Originally published October 7 2014
GMO lies vs. reality: 10 facts you need to know about Seralini biotech study
by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) Not long after its publishing, Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini's landmark study on genetically modified (GM) NK603 corn and Roundup herbicide received considerable undue criticism from the mainstream scientific community, which clearly didn't approve of its findings. But this doesn't negate the fact that Seralini's study exceeded the standard criteria for honest scientific inquiry, being the only study of its kind to look at the long-term effects of GMOs on mammals.
Here are 10 things you need to know about Seralini's study that validate its findings and put to shame the liars who claimed that it was a fraud.
1) Seralini study looked at toxicity, not cancer. One of the major criticisms levied against Seralini's work alleged that it was a badly designed cancer study. But it was actually a toxicity study that just so happened to observe cancer as a byproduct of GMO exposure. And based on the criteria of a toxicity study, Seralini's work was both well-designed and well-conducted.
2) No other studies have looked at long-term GMO toxicity. Some have tried to claim that Seralini's findings deviate too much from the norm to be accurate. But no other long-term toxicity studies on either GMOs or Roundup have ever been conducted, so of course his findings are going to stray from the status quo.
3) Everyone uses Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats. Claims that Seralini's study used the wrong variety of rat, known as Sprague-Dawley (SD), are also invalid. Nearly every GMO food study ever conducted, including the pitiful, 90-day feeding studies conducted by Monsanto, has used SD rats as subjects since they're a good crossover for assessing how humans will respond to a particular exposure.
4) SD rats and humans are almost equally prone to cancer. As far as cancer risk, SD rats are almost just as prone to tumors as humans are, as evidenced by the fact that almost all toxicity, and even carcinogenicity, studies use SD rats as subjects. And just like people, SD rats have a higher risk of cancer the older they get, which makes them especially appropriate for long-term safety studies.
5) Seralini's sample size was appropriate by normal standards. Critics of Seralini's allegedly small sample size should take a look at all of Monsanto's toxicity studies -- they're exactly the same! The only difference is that Seralini actually looked at how rats are affected by GMOs and Roundup over the long haul rather than just 90 days.
6) If Seralini study isn't valid, neither are Monsanto's studies. The irony in the scientific elite declaring Seralini's study invalid is that, by the same standards, so are Monsanto's GMO safety studies. Since Seralini's study criteria matched or exceeded everything Monsanto and others have done, at least in terms of protocol -- as previously mentioned, Seralini's study is the only one that looked at GMOs long-term -- then either his study is valid or theirs aren't. You can't have it both ways.
7) Seralini study invalidates Monsanto 'safety' studies. Since the Seralini study is, in fact, completely valid, this poses a major problem for the establishment. By looking at how rats react to Monsanto's GM corn and Roundup herbicide over the course of two years rather than just three months, Seralini has proven that Monsanto's own short-term safety studies are inherently flawed.
8) Regulators are wrong; GM corn and Roundup are highly toxic to mammals. Whenever an industry-backed safety study has even suggested possible toxicity from GMO exposure in the short term, regulators have been quick to dismiss such findings as "not biologically meaningful." But based on Seralini's findings, the questionable toxicity outcomes in Monsanto's own research actually affirm that GMOs can lead to organ damage, cancer and premature death in the long term.
9) No governments even require long-term safety studies. It's interesting that the type of research Seralini conducted is not required by any single government anywhere in the world. The basis for every GMO approval thus far has only been limited, 90-day feeding studies that, on occasion, suggest toxicity, but never actually prove it. This is convenient for Big Biotech, which never has to face the fact that its products cause cancer and death, as demonstrated in Seralini's study.
10) Seralini isn't alone in discovering GMO toxicity. While many of his peers have refused to vet his work due to political pressures, Seralini is supported by a number of other independent researchers who have come to similar conclusions about the toxicity of GMOs. GMOEvidence.com outlines many of these, including studies on the toxicity of both Roundup and GMOs in piglets, dairy cows, bees, various aquatic animals and other organisms.
To learn more, visit:
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml