Researchers have found that in some biotech study cases meant to measure the safety of Round Up crops, the rat feed given to rats in both the control group AND the testing group was contaminated with the same GMOs and pesticides (and heavy metals). In other words, laboratory rodent feeds are highly contaminated with pesticides, toxic metals, PCBs, and GMOs.
The study comes from researchers at the University of Caen in France and is slated to be published in the journal PLOS ONE.
This means the study proving the safety of ‘Round Up’ is essentially meaningless. Here’s why:
- Researchers analyzed 13 separate dried rodent chows produced on five continents, testing for traces of 4 heavy metals, 17 dioxins and furans, 18 PCBs, 22 GMOs and 262 pesticides.
- Every feed tested contained numerous toxins at levels high enough to cause disease by disrupting the endocrine and nervous systems.
- 11 of the 13 diets contained GMOs engineered to be resistant to the herbicide Round Up (glyphosate), while nine contained detectable levels of glyphosate itself.
- Since there was no feed that was not without these obvious contaminants, there was no way to make a comparison between rats fed on non-GM, non-toxic diets, as compared to diets full of contaminants that are linked to pathogenic results.
How can any regulatory agency truly expect the biotech industry to police itself with studies like this coming out? As mentioned at NN:
“The diets tested in the new study are also among those regularly used as part of the European Union’s mandated rodent feeding trials to test for GMO safety. One such recent study, conducted by DuPont, compared rats fed GMO canola with rats fed a “control” Purina diet later revealed to contain 12.8 percent GMO soy and 35.6 percent GMO corn, as well as residues of glyphosate and its main metabolite, AMPA.”
Moreover, considering that Monsanto dedicates time to debunking ‘psuedo-science’ as they like to call it, or any scientists who claims that GM crops or the herbicides used to grow them are unsafe, you have to wonder how they can claim a study like this has any scientific merit whatsoever.
This article originally appeared at Natural Society.