The new study lends scientific credibility to anecdotal evidence from farmers and veterinarians, who have for some years reported reproductive and digestive problems in pigs fed on a diet containing GM soy and corn.
Iowa-based farmer as well as crop and livestock advisor Howard Vlieger, one of the coordinators of the study, said: “For as long as GM crops have been in the feed supply, we have seen increasing digestive and reproductive problems in animals. Now it is scientifically documented.
“In my experience, farmers have found increased production costs and escalating antibiotic use when feeding GM crops. In some operations, the livestock death loss is high, and there are unexplained problems including spontaneous abortions, deformities of new-born animals, and an overall listlessness and lack of contentment in the animals.
“In some cases, animals eating GM crops are very aggressive. This is not surprising, given the scale of stomach irritation and inflammation now documented. I have seen no financial benefit to farmers who feed GM crops to their animals.”
Refer to: Dr Judy Carman, BSc (Hons) PhD MPH MPHAA; Epidemiologist and Biochemist; Director, Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Adelaide, Australia; Adjunct Associate Professor, Health and the Environment, School of the Environment, Adelaide, Australia.
yahoo sucks, the board worked better 15 years ago, than it does now, with computers that have ten times the processing power now...the entire so called, internet sucks..we need something better
maybe...but not really a big risk in life. At the risk of being obvious, the risk can all be avoided if you wish.
now cell phones.....there is a risk to my life. Can't easily avoid that. Got back ended by someone last year, and watched a lady plow into a car ahead of her this year. When will we admit it's hazard in life just so we ....can stay can stay (over) connected.
The Carmen feeding trial was not unbiased - you should read it yourself. 1. It is published in the Journal of Organic Systems - an outlet for and about organic farming, not about physiology, nutrition, or anything close. 2. Whoever the animal handler was (can we assume it was the farmer Howard Vlieger?), they flunked animal handling 101: almost all the animals in the study got sick, including those that didn't eat the "GMO-feed." I think they should be cited for animal cruelty. 3. No one anywhere, before or since, has seen results like these in any feed safety trials. 4. It's clear that you think farmers are so stupid that they would imperil their livelihood and their family by making animals sick. In particular, in both in the study you cite and in conventional production systems that use "GMO-feed" animal growth rate and reproductive success are unchanged vs. "non-GMO." It's also clear that the actual stupid people are those who have no idea what they're talking about, who repeat the lies they have been told, and who are clearly under the influence of anti-GMO hysteria.
You are confusing studies!The monsanto study is flawed not the Judy Carmon Study!
The GM diet we used contained a mixture of three GM genes and therefore three GM proteins. It is rare to see research on mixed GM materials like this, even though it is usually what animals and people eat in the “real world”. Furthermore, regulators do not require animal feeding studies on mixtures of GM genes and their proteins, regardless of whether the genes are all “stacked” into the one plant or spread across several plants that are eaten in the same meal. Therefore, regulators do not assess if several GM genes or proteins may act together in concert to cause ill-health. We have now measured the combined effects on health of eating three commonly used GM genes and their protein products.
We fed animals for over 5 months in a long-term toxicology study, being the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from weaning to slaughter. Most GM feeding studies to date have been for far shorter periods of time. We therefore allowed more time for adverse effects to appear.
Unlike most animal studies done to date, we used enough animals to find statistical significance for biologically significant results.
This research is highly translational. We chose pigs because they have a similar digestive system to humans, and because some of the investigators had been observing reproductive and digestive problems in commercial pigs fed GM crops.
I see Dr Judy is now hawking herself on her on web site. Good marketing I would say.
Jury is out on how good the study was. Peer reiew has been a bit underwhelming to date. Any thoughts on why that would be ?
If Vlieger was involved you may want to not give this work much weight. He was part of that team that promoted the completely fabricated/misrepresented data from the "formaldeyde corn". They still stand by those data as legit, even though all the tests were soil tests.
Stubble still the ever entertaining MON pr minion ... never misses a chance to try and misslead
Pray tell what is Dr Judy marketing????
it is monsanto that is doing the marketing!
stock price says the truth is getting out regardless!
too bad stubble ... soon they wont pay you any more cause you really dont help anyway!
Sentiment: Strong Sell
Jury out? Don't mix up the study with the press release. If you look at the data you find that there were MORE inflamed stomachs in the control group than in the GMO-fed group. And Mr. Vlieger, who is quoted in the above as saying “In some cases, animals eating GM crops are very aggressive." said that the pigs in the fed-GMO group were unusually aggressive. Remarkable that he would know that in a double-blind study, isn't it?