Could Monsanto Destroy Irelands Farmers

Monsanto's 90-day rat feeding study on this same GM maize had found differences in the GM-fed rats. But the EFSA claimed they were "of no biological significance" and agreed with Monsanto that the maize was as safe as non-GM maize. Séralini's team obtained Monsanto's raw data and re-analysed it. They found signs of liver and kidney toxicity in the GM-fed rats, publishing their findings in 2009.

Séralini carried out his recent study to follow up these initial findings of toxicity and to see if they were insignificant, as the EFSA claimed, or if they developed into serious disease. The findings were alarming. The initial signs of toxicity in Monsanto's 90-day study developed into full-blown liver and kidney damage over the longer two-year period. The first tumours only showed up four to seven months into the study, peaking at 18 months.

The common sense conclusions were clear. The 90-day tests routinely done on GM foods are simply too short to see effects that take time to show up, such as organ damage and cancer.

Many of the critics were subsequently exposed as having commercial or career interests in GM technology – interests that went undisclosed in media articles that quoted them. The Science Media Centre itself has taken funding from GM and agrochemical companies. Government agencies that condemned the study, such as the EFSA, had been involved in GM crop approvals and so were simply defending their own decisions.

critics said Séralini used a strain of rat prone to tumours. But Séralini used the same strain of rat that Monsanto used in its 90-day study on this GM maize and its two-year cancer studies on glyphosate, the chemical ingredient in Roundup herbicide. And research shows that this strain of rat is about as prone to tumours as you and I, making it an excellent human-equivalent cancer model.

None of the scientists claimed that Séralini's study is perfect. All studies have flaws and limitations. But many said that this was the most detailed study that had ever been done on the health effects of a GM food that's already in our food supply. The clear conclusion is that all GM crops and pesticide formulations must be tested in lifetime feeding studies to determine any health risks to humans.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

His description of the law is wrong....

The rider states that the U.S. Department of Agriculture “shall, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, immediately grant temporary permits to continue using the [GE] seed at the request of a farmer or producer [Monsanto].” The bill effectively requires the USDA to give Monsanto a green light to promote GMO seeds.


Even if a court review determines that a GMO crop harms humans, Section 735 allows the seeds to be planted once the USDA approves them. Public health lawyer Michele Simon says the Senate bill requires the USDA to “ignore any court ruling that would otherwise halt the planting of new genetically-engineered crops.” (nydailynews.com, March 25)


The rider’s wording is so controversial that even USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack called on the Office of General Council to review it, noting, “It appears to pre-empt judicial review of a deregulatory action which may make the provision unenforceable.” (politico.com, March 25)


Prior to the bill’s passage, 13 new GMO seed crops awaited USDA authorization. Now these endorsements are almost certainly guaranteed, even though previous legal challenges overturned USDA sanctions of other GMO crops. No doubt Monsanto and other GMO companies will use the next six months to fast track their new seeds.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

His points on the amount of Monsanto employees being recruited into governmental positions is more interesting.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

With all due respect to some retired plant scientist who wrote a letter, why should the USDA have acted on his advice? According to your links, he found a completely new pathogen that no one saw before, claims it was in animals with increased infertility rates, suffering spontaneous abortions and that it is more prevalent in GM crops. But where is the evidence? Where are the peer reviewed papers describing this pathogen's discover and identification, the double-blind, peer-reviewed studies showing a causal link between it and infertility/spontaneous abortions? Were is the peer-reviewed studies showing that the pathogen is prevalent only in GM crops/

"We are informing the USDA of our findings at this early stage, specifically due to your pending decision regarding approval of alfalfa," Huber said. "Naturally, if either the Roundup Ready gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such approval could be a calamity."

"For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and man-made biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks," Huber wrote in a Jan. 16 letter to Vilsack.

"Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman's terms, it should be treated as an emergency,"

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If these tests and studies are prohibited, where do all the specific claims about the health risks of GMOs come from?
While this is a very important issue (I'm not denying it happens and I'm all for independent research), it does call into question where all the specific negative health claims come from, if no negative research can be published.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Still waiting for an example of someone getting sued just for having his/her crop contaminated.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Everything is genetically modified,

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That may be true, but the fact is that we need high yield crops to grow enough food to feed everyone. And while I do support the notion of population control and reduction, I don't support accomplishing it by letting a lot of people starve.

“Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.”

Biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.

Today, nearly 15 years after the F.D.A. approved rBGH, there have still been no long-term studies “to determine the safety of milk from cows that receive artificial growth hormone,” says Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist for Consumers Union. Not only have there been no studies, he adds, but the data that does exist all comes from Monsanto. “There is no scientific consensus about the safety,” he says.

In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together. Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report.

Monsanto began selling the supplement in 1994 under the name Posilac. Veterinary drug reports note that “cows injected with Posilac are at an increased risk for mastitis,” an udder infection in which bacteria and pus may be pumped out with the milk.