Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Séralini, et. al. - RoundUp-GMO Study Re-Published
Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
[font color-darkgray]Abstract[/font]
Background
The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant NK603 genetically modified (GM) maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup application and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb of the full pesticide containing glyphosate and adjuvants) in drinking water, were evaluated for 2 years in rats. This study constitutes a follow-up investigation of a 90-day feeding study conducted by Monsanto in order to obtain commercial release of this GMO, employing the same rat strain and analyzing biochemical parameters on the same number of animals per group as our investigation. Our research represents the first chronic study on these substances, in which all observations including tumors are reported chronologically. Thus, it was not designed as a carcinogenicity study. We report the major findings with 34 organs observed and 56 parameters analyzed at 11 time points for most organs.
Results
Biochemical analyses confirmed very significant chronic kidney deficiencies, for all treatments and both sexes; 76% of the altered parameters were kidney-related. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher. Marked and severe nephropathies were also generally 1.3 to 2.3 times greater. In females, all treatment groups showed a two- to threefold increase in mortality, and deaths were earlier. This difference was also evident in three male groups fed with GM maize. All results were hormone- and sex-dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors more frequently and before controls; the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by consumption of GM maize and Roundup treatments. Males presented up to four times more large palpable tumors starting 600 days earlier than in the control group, in which only one tumor was noted. These results may be explained by not only the non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup but also by the overexpression of the EPSPS transgene or other mutational effects in the GM maize and their metabolic consequences.
Conclusion
Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.
Keywords:
Genetically modified; GMO; Roundup; NK603; Rat; Glyphosate-based herbicides; Endocrine disruption
MORE
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
[font color-darkgray]Abstract[/font]
Background
The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant NK603 genetically modified (GM) maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup application and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb of the full pesticide containing glyphosate and adjuvants) in drinking water, were evaluated for 2 years in rats. This study constitutes a follow-up investigation of a 90-day feeding study conducted by Monsanto in order to obtain commercial release of this GMO, employing the same rat strain and analyzing biochemical parameters on the same number of animals per group as our investigation. Our research represents the first chronic study on these substances, in which all observations including tumors are reported chronologically. Thus, it was not designed as a carcinogenicity study. We report the major findings with 34 organs observed and 56 parameters analyzed at 11 time points for most organs.
Results
Biochemical analyses confirmed very significant chronic kidney deficiencies, for all treatments and both sexes; 76% of the altered parameters were kidney-related. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher. Marked and severe nephropathies were also generally 1.3 to 2.3 times greater. In females, all treatment groups showed a two- to threefold increase in mortality, and deaths were earlier. This difference was also evident in three male groups fed with GM maize. All results were hormone- and sex-dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors more frequently and before controls; the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by consumption of GM maize and Roundup treatments. Males presented up to four times more large palpable tumors starting 600 days earlier than in the control group, in which only one tumor was noted. These results may be explained by not only the non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup but also by the overexpression of the EPSPS transgene or other mutational effects in the GM maize and their metabolic consequences.
Conclusion
Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.
Keywords:
Genetically modified; GMO; Roundup; NK603; Rat; Glyphosate-based herbicides; Endocrine disruption
- Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize
Gilles-Eric Séralini1*, Emilie Clair1, Robin Mesnage1, Steeve Gress1, Nicolas Defarge1, Manuela Malatesta2, Didier Hennequin3 and Joël Spiroux de Vendômois1
* Corresponding author: Gilles-Eric Séralini criigen@criigen.info
Author Affiliations
1 Institute of Biology, EA 2608 and CRIIGEN and Risk Pole, MRSH-CNRS, Esplanade de la Paix, University of Caen, Caen 14032, Cedex, France
2 Department of Neurological, Neuropsychological, Morphological and Motor Sciences, University of Verona, Verona 37134, Italy
3 Risk Pole, MRSH-CNRS, Esplanade de la Paix, University of Caen, Caen 14032, Cedex, France
For all author emails, please log on.
