GM corn and rat study rejected by US scientists

What is in this article?:

  • Bizarre GM corn study by French researchers rejected by American scientists.
  • “The purpose of the study was not to produce new scientific information but rather was to negatively influence public opinion of GM crops."
  • The way the study was conducted raises serious ethical concerns and profound questions of possible scientific misconduct.

A bizarre study by French researchers claiming ill effects on laboratory rats fed genetically modified corn and given water spiked with herbicide has been rejected by American scientists who questioned the motives and methods of the authors.

“This study appears to be without scientific merit,” said Dr. Martina Newell-McGloughlin, director of the International Biotechnology Program at the University of California/Davis. “The problem here appears to be with the experimental design,” she said. “Whether it was deliberately devised to attain the desired outcome remains to be seen.”

“This is not an innocent scientific publication,” Dr. Bruce M. Chassy, professor emeritus of food science at the University of Illinois, said.  “It is a well-planned and cleverly orchestrated media event.  The study was designed to produce exactly what was observed and it was deliberately allowed to continue until grotesque and fear-evoking tumors developed.  The way the study was conducted, including the treatment of the animals, especially those who developed tumors as these rats are known to do, raises serious ethical concerns and profound questions of possible scientific misconduct.”

“The purpose of the study was not to produce new scientific information but rather was to negatively influence public opinion of GM crops,” Chassy added.  “This makes a mockery of science.  It is a shame that the media and the journal that published the study were so uncritical.”

The study was led by Gilles-Eric Seralini, whose book attacking biotechnology was recently re-issued.  The study claimed that rats fed a steady diet of feed made from biotech corn developed tumors.  In addition, the drinking water of the rats was continuously spiked with glyphosate, the active ingredient in many broad spectrum herbicide products.  Glyphosate has a long history of safe use in more than 130 countries around the world and favorable environmental characteristics.  It binds tightly to most soils making it unlikely to move to groundwater and degrades over time in soil and natural waters.

Scientists pointed out that numerous studies in the scientific literature attest to the fact that the particular stock of rats used in the study, lab animals known as the “Sprague-Dawley” type, are prone to develop tumors before the age of two.  The Seralini study ran for about two years.

Seralini touted the study as the first long-term feeding study ever conducted, but Dr. Newell-McGloughlin pointed out that in fact the results of numerous long-term studies have been published with none of the results claimed by Seralini.

Discuss this Article 9

Anonymous (not verified)
on Sep 24, 2012

Why is it that , whenever scientist from all around the world question the safety of GM foods , it usually is the American biological community that is first to attack those studies ?

Anonymous (not verified)
on Sep 24, 2012

Hmmm.... ethically challenged "scientists" creating dummie facts to serve up dummie conclusions in order to further advance the goal of gaining support from the general population in their movement against GMO's. They are utilizing the exact same techniques we are currently witnessing in our nation's presidential election politics. This is why I maintain that this anti-GMO crowd is actually a political movement and has NOTHING to do with food safety or health but EVERYTHING to do with food anarchy being served up by a self-absorbed crowd of elitists. "If you can't compete, cheat" seems to be their tactic in getting this cynical, anti-GMO message accepted by the public at large. But, unlike the national politics, they don't have a liberal media teaming up with them to ensure that these dummie facts are presented without challenge to the voters.

ChemieBabe (not verified)
on Sep 24, 2012

The really sad part is that this study is being posted on FaceBook and people believe it! Some of my anti chemical "friends" have sent it to me. I will be sure to send them this article. Oh, but this article must be a lye! Surely Monsanto must have paid WFP big bucks to print this story. What was I thinking!!!!

Anonymous (not verified)
on Sep 26, 2012

Look at how much of WFP advertising revenue, as well as University Research budgets and royalties from past GMO research projects come from Monsanto coffers, and then talk to me about how "objective" they can be. Remember the Golden Rule: He who provides the Gold makes the Rules.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Sep 24, 2012

It seems we are talking apples and bananna's. This article claims that previous long term studies don't demonstate potential for cancer in rats, that may well be true, but what is also true is that most of the long term feeding studies were done for 90 days, not 2 years as is the case here, which is close to the life expectance of a rat.
Rats are used as surrogates for humans, so this would equate to a human feeding on GMO until they are about 10 years old, and then claiming no one got cancer.
While there may be problems with the science in this study, I have yet to read any study that someone is not happy with.
Instead of simply writing GMO's off as safe based on chem industry scientist proclaming it so, I suggest a more balance approach of actually reading the study instead of having a magazine summarize it, and then more or less tell you what to think.

ChemieBabe (not verified)
on Sep 27, 2012

I did read the article. I'm a biologist and the study was flawed. Using rats that are bred to develope tumors by the time they are two years old only proves that indeed the rats developed tumors.

We really won't know for sure the effects of GMO foods on humans for a few decades, but I'm betting it will be fine.
At the rate, the way human race is going we may not be around to worry about it any way.

hrfong (not verified)
on Oct 10, 2012

As I recall, a huge red flag went up when I read the news report, in that there were supposedly no tumor incidents in the controls. Having reviewed many an animal exposure study, you ALWAYS get some tumors in the controls. None in this study? Fishy...

Anonymous (not verified)
on Oct 1, 2012

Here's how Monsanto can repudiate all this negative publicity.
Post some links to peer reviewed independent studies of human trials showing that the Roundup ready crops are safe.

That'll shut up the critics. I'm wondering why they haven't just done this?

Anonymous (not verified)
on Oct 10, 2012

If GMO's are so bad, why are we living longer than ever? True, medical advances play a part but also better nutrition is indeed a factor.

Post new comment
Sign In or register to use your Western Farm Press ID
(optional)

Continuing Education Courses
This accredited CE course focuses on choosing the correct variety alfalfa based on a number of...
New Course
The 2,000-member Weed Science Society of America’s (WSSA) Herbicide Resistance Action...

The course details six of the primary diseases affecting citrus: Huanglongbing (Citrus...

Newsletter Signup