Featured

Study of GMO & Pesticide Induced Tumors Reveals the Fraud of Industry Research

September 20, 2012 by admin in Science with 5 Comments

A study that should have been done decades ago has clearly documented that both Monsanto’s GMO corn and glyphosate (Roundup) are devastating to health. Here’s the truth that the FDA and USDA, Monsanto’s lapdogs, have been trying to hide.

Monsanto - DEATHCO, by Gaia-Health.comby Heidi Stevenson

A new study followed rats fed genetically-modified corn and exposed to Monsanto’s Roundup (glyphosate)for their entire lifespans. It clearly documented that both the genetically engineered food and the pesticide are responsible for ghastly tumors and devastating health problems. It stands in stark contrast to industry-funded studies that claimed no harm is done by these products—and the reason is obvious.

If a study is cut short, the harmful effects can be hidden. To avoid finding a problem, don’t look for it. Industry studies are masterful at employing this technique.

When someone says, “But this study hasn’t been duplicated, ” point out that it should have been done decades ago. The time for such duplication was before these poisons were foisted on us and the environment.

The study’s methodology was quite simple. Rats were divided into ten groups that differed according to what they were fed and exposed to:

  1. Fed a diet of corn virtually identical to Monsanto’s Roundup Ready (R-tolerant) NK603, but not genetically modified—the control group.
  2. Fed a diet of R-tolerant NK603 corn: 1 group fed 11% R-tolerant NK603, 1 group fed 22%, and 1 group fed 33%, for a total of 3 groups.
  3. Fed a diet of R-tolerant NK603 corn that had been treated with Roundup (glyphosate) during plant growth: 1 group fed 11% R-tolerant NK603, 1 group fed 22%, and 1 group fed 33%, for a total of 3 groups.
  4. Exposed to glyphosate in water at levels commonly found in the US: 1 group fed water treated with 50 ng/L of glyphosate, 1 group with 400 mg/kg, and 1 group with 2.25 g/L, which is only half of the agricultural dilution, for a total of 3 groups.

Humans in the US are routinely exposed to the same levels of GM corn and glyphosate that the study fed to rats. The research team leader, Gilles-Eric Séralini, molecular biology professor at the University of Caens, stated:

This is around the level [that] the American population may eat, where, unfortunately GMOs are not labeled. In Europe, we have this labeling, and it helps us to avoid these compounds if necessary and promote personal choices.

With regard to the lack of appropriate studies before his, Séralini said:

It’s bizarre and dramatic for us that the US government has not requested to make serious tests before releasing these products into the environment because these GMOs are pesticide sponges, and we know that pesticides can be harmful to humans.

The study started to see tumors form when the rats were about four months of age. Do you believe that it’s accidental that the studies used to approve the safety of genetically modified foods were limited to three months?

Study Results

The most obvious way to see the results is to show you photos of tumor-ridden rats produced in the study. See for yourself just how badly these poor animals were affected—and then stop to consider what glyphosate-resistant corn and glyphosate itself can do to you:

Tumor-ridden ratsThe simplest way to sum up the results is to point out that rats fed the genetically modified corn and the rats exposed to glyphosate either directly through their water or indirectly through their feed were devastated. The number of major pathologies found is detailed in the following two tables:

In males: Liver Hepato-
digestive
tract
Kidneys,
CPN
Controls 2 (2) 6 (5) 3 (3)
Fed 11% GMO 5 (4) 10 (6) 4 (4)
Fed 22% GMO 11 (7) 13 (7) 5 (5)
Fed 33% GMO 8 (6) 9 (6) 7 (7)
Fed 11% GMO + Glyphosate 5 (4) 9 (6) 5 (5)
Fed 22% GMO + Glyphosate 7 (4) 14 (6) 4 (4)
Fed 33% GMO + Glyphosate 6 (5) 11 (7) 4 (4)
Glyphosate in water at lowest dose 11 (5) 23 (9) 6 (6)
Glyphosate in water at middle dose 9 (7) 16 (8) 5 (5)
Glyphosate in water at highest dose 6 (5) 9 (5) 3 (3)

 

In females: Mammary
tumors
Mammary
glands
Pituitary
Controls 8 (5) 10 (5) 9 (6)
Fed 11% GMO 15 (7) 11 (8) 23 (9)
Fed 22% GMO 10 (7) 10 (7 20 (8)
Fed 33% GMO 15 (8) 16 (8) 8 (5)
Fed 11% GMO + Glyphosate 10 (6) 17 (8) 19 (9)
Fed 22% GMO + Glyphosate 11 (7) 16 (8) 9 (4)
Fed 33% GMO + Glyphosate 13 (9) 15 (9) 19 (7)
Glyphosate in water at lowest dose 20 (9) 26 (10) 22 (8)
Glyphosate in water at middle dose 16 (10) 20 (10) 22 (8)
Glyphosate in water at highest dose 12 (9) 18 (9) 13 (7)

The numbers outside parentheses refer to the total number of incidents, while the numbers inside parentheses refer to the total number of rats affected.