Environmental Sciences Europe 2014, 26:14 doi:10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5
The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14
Received: 22 March 2014
Accepted: 16 May 2014
Published: 24 June 2014
© 2014 Séralini et al.; licensee Springer
MORE
- Hmmm... I detect a movement in the Force. Pain. Suffering. Embarrassment. A likely loss of income. It's as if millions of Monsanto trolls were crying out in anguish all at once: [font size=3]''RATS!!!!''[/font]
[sub script]v[/sub script] This rat in particular [sub script]v[/sub script]
16 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
- That sound you hear is the Monsanto death rattle. Or it could be the sound lawyers make when they laugh at the discovery of a new honeypot......
[center]
[/center]
to be front & center!!! 
Here's one from Dr. Lorrin Pang explaining how we need a moratorium called on GMO's until they are tested...
- Because they already KNOW EXACTLY what the results will be. TUMORS. When Monsanto submitted their request to dispense that poison in Europe they also submitted a piece of science pap that was basically laughed out of Europe.
They were turned down because that shit is poison. They know it and so does the EU, which is why it will likely never be planted there. It was it's DISAPPROVAL FOR USE IN EUROPE which prompted them to go after Séralini, et. al. When questioned in rebuttal to Monsanto's objections to the two-year Séralini, et. al. scientific study, their report to the EU Council that made the final decision to kick them asses to the curb, went like this:
"Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMO's, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."
Other Problems With Monsanto's Conclusions
When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.
Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests "lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases," wrote Seralini, et al, in their Doull rebuttal. [See "How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects Can Be Neglected for GMO's, Pesticides or Chemicals." IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]
Further, Monsanto's analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, "In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-GM equivalent."
The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.
link
Other Problems With Monsanto's Conclusions
When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.
Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests "lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases," wrote Seralini, et al, in their Doull rebuttal. [See "How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects Can Be Neglected for GMO's, Pesticides or Chemicals." IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]
Further, Monsanto's analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, "In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-GM equivalent."
The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.
link
Of course we now also know from other studies that the RNA from GMO plant material has been found to negatively impact upon the liver cell's ability to break-down LDL cholesterol.
Abstract
Our previous studies have demonstrated that stable microRNAs (miRNAs) in mammalian serum and plasma are actively secreted from tissues and cells and can serve as a novel class of biomarkers for diseases, and act as signaling molecules in intercellular communication. Here, we report the surprising finding that exogenous plant miRNAs are present in the sera and tissues of various animals and that these exogenous plant miRNAs are primarily acquired orally, through food intake. MIR168a is abundant in rice and is one of the most highly enriched exogenous plant miRNAs in the sera of Chinese subjects. Functional studies in vitro and in vivo demonstrated that MIR168a could bind to the human/mouse low-density lipoprotein receptor adapter protein 1 (LDLRAP1) mRNA, inhibit LDLRAP1 expression in liver, and consequently decrease LDL removal from mouse plasma. These findings demonstrate that exogenous plant miRNAs in food can regulate the expression of target genes in mammals. More
Our previous studies have demonstrated that stable microRNAs (miRNAs) in mammalian serum and plasma are actively secreted from tissues and cells and can serve as a novel class of biomarkers for diseases, and act as signaling molecules in intercellular communication. Here, we report the surprising finding that exogenous plant miRNAs are present in the sera and tissues of various animals and that these exogenous plant miRNAs are primarily acquired orally, through food intake. MIR168a is abundant in rice and is one of the most highly enriched exogenous plant miRNAs in the sera of Chinese subjects. Functional studies in vitro and in vivo demonstrated that MIR168a could bind to the human/mouse low-density lipoprotein receptor adapter protein 1 (LDLRAP1) mRNA, inhibit LDLRAP1 expression in liver, and consequently decrease LDL removal from mouse plasma. These findings demonstrate that exogenous plant miRNAs in food can regulate the expression of target genes in mammals. More
Sid
his other list of big name liars and manipulators. Speaks volumes about what you embrace, quite revealing. You are a DU'er right? One might think otherwise knowing what you glorify.
