Comments on: GM corn causes organ problems in rats?

By: Marion

Marion — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:20:20 +0000

@Michelle: they must have taken it down. Sorry.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:36:35 +0000

Your Monsanto link does not work.

By: Kimball

Kimball — Mon, 17 May 2010 21:25:11 +0000

I received my doctorate in the field of pesticide toxicity and treatment. I have been a college professor in environmental health, and also have an undergraduate bachelors degree in Natural Resource Management. I just read the previous mentioned study twice. First, the statistical analysis in the study is far from complex and uncommon. Seems rather basic and straightforward to me. I am surprised that a scientist(DR. Nestle) found this study difficult to read. Studies are supposed to be technical and dense. This study does not prove GMO’s are toxic. What it does do is show that in this case liver and kidney organs of laboratory animals were irritated(overtaxed) by these foods. Longer, more comprehensive studies need to be done. Besides looking at organ detoxification and elimination of these foods I would like to see if GMO’s alter telomere integrity in humans. In the future perhaps independent researchers, if granted complete access to Monsanto’s data, will provide more clarity to these issues. What I do take away from this study is that Monsanto is hiding data from interested scientists. This is troubling to say the least. The manufacturer of GMO’s should provide comprehensive indepentent scintific data proving that GMO’s are safe. So far I am unconvinced that they have done that. At this point I would argue that GMO foods be so labeled to allow the consumer to accept or reject these products as they wish.

By: Jean-Pierre Zryd

Jean-Pierre Zryd — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:35:19 +0000

The above mentioned French investigators had their study financed by Greenpeace and Carrefour (a leading supermarket chain). This study is a part of the strategy of European anti-GMO groups to maintain fear and suspicion among consumers. It works by focusing on the so called “insufficient data” from Monsanto.
The question is why they didn’t do toxicology experiments using their own rats or mice and feeding them with GMO containing food ! Money was not missing. The answer is probably that they knew from their own experience or results published by other groups that these studies have always produced negative or inconclusive results (that is: no proof of toxicity).
Extensive discussions on the subject are available on European sites dedicated to public information. It might be interesting for US citizen to have a look on such sites.
http://pubresreg.org/
And the European Food Security Agency Rebuttal:
http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Seralini/EFSA-GMO_statement_MON863-20070626.pdf

By: Dave Love

Dave Love — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:16:18 +0000

thanks for addressing this topic! a colleague and I have provided our own response to the GM corn debate on our work blog at Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future: http://tiny.cc/Bhslk

By: Monsanto GM Corn Causing Organ Failure In Rats Study « Green project.tv

Monsanto GM Corn Causing Organ Failure In Rats Study « Green project.tv — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:49:12 +0000

[...] and that the IJBS is relatively obscure. Leading nutrition professor Dr. Marion Nestle wrote on her blog about the study, “I found the paper extremely difficult to read, in part because it is written in [...]

By: Monsanto GM Corn Causing Organ Failure In Rats Study: Everything You Need To Know

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:22:12 +0000

By: The Progressive Mind » Monsanto GM Corn Causing Organ Failure In Rats Study: Everything You Need To Know

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:34:14 +0000

By: DeSwiss

DeSwiss — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:50:06 +0000

A more important question for me rather than pointing fingers at the possible deficieinces to be found in IJBS’s study, is how did Monsanto get permission to sell these GMO seeds in the US and Europe in the first place, w/o any of those the governments demanding the more exacting and rigorous independent testing before they granted their approval? You know, the kind of testing and rigor that everyone seems to be calling for now?

For me, the FDA has long since become useless as anyone can see it is little more than a revolving door to ease into prior to those retirement years settling-in for the scientists and management of the corporations they’re supposed to be overseeing. I’ve come to depend upon the Europeans for food safety issues, and now it looks as though I can’t trust them either. Oy……

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:20:09 +0000

After looking at the paper, I have to say that the statistical techniques used here are in fact very, very basic tests. Simple ANOVA with appropriate tests for normality and homoscedacity. Welch test in the case of heteroscadacity, and KW where normality assumptions are violated. Additionally, paired t-tests with an appropriate effects/comparison test depending on violations of assumptions. This is very basic stuff.

I am not drawing any strong conclusions from this study, but I would refute what others have said above that the statistics were picked or chose arbitrarily. I have performed similar analyses and it’s pretty cut and dried. People have to realize (and scientists should be well aware of this) that statistics are a tool and we are expected to use them honestly. But there is still a large human/subjective component at work, in experimental design, parameter definition, etc., which is just inevitable. We only gain knowledge about the things we measure, but unfortunately cannot gain knowledge about the things we do not measure. This is why our scientific knowledge is dynamic and evolving.

I do not think this study “distorts science”. It seems like an ok study to me. It’s very simple, and just as good as many others I see. It is unfortunate that some will take this as “proof” of something, when it is far from definitive, but it has merit in my mind. I think the scientists were diligent here in acknowledging the low power they have to work with, and in doing so sufficiently qualified the results.