Bad science in the paper 'Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant GM maize'

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I know this paper has come up before, but here's a nice explanation of the problems with it.

(links in the video description)

And most tellingly:

http://mylespower.co.uk/2013/06/29/drinking-roundup-herbicide-makes-men-live-longer/
The paper shows that male rats drinking pure water will have a 50% higher mortality rate than those drinking water contaminated with 0.5% Roundup herbicide. Unlike the other graphs in which the results don’t make sense (for example, more male rats die eating 11% GM-maize and sooner than those fed 0%, 22% and 33%), there is a clear correlation between the amount of Roundup herbicide consumed and life expectancies. Rats drinking water contaminated with 1.1×10-8% had a 11% less mortality rate, 0.09% contamination had a 22% less mortality rate and 0.5% contamination had a 33% less mortality rate. If this paper is correct then the more herbicide you drink, the longer you would live.
Content from External Source
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Found this in the comments there.


Freddy Di Guglielmo
• 6 hours ago

Burn The GMO fields... Run through them with trucks.. whatever it takes.. too bad that the farmers will be hurt.. it keeps them from hurting the unsuspecting consumer!!! BURN BABY BURN!!!
Content from External Source

This was also posted there. They claim it is a translation from German. I saw no real evidence of it. The link came from naturalnews




http://sustainablepulse.com/2013/07...ge-to-genetically-modified-corn/#.UfczJazVXv4
 
It's actually a very poor and misleading video, from a guy who apparently had not even heard of a Sprague Dawley rat.
I'm surprised it was presented here as it suffers from one of the things discouraged here. The guy paraphrases the paper and in doing so claims things are in the paper that aren't there.

At the 41 second mark the guy in the video says "the paper came to the conclusion that rats fed on GM Maize that had been treated with Roundup would die prematurely and have major health problems including large mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage"
Here is the papers conclusions.
http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14
In conclusion, the consumption of NK603 GM maize with or without R application or R alone gave similar pathologies in male and female rats fed over a 2-year period. It was previously known that G consumption in water above authorized limits may provoke hepatic and kidney failure 33]. The results of the study presented here clearly indicate that lower levels of complete agricultural G herbicide formulations, at concentrations well below officially set safety limits, can induce severe hormone-dependent mammary, hepatic, and kidney disturbances. Similarly, disruption of biosynthetic pathways that may result from overexpression of the EPSPS transgene in the GM NK603 maize can give rise to comparable pathologies that may be linked to abnormal or unbalanced phenolic acid metabolites or related compounds. Other mutagenic and metabolic effects of the edible GMO cannot be excluded. This will be the subject of future studies, including analyses of transgene, G and other R residue presence in rat tissues. Reproductive and multigenerational studies will also provide novel insight into these problems. This study represents the first detailed documentation of long-term deleterious effects arising from consumption of a GMO, specifically a R-tolerant maize, and of R, the most widely used herbicide worldwide.

Taken together, the significant biochemical disturbances and physiological failures documented in this work reveal the pathological effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes, with different amplitudes. They also show that the conclusion of the Monsanto authors 3] that the initial indications of organ toxicity found in their 90-day experiment were not ‘biologically meaningful’ is not justifiable.

We propose that agricultural edible GMOs and complete pesticide formulations must be evaluated thoroughly in long-term studies to measure their potential toxic effects.

The paper makes no conclusions about tumors being caused, but it does report them as the guidelines stipulate, and then recommends they be the subject of further studies.
How could the paper draw conclusions about the tumors as the study was a toxicological study not cancer study.
The thing is that even thouygh it was not a cancer study they were still obligated to report all tumors

Next the guy criticises the number of rats and the strain. He seems completely ignorant of the fact that the authors of the paper were repeating the Monsanto study, albeit over a longer time, and so they used the same rats and numbers. These rats and numbers are recommended for a toxicology study.

