Séralini study on GMO/Roundup toxicity republished

Natural Health News – They were the images that shocked the world. Laboratory animals riddled with tumors after consuming maize and GM partner herbicide Roundup

The 2012 study by Séralini et al, published in Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology caused a scientific storm and unleashed orchestrated by groups of pro-GM scientists and pressure campaign to discredit him. After JFCT a former Monsanto employee was named associate editor of Biotechnology, the study was withdrawn, in a move that was universally condemned .

However, in an action virtually unprecedented, the journa peer l Environmental Sciences Europe is the reissue of study that analyzed the chronic toxicity of herbicide Roundup and Roundup-tolerant genetically modified NK603 maize.

His new publication returns the data to the peer-reviewed literature.

This study began when an earlier study found that Monsanto had results suggest kidney and liver toxicology. Because it was a short-term study, Professor Séralini and his colleagues chose to extend the study to 200 days long in the life of a rat compared to the short period used by Monsanto.

– Toxic effects and tumors

Research confirms that pesticides in the world of selling, Roundup and NK603 GM are associated with hepatic impairment and severe kidney and hormonal alterations in low levels of environmental relevance.

The study also reported unexpectedly high rates of tumor formation. Since the research was designed as a toxicology study, not a carcinogenicity study could not be reached firm conclusions about the formation of tumors. Similar but smaller effects with chronic use of glyphosate tolerant GM maize were observed.

Scientists conclude these effects are associated with residues of Roundup and the specific genetic modification of this maize. Therefore, the formulations of Roundup, as well as glyphosate tolerant GM maize must be considered as endocrine disruptors (hormonal) and should be reevaluated for the safety of the health authorities.

The data available for everyone – unlike Monsanto

Winfried Schröder, director of the magazine Environmental Sciences Europe Group Springer, said, “We want to enable a rational discussion on the study of Séralini et al for republishing this methodological competence is the energy required for any scientific progress the sole purpose is to allow some scientific transparency and on this basis, a discussion… that does not try to hide, but focuses on these necessary methodological controversies “.

Researchers have published online the raw data of the study with free access to the entire scientific community. Professor Séralini concludes: “We have now responded to all critical These data belong to all who are concerned about human health.”.

Monsanto and other biotech companies still refuse to make public its data so it can be subjected to independent scrutiny.

Science speaks for itself

Various known scientists have stepped in with support for the new publication.

Dr. Michael Antoniou, molecular genetics specialist based in London, said. “Few studies survive such intensive scrutiny by fellow scientists Reissue of the study after three expert assessments is a testament to his rigor and integrity of researchers.

“If anyone still doubts the quality of this study, it should simply read the newspaper to publish. Science speaks for itself.

“If they still refuse to accept the results, should launch their own research study on these two toxic products that have now been in the chain of human and animal food for many years.”

Dr. Jack A Heinemann, professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, called the new publication “an important demonstration of the resilience of the scientific community.”

Dr. Heinemann continued. “The first publication of these results revealed some of the cruelty that can be unleashed on researchers presented findings applaud uncomfortable Environmental Sciences Europe for the presentation of the work to another round of rigorous review by blind couple and then bravely standing by the process and the recommendations of its employees, especially after witnessing the events surrounding the first publication.

“This study could said to have prevailed through the broader, independent review to which no scientific studies on GMOs has never been subjected process.

“The work provides important new knowledge that must be taken into account by the community that assesses and reports on the risks of genetically modified organisms, in fact, to all sources of pesticides in our food chains and feed. Over time, these results should be verified by repetition or challenged by the top experimentation. in my view, nothing constructive for risk assessment or promoting GM biotechnology has been achieved by attempting to clear these data from public records. ”

Add a Comment

==[Click 2x to Close X]==
Most Popular Today!

Sorry. No data so far.