Suspect toxicity of GE Maize

Mice were fed for three months with Monsantos GE Maize and a control group of the same kind of mice were fed ordinary maize. Blood and urine tests were taken during and after the test period. After three months all mice were killed and their bodies were carefully analyzed. The study was made by Monsantos own scientists at the MSE-N laboratory.

67 measurements differed significantly, all indicating a toxic influence. This included:

• 12 properties of blood cells (including hematocrit, platelets, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, monocyte count, mean corpuscular volume and hemoglobin concentration of erythrocytes),
• 18 clinical lab parameters (including a/o albumin, urea, creatinin, alkaline phoshpatate),
• 9 urine measurements (including creatinine and creatinine clearance),
• 6 organ weights (including brain, heart liver) and
• 14 measurements of body weight, and body weight changes
• 8 measurements of food consumption

Moreover there were significant differences, in some measurements, between males and females.

Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini at the French Research Institute CRIIGEN found that the statistical analysis used by the Monsanto scientists was not suitable for detecting important differences. Also, no toxicological, biological or medical (pathological) experts had assessed the results. The raw materials including the organs and the microscope slides of the organs were kept confidential, so independent scientists could not analyze them.

Because of these weaknesses in the study, important differences may have remained undetected. Professor Seralini found that the analyses don't exclude that the Maize is toxic, and therefore more research is required before it can be concluded that it suitable as food. He pointed out that there is no scientific excuse for keeping the results secret and that it is unacceptable that the approval of a product is made only on the basis of research made by a manufacturers own scientists.

Seralini also emphasized that much longer studies are needed to safely exclude harmful effects. And he found it necessary that independent scientists must do the research in order to secure a reliable safety assessment.

Source: ("Report on the NK 603 Maize by Monsanto company", June 2007 by CRIIGEN, France.)

Comment by PSRAST: This is a serious failure of the approval procedure

The deviations in the mentioned 67 measurements are of a kind found when there is a harmful influence.

You don't need to be a scientist to realize that if such a very large number of indicators all have deviated in the same negative direction, that there are good reasons to suspect that it is not just coincidental.

Yet the Monsanto's scientists maintained, after a primitive statistical analysis, that the remarkable difference was only the coincidental result of "natural variation".

However, the Monsanto scientists have overlooked or ignored an important fact: There was a significant difference between males and females in some respects. If the deviation had been coincidental, a gender difference would not have occurred. This indicates that there was a specific harmful effect influencing the physiology of the rats. It is not uncommon that toxins affecte the sexes differently.

It is remarkable that a more reliable statistical analysis was not made when such a large number of deviations indicating a possible harmful influence was found. This indicates a serious bias in the analysis of the scientists, which is not surprising as they were employed by Monsanto.

Vital organs as the liver, brain and the heart that had decreased in weight were not analyzed by toxicological and pathological experts. Only such specialists are competent to correctly estimate possible signs of toxicity. It is very suspicious that Monsanto did not consult such experts and refuses to make the material available for independent analysis. As long as they don't, there are all the reasons to believe that they are hiding unfavorable evidence.

In spite of these serious deficiencies in the research of Monsanto, which indicated possible toxicity, and a suspicious concealment of important information, the Maize was approved as "Substantially equivalent" and therefore allowed to be marketed as human food.

This represents another serious failure of the approval procedure based on substantial equivalence.

This case demonstrates clearly that it is unacceptable that approvals of safety of GE foods are made on the basis of manufacturer data only. All GE foods on the market have been approved on the basis of such data.