The video is pretty poor which is not surprising from a guy who did not appear to have even heard of a Sprague Dawley rat, which incidentally are also recommended for cancer studies ;)

I will have to come back and point out further problems later as I'll have to dig up references and provide actual quotations :)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
At the 41 second mark the guy in the video says "the paper came to the conclusion that rats fed on GM Maize that had been treated with Roundup would die prematurely and have major health problems including large mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage"
Here is the papers conclusions.
you are correct. He should have said "the AUTHORS came to the conclusion that....etc etc"

The researchers say their results, summarized here, show "severe adverse health effects including mammary tumors and kidney and liver damage, leading to premature death," in both from both Roundup Ready corn and Roundup itself, "whether they were used separately or together." Interestingly, almost all of the ill effects manifested after 90 days—the industry's preferred length for its own feeding studies. By the end of the study, the researchers report, "50 percent-80 percent of the females had developed large tumors compared to 30 percent in the control group." As for males, "Liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher than in the control group … [and] there were also 1. –2.3 times more instances of 'marked and severe' kidney disease." Overall, among the rats receiving GMO and/or Roundup, "Up to 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, before deaths could be put down to normal ageing, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group." http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/gmo-corn-rat-tumor
Content from External Source
If you click the "here" link above it brings you to the study summary that Seralini asked for:
ff.PNG


and the very first paragraph says:
authors.PNG
 
Except Sprague-Dawley rats are prone to spontaneous tumors when allowed to live for longer than about a year or so.
http://www.gmoseralini.org/criticism-seralini-used-a-type-of-rat-naturally-prone-to-tumours/
Summary answer:
The Sprague-Dawley (SD) rat strain that Séralini used is also used in long-term 2-year toxicity and carcinogenicity studies by industry and academic scientists, as well as in 90-day studies on GMOs. If this was the wrong type of rat for Séralini to use, it was the wrong rat in all these other studies, and market authorizations for the thousands of chemicals and GM foods that were authorized on the basis of these studies should be revoked.

Another flaw was a ridiculously small control group.
http://www.gmoseralini.org/criticism-seralini-used-too-few-animals/
Summary answer:
Séralini used ten rats per sex per group – the same number of animals as Monsanto analyzed for blood and urine chemistry in its 90-day tests claiming to show that GM foods are safe. This is the same number that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recommends for a 90-day subchronic test of the type that Monsanto does on its GM foods, as well as for one of its chronic toxicity protocols. According to statistics experts, groups of this size are enough to show toxicity, but not enough to show safety. This means that industry toxicity studies on this number of rats that claim to show safety are inadequate
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
Do you have a link to that? because alot of scientists seem to be disagreeing with that http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...eact-to-republished-seralini-maize-rat-study/

OECD guidelines do recommend 2 years for a carcinogenicity study.
http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/41362977.pdf
The study design consists of two parallel phases, a chronic phase, normally of one year duration (see paragraph 29), and a carcinogenicity phase, normally of two years duration (see paragraph 30).
Content from External Source
As pointed out by solrey, however, the strain is a critical error. The authors stated that the study wasn't originally meant to go as long as it did, but they decided to extend it partway through.
 
you are correct. He should have said "the AUTHORS came to the conclusion that....etc etc"

If you click the "here" link above it brings you to the study summary that Seralini asked for:
ff.PNG
Hi Deidre I was unable to open that link. Can you tell me, was it the authors saying that or was it someone else summarising their findings?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Hi Deidre I was unable to open that link. Can you tell me, was it the authors saying that or was it someone else summarising their findings?
i know its a word doc and im not sure how to pdf it. the authors, specifically seralini "hired" them i guess to PR his study. So one has to assume he approved it. i'll ask Mick if he can reformat the word doc.

edit: oh... just because its best if you can open the actual link, you can download "Word Viewer" onto your computer, thats what i did.

you cant use seralini sources. silly.
 
