Vital Link article on health hazards of GM foods

Home/Posts/Vital Link article on health hazards of GM foods

Vital Link article on health hazards of GM foods

A new peer-reviewed article has been published on the health hazards of genetically modified foods in Vital Link, the journal of the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors (www.cand.ca). The article:

  • leads with the Seralini et al (2012) study, which remains the most thorough and detailed study ever to be carried out on a GM food
  • reviews additional evidence from animal feeding studies with GM foods
  • supports the American Academy of Environmental Medicine’s (AAEM) conclusion that GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption but that animal studies offer
  • ample evidence of probable harm”
  • notes that some people in the US have reported improvements in their health and the disappearance of sometimes serious symptoms just by eliminating GMOs from their diets
  • recommends choosing organic and Non-GMO Project Verified foods, and foods derived from crops that are not subject to genetic modification.

Here is the citation:
Robinson, C (2103) Don’t look, don’t find: Health hazards of genetically modified food. CAND Vital Link, Volume 20(1):17-24.

Download the PDF here.

By |April 11th, 2013|Posts|3 Comments

About the Author:

3 Comments

  1. Robin 12 April 2013 at 7:32 pm

    Go to the Institution of Responsible Technology see Jeffrey Smith’s documentary “Genetic Roulette” ~ from mothers, professors, biochemists to former government agency heads blowing the lid off the corruption, collusion & actual PROOF, not conjecture, conspiracy theory or hype to sell books..
    Most in this film have either been threatened, lost their positions, jobs and/or had smear campaigns against them & even black balled. Ironically, this response to Canadian Study~ one of the film’s heroes happens to be a FORMER HEAD OF CANADA’s FDA was being threatened to fudge the facts of GMO Safety Studies, obviously, they showed horrid effects in mice- rapid growth tumors to losing reproductivity in mere weeks, just grazing the surface~ Not only did he REFUSE to COVER UP & FUDGE THE FINDINGS AKA LIE, he QUIT!
    I know you may try to fact check & find controversy, which is why Genetic Roulette is SUCH an important body of work, it’s facts should be brought to a World Court of Justice.. If only there were True, Just Court.. The United Nations has it’s agenda in writing of the world’s overpopulation.. Being that I am not intellectually impaired & this site is what it is.. No need to throw out an, in my honest opinion comment to assure you won’t post all the information I’ve given which is fact. Let it not be in vain..

  2. Gerhart Ryffel 31 May 2013 at 3:12 pm

    The description of the criticism of Séralini´s work is misleading, as it gives mainly the comments found in the internet (references 5,6, 8 to 11) and not the published data in peer-reviewed journals, e.g. (Butler, 2012b; Butler, 2012a; Barale-Thomas, 2013; de Souza and Macedo, 2013; Heinemann, 2013; Berry, 2013; Pilu, 2013; Hammond et al., 2013; Ollivier, 2013; Sanders et al., 2013; Tester, 2013; Grunewald and Bury, 2013; Langridge, 2013; Schorsch, 2013; Tribe, 2013; Panchin, 2013; Robert et al., 2013; Trewavas, 2013; Le Tien and Le Huy, 2013; Arjo et al., 2013; Meldolesi, 2012).
    Considering the 17 published comments in “Food and Chemical Toxicology” , the journal in which the study by Séralini was published, only one gave a positive comment (Heinemann, 2013) and all the others were negative. Of course, scientific issues cannot be decided by vote, but the overwhelming rejection should not be ignored in reviewing Séralini´s study. Most comments criticized the far too low number of animals that did not allow any solid conclusions, as the results just reflect random changes. Only one of the comments was industry based (Hammond et al., 2013). It is not a balanced way to ignore all these published comments by well-established, independent and recognized experts in many fields of biology.

