Biotech giant attempts to discredit shocking findings
Source: Paul Joseph Watson
Biotech giant Monsanto has launched a desperate damage control effort in the aftermath of a French study which found that rats fed on Monsanto’s genetically-engineered corn were far more likely to suffer tumors, organ failure and premature death.
Aside from the details of the study, a wider question remains. If Monsanto and other GMO giants are so confident in the safety of their products and have no qualms about them being in the food supply, why have they spent a combined total of over $19 million dollars in an attempt to prevent Americans from knowing that their food is genetically modified?
Monsanto has bankrolled a huge campaign fronted by lobbyists in an effort to sink California’s Proposition 37, a bill that would simply mandate genetically modified food and ingredients be labeled at the retail level.
If genetically-modified food is safe and the studies have proven it is safe, why is Monsanto so desperate to keep its presence in our food hidden?
The recent study, conducted by scientists at the University of Caen and published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, found that 50 percent of male and 70 percent of female rats fed on a diet containing NK603 – a genetically modified corn produced by Monsanto – or those exposed to Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller – suffered tumors and multiple organ damage, causing them to die prematurely.
Monsanto immediately went into spin mode, issuing a press release over the weekend claiming that toxicologists and public health experts had found “fundamental problems with the study design,” without specifically explaining what those problems were.
Given the fact that Monsanto-funded scientists are routinely wheeled out in public to attack the abundance of evidence confirming the link between GMO and cancer, the reaction to the French study was unsurprising.
As Sayer Ji explains, the two previous studies before the French inquiry, the results of which claimed that there was no link between Monsanto’s Roundup Ready herbicide and cancer, were both funded by Monsanto itself.
A study published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology which exonerated Monsanto contained this glaring admission of a conflict of interest;
“The authors have disclosed the funding source for this research. JSM [study author] has served has a paid consultant to Monsanto Company….This research was supported by the Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri.”
Is it really just a coincidence that the first study in recent years not to be funded by Monsanto produces completely different results?
“There is no plausible mechanism for the results reported with genetically modified maize and the results are inconsistent with an extensive body of experience and scientific study,” Monsanto claimed in response to the French study.
However, the results are only inconsistent with previous (Monsanto-funded) studies because the French study went beyond the 90-day period which Monsanto had previously been able to hide behind in claiming their GMO products were safe.
As The Grocer highlights, the French investigation “Was the first study to look at the long-term effects of Roundup and NK603, which has been approved for human consumption based on 90-day feeding trials. Scientists found that rats developed mammary tumours and severe liver and kidney damages as early as four months in males and seven in females, compared with 23 months and 14 months respectively in a control group.”
Since tumors and other ailments were only discovered after a four month period, this throws into serious doubt previous (Monsanto-funded) studies the biotech giant pointed to as proving the safety of GMO because they failed to extend beyond a 90 day period, whereas the French study looked at the effects of GMO throughout the whole life span of the rats.
This again illustrates the fact that far from being inadequate or badly modeled, the French study was more extensive and more complete than any previous study – with the added bonus that it was not funded by Monsanto – it was completely impartial.
As we reported last week, apologists for Monsanto have jumped on the bandwagon in an effort to discredit the findings of the French study, lying by omission in an attempt to cast doubt on its findings.
David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge tried to question the accuracy of the study by highlighting that “The study’s untreated control arm comprised only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also got tumors.”
However, Spiegelhalter failed to acknowledge that it took these rats anything up to 19 months longer to develop tumors compared to those fed on Monsanto’s GM corn.
Having had its nose bloodied in various European countries and facing being kicked out of the European marketplace altogether, Monsanto is in panic mode right now. California’s Right to Know Act – otherwise known as Prop 37 – could spell the beginning of the end not only for Monsanto’s business model but for the whole GMO agenda across the globe.