Roundup Ready Genetically Modified Corn
LONDON, Sept 19 (Reuters) – In a study that prompted sharp criticism from other experts, French scientists said on Wednesday that rats fed on Monsanto’s genetically modified corn or exposed to its top-selling weedkiller suffered tumours and multiple organ damage.
The French government asked the country’s health watchdog to investigate the findings further.
Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and colleagues said rats fed on a diet containing NK603 – a seed variety made tolerant to dousings of Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller – or given water with Roundup at levels permitted in the United States, died earlier than those on a standard diet.
Industry experts not involved in the study were skeptical, with one accusing the French scientists of going on a “statistical fishing trip” and others describing its methods as well below standard.
The animals on the genetically modified (GM) diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage, according to the peer-reviewed study which was published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology and presented at a news conference in London.
Researchers said 50 percent of male and 70 percent of female rats died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group.
Monsanto spokesman Thomas Helscher said the company would review the study thoroughly. However, he added: “Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies performed on biotech crops to date, including more than a hundred feeding studies, have continuously confirmed their safety, as reflected in the respective safety assessments by regulatory authorities around the world.”
INDUSTRY EXPERTS SKEPTICAL
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are deeply unpopular in Europe but dominate major crops in the United States after Monsanto introduced a soybean genetically altered to tolerate Roundup in 1996.
Industry experts asked by reporters to review the scientific paper advised caution in drawing conclusions from it.
Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King’s College London, noted that Seralini’s team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were.
“This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted,” he said. “The statistical methods are unconventional … and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip.” [However, industry scientists used the SAME strain of rats in their own research!]
Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Center for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, said the study’s findings raised the question of why no previous studies have flagged up similar concerns.
“If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren’t the North Americans dropping like flies? GM has been in the food chain for over a decade over there – and longevity continues to increase inexorably,” he said in an emailed comment.
David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge said the methods, statistics and reporting of results were all below standard. He added that the study’s untreated control arm comprised only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also got tumors.
LONG-TERM EFFECTS?
While supporters of GM crops say previous studies have overwhelmingly pointed to their safety, critics argue there is still limited information about the long-term effects since the crops have only been around for just over 15 years.
In France, where opposition to GMOs has led to a ban on growing such crops, the government said it had asked its health and safety agency to assess the study and had also sent it to the European Union’s food safety agency (EFSA).
“Based on the conclusion …, the government will ask the European authorities to take all necessary measures to protect human and animal health, measures that could go as far as an emergency suspension of imports of NK603 maize in the European Union,” the French health, environment and farm ministries said in a joint statement.
Seralini, the scientist at the centre of the latest research, previously raised safety concerns based on a shorter rat study in 2009. His new study takes things a step further by tracking the animals throughout their two-year lifespan.
Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at King’s College London, who helped draft the paper, told reporters at a London briefing that its findings highlighted the “need to test all GM crops in two-year lifelong studies”.
“I feel this data is strong enough to withdraw the marketing approval for this variety of GM maize temporarily, until this study is followed up and repeated with larger number of animals to get the full statistical power that we want,” he said.
Seralini believes his latest lifetime rat tests give a more realistic and authoritative view of risks than the 90-day feeding trials that form the basis of GM crop approvals, since three months is only the equivalent of early adulthood in rats.
France’s Jose Bove, vice-chairman of the European Parliament’s commission for agriculture and known as an opponent of GM, called for an immediate suspension of all EU cultivation and import authorisations of GM crops. “This study finally shows we are right and that it is urgent to quickly review all GMO evaluation processes,” he said in a statement.
The study is also likely to create friction in the United States, where opponents of genetically engineered foods in California are fighting to have all GMOs removed from the food supply.
Gastank corn ends up in family meals (CLICK to hear)
Opponents of genetically modified crops have jumped on the results of the new study, which claims to have linked the consumption of GM maize with the development of tumors in rats.
The paper, published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, has generated headlines, including the Global Post’s alarming announcement that: “Monsanto corn causes tumors in rats, new study finds.”
