Monsanto Corn linked the Liver, Kidney Damage

January 12, 2010 8:35 AM

Genetically-modified corn from Monsanto linked to kidney and liver damage in humans.

Monsanto has revolutionized agriculture through the development of Round Up-Ready crops. These seeds are genetically modified to be unaffected by application of the pesticide Roundup. The documentary Food, Inc. brought many injustices by Monsanto to the public's attention. Despite a legacy of production of such chemicals as Agent Orange, Forbes named Monsanto the Company of the Year.

Based on new evidence linking Monsanto's Genetically Modified corn to kidney and liver damage in humans, change.org is sponsoring a petition to the FDA to have this Genetically Modified corn removed from the market.

posted by jefficator (38 comments total)

Where is the evidence or research dealing with humans? The study appears to have been on rats. Funny to observe the steps of distortion from the original research to the metafilter headline (rats -> organism -> human).
posted by Perplexity at 8:43 AM on January 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

I wouldn't worry about it. Our Food Safety Czar will make sure we're not poisoned by Monsanto's greed.

Right?
posted by Joe Beese at 8:44 AM on January 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

Linking to Truthout is cutting yourself off at the knees--with a little work, you could have linked to a print version of the article from International Journal of Biological Sciences or even Le Monde. Truthout is partisan, and even though the article is from elsewhere, it is not a good idea to directly link to a reprinted article from any partisan site. Also your tone is a bit too, in Jessamyn's words, 'fighty.' If you post on political topics, tone it down and take your ego out of the post. Just sayin'...
posted by y2karl at 8:44 AM on January 12, 2010

You forgot the key evidence link, yo. Is there a study showing this because it's the first I've heard of it and sounds like a pretty major bit of news that would require a massive study to show significant kidney and liver damage in humans.
posted by mathowie at 8:45 AM on January 12, 2010

Linking to Truthout is cutting yourself off at the knees

Wasn't a ban placed on Truthout articles after the whole Karl Rove indictment fiasco?
posted by sbutler at 8:46 AM on January 12, 2010

The study is about rats but also notes that a difference in humans would be "highly unlikely" for technical reasons.
posted by DU at 8:47 AM on January 12, 2010

Ok, I added the journal link to the post. Truthout sounds like morons by saying "study proves" when scientific studies can't prove anything, they merely show statistical significance or causation/correlation links between things. Nothing is ever proven in science and the editors at Truthout are jumping to conclusions.
posted by mathowie at 8:47 AM on January 12, 2010 [3 favorites]

as annoyed as I am by all the fooferall over HFCS -- it's really no worse than other kinds of sugar

Explain to me please how regulation of the production of sucrase can smooth blood-sugar spiking after consumption of a sugar source that doesn't require sucrase for digestion, hmm?

oh what's that? you don't know what you're talking about? this is my shocked face
posted by jock@law at 8:49 AM on January 12, 2010 [2 favorites]

Is it the corn itself that is toxic, or is it a side effect? I can't imagine the Roundup-Ready crops just don't absorb the pesticides/herbicides just because they're immune to them.

I worry that this will just be another scary story to make people fear science in general, rather than science used without compassion or common sense. Genetic modification has been done for millenia through selective breeding, and GMO in general, I'd imagine, are not actually dangerous. The issue is just that these plants have been genetically modified to live through, and bio-accumulate, death-cloud poisons, rather than genetically modified to produce more/tastier/healthier food.
posted by explosion at 8:49 AM on January 12, 2010

Can some with the requisite background chime in on if this study is legit? Just something about a study published in what seems to my totally non-expert eye to be a bit of a =n upstart-y journal and designed by a group expressly committed to showing the dangers of GMO's that gives quotes like :

"For the first time in the world, we've proven that GMO are neither sufficiently healthy nor proper to be commercialized. [...] Each time, for all three GMOs, the kidneys and liver, which are the main organs that react to a chemical food poisoning, had problems," indicated Gilles-Eric Séralini, an expert member of the Commission for Biotechnology Reevaluation, created by the EU in 2008.

