Revealed: Monsanto GM corn caused tumors in rats

did a search and nothing came up so i thought i would share, if its in the wrong place mods please move.

what do the pro gmo people have to say now?

French scientists have revealed that rats fed on GMO corn sold by American firm Monsanto, suffered tumors and other complications including kidney and liver damage.

The research conducted by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his colleagues, said the rats suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The study was published in the journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology and presented at a news conference in London.

www.rt.com...

this is why we need to eat as naturally as we can, i wasnt sure which bits to pick out so go read the link for yourself as i probally missed the best parts,they also show pictures of the rats.

Start buying heirloom seeds, they are getting harder to find, and if monsanto has their way they will be your only option in the future. Also start a garden, If you have a yard... even if its a rental start a garden, talk to the home owner offer part of your crop as compensation to get permission.

we got a all organic farm here we can order food from. everything is totally gmo free.
it costs anywhere from 100% to nearly 1000% markup from supermarkets.

healthy eating is for wealthy people. good luck with that, grow your own whenever you can, otherwise..accept our tumor future

I am not surprised.

I heard and saw horror stories out of India when Indian Farmers used GM corps a few years back.

Some scientists however criticized the French researchers’ statistical methods and the use of a particular type of rat, saying the albino Sprague-Dawley strain of animal had a tendency to develop cancers.

I guess we missed this part...

Maybe we should be more critical of the methods used in this study.

a reply to: theboarman

That study was shown to be rigged years ago. RT is spreading disinfo again:

en.wikipedia.org...

RT's agenda is to appeal to Conspiracy Theorists' confirmation biases so that they will believe Putinist propaganda in the future. Don't swallow it.

a reply to: projectvxn

thats just nitpicking as you can say any animal as a tendency to develop cancer, i myself know 2 people who died from cancer, therefor humans have a tendency to grow cancers, see the point im trying to make here?

a reply to: projectvxn

Yes, but if people are to buy 100% organic food (which costs way more than conventional food), there need to be "studies" done so to increase the fear of GMO.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think GMO is better than organic - but I also think its dangerousness has been greatly exaggerated so to promote buying organic food which often have less volume for often twice the price.

a reply to: swanne

To be fair, studies on the impact of organic food need to be done. I suspect they will produce identical results if done with the same methodology.

did the corn cause the cancer, or was it the glyophosphate they dumped on it?

a reply to: DJW001

A chief criticism was that each part of the study had too few rats to obtain statistically useful data, particularly because the strain of rat used, Sprague Dawley, develops tumors at a high rate over its lifetime.[1][2]

the first criticism is just silly, more rats would still prove this to be true , as for the second i covered that above , you probally already read the responce.

also from your link

In June 2014, the original study was republished in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe.[86][87] The editor said that the paper was republished without further scientific peer review, "because this had already been conducted by Food and Chemical Toxicology, and had concluded there had been no fraud nor misrepresentation."[87] The republication renewed the controversy, but now with additional controversy over the behavior of the editors of both journals

originally posted by: acackohfcc
did the corn cause the cancer, or was it the glyophosphate they dumped on it?

It was almost certainly the glyophosphate, but that didn't stop Seralini from trying to generalize the results to all GMOs.

a reply to: theboarman

the first criticism is just silly, more rats would still prove this to be true

No, you don't know that, that's the point. Seralini would not allow other scientists to duplicate his research before he published; that suggests that an earlier trial failed.

a reply to: DJW001

Of course they would produce identical results - food in Nature is already "GMO", in that their genetic makeup are constantly modifying because of cross-breeding and natural mutation (the plants and animals we eat are not excluded from evolution).

a reply to: swanne

you cant compare something that would happen naturally to us messing with the dna,

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: DJW001

Of course they would produce identical results - food in Nature is already "GMO", in that their genetic makeup are constantly modifying because of cross-breeding and natural mutation (the plants and animals we eat are not excluded from evolution).

Correct, and before the charges of "Monsanto shill" start flying, I want to point out that Monsanto's marketing is the problem, not GMOs. Monsanto is developing agricultural products that force their consumers into a monopolistic relationship with the company. Farmers need to combine Monsanto crops with Monsanto pesticides and fertilizers. Seeds are designed to be infertile, so the crop cannot be used for seed. Things like that. As Swanne pointed out, all domesticated crops have been genetically modified, and all agriculture is unnatural.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: DJW001

Of course they would produce identical results - food in Nature is already "GMO", in that their genetic makeup are constantly modifying because of cross-breeding and natural mutation (the plants and animals we eat are not excluded from evolution).

Yah, but natural food DNA doesn't have pesticide in it, aren't programmed to not germinate, and have adapted over eons, not twenty years time.

Manipulate someone else's genome.

Everything you need to know about GMOs

originally posted by: theboarman
a reply to: swanne

you cant compare something that would happen naturally to us messing with the dna,

We have been messing with the DNA for centuries. When fruit trees are grafted together, there is an exchange of genetic material and mitochondria. The grafted fruits do not produce hybrids, but they carry the genetic material of other plants!

a reply to: DJW001

you are comparing apples and oranges, what we do with cross breeding is what would happen in nature but at a much slower pace, with cross breeding you dont need to use a gene gun and your not physically messing with the dna, agriculture is not unnatural because the food we grow is natural and would grow in the wild,agriculture happens in the wild ,we just mastered it. when we start useing gmo crops then it becomes unnatural.