Do you have a link to that? because alot of scientists seem to be disagreeing with that http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...eact-to-republished-seralini-maize-rat-study/
I will have to find the protocols. However here is the original Monsanto that that was repeated although for a longer duration.
http://www.gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Hammond_2006_corn_bor.pdf
I will get back to you though.

I think this is it.
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docser...est&checksum=783C8281B8879CC8E70112E217B3F39F
Number and sex of animals 12. At least 20 animals (ten female and ten male) should be used at each dose level. If interim kills are planned, the number should be increased by the number of animals scheduled to be killed before the completion of the study. Based on previous knowledge of the chemical or a close analogue, consideration should be given to including an additional satellite group of ten animals (five per sex) in the control and in the top dose group for observation, after the treatment period, of reversibility or persistence of any toxic effects. The duration of this post-treatment period should be fixed appropriately with regard to the effects observed.
 
Last edited:

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.

Check solrey's references. Sprague-Dawley rats reliably develop spontaneous tumors. Most tumors in the Seralini study didn't form until after a year.

Where did they state that? thanks

I wasn't exactly correct in saying they changed partway through, here is their exact quote. I know it wasn't a carcinogenicity study, that wasn't my point.
Because of recent re- views on GMOs (Domingo and Giné Bordonaba, 2011; Snell et al., 2011) we had no reason to settle at first for a carcinogenesis pro- tocol using 50 rats per group. However we have prolonged the bio- chemical and hematological measurements or disease status recommended in combined chronic studies using 10 rats per group (up to 12 months in OECD 453).
Content from External Source
 
Check solrey's references. Sprague-Dawley rats reliably develop spontaneous tumors. Most tumors in the Seralini study didn't form until after a year.
That is true. In fact they are used in cancer studies precisely because of the tendency to form tumors.
Seralini's paper noted the tumors and recommended further testing be done.
this seems the correct thing thing to do, as there were more tumors and larger ones in the rats fed the GM maize.

As the study was a toxicology study only 10 rats were in each group, so it lacked the necessary statistical power to form conclusions about cancer. A cancer study should have 50 rats per group. 50 rats per group using SD rats. A rat sensitive to tumors to tumors but enough rats to provide meaningful statistics.

However in reporting the tumors they acted correctly and in recommending further research when they saw rats in the GM fed group developing larger and more tumors is also correct.

It would be irresponsible to observe more tumors and larger tumors in one group and turn a blind eye.

from the paper.
Conclusion
Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.
 
The video in the OP is bunk. The guy in the video at the 6.24 mark says

1.
"a paper that used the wrong type of rat"
This is false. It is the same rat used by Monsanto. The same one used by the National Toxicology Program.http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/testing/types/cartox/index.html

2.
"and had a control group of just 20 rats".
This is the number Monsanto used and that recommended under the protocol. (link above)

3. Thirdly as noted in post 4 the guy in the video claims Seralini made conclusions about the tumors. So he misrepresents the paper by paraphrasing rather than actually quoting the paper.

From the link in point 1
NTP long-term toxicology and carcinogenesis studies (bioassays) in rodents generally employ both sexes of Harlan Sprague Dawley rats and B6C3F1/N hybrid mice with three exposure concentrations plus untreated controls in groups of 50 animals for two years.

For some test articles, rats are exposed during the perinatal phase prior to a 13-week or 2-year study. The perinatal phase includes gestation (in utero via the placenta) and lactation (via mother's milk). Perinatal exposures are selected after considering patterns of human exposure. Perinatal exposure occurs during critical periods of development and can result in differences in toxicity/carcinogenicity as compared to exposure starting only from adulthood.
 
i did it! no idea how lol

attached below , let's see if it works
you are correct. that summary seems to go beyond what could be concluded from a study with 10 rats per group (toxicology study).
I don't know why Seralini did not correct them.

When they say
The research shows that consuming even relatively low levels of the commercial NK603 Roundup tolerant GM maize or of the herbicide, Roundup, can result in greatly increased levels of mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage, and premature death in laboratory rats
.

