by Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network
Very big news exploded across the papers yesterday: Eating genetically engineered (GE) corn has been strongly linked to serious health effects--including mammary tumors and kidney and liver damage. A team of European scientists released the first-ever long-term animal feeding study of the health effects of eating GE foods in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. How and why we can find ourselves 15 years into the commercialization of GE crops without a single long-term, animal health impact study until now is the story beneath this story. I'll get to that in a minute.
Meanwhile, news of the study has gained global currency, and already France has called for a probe that could lead to European Union intervention, including emergency suspension of imports of the GE corn in question, a Monsanto product. Back at home, the findings take on particular relevance as California voters consider the Proposition 37 Right to Know initiative to label GE foods and U.S. Department of Agriculture considers approving a new wave of GE crops, starting with 2,4-D corn.
The researchers found that rats fed GE corn and those whose water contained environmentally relevant levels of RoundUp faced the following:
No single study can be definitive, but what Séralini's work points to is the need to take very seriously, and more rigorously understand, the risks to human health posed by GE crops and foods.
Unfortunately, independent research into the health effects of GE foods before they are released into our food supply has been virtually impossible in the U.S. The "Big 6" pesticide and biotech companies that manufacture and tightly control patents on GE products have suppressed and restricted research into the efficacy and health impacts of their products. Licensing agreements expressly forbid research unless it has been approved by the patent holders, and they retain and exercise the right to prevent publication when results are not as desired. Scientists have been complaining about this state of affairs since at least 1999. More recently in 2010, a Scientific American editorial again noted both the lack of access and the suppression of research.
Industry players repeatedly insist that their GE products are safe, but they do so on the basis of studies that have never been repeated and ones that independent scientists have criticized as being deeply flawed. Repeating a talking point is not the same thing as repeating a study.
Meanwhile, contrary to popular belief, U.S. regulators at the Food and Drug Administration do not require independent studies verifying safety before approving the release of these products into our food supply.
The Séralini study will draw predictable opposition from Dow and Monsanto as these companies rush new GE crops like 2,4-D-resistant corn to market. And who knows how long this particular news cycle will take to play out.
I can only hope that the shockwaves generated by this study will wake up the regulators in our public agencies who have been willfully asleep at the switch for 15 years now. In the meantime (since said regulators seem to be clinging fast to their pillows), it appears to be up to Americans to assert our right to know what's in our food and to choose for ourselves whether to eat genetically engineered products or not. This fundamental right to know will be at the ballot box in November when Californians have the opportunity to vote for Proposition 37 and demand labeling of genetically engineered foods.
At present, many of the foods we eat and feed our children--up to 80 percent of the products on grocery store shelves--include genetically engineered ingredients. But without a label, the only sure way to know our food is GE-free is if it's certified organic. Pesticide and GE seed corporations like Monsanto want to keep us in the dark to maintain unfettered, unlabeled access to the market. But we have a right to know what we're eating! Help us fight for the right to know:
Marcia Ishii-Eiteman is a senior scientist and director of the Sustainable Food Systems Program at Pesticide Action Network (PAN). Marcia holds a PhD in ecology and evolutionary biology from Cornell University. She has written extensively on the ecological, social, and political dimensions of food and agriculture, and was a lead author of the UN-sponsored International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development.
For more from Maria Rodale, go to www.mariasfarmcountrykitchen.com
Follow Maria Rodale on Twitter: www.twitter.com/farmkitchenblog
The European authorities, who are decidedly anti-GMO said--
"However, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) claimed the study lacked enough specific information on Friday, and asked the scientists who conducted it to provide more details on their testing methods. The move adds to the constant back and forth in the debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The “design, reporting and analysis of the study … are inadequate,” the EFSA said in its review, concluding that it could not “regard the authors’ conclusions as scientifically sound.”
The EFSA took issue with the type of rat used in the study, specifically the albino Sprague-Dawley strain of rat. Sprague-Dawley rats have a tendency to develop cancers naturally over the course of their two-year life span, which was also the duration of the study.
“This means the observed frequency of tumors is influenced by the natural incidence of tumors typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors,” the EFSA said.
Toxicologists and public health experts find fundamental problems with the study design. Critical information about how the research was conducted is absent, and the data presented do not support the author's interpretations. Among the key shortcomings are:
• Research protocol does not meet OECD standards
• Source and quality of corn used is unclear.
• Critical details on diet preparation and dietary intake are absent.
• Complete lack of data pertaining to assertions of liver or kidney histopathology, liver function tests, and cytochrome activity.
• Lack of any statistical analysis for mortality or tumor incidence endpoints.
• Mortality rates and tumor incidence in all groups fall within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats, which is known for a high incidence of tumors.
• Data presented are highly sporadic, using different methods for male and female animals, and are not sufficient to support conclusions drawn.
• There is a lack of dose-response relationship throughout the study.
There is no plausible mechanism for the results reported with genetically modified maize, and the results are inconsistent with an extensive body of experience and scientific study. Extensive animal and in-vitro (test-tube) data has demonstrated that glyphosate does not cause cancer or tumors, nor is an endocrine disrupter. This study does not provide information which calls into question the extensive safety evaluations of glyphosate or Roundup herbicides.
In all cases companies should imo indemnify their customers in case they deliberately used GE food without doing proper long-term health studies if unlabeled GE food represent an additional health risk!
problem is the Roundup or the corn or both. I'd prefer to see more
treatment of facts and less promoting of opinion. But the latter comes
ready to spew while the former requires some independent mental
effort.