GM: New study shows unborn babies could be harmed

[nosmokes]

so can we have some GMO content labeling laws now, or is everyone's lips still too firmly affixed to the bio/chem/agri corps asses?
--###--


original

GM: New study shows unborn babies could be harmed

Mortality rate for new-born rats six times higher when mother was fed on a diet of modified soya
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 08 January 2006

Women who eat GM foods while pregnant risk endangering their unborn babies, startling new research suggests.
The study - carried out by a leading scientist at the Russian Academy of Sciences - found that more than half of the offspring of rats fed on modified soya died in the first three weeks of life, six times as many as those born to mothers with normal diets. Six times as many were also severely underweight.
The research - which is being prepared for publication - is just one of a clutch of recent studies that are reviving fears that GM food damages human health. Italian research has found that modified soya affected the liver and pancreas of mice. Australia had to abandon a decade-long attempt to develop modified peas when an official study found they caused lung damage.
And last May this newspaper revealed a secret report by the biotech giant Monsanto, which showed that rats fed a diet rich in GM corn had smaller kidneys and higher blood cell counts, suggesting possible damage to their immune systems, than those that ate a similar conventional one.
The United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation held a workshop on the safety of genetically modified foods at its Rome headquarters late last year. The workshop was addressed by scientists whose research had raised concerns about health dangers. But the World Trade Organisation is expected next month to support a bid by the Bush administration to force European countries to accept GM foods.
~snip~
.
.
.
-###--
complete articlehere

[TNDemo]

1. It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature.

I have been wondering when science would prove it.

[LisaL]

9. All science does is fooling with mother nature.

If we didn't, you wouldn't even have an aspirin to take.

[Deja Q]

12. We've been able to feed MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS because of it.

On a planet that could otherwise not support us.

Surely a lesser time to be alive for many is better than a longer lifespan for fewer?

[KittyWampus]

20. Billions can be better fed with NO GM food. Also, what happens when

some bacteria or virus or bug attacks a crop of GM in the US?

It will wipe out the ENTIRE crop, since every single plant is a carbon copy and no variation exists for resistance.

Genetically modified food has no benefit except for the corporations raising the seed.

Organic methods have proven themselves and improved.

[baby_bear]

2. This could be huge

<snip from the same article>
a staggering 55.6 per cent of those born to mothers on the GM diet perished within three weeks of birth, compared to 9 per cent of the offspring of those fed normal soya, and 6.8 per cent of the young of those given no soya at all.
...
The Monsanto soya is widely eaten by Americans. There is little of it, or any GM crop, in British foods though it is imported to feed animals farmed for meat.

</snip>

b_b

[MidwestTransplant]

3. After the whole BSE thing and while the hoof and mouth was happening,

when I lived in the UK for a year I ate only fish and vegies! I can't even donate blood in the US because I lived in Britain.

[bettyellen]

4. NY Times: Lax Oversight Found in Tests of Gene-Altered Crops

Lax Oversight Found in Tests of Gene-Altered Crops

By ANDREW POLLACK
NY Times

"The Department of Agriculture has failed to regulate field trials of genetically engineered crops adequately, raising the risk of unintended environmental consequences, according to a stinging report issued by the department's own auditor.

The report, issued late last month by the department's Office of Inspector General, found that biotechnology regulators did not always notice violations of their own rules, did not inspect planting sites when they should have and did not assure that the genetically engineered crops were destroyed when the field trial was done.

In many cases, the report said, regulators did not even know the locations of field trials for which they granted permits.
The regulatory branch "lacks basic information about the field test sites it approves and is responsible for monitoring, including where and how the crops are being grown, and what becomes of them at the end of the field test," the report said.

The audit results are likely to renew calls by environmental groups for tighter regulations. "Over all, I thought the report was devastating," said Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington."

more....
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/science/03crop.html

[Igel]

5. I tried yandexing Ermakova.

She's chair of the profkom at the institute, but not one of the research fellows. The profkom website is http://www.ihna.ru/book.php?l=1&id=94, if you want to take a gander at her (I don't know which she is in the jpg). She has a very limited profile on Yandex, the closest thing there is to a Russian Google (then again, the Russian Internet isn't as developed, so absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence). She doesn't *appear* to be a leading scientist in the RAN, and I'm not sure what the "Dr." in front of her name means--it used to mean something barely above a master's degree, but things are in a bit of flux. This study, and a sausage survey, *seem* to be her claims to fame.

