New Findings: Over 4000 ‘Gene Probes’ Altered with Low-Dose Roundup Exposure
As the liver and kidneys take notable damage
Latest News
Liver and kidney damage due to a diet full of genetically modified food has already been shown in a notable, yet controversial study that was once forced to be retracted, and then later republished by the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology. This study, titled the “Long Term Toxicity of Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant Genetically Modified Maize” is joined now by a new, peer-reviewed study showing that even at the levels of glyphosate the general public is exposed to in drinking water, over 4000 genes and their proper functioning are altered in the livers and kidneys of rats.
Are we affected too?
Published in the Environmental Health Journal, the new study suggests that even super low levels of Roundup exposure are deadly.
The study results showed that exposure to low-dose glyphosate concentrations, in an established laboratory animal toxicity model system, can result in liver and kidney damage, with potential significant health implications for people as well as our pets and wildlife populations.
Here is an overview given by the study abstract:
“Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) are the major pesticides used worldwide. Converging evidence suggests that GBH, such as Roundup, pose a particular health risk to liver and kidneys although low environmentally relevant doses have not been examined. To address this issue, a 2-year study in rats administering 0.1 ppb Roundup (50 ng/L glyphosate equivalent) via drinking water…was conducted.
A marked increased incidence of anatomorphological and blood/urine biochemical changes was indicative of liver and kidney structure and functional pathology….”
This follow-up investigation conducted by Dr. Michael Antoniou’s team at King’s College London was a follow up to Seralini’s 2-year study of rats exposed to Roundup that the biotech industry tried desperately to silence. Sites like the Genetic Literacy Project are still attempting to dismiss Seralini’s findings, but with additional studies like Antoniou’s, their arguments become baseless.
Here’s why:
- The Seralini investigation administered a commercial Roundup formulation at 0.1 ppb (parts per billion)/50 ppt (parts per trillion) glyphosate via drinking water for 2 years. Liver and kidney pathologies were found in the rats. The new study by Dr. Antoniou’s team investigated whether heightened liver and kidney pathology observed at an anatomical and biochemical level was reflected in the gene expression pattern. “Transcriptome” was analyzed, by comparing liver and kidney tissues from the Roundup treatment group with those of the control animals.Here’s what Dr. Antoniou said about what they found, “The findings of our study are very worrying as they confirm that a very low level of consumption of Roundup weedkiller over the long term can result in liver and kidney damage. Our results also suggest that regulators should re-consider the safety evaluation of glyphosate-based herbicides.”
- Dr. Antoniou and his team also found that a consistent pattern of alteration was found in the gene function of the liver and kidneys at this extremely low level of exposure.
- More than 4000 of the genes in the rats studied were found to have either increased or decreased function, and over 1300 of these affected both organs.
- The changes were highly statistically significant. This was not a small sample size that was affected.
- The gene changes affected important biological functions like respiration and metabolism.
- The gene changes caused health issues such as fibrosis (scarring), necrosis (the creation of areas of dead tissue), phospholipidosis (disturbed fat metabolism) and damage to mitochondria (the center of respiration in cells).
- These changes in pathology were confirmed at multiple levels: histological (through a microscope), and biochemical (by testing blood and urine samples.)
Related: Even Without Roundup, GMOs Cause Liver and Kidney Toxicity
Considering that the European Union and Australia have water which is 14,000 times lower in glyphosate levels than that permitted in drinking water in the USA, we can expect to see greater liver and kidney pathologies, as did the rats.
The researchers noted that the observed liver and kidney pathologies may have arisen from glyphosate, the adjuvants present in the Roundup formulation, or a combination of the two. They also still do not understand how Roundup caused this increased pathology specifically, but given the extremely low doses at which pathology occurred, it is likely the upset happens through the endocrine system, and hormonal interference.