Just seems like something best not taken at face value. I would feel the same way if I saw a study underwritten by Monsanto.
posted by JPD at 8:49 AM on January 12, 2010

the only pre-Columbian New World civilization to produce a large city

Um, huh?
posted by Pollomacho at 8:50 AM on January 12, 2010 [3 favorites]

These studies are a little troubling, to be sure, but the headline is misleading and alarmist. Rat metabolism isn't the same as humans, and banning something for human consumption because it harms rats isn't always justified.
posted by Johnny Assay at 8:55 AM on January 12, 2010

Yeah, this is a pretty tenuous condemnation of Genetically Modified food. The study abstract says, "We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal [liver and kidneys] toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM [genetically modified] corn."

So the GM food itself may not be to blame, but the levels of pestiside used on said foods, which makes sense because the genetic modifications in question are designed to make the food pesticide resistant. They go on to say, "In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded."

I'm reading this as, "we fed pesticide-drenched, genetically modified corn to rats. It poisoned their liver and kidneys. We can't isolate whether this was caused by the bug-killing poison or by the genetic modifications."
posted by eggplantplacebo at 8:59 AM on January 12, 2010 [3 favorites]

There's a simple answer: modify humans to make them pesticide resistant too.
posted by edd at 9:02 AM on January 12, 2010 [2 favorites]

Um, huh?

FOR SERIOUS. Given the most conservative estimates for the peak population of Teotihuacan and the most ambitious estimates for Cahokia, the former was at least 4 (and maybe as much as 30) times bigger.

Though I've not seen any evidence to explicitly refute the assertion that the Mississippians were ultimately felled by their over-reliance on Cheetos...
posted by wreckingball at 9:04 AM on January 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

hippybear - yes the original experiment that the data came from was itself underwritten by Monsanto but the analysis of the raw data was carried out by a group that explicitly seeks to reconsider the use of GMOs
posted by JPD at 9:05 AM on January 12, 2010

There's no flagging option for "Totally inaccurate post" so I settled for "Other."
posted by mullingitover at 9:08 AM on January 12, 2010

I wish Monsanto had just stuck to sponsoring Adventure Thru Inner Space, instead of being evil.
posted by anazgnos at 9:09 AM on January 12, 2010 [2 favorites]

From the conclusion of the study:

This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded [42]. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863).

So there's pesticide or herbicide actually in the modified corn? I'm sure I'm misunderstanding this right?
posted by photoslob at 9:13 AM on January 12, 2010

Hi, let me illustrate the difference between activism and science. This is activism:

Genetically-modified corn from Monsanto linked to kidney and liver damage in humans.

Another way to describe this would be "intentionally misleading and self-evidently untrue."

And this is science:

If a “sign of toxicity” may only provoke a reaction, pathology or a poisoning, a so-called “toxic effect” is without doubt deleterious on a short or a long term. Clearly, the statistically significant effects observed here for all three GM maize varieties investigated are signs of toxicity rather than proofs of toxicity, and this is essentially for three reasons. Firstly, the feeding trials in each case have been conducted only once, and with only one mammalian species. The experiments clearly need to be repeated preferably with more than one species of animal. Secondly, the length of feeding was at most only three months, and thus only relatively acute and medium-term effects can be observed if any similar to what can be derived in a process such as carcinogenesis [19, 20] or after endocrine disruption in adults [21]. Proof of toxicity is hard to decide on the basis of these conditions. Longer-term (up to 2 years) feeding experiments are clearly justified and indeed necessary. This requirement is supported by the fact that cancer, nervous and immune system diseases, and even reproductive disorders for examples can become apparent only after one or two years of a given intervention treatment under investigation, but they will not be evident in all cases after three months of administration when first signs of toxicity may be observed [22, 23]. In addition, large effects (e.g. 40% increase in triglycerides) in all likelihood will be missed with the protocol of the current studies, since they are limited by the number of animals used in each feeding group and by the nature of the parameters studied. Thirdly, the statistical power of the tests conducted is low (30%) because the experimental design of Monsanto (see Materials and Methods). However, it is important to note that these short-term (3-month) rat feeding trials are the only tests conducted on the basis of which regulators determine whether these GM crop/food varieties are as safe to eat as conventional types. Given that these GM crops are potentially eaten by billions of people and animals world-wide, it is important to discuss whether the experimental design, the statistical analyses and interpretations originally undertaken are appropriate and sufficient.

