Biotech companies point to stacks of industry studies as proof that their genetically engineered foods are safe. But their "proof," it turns out, is just "Tobacco Science"— research carefully designed to hide dangers. Independent studies, on the other hand, feature GMO-fed animals suffering from organ damage, tumors, endocrine and immune system dysfunction, and premature death.
You Don't Want to Eat This GMO Corn
A former Monsanto scientist admitted that when his colleagues discovered that their GMO corn damaged the health of rats, they rewrote the study to hide the effects. He raised the question that if a small amount of corn fed over just a few weeks could cause this harm to rats, what would happen to the people of South Africa, for example, who eat corn three times a day over a lifetime?
Don't ask Monsanto; according to them, rats eating their GMO corn do just fine. But when a European team reanalyzed Monsanto's data, they realized that the company had ignored repeated signs of toxicity of the liver and kidneys. And when that same team, led by Professor G. E. Seralini, PhD, conducted the first long-term study on Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn, they were shocked.
What started as signs of toxicity in Monsanto's 90-day trial emerged as full blown organ damage over the span of two years. In addition, the rats that ate GMO corn also had hormone problems, developed massive tumors, and died earlier.
Defamation, Distortion and Forgery
When Seralini's results were published, the biotech industry's worldwide spin machine, consisting of front groups and credentialed GMO-promoters-in-high-places, leapt into action. They have a rich history of distorting or denying every adverse finding against GMOs and attacking the scientists who dare to report them. Under their influence, researchers have been fired, censured, denied tenure, denied funding, and threatened. Seralini was no stranger to this treatment. He not only won a defamation case in court, his attacker was convicted of forgery in his efforts to discredit Seralini's work.
Seralini's long-term study was particularly incriminating. It was—and remains—the most in-depth animal feeding trial on GMOs. Its unique design suggested that both Monsanto's GMO corn and their Roundup herbicide that is sprayed on the corn—individually and together—may create serious, life-threatening effects.
The PR talking points, dutifully repeated by GMO advocates, avoided mention of most of the health problems. Instead, they focused on the large number of tumors found in up to 80% of the rats. It was obvious, they claimed, that Seralini used the wrong rats! That high tumor rate was to be expected over a two-year period with that type of rat, they said. But Seralini's critics were at a loss to explain why the GMO-fed males had four times as many palpable tumors than his control group that ate non-GMO corn.
Contaminated Feed Sickens Control Groups
An extraordinary follow-up study provided the answer. Seralini's team tested the standard animal feed used in rat experiments around the world. It turns out that all feeds were contaminated with GMOs, Roundup, and other toxins. Since many of these toxins are classified as carcinogens (e.g. Roundup is a "Probable Human Carcinogen"), it was no wonder why this type of rat regularly develops so many tumors. Seralini, however, had prepared his own uncontaminated rat food. That's why the tumor rate in the control group was so low.
Not only did this shoot down the industry's rat-breed argument, it created a huge problem for the biotech industry. Their studies consistently use the contaminated feed. In other words, when they test the effects of feeding rats GMOs and Roundup, they are measured against control groups that also eat GMOs and Roundup.
Secret Recipes for Tobacco Science
When researchers discover that their GMO-fed rats still have significant health problems compared to their (contaminated) control group, they simply "replace" their controls with even sicker animals. They do this by searching the scientific literature to find rat studies where the control group suffered as much as their own GMO-fed group. These older studies might have used feed contaminated with DDT, mercury, lead, or any number of toxins. Nonetheless, the biotech industry uses them to make the claim that their GMO-fed animals have no significant differences compared to these "historical controls."
Corporate scientists also:
- Use short feeding studies in order to purposely miss long-term impacts
- Feed older, more-stable animals instead of the more sensitive young growing ones
- Use too few animals
- Omit incriminating data
- Employ obsolete, insensitive detection methods; and even
- Dismiss animal deaths and serious conditions
These GMO companies have bad science down to a science.
To read more than 40 pages of outrageous examples, go to www.ResponsibleTechnology.org/references.
A former Monsanto scientist admitted to us that when three of his colleagues safety tested milk from cows treated with the company's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, they found so much cancer promoting hormone (IGF-1), the scientists refused to drink milk thereafter unless it was organic. One bought his own cow!
The FDA Ignores Rigged Research
To get their genetically modified bovine growth hormone approved for dairy cows, Monsanto needed to claim that pasteurization destroys bovine growth hormone, rendering it harmless. But pasteurization hardly makes a dent. In order to create the appearance of destruction, researchers spiked milk with a huge amount of powdered hormone and then pasteurized the mixture 120 times longer than normal. Only under these bizarre conditions were they able to destroy 90% of the hormone, leading FDA scientists to dutifully report that 90% of the hormone was destroyed during pasteurization.