“We were very much surprised by our findings. Until now, it
has been thought almost impossible for Bt proteins to be toxic to
human cells. Now further investigations have to be conducted to find
out how these toxins impact the cells and if combinatorial effects
with other compounds in the food and feed chain have to be taken
into account,” says Gilles-Eric Séralini from the University
of Caen, who supervised the experiments. “In conclusion, these
experiments show that the risks of Bt toxins and of Roundup have
been underestimated.”
The toxicity of the corn itself may have been a surprise,
but not that of Roundup:
These findings are in accordance with several other investigations
highlighting unexpected health risks associated with glyphosate
preparations.
Previous studies,
including ones by Dr. Séralini,
already showed exposure to glysophate (the active ingredient in Roundup)
to be “a risk factor for developing Non-Hodgkin lymphoma”,
and to be toxic to human umbilical, placental, and placental cells with a
that
“is far below agricultural recommendations and corresponds to low levels
of residues in food or feed.”
In Argentina,
Prof. Andrés Carrasco has demonstrated birth defects in amphibians
and there is increasing evidence of human birth defects.
Now we have even more hard evidence of the toxicity of Monsanto’s GM corn
and of Monsanto’s Roundup.
The journal article
is available through Wiley online.
Many if not most pesticides are sprayed on crops genetically modified
to resist them. Ban GM crops and reduce spraying. Two states in Mexico
prove it can be done. Mexico, the country where corn was originally
domesticated could lead the way back to healthy agriculture.
The Mexican States of Tlaxcala and Michoacán each passed legislation
banning the planting of genetically modified corn to protect natural
plants from further contamination of transgenes. Together, both states
produce about a third of all of Mexico’s corn. Below this story is a
detailed timeline of genetic contamination and legislation in Mexico.
The timeline is a long saga including intimidation of scientists
attempting to research the problem.
The Mexican federal government caved in to big agro,
but two Mexican states are fighting back anyway.
It’s not just the pesticides, it’s the crops themselves.
Gilles-Eric Séralini and colleagues surveyed the state
of research and found
GMOs Linked to Organ Disruption in 19 Studies,
as Jeffrey Smith reports for the Institute for Responsible Technology.
…consuming genetically modified (GM) corn or soybeans leads to significant
organ disruptions in rats and mice, particularly in livers and kidneys.
…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.
And these were the corn and soybeans that people eat.
The documentary points out many products in German stores that
include GM soy.
In Argentina, it’s even worse, with increasing numbers of birth defects.
They interview
Prof. Andrés Carrasco about his research on amphibians:
“The hemispheres do not separate, like you can see here.
If you look closely you can see one brain.
Glyphosate can cause this kind of mechanisms, for it is an enzymatic toxin.”
“To human cells glyphosate is already toxic in a very low dose.
A farmer uses a much higher dose on the field.
Roundup is even more toxic than glysophate,
for that is only one of the ingredients in Roundup.”
Roundup says none of this applies to humans and Roundup is safe.
Seralini
says:
Who should you believe?
A corporation repeatedly convicted of deception,
or scientists who say that GM crops
cause liver and kidney damage in animals,
according to research using Monsanto’s own data.
The first economic analysis of growing genetically modified crops on a wide scale has found that the biggest winners were the farmers who decided not to grow them.
The study, which looked at maize yields in the corn belt of the United States, found that farmers who continued to grow conventional crops actually earned more money over a 14-year period than those who cultivated GM varieties.
The article then tries to say they nonetheless benefited from genetic modification:
All farmers benefited from the significantly lower level of pests that came about after the introduction of GM maize to the US in 1996, but the conventional farmers who continued to cultivate non-GM varieties also benefited financially from not having to pay the extra costs of purchasing GM seeds.
Um, what about not having to pay for the pesticides that go with the GM seeds?
The study’s author admits they didn’t study that sort of thing:
“Additionally, environmental
benefits from corn borer suppression are likely occurring, such as less insecticide use, but these benefits have yet to be documented,” Dr Hutchinson said.