I think they should say they observed more tumors but did not have the statistical power to say that this feed "can result in"
It's possible that the fact that the rats fed the GM corn had more tumors and bigger tumors was just a coincidence
 
i think you mean he said "the paper" concluded. dont you? i didnt watch the video just going by post #4.
Yes that is right. He does not mention names. and again around the one minute mark he says
"the paper alleges these tumors (the large ones) were caused by a diet of Roundup treated GMO crop"
But can the paper allege it without Seralini alleging it?
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
As the study was a toxicology study only 10 rats were in each group, so it lacked the necessary statistical power to form conclusions about cancer. A cancer study should have 50 rats per group. 50 rats per group using SD rats. A rat sensitive to tumors to tumors but enough rats to provide meaningful statistics.

Exactly why these results are meaningless. Furthermore, the data shows no reliable pattern in a dose-response relationship. Feeding RoundUp to males didn't seem to affect them much but females developed tumors. Even though the females developed tumors, they looked like the rest of the test population. This is why Myles says in his video that the only significant conclusion that the data suggests is that if you're a male and put RoundUp in your drink, you will be healthier.

However in reporting the tumors they acted correctly and in recommending further research when they saw rats in the GM fed group developing larger and more tumors is also correct.

I don't think they acted correctly in reporting the tumors at all. Myles also points this out in his video, but they were extremely unethical about how they handled the rats and very unscientific in the way they presented their data. They measured number of tumors, which does not tell us anything significant. Cancer can metastasize and create a number of tumors depending on how aggressive it is and a cancer's aggressiveness (in a population of mice that are all more or less genetically identical) is random. In other words, a cancer caused by a carcinogen could take a while to metastasize while a spontaneous tumor could be more aggressive and spawn more tumors faster. A better way to assess the tumors when studying a substance that is not known to be carcinogenic or not would simply be to categorize the mice to groups that either developed or did not develop cancer. Seralini did not do this and instead let the mice live with cancer for an extended period of time, developing more and more tumors. Then they took pictures of the mice themselves and included them in the paper, pictures that offer no scientific value whatsoever. We cannot quantify those tumors, we cannot tell if they are multiple different cancers, we cannot tell the rate at which they grew, all they offer is an emotional response.

Lastly, no one can reliably repeat Seralini's results in an animal trial. The paper is bad science, and I think Myles' review of it is fair.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
But can the paper allege it without Seralini alleging it?
youre the one picking on the video guy for "parphrasing". But no, i dont see how the paper can allege it without Seralini alleging it.

But the Food Trust that Seralini hired to spread his results globally said it. and the paper Seralini WROTE says it.

you said:
The paper makes no conclusions about tumors being caused

Seralinis paper says:

Results
Biochemical analyses confirmed very significant chronic kidney deficiencies, for all treatments and both sexes; 76% of the altered parameters were kidney-related. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher. Marked and severe nephropathies were also generally 1.3 to 2.3 times greater. In females, all treatment groups showed a two- to threefold increase in mortality, and deaths were earlier. This difference was also evident in three male groups fed with GM maize. All results were hormone- and sex-dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors more frequently and before controls; the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by consumption of GM maize and Roundup treatments. Males presented up to four times more large palpable tumors starting 600 days earlier than in the control group, in which only one tumor was noted. These results may be explained by not only the non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup but also by the overexpression of the EPSPS transgene or other mutational effects in the GM maize and their metabolic consequences. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14
Content from External Source
So either the publishers and PR firm Seralini are working with are grossly changing his words and he is allowing it. OR... HE is saying it. No?

edit to add tumor bolds and quote from wily.
 