With both Seralini and Antoniou’s work we now have more evidence that Roundup causes damage to the liver and kidneys. Despite this, and the numerous other findings, such as the recent news from Argentina that children are suffering from genetic damage at heavily sprayed GM soy sites in the country, there has been no international move to heavily examine Roundup, and hold Monsanto accountable for its poisoning of the people.
Will we have to wait decades, as we did with lawsuits surrounding Monsanto-made Agent Orange or PCBs to finally receive partial restitution for the insidious actions of a corporation with no soul?
“The backlog of Agent Orange cases needing attention at the Veterans Administration has been placed at half a million. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has declined to find the chemical companies responsible for Agent Orange health problems, in the US or Vietnam.”
Will Monsanto and its best-selling herbicide, Roundup, have its way with the population to such a large degree that we will have to stand by idly and watch as multiple generations suffer physical and mental damage?
The results rest largely on our shoulders, as we have seen our elected officials care little about the damage that Big Biotech unleashes on the world. I urge you to ask that farmers in your area stop spraying Roundup, tell that stores to stop selling it, only eat organic food (also demanding that grocery stores stop selling chemically covered GM foods) and of course, when you can, grow your own organic food.
 | Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga. |
top grade medical Marijuana of several strains like Sour diesel,Girl
nnscout cookies,Blueberry yum yum, Blue dream, purple kush, og
kush,pineapple express,white widow, super silver haze etc.for cancer insomnia pain .we do also provide medical cards.. All
donations are for the recuperation of growing costs associated with
medicinal cannabis, including but not limited to: Nutrients, Soil,
Electricity, Co2, and Hydroponic Equipment.xxxxxxxTEXT ME AT (937) 453_3919)nnnnnnnnnC
Thank you Rebel Writer and SciNerd for your input.
Community involvement is important for scientists as well as us duds who just want answers and a better understanding.
Interesting study, but the title of the article is inaccurate. Over 4000 probes showed differential expression. Since each transcript (i.e. mRNA from a DNA sequence encoding a protein) is represented by an average of 22 probes, this puts the number of genes with altered expression at far less (I’d be happy to explain this further if anyone is confused, given the fact that the author clearly doesn’t understand microarrays). That’s a number still worth noting but it’s a far cry from 4000, which would represent almost one quarter of the rat genome (an unrealistically high number in my opinion).
From the paper:
“The expression of 4224 and 4447 transcript clusters (a group of probes corresponding to a known or putative gene) were found to be altered….The median number of probes per transcript is 22, usually distributed along the entire transcript sequence.”
–Mesnage et al 2015 Environmental Health 2015, 14:70 doi:10.1186/s12940-015-0056-1
If Christina needs to become a scientist to report, effectively you need to be educated in Journalism before you can criticize her reporting.
One sure fire way to know that you are practicing good journalism is to be attacked.
Todays mainstream news,
Academic GMO shills exposed: Once-secret emails reveal gross
collusion with Monsanto, academic fraud at the highest levels inside
U.S. universities
USRTK: Public deserves to know about flow of money and level of coordination between Big Ag and public university scientists
The FOIA request sought to obtain emails and documents from 43 public
university faculty and staff to learn more about the biotech industry’s
public relations strategies. Records were requested from scientists,
economists, law professors, extension specialists and communicators, all
of whom are employed by taxpayer-funded public institutions and
steadily promote GMO agriculture under the “independent” research.
Currently,
USRTK has received thousands of documents in nine of their requests;
however, much more information is expected to be released as FOIA
requests continue to be answered.
The documents received thus far expose how the biotech industry funds expenses for university faculty to travel the globe promoting and defending GMOs and their associated
pesticides, highlighting the shift that scientists have made from being
researchers to being actors in Big Ag PR campaigns.
From naturalnews
ensser dot org, for a better understanding of the GMO environment in Europe.
Quoted from www dot enveurope dotcom/content/27/1/4/abstract,
A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent
claims of a consensus over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In
the following joint statement, the claimed consensus is shown to be an artificial
construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of
contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim
that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often
uncritically aired. For decades, the safety of GMOs has been a hotly controversial
topic that has been much debated around the world. Published results are contradictory,
in part due to the range of different research methods employed, an inadequacy of
available procedures, and differences in the analysis and interpretation of data.
