French scientists have just released new research that shows that rats feed an GMO diet of Maize (corn) and water at levels ” acceptable in the United States” didn’t do so well. In many European countries GMNO crops are banned.
The picture above is a screen shot form the study paper.
If anyone has not already signed the petition to get GMO’s labeled in this country you can do so here.
While you are at it give your support of Proposition 37 in
Not surprisingly there has been a lot of backlash against the above research. The NYT did a piece, then another which points out how the article was rushed to the press by a group promoting the results. The Huffington Post has weighed in with a longish piece which to me is one of the most informative.
Here’s the deal, as I see it: big corporations like Monsanto spend millions of dollars doing their own research or paying people to do research for them and they promote the studies that have the findings they want to see. Increasingly, from what I can tell it is hard for independent scientist to do research on GMO seeds because in order to legally obtain them you have to sign an agreement with Monsanto (or whoever the maker is). Seems obvious to me that a company wanting to make something of a product they have developed would want to be very careful about who did studies to at least try and get the result they want. As the Huff Post article points out: because companies patent their genetic alterations and researchers generally must get approval before doing any studies, independent research tends to be difficult and Conflict of interest is very real.
And probably the most damning (though not surprising):
Margarida Silva, a biotechnology expert at the Portugese Catholic University in Porto,published a review in 2011 reporting a link between favorable outcomes in GMO studies and author affiliation with industry.
What struck me about all these articles were in the discussion of the Seralini study at issue. Dr Charles Benbrook of Washington State says in the Huffington Post article: the study is actually more carefully designed and has the same sample size as the original study conducted on behalf of Monsanto and submitted to regulatory agencies in support of the approval of the tech in the first place. If industry thought that study had a good design, it’s a little disingenuous of them to be criticizing this study.
I could go on but the bottom lines seems very clear: if the regulatory bodies and the biotech industries believe that these seeds and herbicides are safe then why is it an issue if food containing them is labeled? One of the reasons could be that because the way the industry has set up their studies they are too short to see the results that the Seralini study does because: In general, a 90-day animal study is all they need to win approval of a new genetically modified crop
The tumors started to appear at the 4 month mark.
Buy food from farmers, ask them what they use on there food, if they use GMO’s is they are organic or if they are beyond Organic. I’ve never spoken to a farmer at the Union Square market that used any GMO crop and many of the more conventional farmers are now doing “low spray” on things like Apples in order to reduce the need for toxic pesticides and herbicides.