Last edited:
Exactly why these results are meaningless.
Dan, you are not grasping what happened. The paper reports the tumors as they are obliged to and recommends a proper study be done. But just like Myles you won't quote the paper, so you are off target.
I don't think they acted correctly in reporting the tumors at all. Myles also points this out in his video, but they were extremely unethical about how they handled the rats and very unscientific in the way they presented their data. They measured number of tumors, which does not tell us anything significant.
Dan they reported the tumors and recommend a proper study be done. This would require 50 rats per group.
Cancer can metastasize and create a number of tumors depending on how aggressive it is and a cancer's aggressiveness (in a population of mice that are all more or less genetically identical) is random. In other words, a cancer caused by a carcinogen could take a while to metastasize while a spontaneous tumor could be more aggressive and spawn more tumors faster. A better way to assess the tumors when studying a substance that is not known to be carcinogenic or not would simply be to categorize the mice to groups that either developed or did not develop cancer.
No the best way would be to do a proper cancer study according to the protocols. Seralini recommends this after reporting the tumors.
Lastly, no one can reliably repeat Seralini's results in an animal trial.
How do you know?
This was the first study of this kind.
Anyway we will find out one day.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nto-safety-of-gm-food-launched-by-russian-ngo
A Russian group working with scientists is set to launch what they call the world’s largest and most comprehensive long-term health study on a GM food.

The $25m three-year experiment will involve scientists testing thousands of rats which will be fed differing diets of a Monsanto GM maize and the world’s most widely-used herbicide which it it is engineered to be grown with.

The organisers of the Factor GMO [genetically modified organism] study, announced in London on Tuesday and due to start fully next year, say it will investigate the long-term health effects of a diet of a GM maize developed by US seed and chemical company Monsanto.

“It will answer the question: is this GM food, and associated pesticide, safe for human health?” said Elena Sharoykina, a campaigner and co-founder of the Russian national association for genetic safety (Nags), the co-ordinator of the experiment.

According to the Nags, the experiment will try to establish whether the GM maize and its associated herbicide cause cancers, reduce fertility or cause birth defects. The scientists also want to know whether the mixture of chemicals present in Roundup (Monsanto’s tradename for its glyphosate herbicide) are more or less toxic than its active ingredient glyphosate

I might have to switch my avatar back to Boris Badenov after posting that link though :)
 
Last edited:
youre the one picking on the video guy for "parphrasing". But no, i dont see how the paper can allege it without Seralini alleging it.

But the Food Trust that Seralini hired to spread his results globally said it. and the paper Seralini WROTE says it.

Results
Biochemical analyses confirmed very significant chronic kidney deficiencies, for all treatments and both sexes; 76% of the altered parameters were kidney-related. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5 to 5.5 times higher. Marked and severe nephropathies were also generally 1.3 to 2.3 times greater. In females, all treatment groups showed a two- to threefold increase in mortality, and deaths were earlier. This difference was also evident in three male groups fed with GM maize. All results were hormone- and sex-dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors more frequently and before controls; the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by consumption of GM maize and Roundup treatments. Males presented up to four times more large palpable tumors starting 600 days earlier than in the control group, in which only one tumor was noted. These results may be explained by not only the non-linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup but also by the overexpression of the EPSPS transgene or other mutational effects in the GM maize and their metabolic consequences. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14
Content from External Source
So either the publishers and PR firm Seralini are working with are grossly changing his words and he is allowing it. OR... HE is saying it. No?
I don't see the problem, and I don't seeing the paper saying it in the sentence you emboldened. The paper notes the greater incidence of tumors in some groups compared to the control group. It hypothesizes an explanation that can be tested.
Isn't that how science operates? Observe, hypothesise, and test that hypothesis.
It seems like a fairly good use of science to me. We eat this stuff let's do a long tern test of it
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I don't see the problem, and I don't seeing the paper saying it in the sentence you emboldened
Its the entire paragraph. i only emboldened the part that show him not 'reporting the tumors as he's obligated to do', but drawing conclusions from the paragraph.
ill edit it
 
