http://www.responsibletechnology.org/blog/18
"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.
And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths--a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy.
The study, jointly conducted by Surov's Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security, is expected to be published in three months (July 2010)--so the technical details will have to wait. But Surov sketched out the basic set up for me in an email.
He used Campbell hamsters, with a fast reproduction rate, divided into 4 groups. All were fed a normal diet, but one was without any soy, another had non-GM soy, a third used GM soy, and a fourth contained higher amounts of GM soy. They used 5 pairs of hamsters per group, each of which produced 7-8 litters, totally 140 animals.
Surov told The Voice of Russia,
"Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs' growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly."
He selected new pairs from each group, which generated another 39 litters. There were 52 pups born to the control group and 78 to the non-GM soy group. In the GM soy group, however, only 40 pups were born. And of these, 25% died. This was a fivefold higher death rate than the 5% seen among the controls. Of the hamsters that ate high GM soy content, only a single female hamster gave birth. She had 16 pups; about 20% died.
Surov said "The low numbers in F2 [third generation] showed that many animals were sterile."
The published paper will also include measurements of organ size for the third generation animals, including testes, spleen, uterus, etc. And if the team can raise sufficient funds, they will also analyze hormone levels in collected blood samples.
Hair Growing in the Mouth
Earlier this year, Surov co-authored a paper in Doklady Biological Sciences showing that in rare instances, hair grows inside recessed pouches in the mouths of hamsters.
"Some of these pouches contained single hairs; others, thick bundles of colorless or pigmented hairs reaching as high as the chewing surface of the teeth. Sometimes, the tooth row was surrounded with a regular brush of hair bundles on both sides. The hairs grew vertically and had sharp ends, often covered with lumps of a mucous."
(The photos of these hair bundles are truly disgusting. Trust me, or look for yourself.)
At the conclusion of the study, the authors surmise that such an astounding defect may be due to the diet of hamsters raised in the laboratory. They write, "This pathology may be exacerbated by elements of the food that are absent in natural food, such as genetically modified (GM) ingredients (GM soybean or maize meal) or contaminants (pesticides, mycotoxins, heavy metals, etc.)." Indeed, the number of hairy mouthed hamsters was much higher among the third generation of GM soy fed animals than anywhere Surov had seen before.
Preliminary, but Ominous
Surov warns against jumping to early conclusions. He said, "It is quite possible that the GMO does not cause these effects by itself." Surov wants to make the analysis of the feed components a priority, to discover just what is causing the effect and how.
In addition to the GMOs, it could be contaminants, he said, or higher herbicide residues, such as Roundup. There is in fact much higher levels of Roundup on these beans; they're called "Roundup Ready." Bacterial genes are forced into their DNA so that the plants can tolerate Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Therefore, GM soy always carries the double threat of higher herbicide content, couple with any side effects of genetic engineering.
Years of Reproductive Disorders from GMO-Feed
Surov's hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce.
In a telling coincidence, after Ermakova's feeding trials, her laboratory started feeding all the rats in the facility a commercial rat chow using GM soy. Within two months, the infant mortality facility-wide reached 55%.
When Ermakova fed male rats GM soy, their testicles changed from the normal pink to dark blue! Italian scientists similarly found changes in mice testes (PDF), including damaged young sperm cells. Furthermore, the DNA of embryos from parent mice fed GM soy functioned differently.
An Austrian government study published in November 2008 showed that the more GM corn was fed to mice, the fewer the babies they had (PDF), and the smaller the babies were.
Central Iowa Farmer Jerry Rosman also had trouble with pigs and cows becoming sterile. Some of his pigs even had false pregnancies or gave birth to bags of water. After months of investigations and testing, he finally traced the problem to GM corn feed. Every time a newspaper, magazine, or TV show reported Jerry's problems, he would receive calls from more farmers complaining of livestock sterility on their farm, linked to GM corn.
Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine accidentally discovered that rats raised on corncob bedding "neither breed nor exhibit reproductive behavior." Tests on the corn material revealed two compounds that stopped the sexual cycle in females "at concentrations approximately two-hundredfold lower than classical phytoestrogens." One compound also curtailed male sexual behavior and both substances contributed to the growth of breast and prostate cancer cell cultures. Researchers found that the amount of the substances varied with GM corn varieties. The crushed corncob used at Baylor was likely shipped from central Iowa, near the farm of Jerry Rosman and others complaining of sterile livestock.
In Haryana, India, a team of investigating veterinarians report that buffalo consuming GM cottonseed suffer from infertility, as well as frequent abortions, premature deliveries, and prolapsed uteruses. Many adult and young buffalo have also died mysteriously.
Denial, Attack and Canceled Follow-up
Scientists who discover adverse findings from GMOs are regularly attacked, ridiculed, denied funding, and even fired. When Ermakova reported the high infant mortality among GM soy fed offspring, for example, she appealed to the scientific community to repeat and verify her preliminary results. She also sought additional funds to analyze preserved organs. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Samples were stolen from her lab, papers were burnt on her desk, and she said that her boss, under pressure from his boss, told her to stop doing any more GMO research. No one has yet repeated Ermakova's simple, inexpensive studies.
In an attempt to offer her sympathy, one of her colleagues suggested that maybe the GM soy will solve the over population problem!
Surov reports that so far, he has not been under any pressure.
Opting Out of the Massive GMO Feeding Experiment
Without detailed tests, no one can pinpoint exactly what is causing the reproductive travesties in Russian hamsters and rats, Italian and Austrian mice, and livestock in India and America. And we can only speculate about the relationship between the introduction of genetically modified foods in 1996, and the corresponding upsurge in low birth weight babies, infertility, and other problems among the US population. But many scientists, physicians, and concerned citizens don't think that the public should remain the lab animals for the biotech industry's massive uncontrolled experiment.