Intriguing results. Even if she were clearly a leading scientist, though, I'd want to see confirmation and, at the least, details on the protocol she employed.

[LisaL]

6. Do notice that original article claims the study

hasn't been published, but is only in preparation. I find it kind of fishy.

[KittyWampus]

7. As do I, why aren't American babies also suffering higher mortality?

this would effect ALMOST ALL American babies across income levels.

[LisaL]

8. The study was supposedly done on rats.

Rats and humans aren't exactly the same. Also, it could depend on how much of the diet is modified soya. What I find fishy is that the results of this study is discussed while the study hasn't even been published.

[nosmokes]

10. US ranks 36 in infant mortality rate. n/t

[KittyWampus]

13. linked to disparity of income & access to health care. GM Food Consumption

would cut across economic levels in America since it's so prevalent.

I am not arguing that GM foods aren't harmful or that this study absolutely CAN'T be true.

[crikkett]

33. miscarriages included in infant mortality rate?

I read a 1997 book saying that 30% of boxed/canned/frozen foods in US contain GM soy & corn ingredients.

[moc]

41. No, IMR doesn't include m/c. Fetal deaths (deaths in utero

after 24wk I think) are included in the fetal death rate. Some report a total "feto-infant mortality rate" which combines infant mortality and fetal mortality, but most often it's just infant mortality.

There is no reporting mechanism for miscarriages.

[moc]

42. Doesn't support claim of OP...nt

nt

[Tace]

15. Well, Gee, They Are -- At Least Compared With EU Countries

The United States ranks 36th in infant survival (mortality) among countries of the world.

[KittyWampus]

19. Yes, but as I said... it's linked to income levels. If GM was culprit

it would be more across the economic spectrum, No?

[daleo]

16. The effect size is very high

There is a bit of too good (or too bad, really) to be true to the report.

On edit - It does raise a red flag, though, and calls for follow-up studies to see if the effect can be replicated.

[PaulaFarrell]

30. Shoot the messenger, eh?

good strategy

[Igel]

46. Only a good strategy when there's an appeal to authority

involved. The article makes an appeal to authority, and I expressed doubts about how authoritative her reputation makes her.

As for the rest, the report on the study is truly, truly skimpy, and needs to be fleshed out. Lots of studies have potentially horrible conclusions embedded in them, until you look at the protocols, methodology, and analysis. Sometimes the conclusions stand, sometimes they collapse under the weight of poor protocols, methodology, and analysis. Before I buy a conclusion, I like to look over the support for the conclusion if there's any chance I can understand it; in this case, it doesn't sound beyond my limited knowledge. This isn't shooting the messenger; this is simply not being gullible.

[baby_bear]

11. more info here

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=299

<snip>
Ermakova preserved several major organs from the mother rats and offspring, drew up designs for a detailed organ analysis, created plans to repeat and expand the feeding trial, and promptly ran out of research money. The $70,000 needed was not expected to arrive for a year. Therefore, when she was invited to present her research at a symposium organized by the National Association for Genetic Security, Ermakova wrote “PRELIMINARY STUDIES” on the top of her paper. She presented it on October 10, 2005 at a session devoted to the risks of GM food.

</snip>

b_b

[MagickMuffin]

14. Regardless of the Study

Americans should be concerned.
Why does the food industry refuse to label their products as GM foods. The FDA should force the industry to label their products?

Speaking from experience, I have been suffering from GM, i.e. FRANKENFOODS for several years now. After eating peanuts, corn and some soy products my legs (below the knees only) breaks out in a rash, and often swelling is involved as well. Sometimes the rash is extremely painful, sometimes it is blotchy, sometimes it is a few spots here and there, other times it is very large patches. This usually last for several days, until the rash disappears.

Until we know for sure what exactly happens to people we will never know what the ramifications are, now do we.
Please do not believe that Genetically Modified Foods are beneficial until we know if there is adequate research has been done. And certainly don't believe anything Monsanto has to say, they are only concerned about their profits.
After all, all of their seed products are for only one crop, you cannot gather seed for your next years harvest.:think:

National Geographic did an excellent article several years ago. It explained how fish genes are being spliced with tomatoes, etc.
I'm not sure if this link is the same as the print version in which I learned more about it.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0205/feature2/

[Ezlivin]

17. *If true* would pro-lifers then protest GM food?