Its the entire paragraph. i only emboldened the part that show him not 'reporting the tumors as he's obligated to do', but drawing conclusions from the paragraph.
ill edit it
The paper notes kidney and liver issues, which was the reason for the study (which incidentally were the same issues looked at in Monsanto's raw data). It then asks the question if the higher incidence of and larger tumors could be related to the endocrine disruption or even to unintended effects of the transgene. I don't think they are drawing a conclusion that the tumors are caused by either of these.
The conclusion seems to be to do a proper cancer test.
Conclusion
Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The paper notes kidney and liver issues, which was the reason for the study (which incidentally were the same issues looked at in Monsanto's raw data). It then asks the question if the higher incidence of and larger tumors could be related to the endocrine disruption or even to unintended effects of the transgene. I don't think they are drawing a conclusion that the tumors are caused by either of these.
The conclusion seems to be to do a proper cancer test.
spin it any way you want to. They still said what they said.
 
spin it any way you want to. They still said what they said.
But I don't spin. I'm different. :)
The paper certainly does not draw conclusions about the cause of tumors.
And it is the paper that the guy in you youtube video is referencing.
I agree that the other summary should not have used the word "can" when it says "can result in". Perhaps they could justify using the word "could" instead. And that is an important error in the summary.
The Frenchman should have got someone who speaks English good and proper to thoroughly check the summary for such errors. Giles's English is not the best.

However that still makes the video bunk.

But lets assume that he, Myles in the video, had been referencing that summary rather than the actual paper.
He still goes even further than that summary when he says at the 41 second mark.
"the paper came to the conclusion that rats fed on GM Maize that had been treated with Roundup would die prematurely and have major health problems including large mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage"

So yes I agree that summary is wrong when it says "can result in". But my point still stands that the video in the OP is rubbish.
Myles in the OP video is wrong about every important fact he uses.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
But lets assume that he, Myles in the video, had been referencing that summary rather than the actual paper.
he was referencing the PR Firms Press Release.
authors.PNG


and btw, your "gmoseralini" website. says the same thing on multiple pages.

Do you have a link showing Seralini or any other author DENYING this was their conclusion?

If not, i've provided ample evidence that the video man did no wrong. qui est tout ce qu'elle a écrit. :)
 
Last edited:
he was referencing the PR Firms Press Release.
authors.PNG
At what time in the video does he reference the above?
and btw, your "gmoseralini" website. says the same thing on multiple pages.
It would help if you showed us one :)
Do you have a link showing Seralini or any other author DENYING this was their conclusion?
I have the paper where it is not one of his conclusions, and as our man Myles in the OP was telling us he referred to it, I'll probably leave it there.
If not, i've provided ample evidence that the video man did no wrong. qui est tout ce qu'elle a écrit. :)
ok...well it's not worth arguing about. I've had my say :)
 
Last edited:

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
No the best way would be to do a proper cancer study according to the protocols. Seralini recommends this after reporting the tumors.

I am pointing out that the way Seralini reported the tumors is bad science and there is no reason it should be published or, by itself, warrant further study. Further study is always good and recommended, but not because of what Seralini reported. In a proper cancer study, or any study that recorded tumor growth, the researchers would do what I described, not publish results that tell us nothing about what is actually going on inside the animal in response to the experiment. I challenge you to find another paper that includes pictures of animals with multiple massive tumors in a carcinogen study. It's absurd.

How do you know?

Because no one else has reported even remotely similar results in animal trials involving GM feed or RoundUp. There have been many links to peer-reviewed studies posted all over this site to support that. If you can find studies that do agree with Seralini's results, please post them.

The paper certainly does not draw conclusions about the cause of tumors.

Yes they do, it's right in the abstract.....

http://www.gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/GES-final-study-19.9.121.pdf
These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.
Content from External Source
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
It would help if you showed us one
what "they" think is irrelevant. but just so you dont think i'm lying.

