This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Study: Genetically Modified Corn Increases Body Weight in Rats
We previously reported:
Many crops in the U.S. are now genetically modified. For example, 93 percent of soybeans grown in the US are genetically engineered, as are:
- 86% of all corn
- 93% of canola
- 93% of cottonseed oil
- Between 2008 and 2009, 95% of all sugarbeets planted were genetically engineered to be able to tolerate high doses of the pesticide Roundup
Some allege that Roundup kills healthy gut bacteria, and that genetically modified crops cause other health problems.
Many people claim that genetically modified (GM) foods increase obesity:
But is there any evidence for that claim?
One study implies that there might be.
Scientists tested GM corn at Monsanto laboratories, and found that the GMs increase body weight in rats. Specifically, a paper published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences reported in 2009:
We present for the first time a comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are present in food and feed in the world.
***
The three animal feeding studies were conducted in two different laboratories and at two different dates; at Monsanto (Missouri, USA) for NK 603 and MON 810 (June 7, 2000) and at Covance Laboratories Inc. (Virginia, USA) for MON 863 (March 14, 2001) on behalf of Monsanto.
***
Crude and relative liver weights are also affected at the end of the maximal (33%) GM maize feeding level as well as that of the heart which for corresponding parameters to a comparable extent, showed up to an 11% weight increase.
***
Additional statistically significant differences include … higher … overall body (3.7%) weight …
***
Several parameters indicate increases in circulating glucose and triglyceride levels, with liver function parameters disrupted together with a slight increase in total body weight. This physiological state is indicative of a pre-diabetic profile.
***
Our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal [i.e. kidney and liver] toxicity.
***
This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded [Remember that some GM crops are engineered to have the plants produce their own pesticides, some pesticides can cause obesity, and the pesticides are not magically destroyed before making it into our bloodstream]. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown.
Indeed, even animals are getting fatter … which points to something in the environment.
- advertisements -
I review a lot of government documents and, thus, have become familiar with the types of lies they are telling. --- No. What they are clearly doing is most certainly not acceptable.
One way to think about statistics is, as a language. You can tell any lie you want to someone who doesn't speak that language. However, you can't do that as easily to another statistician. --- There are rules for how statistics can be legitimately used. They are breaking those rules with abandon, probably because they don't expect that anyone who is qualified will review their paper. But in this case, they got caught.
Thanks for the insightful response. I wonder why there isn't more of this kind of scrutiny to insist that studies use legitimate statistical methods? Seems like low-hanging fruit.
Nod to the government reports. Those people are masters of obfuscation, imo.
There are two reasons: First, there is little money in it, because, you don't get any more government/industry contracts and end up working for the public, who don't want to pay professional fees; and Second, you put yourself in harms way.
In particular, during the early 1990's there were only two PhD scientists in Washington State who would criticize government/industry reports, myself and a soil scientist in Eastern Washington. They beat him up and he quit doing it. I was physically threatened several times but I used to lift weights, box, and pack heat. What they did, instead, was follow me, stake me out, and shoot at me. It was a drive-by in broad daylight. They missed. I think they were trying to frighten me but it had the opposite effect. --- I was uncertain whether what I was doing was important enough to continue. That showed me that someone thought that it was. So, I continued and even wrote several books on what they were doing.
Today, the political climate has changed. There are many people who do such reviews. Unfortunately, many of them are shills. Although, it is, now, a popular thing to do, this seems to be a darker hour than it was twenty years ago.
Thanks randomdrift. I wish there were more scientists like you. I know of a few really amazing scientists and researchers who have stuck their necks out against very powerful folks. Frederick Vom Saal is definitely on that list for his work on BPA, as is Theo Colborn for coming up with the whole endocrine disruptor thesis, which has been a huge thorn in the side of TPTB. I hope they haven't had to deal with drive-bys, but I suspect they probably were/are. It's a sad commentary on the times.
Another great post. When Canadian scientists were trying to get the word out on RGBH, Monsanto tried to bribe them with (I think) a million. They reported that and Monsanto told the press they misunderstood an offer for research money.