Such a lack of consensus on safety is also evidenced by the agreement of policymakers
from over 160 countries – in the UN’s Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Guidelines
of the Codex Alimentarius – to authorize careful case-by-case assessment of each GMO by national authorities
to determine whether the particular construct satisfies the national criteria for
‘safe’. Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding
independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been further
constrained by property rights issues, and by denial of access to research material
for researchers unwilling to sign contractual agreements with the developers, which
confer unacceptable control over publication to the proprietary interests.
The joint statement developed and signed by over 300 independent researchers, and
reproduced and published below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather,
the statement concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific
evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety,
of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective
analysis of the refereed literature.
One sure fire way to know that you are practicing good journalism is to be attacked.
That’s a load of BS. Oh wait….did I just make you a “good journalist” with that comment?
Oh and citing NaturalNews is a great way to indicate to other people that you either don’t engage in critical evaluation of information or you suffer from a profound confirmation bias.
argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by
attacking a person’s character, rather than addressing the content of
their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy
in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some
irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being
criticized.
I was going to add this to my original response, but I figured I’d just wait until you actually did it.
These tactics are part of a program, in which I’m privy to., and very well trained in.
I also know you will have to respond to this, I could word it differently so you wouldn’t feel the need to respond, but I think I’m gonna set you up so you can make yourself look like a total idiot.
The reason I said that is because every post here, and any who support or oppose the agro-industry anywhere, refutes the article and acts as if the reporter is the scientific expert, that is complete hog wash and the standard response as prescribed.
I’m not a journalist, but I provided enough information to make a simple intelligent argument. You made point with an obvious hostile attack on the reporter, in my opinion really discredits your stance and is a disgusting display in support or opposition. Then even more disgusting you attack me for making a valid point. That is truly low, is this the impression the agro industry wishes to put out to the world?
Just who in the hell you think you are, treating people like that.
Act like you don’t care and this is what happens, your creating the monster deal with it.
As to the confirmation bias, just another psychological game. I gave a link to ensser, very good information there from across the pond, think about it…
You know far too many folks that read these sites aren’t scientists, maybe indulge them a little instead of acting like you are the all telling knowledge in the matter. This is the internet, I saw where you copied and pasted from, just takes a little research.
I’m into preparedness, self reliance and survival, I fully understand why the people need to prepare, you just help make the message easier.
As prepared and written by many scientific experts from,
The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental
Responsibility (ENSSER) brings together independent scientific expertise
to develop public-good knowledge for the critical assessment of
existing and emerging technologies.
As with GM food safety, disagreement among scientists on the
environmental risks of GM crops may be correlated with funding sources. A
peer-reviewed survey of the views of 62 life scientists on the
environmental risks of GM crops found that funding and disciplinary
training had a significant effect on attitudes. Scientists with industry
funding and/or those trained in molecular biology were very likely to
have a positive attitude to GM crops and to hold that they do not
represent any unique risks, while publicly-funded scientists working
independently of GM crop developer companies and/or those trained in
ecology were more likely to hold a “moderately negative” attitude to GM
crop safety and to emphasize the uncertainty and ignorance involved. The
review authors concluded, “The strong effects of training and funding
might justify certain institutional changes concerning how we organize
science and how we make public decisions when new technologies are to be
evaluated.
Conclusion
In the scope of this document, we can only highlight a few examples
to illustrate that the totality of scientific research outcomes in the
field of GM crop safety is nuanced, complex, often contradictory or
inconclusive, confounded by researchers’ choices, assumptions, and
funding sources, and in general, has raised more questions than it has
currently answered.