Summary of the findings:
  • Escalation of signs of liver and kidney toxicity found in Monsanto 90-day feeding trial (Hammond, B., et al. (2004). Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem Toxicol 42(6): 1003-1014), leading to liver / kidney failure and premature death, especially in males
  • Unexpected increase in tumor incidence, especially via Roundup in females (mammary tumors)
  • Unexpected low dose toxicity from Roundup (10,000 times lower than that permitted in drinking water in USA)
  • Females: died prematurely from mammary tumors and pituitary dysfunction.
http://www.gmoseralini.org/faq-items/what-were-the-studys-findings/
Content from External Source
And again, since the video man is by far (dozens of examples provided to you in previous links) not the only one reading Seralini's paper and press release this way,
ex:
sera.PNG http://www.vib.be/en/news/Documents/20121008_EN_Analyse rattenstudie Séralini et al.pdf


It would be fair to assume that if Seralini disagreed with this interpretation of his paper, he would have corrected it somewhere. If you can find such a correction , then i will concede your "he's not very good with English" hypothesis.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
W W , do you have a link to publication of results of Seralini's control groups? I haven't ever seen those. It seems that what he chose to feature were the photos of the rats with tumors

SpragueDawly rats were developed for their ease in developing tumors, but tumor formation is a problem in many lines of pet rats as well. There is some talk about some breeders trying to reduce it.


Pet rats with tumors


Tumors In Rats: A Serious Health Issue

The most common rat tumor is the mammary tumor. While most often found in un-spayed females after the age of 1 1/2 years, and therefore hormone dependent, it can also be found in a male. This kind of tumor can be found in the pit of the arm, the abdomen, and groin.

Mammary tumors are mostly non-cancerous, but can grow to be half the body weight of the rat. This can affect the functioning of other organs, make grooming and moving around difficult, and also interfere with feeding. Ultimately, if the tumor impacts other organs it can cause internal problems – and even death.

Other tumors are also common, and again while many are benign other are cancerous.
Content from External Source

http://www.sandyscrittercity.com/allabouttumors.htm


http://www.ratfanclub.org/tumors.html


http://rodentclub.livejournal.com/67495.html
 
I am pointing out that the way Seralini reported the tumors is bad science and there is no reason it should be published or
ok..previously you wrote he should not have reported them and that was the point I picked you up on. Its mandatory according to the protocol, 452 I believe.
, by itself, warrant further study.Further study is always good and recommended, but not because of what Seralini reported.
I've seen other studies that observed endocrine disruption associated with glyphosate. When Seralini's team noticed this too and more and larger tumors then any good science would ask whether the two were related. . I will find trysome studies and list them here if it lookes like this thread is going anywhere helpful
In a proper cancer study, or any study that recorded tumor growth, the researchers would do what I described, not publish results that tell us nothing about what is actually going on inside the animal in response to the experiment.
Didn't you already say you knew this was not a cancer study. yet you criticse a toxicology study for being toxicology study and not a cancer study...??
I challenge you to find another paper that includes pictures of animals with multiple massive tumors in a carcinogen study. It's absurd.
Ok..i'll look if you find another toxicology study where the reported tumors are similar.
Obviously if no other studies have the same extremely large tumors and higher incidence they would not have contemplated reporting them that way.
Because no one else has reported even remotely similar results in animal trials involving GM feed or RoundUp.
This was the first test of its kind.
There have been many links to peer-reviewed studies posted all over this site to support that.
Well show me one that is similar. And I mean similar. Show me a study that looked for toxicological problems that surfaced after 90 days. Can you even find a two year study? That was the whole point of this study. After Seralini took Monsanto to court and obtained the raw data they noticed issues with the organs and endocrine system that concerned them. So they decided to do a longer study and see what happened. When they did they noticed the groups exposed to the Monsanto products had more tumors and larger ones.
If you can find studies that do agree with Seralini's results, please post them.
As it was the first study of it's kind there wont be any. But i may post other studies that will be helpful but at the moment we seem to be going over the same points
Yes they do, it's right in the abstract.....
http://www.gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/GES-final-study-19.9.121.pdf
These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.
Content from External Source
The organ issues can be. the tumors could be too. We won't know unless we do further study.
It's called an hypothesis. they hypothesise a specific explanation that can be tested.
 