Males: Male pathological signs for the liver were liver congestion, macroscopic spots, and microscopic necrotic foci. Hepatodigestive pathological signs involved the liver, stomach, and small intestine. Only severe chronic progressive nephropathies (CPN) were included as kidney pathologies, which included two nephroblastomas in the GMO 11% & GMO 22% + Glyphosate groups. 

Females: The major tumors detected were fibroadenomas and adenocarcinomas. The study also found galactoceles and hyperplasias with atypia in the mammary glands. Pituitary dysfunctions included adenomas, hyperplasias, and hypertrophies.

Clearly, the primary pathologies found were aggressive cancers. Notice that every female rat given glyphosate at the lowest or mid-level doses was badly affected, and none of them received doses more than half what is routinely allowed in agricultural workers.

I could belabor all the details, but this should suffice to tell the story of how devastating Monsanto’s glyphosate pesticide and their corn seeds genetically engineered to make the crops resistant to glyphosate so they can sell ever more of their poison.

Campaign to Label GMOs

The FDA has declared that it’s illegal to label foods as non-GMO. Their excuse is that they know better than the people, so when they say that there’s no difference between GMOs and non-GMOs, then we should just accept that. The people, according to them, will make the wrong choices if they have information.

Corn with poison symbolClearly, the FDA has been acting solely for the benefit of Agribusinesses like Monsanto. They are protecting these behemoths, no matter what the cost to the people’s health.

In California, Proposition 37 is on the ballot in the coming election. Agribusiness has poured the money into the battle against labeling. They don’t have the facts on their side. They never have. If they did, they wouldn’t care if GMOs are labeled. But they know the truth: GMOs are devastating to people’s health.

We have the truth, and this study is too definitive to ignore. We must defeat Agribusiness and pass Proposition 37. Once that battle has been won, we can take on the FDA’s and USDA’s insane plan to force these deadly products literally down our throats. They must be stopped before they’ve destroyed the health of virtually every human being on the planet. If you can, please support this campaign.

At the same time, we need to take on the chemical companies. In truth, they are the same corporations as the pesticide manufacturers and the rest of Agribusiness. This study clearly demonstrates that it isn’t just GMOs that are devastating to health, but also the pesticides that many of these disastrous GMOs are designed to help sell. That is, after all, one of the primary purposes of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready NK603 seeds: to make their crops glyphosate resistant so that they can sell more and more of that poison.

By the way, when you see someone in a position of authority who says, “But this study hasn’t been duplicated, ” point out that it should have been done decades ago. The time for such duplication was before these poisons were foisted on us and the environment.

 Sources:

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

  • Chuck Darwin

    In panels J, K, L, they also need to show the control rats, as they grew comparable tumors. They also should not label it as GMO, but as what the transgene is. GMO applies to many lines of plants not tested here. These things alone might give you a notion that the work was set to sensationalize and frighten, not test a hypothesis.

    The small numbers are meaningless and what this report show is the incidence of tumors in a rat line that is known to generate large endocrine tumors. In a larger study these differences would disappear. You are witnessing normal variation in tumor incidence.

    Plus, why do anti-GM folks always suggest that big-ag is somehow influences the results with funding, yet now think this report is so credible and rigorous– even though it was funded in part by the sustainable food trust?

    More junk science that simply exposes the anti-GMO crowd’s inability to correctly interpret the strengths and weaknesses of a scientific report.

    • HeidiStevenson

      How do you like being a GMO shill? Do you sleep at night?

      Sure you do. You can’t do what you’re doing if you have a conscience.

  • Louis

    Chuck Darwin, hold on a second and let’s read the study. You wrote:”In panels J, K, L, they also need to show the control rats, as they grew comparable tumors.”

    The study says:”… In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly … Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls … In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher … Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier.”

    Comparable tumors? And BTW, tumors weren’t the only end-point it the study!

    You wrote: “They also should not label it as GMO, but as what the transgene is.”

    But they did: “The varieties of maize used in this study were the R-tolerant NK603 (Monsanto Corp., USA), and its nearest isogenic non-transgenic control. These two types of maize were grown under similar normal conditions, in the same location, spaced at a sufficient distance to avoid cross-contamination. The genetic nature, as well as the purity of the GM seeds and harvested material, was confirmed by qPCR anal- ysis of DNA samples. One field of NK603 was treated with R at 3 L ha

  • Pingback: The Myth of a GMO-Free European Union – Gaia HealthGaia Health

  • Pingback: The Great Culling – Summary | Harbingers of the Apocalypse

Search Gaia Health
newsletter software