If a peer-reviewed journal supported similar results stateside, I wonder if the pro-life organizations would then rush to urge a banning of GM food?

This would be very interesting politically, since most pro-life organizations are decidedly Republican, and most Republicans support agri-businesses' right to do pretty much anything.

However, this would be equally frightening if it were true. Food manufacturers have strongly resisted efforts at labeling GM foods.

[Marleyb]

38. Our food was created by "Intelligent design"

We should be absolutely united with the fundies on this issue. If they were at all intelligent themselves, they should be fighting this instead of abortion.

We are human guinea pigs. Why is it that no other countries will accept our GM foods? Why won't they label it? Why did we force African countries to accept it by threatening them with removal of other aide.

I would encourage everyone to look at their own food supply. Almost all Canola, soy and yellow corn are Genetically modified and in almost all processed foods. They are next to impossible to avoid. Our food supply is seriously tainted. There have been no long term studies. Do you trust the government(corporations) with your health? It sure seems like certain health problems are on the rise...diabetes, obesity...who knows what this crap is causing.

[LisaL]

18. I searched her up on google.

She clearly has an agenda. She doesn't publish in scientific journals. Before succumbing to mass hysteria, take a deep breath and realize that it does not sound trustworthy.
http://irina-ermakova.by.ru/eng/articles.html

[PaulaFarrell]

31. Are you saying that the pro-GM researchers don't have an agenda?

Virtually all GM studies available were made in the process of getting regulatory approval, hence funded or carried out by the GM companies themselves. They have actively withheld studies showing negative results. What's more, the number and quality of the studies is limited because the EPA mandated that GM organisms need not be considered 'substantially different' that non-modified organisms.

I don't know if this study is valid or not, but no doubt even if it is, the hitmen will come out to destroy this woman's reputation, as has been done to other scientists who dare to speak out against 'progress'.

[LisaL]

34. Scientists publish in scientific journals.

Where are this woman's publications? She is called a leading scientist, but what has she got to show for it? I do not find it believable, and if you do, so be it.

[PaulaFarrell]

43. I do find it believable

It's entirely in line with other studies showing toxic effects of GM food. I don't know why you seem want to demolish somebody's chacacter because they've done a study you disagree with. It's a preliminary study, so why would it be published?

[yellowcanine]

45. You are defending the indefensible with a question like that. If it is

a preliminary study it should not be published and NEITHER should it be made public. It is not attacking someone's character to point out that most of her work - as listed on her own home page - appears to be of the political advocacy type rather than peer reviewed research. We don't know that she has done a "study" in the scientific sense. There is nothing to agree or disagree with along those lines. And what "other studies show the toxic effects of GM food? Be specific if you are going to make a claim like that so that the scientific validity of the studies can be verified. As far as I know the only issue with toxicity is the possible transfer of allergenic proteins - which is a real issue but certainly not one which would justify banning all GM foods, as we don't ban foods just because they cause allergies in some people.

[Trillo]

21. There was a book called Pottenger's Cats

that I read some years ago, and while it didn't deal with GM food, it documented the author's experiments with nutritionally deficient diets on cats. The bottom line was that it took 4 generations for a nutritional deficiency to manifest, and I seem to recall that even with proper and complete nutrition, this last generation couldn't be saved. The implication was that a nutritional deficiency caused genetic damage, and that damage was delayed, the first generation seemed fine on the deficient diet.

[alittlelark]

22. Part of the PNAC doctrine involved 'reducing pop. growth'.

GM foods seem to fit into this paradigm all too well. Interesting how the 'powers that be' are also benifited by GM's........

[Massacure]

23. Can't afford an Abortion? Do GM instead.

Hehehe, how much do we have to chant that until they try to ban GM as rabidly as Abortion? :evilgrin:

[LisaL]

27. You might end up with lots of babies this way.

The author of this unpublished preliminary study does not publish in scientific journals. She clearly has an agenda. Apparently, she run out of money before she could publish the results-well, isn't that convenient? I am not sure what she has been feeding those rats, but it's entirely possible it wasn't just GM soya, IMO.