Reminds me of Pusztai's response to the industry's "tests." The methodologies were utter BS. Jeffery Smith covers this pretty well in the lectures noted above
Thanks for the info
The thing I wonder about it is the idea of genetic mixing. If GMO's that carry the DNA to produce pesticides transfer these genes to intestinal bacteria, then our own bacteria could start producing Roundup or Bt in our guts. I haven't seen any refutation of this idea, and was wondering if anyone has any info or thoughts.
Part of the reason I mention this is because levels of 2,4-D are increasing in the general population, according to the CDC in their 2012 updated tables for the Fourth National Exposure Report. It was not detected in the population in the 1999-2000 sample, but was detected in the '01-'02 period, and amounts increased in the '03-'04 period, the most recent data. It could be just more spraying of Roundup, or it could be something more.
How exactly would a doctor differentiate between external exposure and manufacture of the pesticide in our bodies? If they're just measuring urine or blood, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
I believe 2-4-D and Roundup are very different chemicals. 2,4-D targets most broadleaf plants, while Roundup goes after pretty much all plants, except these wacky engineered ones of course. Isn't the buzz there is too much 2,4-D floating around because everyone hoses their yards down with too much weed-n-feed to get every last dandelion?
if we're talking 2, 4-D you may find this interesting:
http://www.naturalnews.com/034492_Dow_AgroScience_deregulation_2-4-D.html
Yes, you're right. I was doing some research on a variety of herbicides and got them mixed up. Nevertheless, the idea that eating GMOs carries the risk of setting-up a pesticide factory in my gut is pretty darn scary.
Don't beat yourself up, they're trying to use 2,4-D. Read them and weap (or scream).
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Agent_oran...
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/genetically-engineered-foods/24-d-...
http://naturalsociety.com/millions-of-pounds-of-toxic-dioxin-to-flood-us...
http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/02/21/usda-to-seek-more-comments-on...
A small study of goats, conducted in France, was published several years ago in Organic Bytes. It showed that the goats were reproducing Roundup in their guts. I tried to find it for you, but ran out of patience with Google search.
took me a bit, but this may be what you read,
http://organicconsumers.org/bytes/OrganicBytes83.pdf
from a 2006 issue of Organic Bytes, via pdf. - thanks for the heads-up, found much to read in my search!
(by the way, I use duckduckgo.com as a search engine, drop the gaggle! *wink*)
Thanks WD and CA.
I want to post the text, because I think it's important:
"Genetically Engineered Corn Producing Herbicides in Your Gut?
A widely cultivated variety of genetically engineered corn may be slowly poisoning American consumers. Dupont’s Pioneer Liberty Link corn was bioengineered to withstand high levels of the toxic herbicide glufosinate. Enzymes in the plant actually break down the herbicide, making it less toxic to the plant, thereby allowing farmers to apply higher levels of herbicides to the plant and surrounding weeds. Scientists are now finding that enzymes in the human gut are likely “reactivating” the herbicide within our bodies. A recent study on rats found that 10% of the chemicals were reconverted back to the toxic herbicide within the digestive tract of the animal. Another study on goats found a full 30% of the herbicide was rebuilt in the gut. Glufosinate is known to cause nerve damage and is a likely endocrine disruptor. Scientists are also concerned that by reactivating the toxic chemical in the digestive tract, it is likely killing off beneficial bacteria necessary for healthy digestion."
Yes. Transgenic DNA has been demonstrated to transfer among organisms. These have mostly been microorganisms that conjugate (that is exchange DNA) with other species. Nevertheless, there remain concerns that Transgenic DNA could also be transfered to other organisms, including humans.
Furthermore, some relatively common viruses transfer DNA among species. One example, is the flu virus. The rate of transfer from one host to another is very small, Nevertheless, having large amounts of DNA for toxins in your food and intestinal flora should be assumed to raise the probability of an otherwise very rare event.
The key factor is that most DNA is non-functional in a new host. The combination of two rare events (that is the transfer of the DNA and its being functional in the new host), is the product of their individual probabiliteis. So, becomes exceedingly small, effectively zero. However, transgenic DNA was pre-selected by the laboratory that made the gmo organism, to be functional when it is transfered to a new host. That greatly increases the probability of its transfering to humans.
Bottom line: Yes. That is one of the concerns.