Whether to continue and expand the introduction of GM crops and foods
into the human food and animal feed supply, and whether the identified
risks are acceptable or not, are decisions that involve socioeconomic
considerations beyond the scope of a narrow scientific debate and the
currently unresolved biosafety research agendas. These decisions must
therefore involve the broader society. They should, however, be
supported by strong scientific evidence on the long-term safety of GM
crops and foods for human and animal health and the environment,
obtained in a manner that is honest, ethical, rigorous, independent,
transparent, and sufficiently diversified to compensate for bias.
Decisions on the future of our food and agriculture should not be
based on misleading and misrepresentative claims that a “scientific
consensus” exists on GMO safety.
From the New York times,
By ERIC LIPTONSEPT. 5, 2015
Food Industry Enlisted Academics in G.M.O. Lobbying War, Emails Show
WASHINGTON — At Monsanto,
sales of genetically modified seeds were steadily rising. But
executives at the company’s St. Louis headquarters were privately
worried about attacks on the safety of their products.
So Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company, and its industry partners
retooled their lobbying and public relations strategy to spotlight a
rarefied group of advocates: academics, brought in for the gloss of
impartiality and weight of authority that come with a professor’s
pedigree.
Get a grip, because it really doesn’t matter.
WE DON’T NEED GMO’S.
I didn’t attack your character nor that of this article’s author. I didn’t commit an ad hominem fallacy. Christina Sarich is objective not an expert in this subject matter, nor does she have any relevant experience (judging by her own LinkedIn profile). Pointing that out is not an ad hominem.
Much the same, pointing out that NaturalNews is a pseudoscience and a conspiracy theory website is not a logically fallacy. That’s an objective fact. Do you really need me to demonstrate this for you? I would think the frequent Nazi references Mike Adams makes would be enough for anyone to clearly see that the website is not meant to be taken seriously.
Then even more disgusting you attack me for making a valid point.
That was a joke. Sorry, but I don’t have a sarcasm font.
I gave a link to ensser
ENSSER is of questionable credibility.
A peer-reviewed survey of the views of 62 life scientists on the
environmental risks of GM crops
Citation please?
WE DON’T NEED GMO’S
First, yes we do. At least if you’re diabetic, for example, or enjoy eating cheese. But I assume you’re talking specifically about GM plants. The Hawaiian papaya industry wouldn’t exist anymore without GM technology. There is no rational reason to reject GM technology. Your opinion is not based on science. It’s based on ideology. That is where you and I differ.
We covered Christina, she’s not a scientist, but your also not a journalist. She is just reporting news, you might talk to the scientists her report is based around.
NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc etc, and every media outlet does it and they were born before Christina, talk to them first, maybe they can address your complaint.
Natural news followed up with a NYtimes article, just in case independent news are all quacks argument was to be employed.
ensser has a list of very credible experts in many fields, again a blanket statement regarding scientists. ENSSER has posed many viable concerns and it would appear Europe is taking them very seriously. On the ensser site there is a list of scientists, ask them for citations, I’m sure they will provide them.
As I have seen the common tactic is to attack independent scientists, as if they hold no scientific knowledge.
Animal insulins (insulin derived from animals) have suspiciously
vanished from the shelves of pharmacies in the last few years. In 1997,
an Eli Lilly media relations representative informed Scott King, of Diabetes Health Magazine,
that only 300,000 insulin users were on animal insulins. By 2006, the
last year of animal insulin production for Eli Lilly, supply side forced
the demand to shrink to less than 1%. In less than 10 years, the
insulin manufacturers were able to coerce doctors into forcing patients
off of natural insulin and onto genetically modified insulins by the
looming promise of animal insulin extinction.
Since the
introduction of insulin in 1923 until the debut of genetically modified
human insulin in 1983, animal insulins were graduating to higher purity
each year until the apex of nearly 100% purity in 1970 (Novo
technology). Animal insulins were the closest thing to human insulin.
This had a therapeutic advantage because the antibodies created to
attack animal insulins did not attack insulin the human body could
endogenously secrete.
The GMO and scientific industry made insulin all GMO.