The Telegraph spelled his name wrong. This appears to be the actual report:
Areawide Suppression of European Corn Borer with Bt Maize Reaps Savings to Non-Bt Maize Growers
W. D. Hutchison, E. C. Burkness, P. D. Mitchell, R. D. Moon, T. W. Leslie, S. J. Fleischer, M. Abrahamson, K. L. Hamilton, K. L. Steffey, M. E. Gray, R. L. Hellmich, L. V. Kaster, T. E. Hunt, R. J. Wright, K. Pecinovsky, T. L. Rabaey, B. R. Flood, and E. S. Raun (8 October 2010)
Science 330 (6001), 222. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1190242]
The full text is behind a paywall, but
the abstract
concludes with:
…and highlight economic incentives for growers to maintain non-Bt maize refugia for sustainable insect resistance management.
So growing 98% of crops from GM seeds, as is the case in Georgia,
is a bad idea.
“This study was just routine,” said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry.
After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.
Not just a little higher: five times highher infant mortality.
A report published in the International Journal of Microbiology has verified once again that Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) crops are causing severe health problems. A legal challenge issued against Monsanto forced the multi-national agriculture giant to release raw data revealing that animals fed its patented GM corn suffered liver and kidney damage within just three months.
Adding to the mounting evidence that GM crops are dangerous all around, this information provides a damning indictment against Monsanto which continually insists that its GM products are safe. Not only are GM crops proving disastrous for the environment, but study after study, including those conducted by Monsanto itself, is showing that GM foods are detrimental to health.
For a couple of years, the Institute for Responsible Technology has predicted that the US would soon experience a tipping point of consumer rejection against genetically modified foods; a change we’re all helping to bring about. Now a December article in Supermarket News supports both our prediction and the role the Institute is playing.
“The coming year promises to bring about a greater, more pervasive awarenes” of the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food supply, wrote Group Editor Robert Vosburgh, in a trade publication that conventional food executives and retailers use as a primary source of news and trends in the industry. Vosburgh describes how previous food “culprits” like fat and carbs “can even define the decade in which they were topical,” and suggests that GMOs may finally burst through into the public awareness and join their ranks.
Vosburgh credits two recent launches with “the potential to spark a new round of concern among shoppers who are today much more attuned to the ways their food is produced.” One is our Institute’s new non-GMO website, which, he says, “provides consumers with a directory of non-GMO brands . . . developed ‘for the 53% of Americans who say they would avoid GMOs if labeled.’”
But that doesn’t mean big food won’t fight back. The Supermarket News
article ends by taking the Forbes line that all Monsanto needs is better PR:
Continue reading →
Over the last twenty years, changes in technology and the marketplace have revolutionized agriculture markets, producing some substantial efficiencies as well as concerns about concentration. Notably, farmers today increasingly turn to patented biotechnology that is used to produce seeds resistant to herbicides and insects, producing larger crop yields than ever before. At the same time, this technological revolution and accompanying market developments have facilitated the emergence of large firms that produce these products, along with challenges for new firms to enter this market.
The Antitrust Division recently evaluated a series of mergers in the agriculture industry, obtaining relief to remedy identified anticompetitive concerns. In the market for cottonseeds, for example, the Antitrust Division required Monsanto and Delta & Pine Land to divest a significant seed company, multiple cottonseed lines, and other valuable assets before allowing them to proceed with their merger. Also, because DPL had had a license allowing it to “stack” a rival’s trait with a Monsanto trait, Monsanto was also required to amend certain terms in its current trait license agreements with other cottonseed companies to allow them, without penalty, to stack non-Monsanto traits with Monsanto traits. As a result, producers of genetically modified traits gained greater ability to work with these seed companies.(11) Going forward, the Division will continue to examine developments in the seed industry.
…For many farmers and consumer advocates, we understand that there are concerns regarding the levels of concentration in the seed industry — particularly for corn and soybeans. In studying this market, we will evaluate the emerging industry structure, explore whether new entrants are able to introduce innovations, and examine any practices that potentially threaten competition.
It’s easy to read that as a warning to Monsanto that DoJ has ruled before and may again.
We’ll see if it’s all talk or if any action follows.
has been thought almost impossible for Bt proteins to be toxic to human cells. Now further investigations have to be conducted to find out how these toxins impact the cells and if combinatorial effects with other compounds in the food and feed chain have to be taken into account,” says Gilles-Eric Séralini from the University of Caen, who supervised the experiments. “In conclusion, these experiments show that the risks of Bt toxins and of Roundup have been underestimated.”