Why does Zerohedge tolerate this kind of reporting? I thought the idea here is objectivity and truth – not bogus BS, myths, and worthless drivel. There are many truths that the mob knows little or nothing about regarding the food they eat daily. But this drivel, which you can read in all sorts of feel good claptrap publications, is not worthy of Zerohedge.
Maybe you should change your moniker to Chemical/Steroid Fed
says the beef industry shill talking his book...
Is the USA guinea pig nation for Monsanto? Upton Sinclair, we need you now!
the answer is yes and more than one country has said "we will watch the children of america very closely"
Nice avatar, must just be here to give GW a hard time. ;-)
Saying our food supply is endangered and "corrupted" to a degree never before seen in history is "feel good claptrap?"
I guess...if George were the only one saying this and more important, if well respected scientists, like Arpad Pusztai and others and their data were not, there'd be a point
Maybe Monsanto can explain how we'll eat without honeybees, thanks to all the fucking pesticides we spray and evewn build right into the genomes of plants. Humans will kill off the human race, then the planet will recover.
Bayer's Poncho is the problem with the bees.
Close. Gaucho. Proven & outlawed in France.
excellent point - the bee population is down and it is crucial. We were actually bringing bees up from Australia things were so bad. Like the frogs - more canary coal mine indicators that we are screwing things up big time.
"indicative of a pre-diabetic profile."
34% of adult Americans had metabolic syndrome or prediabetes in 2006. How much more indicative can you get? It is surely much higher now - probably closer to 40%.
"The new study found that 34 percent of U.S. adults in government health surveys conducted between 1999 and 2006 had metabolic syndrome -- up from 29 percent in similar surveys done between 1988 and 1994."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/15/us-metabolic-syndrome-idUSTRE6...
If you want an estimate of your diabetes risk, you can try
http://diabetesrisk.net/
There are just so many things making us fat. Those of you who are fourties or older know it was not always like it is now. When I was a kid, it was very rare for kids to be fat. When I was a kid there were some plump adults, but not so many as now, and very few who were circus fat lady fat.
And none who were 1,000 lb fat.
Also, the women are getting fat more like men now. They are getting fat around the belly more instead of just in the hips and thighs like before. It is really rare now to see a lady who is tiny up top and big on the bottom.
For all you people who are trying so hard to say it is just that people are lazy and eat too much, wake up.
Can't anyone read? The studies compared three GMO varieties of corn. But did not make the comparisons of those varieties against nonGMO corn. So what did they measure? All these same body failings occur when rats are fed just plain corn. Why isn’t that mentioned? This happens because all grains are destructive foods. This is an excellent example of bad science that George Washington seems to swallow hook, line, and sinker.
from Mr. Grassfed's 8 week old bio here:
presented without comment.
His main point was that ALL grains are destructive (to humans and ruminants) ... and he is correct. His attack on GW was a total non sequitur from that.
I applaud him for promoting grass-fed meats and disparage him for not stating his position clearly. I just hope he is not one of those cattlemen who sends his grass-fed beasts off to a grain-fed "finishing" lot to be fattened for slaughter!
For those who aren't aware -- and I'm sure you are, CA -- rats have evolved over many more generations than humans to be able to digest grains - so they're not really a fair analogue to humans for a start!
For example, around one-third of western populations are genetically deficient in being able to process the gluten in wheat and therefore suffer negative reactions to it ... that range from stomache ulcers, irritable bowel syndrome and simple obesity to becoming diabetic or even coeliac. Those with ancestry in countries where potatoes, corn or rice are historically the main sources of carbohydrates, but are now consuming large amounts of wheat flour (bread, pizzas, burgers, thickened sauces, cakes, biscuits, crackers, etc), are even more so.
Animals that can't properly digest wheat or corn 'hide' the undigested protein from those grains in layers of fat. This makes the meat more tender, but also means that the humans digesting that meat are ingesting proteins that their own bodies can't digest properly either ... therefore 'hiding' them in more layers of fat!!
So, according to this study, GMO grain is a fraction more toxic than selectively bred grain. Colour me surprised!
One has to laugh at the medical and dietary industries that counsel reducing fat intake to lose weight, when cattle, pigs and chickens are fattened on grains and have absolutely zero saturated fat in their diets!