It might not be great science, I haven't dug into it that deeply yet. But I have to say that first, even if you are not willing to do the work to boil that down to something a little more pithy for the sake of discussion (as I am not) it should not take anyone more than a few minutes to read that, and there is really nothing in that paragraph that I would hope the majority of readers here, whether scientifically inclined or not, couldn't deal with. Second, it is still a good and important story without the credibility-destroying hyperbole. The real possibility that GMO crops are being hugely adopted (overwhelmingly, it needs to be noted, to allow ever-increasing use of herbicides) with insufficient testing of potential human toxicity is important - and activists should be willing to do the work to sell it without resorting to easily-dismissed scare-tactic headlines.
posted by nanojath at 9:14 AM on January 12, 2010 [6 favorites]

It's kind of a weird situation. AFAICT, this data is from studies that were done by Monsanto for the governments to prove the corn was safe, and the governments agreed and approved it. Now these other researchers are coming in and saying the same study data proves it is unsafe. But both sets of researchers seem to have a clear agenda coming in, so I'm not sure how any layman can interpret them or discuss the significance.
posted by smackfu at 9:20 AM on January 12, 2010

I salute anybody who gets into a fight with Monsanto. That takes a certain kind of fortitude. It's like running full speed into a brick wall and hoping you bust through to the other side. It could happen, but it's vanishingly unlikely.
posted by diogenes at 9:24 AM on January 12, 2010

I think these other researchers are really only saying that the study did not prove that it was safe.
posted by empath at 9:25 AM on January 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

For what it is worth, I would like to say the your comments are very helpful in honing my understanding of how to read stories that seem very important to me but may not be as objective as they should be.
posted by jefficator at 9:29 AM on January 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

Corn! It's what's for everything!
posted by The Whelk at 9:31 AM on January 12, 2010 [10 favorites]

A corn impermiable to a weed killer? Why would anyone want to believe this is possible? How about not using weed killer on food? Wow. What a concept.
posted by stormpooper at 9:34 AM on January 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

I think these other researchers are really only saying that the study did not prove that it was safe.

I think you're right. The main point seems to be there's some negative effect shown in the original Monsanto study but the original study said it wasn't bad enough to be a "toxic effect". I think what this study is saying is that the power of the original study (due to a low sample size) wasn't high enough to justify this conclusion, so a new study should be conducted.

I think some of the pesticides they are referring to in the article are not applied, but are actually produced by the corn. I'm not positive though.
posted by demiurge at 9:36 AM on January 12, 2010

Actually, studies have proven that corn is in fact garbage.
posted by freshundz at 9:52 AM on January 12, 2010

I wish Monsanto had just stuck to sponsoring Adventure Thru Inner Space, instead of being evil.

Word! What a great way to burn a C ticket! Slow, dark and cool.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 9:55 AM on January 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

Studies have shown that corn-based Cheetos products cause irreparable damage to cities and advanced civilizations.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:56 AM on January 12, 2010

I read the study. Ok, I skimmed some of it, because frankly my statistical know-how is not up to par. But I read it enough to believe I understand what it is they think they found. So here you go:

Monsanto conducted three required health-effect studies on rats, one for each of three different strains of GM corn. One strain was resistant to Roundup, aka glyphosate. The other two were modified to express one each of two different proteins derived from a commonly used pesticide, bT. Each study fed rats GM corn for three months, at 0%, 11%, or 33% of the diet. Monsanto's conclusions from these studies were that no significant health effects could be demonstrated. These were the only studies required by regulators, and were used as the basis for approving the corn for consumption in human and animal food.

