Study linking GM maize to cancer must be taken seriously by regulators

[xchrom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/28/study-gm-maize-cancer


One of the rats fed GM maize NK603 for two years. The animal has developed an abdominal cancer tumour. Photograph: Tous des cobayes/J+B Sequences

Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, professor of molecular biology at Caen university in France, knows how to inflame the GM industry and its friends. For seven years he and his team have questioned the safety standards applied to varieties of GM maize and tried to re-analyse industry-funded studies presented to governments.

The GM industry has traditionally reacted furiously and personally. Séralini has been widely insulted and smeared and last year, in some desperation, he sued Marc Fellous, president of the French Association of Plant Biotechnology, for defamation, and won (although he was only awarded a nominal €1 in damages).

But last week, Seralini brought the whole scientific and corporate establishment crashing down on his head. In a peer-reviewed US journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, he reported the results of a €3.2m study. Fed a diet of Monsanto's Roundup-tolerant GM maize NK603 for two years, or exposed to Roundup over the same period, rats developed higher levels of cancers and died earlier than controls. Séralini suggested that the results could be explained by the endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, and overexpression of the transgene in the GMO.

This was scientific dynamite. It was the first time that maize containing these specific genes had been tested on rats over two years - nearly their full lifespan - as opposed to the 90-day trials demanded by regulators. Around a dozen long-term studies of different GM crops have failed to find similar effects. Séralini's study also looked at the toxicity of the Roundup herbicide when fed directly to rats.

[Heather MC]

1. Eat only organic

use coupons, tons of organic coupons on eBay. If we stop buying GMO laden foods they will have to stop making it. Read labels, research companies. Protect yourself and your family, our Government has dropped the ball

[RuthK]

5. Labels?

The problem is the GMOs are not labelled as such. We are one of the few countries in the world that does not require labelling. Last year when Vermont was going to require labels on GMOs, Monsanto threatened to sue them. This year, California's Proposition 37 would require labelling. GM companies and big food are spending millions trying to defeat it. Right now, most corn and soybeans are genetically engineered. But other foods are quickly being added. Both the FDA and USDA staff come from GM companies and big food. No help there.

The study also showed kidney and liver damage. Russia and the EU are now suspending shipments of our GM corn until further study is done.

[Heather MC]

8. I also said Research

if there is a product you like but it comes from a major manufacturer count on it being GMO. If it had Cargill, or Monsanto as a producer it's. no good.

Find out which companies support Monsanto and stay far away from them.

Kraft, Kelloggs , Oscar Myer, post, non organic milk, Tyson chicken. Any major brand is GMO. You don't need to see it on a label to know that the information is out there. Don't believe anything labeled "natural" The FDA has a funny definition for "natural"

[Heather MC]

2. Cow cancer

http://cattletoday.info/cancereye.htm

When cows get cancer they are not supposed the be sent to market. However nowadays cattle in most of the US is fed GMO CORN. how much you wanna bet a whole lot of sick cows are being sent to the market anyway?

[Loudestlib]

3. marketing

Everybody just start calling it cancercorn and that will be the end of it.

[peacebird]

6. Cancercorn, catchy name!

[coldwaterintheface]

7. Cancercorn, great name!

Gonna use it now!

[Voice for Peace]

4. big kick

[greiner3]

9. From Wiki;

"Former Monsanto employees currently hold positions in US government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Supreme Court." These include:

"Michael A. Friedman, MD, was Senior Vice President of Research and Development, Medical and Public Policy for Pharmacia, and later served as an FDA deputy commissioner (A senior vice president of Searle, during Donald Rumsfeld's term as CEO).[212][213]
Linda J. Fisher )vice president of Dupont) was an assistant administrator at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before she was a vice president at Monsanto from 1995 to 2000. In 2001, Fisher became the deputy administrator of the EPA.[111]
Michael R. Taylor was an assistant to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner before he left to work for a law firm, one client of which was Monsanto. Taylor then became deputy commissioner of the FDA from 1991 to 1994, during which time the FDA approved rBST.[111] Anti-GM activists accused him of conflict of interest but a Federal investigation cleared him. Taylor was later re-appointed to the FDA in August 2009 by President Barack Obama.[214][215]
United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas worked as an attorney for Monsanto in the 1970s. Thomas wrote the majority opinion in the 2001 Supreme Court decision J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.[216] which found that "newly developed plant breeds are patentable under the general utility patent laws of the United States."[111][216][217]

Public officials with indirect connections or who worked for Monsanto after leaving public office include:

Mickey Kantor served on Monsanto's board after serving in government as a trade representative.[111]
William D. Ruckelshaus served as the first head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970, was subsequently acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and then Deputy Attorney General of the United States. From 1983 to 1985, he returned as EPA administrator. After leaving government he joined the Board of Directors of Monsanto; he is currently retired from that board.[218]
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was chairman and chief executive officer of G. D. Searle & Company, which Monsanto purchased in 1985. Rumsfeld's stock and options in Searle were $12 million USD at the time of the transaction.[111]"

Other 'connected people in the business world who are connected with Monsanto include; "anice L. Fields, president of McDonald's USA; serves as a member of the National Academy of Sciences Working Group on Biological Weapons, the Forum on Microbial Threats of the Institute of Medicine Board on Global Health and the Institute of Medicine Committee on Advances in Technology and Next Generation Biowarfare Threats. He is Non-Executive Chairman of Orchid Biosciences in Princeton and has served on numerous boards, with current appointments on the Board of Directors for both Monsanto..."

I don't think, until Thomas' exit of the SCOTUS, Monsanto will be successfully be brought to their knees. Besides, there are enough powerful people, with connections to current and former mega-businesses and politics that Monsanto will experience much in the way of determent either in this generation.

[Overseas]

10. K&R. Label GMO foods so we have a choice. Those who want to prove they aren't scared can go ahead

and purchase as many genetically modified foods as they like.

But those who would prefer to eat non-genetically modified foods should have the right to choose those.

[robinlynne]

11. but our top regulator comes from the Monsanto corporation.

[Odin2005]

12. Are people ignoring the article I posted saying that this study is BS?

[HuckleB]

14. Well, the Guardian's "environmental" reporter appears to be doing just that.

Dang scientists, always reviewing each other's work!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-26-2011/weathering-fights---science---what-s-it-up-to-

[mike_c]

13. this study was seriously flawed, and was manipulated to produce these results....

From start to finish, this was a bad piece of work. The rats they used are from a line with a strong propensity to develop tumors when well fed, i.e. a cancer model. They would have likely obtained the same results feeding them manna from heaven. The analyses were bogus. The results were released into the popular press, with reporters required to sign agreements prohibiting consultation with other researchers to confirm results. I mean HELLO! Bad science calling!

Hook, line, and sinker. That's how easily the anti-GMO Luddites are hoodwinked. They'll deceive themselves, given half a chance.

[Odin2005]

15. The Luddites will believe what they want to believe.

Much like how the Climate Change Deniers yap about how the Earth is actually cooking because some stupid pseudoscientific book says so.

[proverbialwisdom]

16. Check it out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112724939

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101757509