Last edited:
Some quotes from the paper that might help the discussion from going round in circles.


.
This study constitutes a follow-up investigation of a 90-day feeding study conducted by Monsanto in order to obtain commercial release of this GMO, employing the same rat strain and analyzing biochemical parameters on the same number of animals per group as our investigation. Our research represents the first chronic study on these substances, in which all observations including tumors are reported chronologically. Thus, it was not designed as a carcinogenicity study.

Tumors are reported in line with the requirements of OECD chronic toxicity protocols 452 and 453, which require all ‘lesions’ (which by definition include tumors) to be reported.

By the beginning of the 24th month, 50% to 80% of female animals had developed tumors in all treatment groups, with up to three tumors per animal, whereas only 30% of controls were affected.
 
Last edited:

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
ok..previously you wrote he should not have reported them and that was the point I picked you up on. Its mandatory according to the protocol, 452 I believe.

I stated they incorrectly reported the tumors and then described how.

I've seen other studies that observed endocrine disruption associated with glyphosate.

Then post them? I haven't seen any in the literature.

Didn't you already say you knew this was not a cancer study. yet you criticse a toxicology study for being toxicology study and not a cancer study...??

Look, it was a toxicology study, I know that. Much of their presented data, however, describes the tumors and that data is BAD. If they were going to report the tumors, why not present them in a useful way? Why instead present pictures and number of tumors? You don't even need expertise in oncology to get basic information. Regardless, letting the rats live as long as they did was unethical and there was no reason for that other than to exacerbate a premeditated conclusion the group already had.

Obviously if no other studies have the same extremely large tumors and higher incidence they would not have contemplated reporting them that way.

You won't find any because labs don't let lab animals live with tumors that large.. That's my point, Seralini did not have science in mind when he took those pictures.

Well show me one that is similar. And I mean similar. Show me a study that looked for toxicological problems that surfaced after 90 days. Can you even find a two year study?

Just because Seralini is saying that it is the first of its kind doesn't mean he is correct. Carcinogenicity studies following the OECD guidelines have been done. Again, this source and more are already posted in another thread.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715
There was no convincing evidence for direct DNA damage in vitro or in vivo, and it was concluded that Roundup and its components do not pose a risk for the production of heritable/somatic mutations in humans. Multiple lifetime feeding studies have failed to demonstrate any tumorigenic potential for glyphosate. Accordingly, it was concluded that glyphosate is non carcinogenic. ... Results from standard studies with these materials also failed to show any effects indicative of endocrine modulation. Therefore, it is concluded that the use of Roundup herbicide does not result in adverse effects on development, reproduction, or endocrine systems in humans and other mammals.
Content from External Source
The organ issues can be. the tumors could be too. We won't know unless we do further study.
It's called an hypothesis. they hypothesise a specific explanation that can be tested.

The group is making it very clear that they feel the treatment was responsible for the observed adverse effects. I don't know why you're trying to argue that they are not coming to that conclusion in this paper. When a group makes a conclusion in a publication, they are generally saying, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the discussion, "We observed evidence that X does Y and we think our results are significant, what do you guys (the community) think?"
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The group is making it very clear that they feel the treatment was responsible for the observed adverse effects. I don't know why you're trying to argue that they are not coming to that conclusion in this paper.
right? esp. since they just republished and did not fix their wording to indicate anything different then their original 'conclusions'.
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
Unfortunately that paper cites old unpublished studies to back up its conclusions, one of them done by Monsanto, and the other ordered from a company by Monsanto.

It's a review paper, compiling data from multiple papers from multiple journals and labs. Not just Monsanto.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top