Alexey Surov says, "We have no right to use GMOs until we understand the possible adverse effects, not only to ourselves but to future generations as well. We definitely need fully detailed studies to clarify this. Any type of contamination has to be tested before we consume it, and GMO is just one of them."
International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. His first book, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating, is the world's bestselling and #1 rated book on GMOs. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, documents 65 health risks of the GM foods Americans eat everyday. Both are distributed by Chelsea Green Publishing. To help you choose healthier, non-GMO brands, use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.
Follow Jeffrey Smith on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyMSmith
Since the study isn't published yet, assuming they have not met the required standards is a little premature isn't it? And a little disingenous on your part, considering you appear not to like premature conjection without verifiable facts, at least in regards to this study ;)
I'll go with quality independent research over industry funded propaganda any day, thanks.
How many studies will it take before people wake up to the risks of GM?
Having said that, the vast majority of "quality independent research" shows no effect of eating GM on animals health. Which is why I always find it strange that Jeffrey never mentions any of it in his writing. Why only mention the studies that fit into an anti-GM message even when the authors of such work say things like "It is quite possible that the GMO does not cause these effects by itself"?
Jonathan
"Since the study isn't published yet, assuming they have not met the required standards is a little premature isn't it?"
If the study has met the required standards, then why the need to put out a press release one month prior to publication? Let me be rightly clear, Jeffrey Smith is to sound science what Rosanne Barr is to Shakespearean Theatre. This little game goes something like this: find the "research" before its been published OR critiqued by the scientific community, put out a press release or blog post with lots of scary headlines and generalizations, when the paper is published and ripped to shreds by people who actually understand the science, accuse Monsanto and other companies of trying to squash this poor "independent" researcher. A beautiful plan to be sure, but its getting predictable. This tabloid science was done with the Monarch Butterfly story, the Starlink story, the Putztai story, etc, etc.
I'll hand it to Smith though, he's perfected the application of the old addage "you can't unring the bell."
And I'll close with a bit of common sense. If what this guy has claimed was even partly true, most of the livestock in this country would already be dead, given that cattle, pigs and chickens have been eating these grains for 15 years.
Another unpublished study by an institute no-one has heard of, that doesn't even seem to have a website, doing animal experiments where huge proportions of the controls die unexplainedly. 5% for goodness sake. What are they doing with them?
Each to his own, but I'd much rather believe an industry-funded study where, although they have an obvious vested interest, their procedures are monitored to GLP legal standards and are published in Journals with impact factors greater than 0.1
Can't wait for the official publication in June. Should be interesting to see whether it really shows something or whether its a shoddily designed and performed piece of animal cruelty masquerading as science.
Jonathan
I'll admit I lean towards regulated acceptanceof GM from all the studies for and against that I've read and critically analysed myself. Most published studies show no health impacts of lab animals eating GM food. The few that do (such as Pusztai's work and the Ermakova study) are often not convincing enough for me although, as with this story, they make more exciting headlines in the press.
Has anyone got a theory as to how eating GM food causes these acute and long term toxicological effects? What do you guys envisage the cause of these effects? What happens in animal biochemistry and physiology that would make an animal that eats say 10% GM food in its diet sterile and have kidney, liver, mouth hair, impotence problems etc etc. If you were a scientist what experiments would you do to prove the cause of the GM component in these health issues? I'd honestly be interested to know the opinions of those who post here on this issue. There are a lot of claimed correlations, but never any suggestions as to the biological cause.
Jonathan
Loren
GMO pollution can't be contained.
"All were fed a normal diet, but one was without any soy, another had non-GM soy, a third used GM soy, and a fourth contained higher amounts of GM soy."
So yes, they did have a control group who ate non-GM soy. I believe the controversy around soy is that it can lead to hormone problems because it is sprayed with pesticides more liberally than any other crop. In most peer reviewed, non-corporate funded studies organic soy does not have the same effects. That is why it is explained later in the article that Surov needs to do further studies to see if the birth defects and mortality rates were a result of the genetic makeup of the soy or the pesticides used on it. Either way, both of these things come with GM soy.
Kudos to Surov for carrying out the experiment and publishing it, although I find it strange that more people aren't questioning food stuffs that come from the same company who invented agent-orange and DDT.
"In most peer reviewed, non-corporate funded studies organic soy does not have the same effects."
Both defects - Recombinant Genetic Modification and Toxic Agrochemicals are two separate examples of the same equivocal model for used for designing agricultural production systems that benefit only the manufacturers (i.e. Monsanto, Du Pont, Dow and Syngenta) that now produce both products (GM Seeds and the Agochemicals those crops either produce or tolerate), rather than farmers and consumers.
GM crops (along with Bank Fraud) constitute the fraud of the century.
See: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php
Obnoxious as Monsanto can be, sadly it is a smear invented by their opponents that they invented either of these compounds. That honour goes to The University of Illinois and Geigy/Novartis respectively.
DDT is also responsible for saving far more lives than it has harmed and in fact won its inventor a Nobel Prize for its insect-bourne disease prevention. Without it, we would have none of the safer current alternatives that have quite rightly replaced it in most countries. It's called scientific development and should be encouraged.
"All were fed a normal diet, but one was without any soy, another had non-GM soy, a third used GM soy, and a fourth contained higher amounts of GM soy."
An unpublished study based on 140 hamsters.
I think I'll wait for a study done by adults.
The results are still being compiled in report form and the study is scheduled to be published in June.
140 hamsters over several generations would be considered an extensive study by any credible scientist.
And instead of focusing on the number of hamsters involved, you should be more concerned with the results of breeding over generations to the genetically modified soy.
But really, we are all guinea pigs for Monsanto as long as GMO's aren't labeled. Should be interesting, pass the organic popcorn!