Don't Miss Out

Subscribe to OCA's News & Alerts.

Alarming New Rat Study on Monsanto's GE Corn - FAQ - From CRIIGEN Research Team

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page and our California News page.


 Why not use a varied "reference" food on top of your controls, as did Monsanto?

In science we study one variable at a time. We can thus only seriously compare to a genetically similar control shown to be substantially equivalent to precisely study the GMO effect.

  Why not have used a standard statistical method?

These methods have not been judged satisfactory by expert agencies to demonstrate toxicity for groups of 10 rats. However, the maximum differences for deaths or tumors with controls (600 days, 2-5 times more) speak for themselves.

In addition, there is an underestimation of the tumorigenic effects at the end of two years compared to controls according to these curves data. This underestimation is due to the fact that the controls are living longer and developing pathologies, including tumors, towards the end of life.

  What degree of confidence is there in the significant differences found by the statistical method OPLS-DA, there is no p-values?

This is one of the most modern methods to treat a large number of variables, such as in genomics, indeed the significance does not pass through the p-value reserved for other tests.

  Why have you shown biochemical analysis at month 15?

We could not put everything in a first article. This is the last time point when there are the most live rats, which demonstrates significance.

  Were the rats treated during the experiment by other molecules? Sanitizers? Antibiotics?

No. Not with GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) in general, otherwise they are excluded from the experiment.

  Why were you using two different formulations of Roundup (with crops and contaminated water)?

The formulations contain about 500 g / L of glyphosate. They have different names in different countries.

  Where did you grow the maize and treated the rats?

We used maize from Canada because the culture of this GMO is permitted in Canada, unlike in France. Rats were under experiment in France and analysis was performed in different laboratories, some wish to remain anonymous, in France and Italy.

Proponents of this type of study are generally industrial companies and the fact that a NGO and a university developed this study together means that it is independent and unique.

  Is the maize used as a control exactly the same as the GMO?

A genetic identity is not possible given the method of seed production but it is the closest genetically and phenotypically.

  Were the different maize grown at the same time? Were the climatic conditions the same?

Absolutely yes, and geographically very close, avoiding cross contamination though.

  How many times have the maize been treated? At what time?

Once during the culture by the Roundup, when treated. Residues of glyphosate and AMPA in GMOs are recognized and regulated, even in the tissues of animals consuming them. Waivers for overruns are regularly granted, unfortunately. This was not the case for us.

  Was there glyphosate in the controls' water?

Not within the limits of detection. We changed the water weekly and contaminated it with the precise doses indicated for treatments.

Why did you use an average and not a median for the aging limit?

It is the general custom; there is little talk of the median life of the French for example. We have not drawn from it any statistical calculations but a graphic mark.


 What is the magnitude of the difference in mortality of the controls compared to the historical norm?

Each experiment having its own conditions, the historical norm is too large to be a relevant comparator. The controls are in the average normal life, and our differences are compared to the controls of the experiment.

How do you explain the absence of manifestation of biochemical disturbances in the males?

On the opposite, there are many. However, all the results are not presented in the study, it was impossible because of their number. There is always a time difference between biochemical disturbances, the firsts to appear, and pathological lesions that we observe in both sexes. In the males the pathological lesions were earlier and larger than in the females and these lesions are the most noticed.

The same differences can be found in all treatments, how do you know that your controls are not the abnormal ones? Or that it is not due to luck?

 Our controls correspond to the values observed in the species. Pathological findings have logical explanations for all treatments, they are consistent and numerous enough to not be related to chance; extensive statistics at the biochemical level are consistent and show it. Our in vitro studies are consistent.