Bioengineering has been around for some time now, and ever since its introduction, it has been the subject of never-ending controversy claims, myths and misconceptions. Many believe consuming genetically modified organisms, the most widely known product of genetic scientists, is harmful. In order to alleviate these concerns, many laboratories around the world were tasked with conducting experiments to prove once and for all GMO is safe for human use. Yet other scientists began independent research into the long-term effects of GMO consumption. In many cases, published findings contradict one another, which only adds to the controversy and further divides people into supporters and opponents of GMO products. Let us take a look at two studies which have produced absolutely inconsistent results.
One attempt to prove GMO can be distributed commercially was Hammond’s 13 week safety assurance study conducted by Monsanto, a GMO production company. This immediately leads to wonder whether or not this research paper is biased (as it was not written by an independent team of scientists). Its conclusion was that no harm had been done to any rats that had received Roundup Ready corn in their diets over the course of 90 days. Throughout the paper, special emphasis is made on how professionally the experiment was carried out. This is performed by including data not relevant to the end result (e.g. where the lab rats were acquired, Charles River Laboratories in North Carolina), listing well-known brand names one would trust (Purina, Hitachi), citing laboratory guidelines and other documents. These peculiarities drove me to suspect the authors may be trying to focus the reader’s attention away from the unexpected end result and purposely make the researchers seem highly authoritative and competent, thereby making their conclusions seem undeniable .
I would even go so far as to say Hammond’s experiment does not answer a single question raised by the public as to the safety of consuming GMO. Moreover, it even failed to convince me of the feasibility of conducting a 90-day experiment, as no clear explanation was given for how a three-month GMO-based diet would be indicative of rodents’ health later in their lifetime. By declaring all rats were found to be one hundred percent healthy at the time of dissection, it is very likely the formulated report exists only to support Monsanto’s image as a humane and caring manufacturer which takes pride in its reputation of customer satisfaction (or lack of complaint thereof).
After Hammond’s paper was published for peer review, Gilles-Eric Seralini and a group of fellow researchers decided to come out with their own report, in which they had taken a much more transparent and objective approach. They based their research on quite a simple principle: in order to best determine the lifetime effects of GMO consumption in humans, they would need to replicate the methods employed by Hammond (with minor differences, such as adding Roundup to drinking water), while prolonging the study period to two years. On several occasions, the authors note the similarity between Monsanto’s experiment and their own: “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”. The goal of pointing out the similarities, I believe, is an implication of how the previous study only employed true scientific methods to make its results believable (the methods themselves were genuine, but given the low duration of Monsanto’s experiment, they could not have rendered accurate results).
Sure enough, this independent study concluded that a two-year GMO diet had adverse health effects upon rats (tumors, organ dysfunction). Seralini and the rest of his group also included images of kidneys and livers taken from healthy and GMO-treated animals. The difference is shocking. Monsanto had not attached any such evidence to prove their point.
References
Hammond, B., Dudek, R., Lemen, J., Nemeth, M. (2004, February 12). Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Retrieved from www.elsevier.com/locate/foodchemtox
Seralini, G., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., Hennequin,
D., Spiroux de Vendomois, J. (2014, June 24). Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Retrieved from
http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14