From the paper:
"Furthermore, groups of animals were also fed with diets containing one of six other normal (non-GM) reference maize lines; the same lines for the NK 603 and MON 810 tests, but different types for the MON 863 trials. We note that these unrelated, different non-GM maize types were not shown to be substantially equivalent to the GMOs."
From the paper, a couple of sentences after those you quote:
"In addition, no data is shown to demonstrate that the diets fed to the control and reference groups were indeed free of GM feed."
I avoid GM foods as much as I can, and I think Monsanto would have gone under from the first lawsuit against them if we had honest courts. But correct me if I'm wrong, this study seems to suffer from a major defect if they don't know for a fact that the controls were non-GM.
Also, as noted by Grassfed, regardless of whether GM corn is more fattening than non-GM corn, all grains including corn are a nutritional disaster. In most people they cause insulin resistance, and gut irritation, and general inflammation. See the movie FatHead (especially the 2nd half) for a good introduction to the health effects of grains.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/196879/fat-head
http://fathead-movie.com/
see pusztai's rat studies
"In addition, no data is shown to demonstrate that the diets fed to the control and reference groups were indeed free of GM feed."
Yes, but that only means that Monsanto's controls were flawed and as a result, any positive findings underestimate the actual effects of GMO feed. I would have mentioned that, but it seems very obvious to me because Monsanto's (mis)interpretation of the data was clearly a false negative. After all, it was Monsanto that designed the original experiment and actually performed it, so any differences that can be identified given those flaws should be considered seriously, imo.
I don't disagree with the grains argument in general but we're talking about rats here and it's not a matter of what they were fed, it's a matter of the difference between 33% GMO feed and some smaller fraction, say 5% GMO feed.
uh, no - see the link (above) to Jeffrey Smith and Arpad Pusztai and his studies with potatoes - clear causation link to the genetically modified strain. This has also been shown proven and litigated in genetically modified drug strains. (See Smith's lecture pt 1)
You are right when you say we eat too many grains BUT this is NOT the same issue as GMO anything.....
Search the phrase "versus controls" in the study ...
sorry but i felt to post that one a second time
check out the translated version of this guy, who back in the 80's, proved that exposing growing seeds to a static electromagnetic field yields 20% higher crop yields with no pestizides or herbizides used.
http://www.urzeit-code.com/index.php?id=22
Well guess what, his former company Sandoz (today Syngenta) fired his entire department.
BTW: www.oti.ag is the best natural oil spill cleaning powder in existence.
Shocker. Sitting on the shelf right next to all the free energy devices, the engines that run on water, and every other invention that could have unslaved humanity. Greed, debt, destruction, and death - - what a wonderful world.
"it's got electrolytes."
The guy you want to look at is Arpad Pusztai
http://www.psrast.org/pusztai.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/pusztaihalt.cfm
See Jeffrey Smiths Lecture at 5:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyzu5NEWCTE
Recommend the whole lecture - and book
On top of worrying about my own waistline, I now have to give a rat's ass about the asses of rats?
Who cares about rats, it really concerned me when I saw a documentary on the production of tequila and it was stated that many agave farms have cloned the plants so they are uniform and can be mechanically harvested. With the way things are these days, one can hardly be expected to boycott or cut back on tequilla consumption.
modified corn product make your bones heavy.
they don't make you fat.
screw you.
You should have said "make your bones big". Pretty sure that's what Cartman says.
Monsanto had a private meeting away from the WH with Obama a few months ago and presto, Monsanto's RoundUp Ready alfalfa was given blanket approval, despite all the testimony by the scientific community against it....that's "Hope and Change" for you....
Has anyone seen a chart on the growth of obesity? I was wondering how fat people will be in the future if this trend continues.
China is getting fatter too. Im sure India will follow since they are vary sensitive to food prices.
In 50 years will the world be nothing but fat people. Then we will have to re-define who is fat.
Its funny and its not. But mostly its funny.
So far its easy not to be fat, dont swallow things you put in your mouth. Spit dont swallow.
Smile its ok god already hates you.
the earth will be so heavy, full of fat overweight people, it will fall down to the sun.
i see your funny sarcasm, but I'd like to point out that it's a zero sum gain with respect to heavy earth. when a corn cob is transferred into a fat ass, the "heaviness" of earth does not change.
then why are only part of the people fat, are they the ones eating all the modified corn products?