It means drastically reduced life span, increased rates of cancer and organ damage. Short term studies have shown organ damage as well.
Statistically significant findings of toxicity did show up in Monsanto's own 90-day feeding trial on the maize, as revealed by Prof Seralini's team's re-analysis of Monsanto's data:
de Vendomois, J. S., F. Roullier, et al. (2009). "A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health." Int J Biol Sci 5(7): 706–726
The study you reference:
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
thats a different study than the one i was looking at before. this one at least appears to be designed for science rather than a groteque freakshow of genetically modified tumor-mice with their entirely expected tumors.
BT corn was designed to produce a toxin which fucks up bud worms but is largely harmless to any non arthropod. stuffing a mouse with this stuff till his belly pops and then examining the "damage' is hardly damning. . theres hundreds of compounds which are harmless to people animals, plants etc in normal doses that turn toxic if you overdose.
even nutrients which are essential for life become toxic if you consume too much (like vitamin b12 which can kill you very slowly if you dont get any, but can kill you in an afternoon if you get too much). this study even declares:
"If a “sign of toxicity” may only provoke a reaction, pathology or a poisoning, a so-called “toxic effect” is without doubt deleterious on a short or a long term. Clearly, the statistically significant effects observed here for all three GM maize varieties investigated are signs of toxicity rather than proofs of toxicity, and this is essentially for three reasons. Firstly, the feeding trials in each case have been conducted only once, and with only one mammalian species. The experiments clearly need to be repeated preferably with more than one species of animal. Secondly, the length of feeding was at most only three months, and thus only relatively acute and medium-term effects can be observed if any similar to what can be derived in a process such as carcinogenesis [
19,
20] or after endocrine disruption in adults [
21]. Proof of toxicity is hard to decide on the basis of these conditions. Longer-term (up to 2 years) feeding experiments are clearly justified and indeed necessary. This requirement is supported by the fact that cancer, nervous and immune system diseases, and even reproductive disorders for examples can become apparent only after one or two years of a given intervention treatment under investigation, but they will not be evident in all cases after three months of administration when first signs of toxicity may be observed [
22,
23]. In addition, large effects (e.g. 40% increase in triglycerides) in all likelihood will be missed with the protocol of the current studies, since they are limited by the number of animals used in each feeding group and by the nature of the parameters studied. Thirdly, the statistical power of the tests conducted is low (30%) because the experimental design of Monsanto (see Materials and Methods). However, it is important to note that these short-term (3-month) rat feeding trials are the only tests conducted on the basis of which regulators determine whether these GM crop/food varieties are as safe to eat as conventional types. Given that these GM crops are potentially eaten by billions of people and animals world-wide, it is important to discuss whether the experimental design, the statistical analyses and interpretations originally undertaken are appropriate and sufficient"
IF BT corn causes the ingestion of possibly toxic levels of the natural budworm killing pesticide in mammals thats one thing, but without ACTUAL examples of critters with BT poisoning the issue remains a myth.
one would think it owuld be fairly straightforward to feed a group of rats nothing but BT corn and a second group of rats regular corn and see which group of rats dies from the anti-budworm toxin. i kinda think it will be NEITHER group.
proving something harmful is fairly simple, proving something "safe" is nearly impossible. how about we try to prove harm rather than demanding that everything be perfectly safe, since even plain ordinary coffee can be declared unsafe if a dumbass pours it on her pussy. cha-ching, wheres my 12 million dollars?
cn