Far below the horrifying pictures of mice with enormous tumors, some of the most frightening articles embed caveats. But, experts say, the criticisms should trump the results of the study, which used questionable methods, tumor-prone rats, and poor statistical techniques.
The research also came out of a French research lab, whose anti-GM studies have been harshly criticized in the past.
PHOTOS: Facts and Fables About Eco-Labels
“There is very little scientific credibility to this paper,” said Martina Newell-McGloughlin, a plant biotechnologist at the University of California, Davis. “The flaws in the test are just incredible to me. To be totally honest with you, the type of statistical analysis they used is really a type of fishing expedition. One individual referred to it as ‘fantasy statistics.'”
The study, which is written with long, convoluted sentences and highly technical language, reported the results of an experiment that fed maize to about 200 rats over a two-year period.
Divided into 10 groups of 20, some animals were given maize that had been grown in water treated with various levels of the herbicide Roundup. Other groups ate maize that had been engineered by Monsanto to contain a gene that made the crop resistant to Roundup. Some of the rats got maize that was both genetically modified and treated with the herbicide.
In the groups that ate engineered maize, the researchers reported that 70 percent of female rats and 50 percent of males died prematurely. Numbers were the same for rats that ate herbicide-treated food. In comparison, 20 percent of females and 30 percent of males in the control group ate herbicide-free, non-GM maize.
The study authors did not respond to requests by Discovery News for comment. But a New York Times article quoted lead researcher Gilles-Eric Séralini, of the University of Caen in France, as saying, “The results were really alarming.”
Industry criticisms began to roll in immediately.
One immediate problem, Newell-McGloughlin said, is that the line of rodents used in the study, known as Sprague-Dawley rats, are frequently used in cancer research because a large majority of them naturally develop tumors at a high rate, regardless of what they eat or how they’re raised. [But industry researchers use the SAME strain of rats in their studies.]
What’s more, the rats were allowed to eat an unlimited amount of food, which increases their chances of developing tumors. And two is a very old age for these rats, which could account for the large rate of cancer seen across all groups, including the controls.
The small size of the control group also raised red flags. Experienced scientists in the field had trouble interpreting data in the study, as seen in comments collected by the UK’s Science Media Center. It appears this study included just 10 or 20 control animals.
That means there were at least nine times more test animals than control animals. Typically, studies of this kind usually include two or three times more controls than experimental animals.
The results don’t make a lot of sense, either. No matter how much of either herbicide-laden or genetically modified maize the rats ate in proportion to their other food, rates of cancer and premature death remained the same. However, to be meaningful, toxicology studies like this should show a dose-dependent response, which means that if something is toxic, more of it should be more toxic.
Looking at the data, it appears that the study authors never tested their results to see if the numbers they turned up could have occurred by random chance, said David Tribe, a microbiologist at the University of Melbourne in Australia. And given the small numbers of animals used in the study, that’s a real possibility.
ANALYSIS: Controversy Swarms Bee and Pesticide Study
“The central issue in this study has to do with random effects, and it turns out these rats are not all that well suited to an investigation of this length of time,” Tribe said. “Just because they are getting tumors doesn’t mean that the food is causing it or that the herbicide is causing it. It could be that the difference between groups is just a result of random events leading to tumors.” [Like too much TV?]
Many tens of millions of people and animals have consumed substantial quantities of genetically modified soybeans, maize and other crops around the world over the last 15 years, Newell-McGloughiln claimed. Yet, there has been no evidence of a rise in related health outcomes. Nor have ‘many’ other scientific studies turned up any concerns about the health effects of GM crops. [Typically, studies get done when those w/money pay for them–Mon$anto!]
Despite the large number of severe criticisms that have been launched at the new study, it is likely to cause lasting damage to the reputation of GM foods.
“Unfortunately, the visual of these rats and the pervasiveness of the stories will most probably have a negative effect, especially since they are spreading through the net without context or fact-filters,” Newell-McGloughlin said. However, for many, a picture paints a thousand words.”