[nosmokes]

29. i give her studies at least at much credence as i give

the studies funded by the bio-gen corps. you think monsanto or chevron have your best interests or their profit upper most on their priority scale? may i remind you of vioxx and all the studies done by merck telling us how great it was when all the while they knew the potential dangers - i'll trust the russian scientist whose running out of money as opposed to the uberfunded iowa ag scientist in the modern lab with the zyntec logo on his white jacket, thanks.

[LisaL]

47. This woman's latest opus is called

"genetically modified organisms change climate". Now, there are a lot of things that can change climate, but GM corn doesn't somehow seem to be one of those things to me.

[mom cat]

24. And a high percentage of the soy in the US is GM!

[nicknameless]

25. Bastards.

[enki23]

26. not enough information here, but it has my bullshit detector *screaming*

.

[PaulaFarrell]

32. elaborate please...

[yellowcanine]

37. Well for one it is unpublished research. That is the biggest "bullshit

detector" of all. Legitimate scientists don't publisize unpublished research.

"The research - which is being prepared for publication - is just one of a clutch of recent studies that are reviving fears that GM food damages human health."


"Being prepared for publication" is a euphemism for "We have some data, we are excited about it and we hope we can get it published." I am betting this will never see the light of day in a reputable scientific journal.

[moc]

40. Bullshit detector going off here too and for the same reasons...(m)

I'm a professor in public health, maternal and child health specifically, and I don't buy it until I see the data.

You hit the nail on the head. Peer review exists for a reason.

[LisaL]

48. She run out of money, and if there is one thing I am sure of-

is that you can't do research without money.

[Guaranteed]

35. Mine too. People eat ALL KINDS of foods, have all kinds of different

diets....

It doesn't make sense that a food that is genetically modified could do as much DAMAGE to a body as these people are claiming.

[PaulaFarrell]

44. Why not?

Humans have tried to eat lots of differentt things which have killed them - but we learned from experience which were safe and which weren't. In fact, GM tryptophan killed several people several years ago.

GM food is basically untried, untested food - in fact, we are the guinea pigs. I don't want to be that guinea pig to line some corporate pocket.

[applegrove]

28. We have been fooling with mother nature for 30,000 years. Thing is

we used to watch animals find the safe food, and then copy them, or do random studies on people in our own villages. For thousands of years.

Now we have the science to test. Why were not calves tested on the soya milk first? A calf will knock you down to get at anything white-like & liquid in a bucket.

Or were they?

[yellowcanine]

36. This is unpublished research folks. Grain of salt called for.

"The research - which is being prepared for publication - is just one of a clutch of recent studies that are reviving fears that GM food damages human health."

This is a poorly written article - details about the research are vague at best. Legitimate scientists don't make public preliminary results. Remember "cold fusion"? That's what happens when we try to take short cuts with scientific research.

[Marleyb]

39. Kucinich read the results of secret study into congressional record...

"Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring the following article to the attention of my colleagues. We must continue to challenge the FDA’s assumption that all genetically engineered food is safe."

From the Independent, May 22, 2005

Revealed: Health Fears Over Secret Study Into GM Food

By Geoffrey Lean

Rats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified corn developed abnormalities to internal organs and changes to their blood, raising fears that human health could be affected by eating GM food.

The Independent on Sunday can today reveal details of secret research carried out by Monsanto, the GM food giant, which shows that rats fed the modified corn had smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of their blood.

According to the confidential 1,139-page report, these health problems were absent from another batch of rodents fed non-GM food as part of the research project.

The disclosures come as European countries, including Britain, prepare to vote on whether the GM-modified corn should go on sale to the public. A vote last week by the European Union failed to secure agreement over whether the product should be sold here, after Britain and nine other countries voted in favour.

However, the disclosure of the health effects on the Monsanto rats has intensified the row over whether the corn is safe to eat without further research. Doctors said the changes in the blood of the rodents could indicate that the rat’s immune system had been damaged or that a disorder such as a tumour had grown and the system was mobilising to fight it.

Dr. Vyvyan Howard, a senior lecturer on human anatomy and cell biology at Liverpool University, called for the publication of the full study, saying the summary gave "prima facie cause for concern."

Dr. Michael Antoniu, an expert in molecular genetics at Guy’s Hospital Medical School, described the findings as "very worrying from a medical point of view", adding: "I have been amazed at the number of significant differences they found ."