Sid, or is it you just don't get that they will lie, cheat, pillage and plunder all in the name of profit, who cares if suffering, misery and death are what they are selling, right? Laugh away, you just revealed plenty. 
Last edited Sat Jul 5, 2014, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)
http://angryscience.yougetwhatyouwant.org/seralini-scientist-or-reanimator/Yep! Seralini actually managed to find a journal stupid enough to publish this crap! I mean, what were the reviewers at this journal thinking? “HURR DURR THIS WINDOW IS DELICIOUS”?
Actually, it’s not that hard to figure out. The journal it’s published in, Environmental Studies Europe, is pretty much brand new – not old enough to have an official impact factor. Other sources have calculated an approximate impact factor of 0.55, which leaves it in the bottom 10% of all environmental journal in terms of impact factor. Also, the journal is published by Springer open journals, a pay-to-publish open-access journal. Now, I’m not going to say that all open-access journals are shit. They aren’t. Just… Yanno. Most of ‘em. Because the business model only relies on having scientists who want their material published, rather than readers who actually give a damn about the contents, open-access journals have absolutely no need to have anything resembling standards in what material they accept. Indeed, at times the results are downright comical, like when open-access journals accept literally unintelligible papers for publication again and again and again.
But even that’s too charitable to Seralini, because this turned up in a press release regarding the paper.
See what they did there? The paper was never reviewed for content! No wonder it got through – the editors weren’t asleep at the wheel, they willfully chose to publish something they ought to have known was bullshit! For the sake of “enabling rational discussion”. Um, buddy, hate to break it to ya, but “rational discussion” was had. The paper isn’t worth the trees it’s printed on. We can discuss that just fine without it being published in a peer-reviewed journal – a place it has no business being. But that’s not the worst excuse-making we get. No, it gets worse. Here are some of Seralini’s cronies friends defending him:
Actually, it’s not that hard to figure out. The journal it’s published in, Environmental Studies Europe, is pretty much brand new – not old enough to have an official impact factor. Other sources have calculated an approximate impact factor of 0.55, which leaves it in the bottom 10% of all environmental journal in terms of impact factor. Also, the journal is published by Springer open journals, a pay-to-publish open-access journal. Now, I’m not going to say that all open-access journals are shit. They aren’t. Just… Yanno. Most of ‘em. Because the business model only relies on having scientists who want their material published, rather than readers who actually give a damn about the contents, open-access journals have absolutely no need to have anything resembling standards in what material they accept. Indeed, at times the results are downright comical, like when open-access journals accept literally unintelligible papers for publication again and again and again.
But even that’s too charitable to Seralini, because this turned up in a press release regarding the paper.
Empirical natural and social sciences produce knowledge which should describe and explain past and present phenomena and estimate their future development. To this end quantitative methods are used. Progress in science needs controversial debates aiming at the best methods as basis for objective, reliable and valid results approximating what could be the truth. Such methodological competition is the energy needed for scientific progress. In this sense, [the editor] aims to enable rational discussions dealing with the article from G.-E. Séralini et al. (Food Chem. Toxicol. 2012, 50:4221–4231) by re-publishing it. By doing so, any kind of appraisal of the paper’s content should not be connoted. The only aim is to enable scientific transparency and, based on this, a discussion which does not hide but aims to focus methodological controversies. [the editor and journal's name will be released at the press conference, June 24th]
See what they did there? The paper was never reviewed for content! No wonder it got through – the editors weren’t asleep at the wheel, they willfully chose to publish something they ought to have known was bullshit! For the sake of “enabling rational discussion”. Um, buddy, hate to break it to ya, but “rational discussion” was had. The paper isn’t worth the trees it’s printed on. We can discuss that just fine without it being published in a peer-reviewed journal – a place it has no business being. But that’s not the worst excuse-making we get. No, it gets worse. Here are some of Seralini’s cronies friends defending him:
Woo is not science, no matter how many times it gets republished.
Sid