisms in 80 % of their processed foods.

    • 1 year ago
  • PIANORAMA
  • JanforGore
more from Tech:
from the community

top videos