News 
 National Rural News 
 Grains and Cropping 
 General 
 GM corn health risks identified 

GM corn health risks identified

16 Dec, 2009 04:45 PM
AN INTERNATIONAL study of three Monsanto genetically manipulated maize (corn) varieties shows clear evidence of health risks, according to anti-GM lobby group Gene Ethics.

It says that the study analysed data from 90-day rat feeding trials of: insecticide-producing Mon 810 and Mon 863 GM maize; and Roundup herbicide tolerant NK 603 GM maize.

Adverse impacts were found on the kidneys, livers and the dietary detoxifying organs of experimental rats, and also some damage to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and the haematopoietic system.

The research was conducted by French scientists from the universities of Caen and Rouen and is published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences.

According to Gene Ethics, the report shows the GM maize events contained novel pesticide residues that will also be present in human food and animal feed where they may pose grave health risks.

As a result of the findings, the scientists are calling for an immediate prohibition on the import and cultivation of this GM maize and have strongly recommended more long-term and multi-generational animal feeding studies.

The analysis was conducted on Monsanto’s data from animal feeding tests but the scientists found the design and execution of the seed and trials to be flawed.

Gene Ethics says that once the data was analysed using improved statistical methods, it emerged clearly that male and female rats responded differently to being fed the GM maize.

The Australian food regulator, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has cleared the three maize varieties as safe for human consumption and they are allowed in the food supply.

Gene Ethics director Bob Phelps says the "precautionary principle must be applied" to all new varieties that have not been in the food supply before.

"Applicants must submit peer reviewed data to prove they are 100 per cent safe," he said.

"This new scientific study is the latest of many independent research findings consistently ignored by FSANZ that show some GM foods are not safe to eat."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Note that Food Standards Australia New Zealand examined this study earlier this year and the results show no differences of biological significance in reproductive performance or longevity of mice fed a diet containing GM corn, compared with mice fed a conventional corn diet. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has also reviewed the study and does not consider the Austrian studies to be of scientific value due to flaws in methodology, a number of statistical errors, and inconsistent evaluations of data. Both agencies concluded that the GM corn is safe.
Posted by Lydia Buchtmann, 16/12/2009 5:59:59 PM, on Stock & Land
Who knows how much they fed. Water is poisonous if you drink too much.
Posted by jjdoubleJ, 17/12/2009 2:26:45 AM, on Stock & Land
So Bob, given Lydia's statement, what do you do now?. Recant, perhaps? Go on....do it.
Posted by David, 17/12/2009 8:08:00 AM, on The Land
And so it goes - another adverse finding ignored or at least rubber stamped by our toothless FSANZ. Ms Buchtmann, anything that disagrees with the biotech industry's findfings are dismissed as 'flawed, inconsistent and riddled eith errros'. You only have to read though the hundreds of 'flawed inconsistent and riddled with error' studies showing problem after problem for human consumption of GM foods in Jeffrey Smith's compilation Genetic Roulette to realise how omniscient the biotechs are. They're a bit like the climate change deniers. All those scientists are wrong. And we're right.
Posted by john Newton, 17/12/2009 9:15:54 AM, on The Land
No John, actually the anti GM group is like the climate change denialists. There is a massive body of accepted science that has shown no dangers with existing GM crops. This is accepted by the same international bodies - the UN etc that accept the science of climate change. The scientific consensus is strong on both issues - yes there is climate change and no there is nothing particularly scary or unique about GM crops. But the anti-GMers continue to claim that only scientists that are hand picked by their like minded friends are right... well they're not and FSANZ should be congratulated for being strong and not allowing its agenda to be dictated by a bullying lobby group.
Posted by Dan, 17/12/2009 11:31:36 AM, on The Land
I just rang Lydia Buchtmann... She does not read the material supplied by Monsanto to FSANZ (& the OGTR)? For GM RR canola there are contaminated samples, altered protocols, flagrant disregard of protocols, failure to report on important study details, unbelieveable study design, can't remember seeing statistics, failure to supply required information, self-reporting of failure to identify required information... It goes on - it's a disgrace. We are arranging a meeting at last.
Posted by Madeleine Love, 17/12/2009 12:49:37 PM, on The Land
Hey all of you who think GM is the answer stop arguing the point, the media and the general public are not going to change their opposition to GM. It may suit you but it does'nt suit the market, You need to realise that people eat the stuff you produce and they are not going to eat GM food.
Posted by rancher42, 17/12/2009 12:52:25 PM, on Stock Journal
When Shiv Chopra, and seperately, Arpad Pusztai, both highly respected scientists in their field, raised concerns about the safety of GM food, they lost their jobs and were ridiculed by an establishment that relies on biotech funding to stay afloat. Why don't the biotech companies dispute the 65 negative findings that Jeffrey Smith has raised? And Dan, your faith in bureaucracies is interesting. FSANZ still allows nasty chemicals that many many countries have already banned for the safety of their populations (whether insecticides, food additives etc). But business as usual keeps on rolling on. And some believe that 'industrial science' will provide the armaments that will save us all from that enemy called nature...
Posted by brett sanders, 17/12/2009 12:57:12 PM, on The Land
I thought that Lydia couldn't possibly have made that statement if she had read the data supplied by Monsanto in support of their applications, so I called. She said she hasn't read it. We will meet.
Posted by Madeleine Love, 17/12/2009 1:22:27 PM, on The Land
Dan - get hold of a copy of Genetic Roulette. It's a collection of studies by various bodies from all around the world - and it is chilling reading.
Posted by john Newton, 17/12/2009 1:40:35 PM, on The Land
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
16 December, 2009
15 December, 2009
POLL
Q: Has your farm business made a profit in 2009?

Yes - profit
(19.8%)

No - loss
(59.3%)

Broke even
(20.9%)

Total Votes: 450
Poll Date: 13 December, 2009

Most popular articles

Ray White Rural MON0152
 
IRRIGATION CONFERENCE 2010
 
S&L Subscriptions
 
2010 Beef & Cattle Directory
 
Rural Bookshop
 
S&L Twitter
 
photo gallery
 
S&L Facebook


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...