GMO isn’t the hero they make themselves out to be, because they are not needed.
The normalcy bias, or normality bias, is a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster
and its possible effects. This may result in situations where people
fail to adequately prepare, and on a larger scale, the failure of
governments to include the populace in its disaster preparations.
The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that
since a disaster never has occurred then it never will occur. It can
result in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it
occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to
something they have not experienced before. People also tend to
interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any
ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.
Social psychology
research has found the more an individual values group-controlled
resources or the more an individual sees group membership as central to
his definition of self, the more likely he is to conform.
Social norms also allow an individual to assess what behaviors the
group deems important to its existence or survival, since they represent
a codification of belief; groups generally do not punish members or
create norms over actions which they care little about.
I assuming you have a point. Why don’t you just get to it?
Yes, I am not a journalist. But I am a scientist. A plant scientist at that. I have been to numerous international scientific conferences. The anti-GMO views of groups like ENSSER are not shared by the people I have spoken with at these conferences. Now this is only anecdotal, so take it as you will. But, ENSSER is not nearly as well regarded as groups like AAAS. Regardless, it is pointless to say that one’s claim is valid because a group of people agree with it. What matters is empirical evidence, and in that arena anti-GMO claims fail spectacularly.
I would suspect insulin is now produced using GM microbes because it is far cheaper than extracting it from animal tissues. Face it, there are very good reasons to use GM technology. It’s not the boogeyman many people want you to believe it is.
k
Now lets get to the root of the problem.
The scientific community is at war with each other, I don’t care what science one practices. The Corporate for profits Gov funded are at war with the independent scientists. The scientific community is in a state of chaos, with chaos comes resolution.
The scientific community has a duty at this point, it’s your monster contain it or bear the results.
Science is by nature combative. But there are not different ‘types’ of science to practice. There’s just science.
I stand by what I said. This is what the study states. . .”A large number of transcript clusters (>4000) were found to be altered in their level of expression in both the liver and kidneys of the Roundup treated group relative to controls and to a very high statistical significance. The alterations in gene expression profiles are typical of disturbances measured in cases of fibrosis, necrosis, phospholipidosis, mitochondrial membrane dysfunction and ischemia. Therefore our results confirm the ultra-low dose
Roundup-induced increased incidence of hepatorenal pathologies suggested by observations at an anatomical, histological and biochemical level” This means very well that over 4000 genes and their expression – again as I stated could be altered, no matter what percentage of the entire genome this represents. To wit: http://www.sandia.gov/~ktpedre/copyrighted-papers/fgcs_geneclustering.pdf “However, different genes are multiply expressed at different levels in cells. The presence of this “random” redundancy within the EST databases requires
a programmatic method to calculate the complement of genes they represent. These methods (termed clustering) utilize sequence-based comparisons to determine sets of strongly similar sequences (clusters). ” If one ‘cluster’ of genes is altered it means that cells throughout the body are also altered.
Incidentally, “In their Nature paper, the researchers reported that, at approximately
2.75 billion base pairs, the rat genome is smaller than the human
genome, which is 2.9 billion base pairs, and slightly larger than
mouse genome, which is 2.6 billion base pairs.” 4000 is till way too many, but still a very small ‘percentage’ as you state it. http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/mar2004/nhgri-31.htm
“Over 4000 probes showed differential expression.”
Well, the paper’s original text is confusing:
“The expression of 4224 and 4447 transcript clusters (a group of probes
corresponding to a known or putative gene) were found to be altered…”
So, it actually states that ~4000 GROUPS of probes showed altered expression – with each GROUP corresponding to a transcript CLUSTER, and single “known or putative” GENE.
This implies that there were ~4000 groups of ~22 probes each – equalling ~88,000 total single probes – not ~4000. And that each probe group/transcript cluster correlates to a single gene. Therefore, regardless of how many probes are in probe group, ~4000 probe groups represent ~4000 genes.
But again, their imprecise phrasing is somewhat open to interpretation, so it’s hard to say for sure?
