A 104-week feeding study of genetically modified soybeans in F344 rats.
Abstract
A chronic feeding study to evaluate the safety of genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant soybeans (GM soybeans) was conducted using F344 DuCrj rats. The rats were fed diet containing GM soybeans or Non-GM soybeans at the concentration of 30% in basal diet. Non-GM soybeans were a closely related strain to the GM soybeans. These two diets were adjusted to an identical nutrient level. In this study, the influence of GM soybeans in rats was compared with that of the Non-GM soybeans, and furthermore, to assess the effect of soybeans themselves, the groups of rats fed GM and Non-GM soybeans were compared with a group fed commercial diet (CE-2). General conditions were observed daily and body weight and food consumption were recorded. At the termination (104 weeks), animals were subjected to hematology, serum biochemistry, and pathological examinations. There were several differences in animal growth, food intake, organ weights and histological findings between the rats fed the GM and/or Non-GM soybeans and the rats fed CE-2. However, body weight and food intake were similar for the rats fed the GM and Non-GM soybeans. Gross necropsy findings, hematological and serum biochemical parameters, and organ weights showed no meaningful difference between rats fed the GM and Non-GM soybeans. In pathological observation, there was neither an increase in incidence nor any specific type of nonneoplastic or neoplastic lesions in the GM soybeans group in each sex. These results indicate that long-term intake of GM soybeans at the level of 30% in diet has no apparent adverse effect in rats.
[Article in Japanese]
Sakamoto Y, Tada Y, Fukumori N, Tayama K, Ando H, Takahashi H, Kubo Y, Nagasawa A, Yano N, Yuzawa K, Ogata A.
Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2008 Aug;49(4):272-82.
Source
Department of Environmental Health and Toxicology, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Public Health. Tokyo, Japan.
Hi David.
ReplyDeleteSince I don't read Japanese, can you please post the following from the study in English:
Biochemical values, CBC's and urinalysis results.
Where baseline values published and were these tested performed serially to check for trends--or were these only done at termination of experiment, which actually tells you very little?
Were bile acid tests performed to check liver function?
Were the actual pathology descriptions of the metabolic organs published or just conclusions and neoplastic changes?
If the answers to the above are "No" - we should all be hanging our heads in shame at the lack of scientific rigor accepted from these safety studies, and promoted as the "way these should be done". The fact that the title of this post is the "first 2year study" should only add to the overall embarrassment in the scientific community.