These investigators have obtained the data from these three Monsanto studies, and done their own analysis of it. The bottom-line conclusion is there are indications that there may be some effects, particularly on liver and kidney function. The apparent effects vary by dose, by GM variety, and by sex of the rats. But they are particularly careful to explain that the main thing they found was that these studies are far too small (only 10 animals were measured for blood and urine parameters per group) and far too short (they lasted the mandated three months, and data was only collected at 5 and 14 weeks -- as far as I can tell) to prove anything about the safety of anything.

Basically, the biggest thing to take away here is that statistically, you shouldn't have any confidence at all in either Monsanto's conclusion, that these strains of corn are safe, or in these authors conclusions that they may not be. They also emphasize this point. In their words: "The most fundamental point to bear in mind from the outset is that a sample size of 10 for biochemical parameters measured two times in 90 days is largely insufficient to ensure an acceptable degree of power to the statistical analysis performed and presented by Monsanto." The rest of section 2.3 is worth reading, in its entirety.

The headline here should be: "New study finds that GM corn was approved for sale and consumption without any meaningful demonstration of safety." Unfortunately it is necessary for anti-GM campaigners to assert actual harm, even if their own conclusions are that they have no more likelihood of proving anything than Monsanto does with the same too-small data set. But there's a fairly big contingent of the public that will not care whether a food is safe to eat if it hasn't been proven unsafe. At the very least, this ought to be a wake-up call to regulators, that if they're going to approve something as safe they ought to try to understand the science purporting to demonstrate that it is. But I doubt it will be that either, since big agribusinesses are running our regulatory agencies.
posted by rusty at 10:06 AM on January 12, 2010 [10 favorites]

Um, huh?

Oops -- I meant to say North America. My bad.

Teotihuacán is in North America.
posted by Cobalt at 10:07 AM on January 12, 2010

If I'm reading that study correctly, there is no "new evidence", because the researchers didn't actually conduct any trials. They just studied the raw data from the Monsanto trials and came up with different conclusions, or at least introduced some doubt and reasons for further studies. They say, themselves, that they haven't proved anything: "Clearly, the statistically significant effects observed here for all three GM maize varieties investigated are signs of toxicity rather than proofs of toxicity."

On preview, what rusty said.
posted by beagle at 10:08 AM on January 12, 2010

But genetically modified popcorn is still ok, right?
posted by spicynuts at 10:10 AM on January 12, 2010

Afroblanco: the article you linked to is rhetorical flourish and no science. It's telling that the absolute most key point the article could have discussed they got wrong on the first run, and when they ran the correction they changed one word in the article and didn't think much of it. News for Slate (and you): metabolizing more-complex carbohydrates is better for you than metabolizing less-complex carbohydrates. Sucrase is an enzyme necessary for the digestion of table sugar, which is a disaccharide. Your body regulates the production of sucrase. Less sucrase = slower breakdown of table sugar into fructose and glucose. Slower breakdown = slower entering the blood = more gradual hills and valleys of blood sugar levels = healthier insulin response. HFCS is pure glucose mixed with pure fructose; sucrase cannot play a role in regulating the effect of HFCS on blood sugar levels.
posted by jock@law at 10:13 AM on January 12, 2010

beagle: The "new evidence" is the actual raw study data that their lawyers pried out of Monsanto. Section 2.2: "The raw biochemical data, necessary to allow a statistical re-evaluation, should be made publically available according to European Union Directive CE/2001/18 but unfortunately this is not always the case in practice. On this occasion, the data we required for this analysis were obtained either through court actions (lost by Monsanto) to obtain the MON 863 feeding study material (June 2005), or by courtesy of governments or Greenpeace lawyers."
posted by rusty at 10:14 AM on January 12, 2010

I'm just going to continue to believe that GMOs are generally ok and that Monsanto is generally evil.

It's a belief structure that hasn't let me down so far.
posted by quin at 10:18 AM on January 12, 2010

And while I apologize for my tone, I tend to have a bad reaction to people dismissing science as "fooferall" and speaking authoritatively about subjects they don't know much about. How about "I haven't heard an explanation for why it's any worse than other sugars" instead of "it's really no worse than other kinds of sugar"?
posted by jock@law at 10:18 AM on January 12, 2010