    Reference List
    – Arjo,G., Portero,M., Pinol,C., Vinas,J., Matias-Guiu,X., Capell,T., Bartholomaeus,A., Parrott,W., and Christou,P. (2013). Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudoscience: an in depth analysis of the Seralini et al. study claiming that Roundup Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup cause cancer in rats. Transgenic Res 22, 255-267.
    – Barale-Thomas,E. (2013). The SFPT feels compelled to point out weaknesses in the paper by Seralini et al. (2012). Food Chem. Toxicol 53, 473-474.
    – Berry,C. (2013). Adverse effects in a feeding study of a GM derived corn in rats. Food Chem. Toxicol 53, 445-446.
    – Butler,D. (2012a). Hyped GM maize study faces growing scrutiny. Nature 490, 158.
    – Butler,D. (2012b). Rat study sparks GM furore. Nature 489, 484.
    – de Souza,L. and Macedo,O.L. (2013). Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol 53, 440.
    – Grunewald,W. and Bury,J. (2013). Comment on “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize” by Seralini et al. Food Chem. Toxicol 53, 447-448.
    – Hammond,B., Goldstein,D.A., and Saltmiras,D. (2013). Response to original research article, in press, corrected proof, ”Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize”. Food Chem. Toxicol 53, 459-464.
    – Heinemann,J.A. (2013). Food and chemical toxicology. Food Chem. Toxicol 53, 442.
    – Langridge,P. (2013). Letter to the editor. Food Chem. Toxicol 53, 441.
    – Le Tien,D. and Le Huy,H. (2013). Comments on “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize”. Food Chem. Toxicol 53, 443-444.
    – Meldolesi,A. (2012). Media leaps on French study claiming GM maize carcinogenicity. Nat Biotechnol. 30, 1018.
    – Ollivier,L. (2013). A Comment on “Seralini, G.-E., et al., Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol. (2012). Food Chem. Toxicol 53, 458.
    – Panchin,A.Y. (2013). Toxicity of Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize is not supported by statistical tests. Food Chem. Toxicol 53, 475.
    – Pilu,R. (2013). Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol 53, 454.
    – Robert,W., Lerayer,A., Fedoroff,N., Giddings,L.V., Strauss,S.H., Leaver,C., Shantharam,S., Potrykus,I., Fellous,M., Burachik,M., Jany,K.D., Trewavas,A., Rao,C.K., Prakash,C.S., Miller,H.I., Bradford,K., Cetiner,S., McHughen,A., De Stefano-Beltran,L., Chassy,B.M., AlMomin,S., Newell-McGloughlin,M., Ammann,K., Herring,R.J., and de,S.L. (2013). We request a serious reconsideration of the recent paper by Seralini et al. alleging tumorigenesis in rats resulting from consumption of corn derived from crops improved through biotechnology (Seralini et al., 2012). Food Chem. Toxicol 53, 455-456.
    – Sanders,D., Kamoun,S., Williams,B., and Festing,M. (2013). Re: Seralini, G.-E., et al. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol. (2012). Food Chem. Toxicol 53, 450-453.
    – Schorsch,F. (2013). Serious inadequacies regarding the pathology data presented in the paper by Seralini et al. (2012). Food Chem. Toxicol 53, 465-466.
    – Tester,M. (2013). It does not become the quality of a journal such as Food and Chemical Toxicology to publish such poor work. Food Chem. Toxicol 53, 457.
    – Trewavas,A. (2013). Science requires the dispassionate presentation of information. Food Chem. Toxicol 53, 449.
    – Tribe,D. (2013). My comments about the paper do not adequately describe the serious failures that have occurred in the peer review process at FCT. Food Chem. Toxicol 53, 467-472.

  3. Claire Robinson1 31 May 2013 at 5:01 pm

    Correction to Gerhart Ryffel’s post. Many letters of support for Seralini’s study were received by the journal FCT, but most scientists who wrote in could not allow their letters to be published.
    Many more scientists supported Seralini by signing open letters and writing letters of support, which are all available on the CRIIGEN and GMOSeralini websites.
    Very many writers of the 17 letters damning Seralini’s study in the pages of FCT *had serious conflicts of interest which they did not declare* in their published letters, quite against the rules of scientific publishing. Some of these conflicts of interest are exposed here:
    http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/science/item/164-smelling-a-corporate-rat
    and here:
    http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14424
    It is, of course, easy to find people to defend GMOs if their careers depend on the success and acceptance of the technology.

Leave A Comment