I agree. The wording is confusing, even for someone familiar with microarrays.
Let’s leave the wording aside and just think about the biology. Don’t you think altered expression of 4000 genes is a rather high number? Given an estimated 22,000 protein coding genes in the rat genome, that would mean nearly a quarter were differentially expressed in response to RoundUp. Frankly, that number seems too high to be real. I’m not saying it’s not possible, but I am skeptical. I would expect hundreds of genes to be altered in expression, not thousands. That is what led me to my interpretation of 4000 probes, not genes.
Well, if you include putative genes, I think rat’s may have around 30,000 genes. So, ~4000 would be about 14% of that. But if you assumed they actually meant ~4000 probes, and not groups of probes, then that would be around ~200 genes, or .6%. Either figure would be concerning.
Although this quote raises even further questions about the number of genes affected:
“Out of the 4224 liver and 4447 kidney transcript clusters found to be altered”
So, were these actually 4224 & 4447 SEPARATE transcript clusters? If so, then that would bump up the total # of transcript clusters and genes affected to 8671.
But again, due to the imprecise wording of their paper, we can ultimately only speculate on their intended interpretation. Only the study’s authors may really confirm and clarify what they actually meant?
wrong sci nerd .. fist i do write coherently , while you may be a ” scientisyt ” i am a bonafide inventor ” capice ? and besides its happy hour – you should try it some time .. as to gmo s yes we need them we need a geneticly modified woman , one that does not get cranky with her period . does not get flabby , has a melodic voice , one that does not age badly … so never mind your frigen plants ..
fist i do write coherently , while you may be a ” scientisyt “
Hilarious
the really interesting thing abt trump is teh people who dont like him … who are they ?? polyannas , kale eaters . sky is falling cricis mongers , those as we shakespearians ay , they that canst say shyt without a mouthfull ” stuffed shirts , gass bags , holyier tha thou . etc .. as to trumps ” faith and biblical knowlege … he definatly knows why womankind was created … for man delyte .. not as a drone to rattyl pots and pans and chase mice with a broom
also sci nerd … as you may or may not have suspected . i am usung a programagble keybord that has gone awry and i dont have teh disk anymore to reset teh frigen thing so the wil always be teh …get over it , and stop teh nit picking . , my patent atorrneys have given me permission to spell any damned way i want to ,, and … webster himself would agree ,
I have no idea what your point is or if you even have one.
AND YOU CALL YOURSELF A SCIENTIST ??
I have a PhD, have published peer-reviewed research and conduct research for a living. “Scientist” is generally what you call someone in that position.
A TYPICAL SCIENTEST [ POINTY HEADED ] ALWAY LOOKING FOR THE POINT ….
Ooo! Look! All caps. Well…I’m convinced.
THIS WAY I SEE CLEARLY AT A GLANCE WHAT IS MINE AND …. TEH REST OF TEH POINTLESS FUMING … THE GREEKS , BEING ELEGENT [ NOT LLIKE TEH SAWED OF CHROME DOMERS OF TODAY ] WROTE IN CAPS
AS A SCIENTIST }SICNERD ] IM SURE YOU KNOW THAT GODZILLA WAS MADE STRONGER WHEN HE HIT TEH POWER LINES ,,
FOR YOUR OWN GOOD I SUGGEST YOU TRY TO AVOID FALLNG INTO CAPTAIN AHAB SYNDROME ..
HOPEFULLY IT [ CAPTAIN AHAB SYNDROME ] HAS NOT PROGRESSED TOO FAR YET … ASK YOR SELF ” DO YE SMELL LAND WHERE THERE BE NO LAND ?”
IF SO SEE PROFESIONAL HELP EMEDIATLY
I WEN TO A GEEK FEST …. SAID TO WIFE … GEE THESE GREEKS DONT LOOK AT ALL LIKE TEH BRONZES IN TEH MUSEUM ??????
and firthr more ” scinerd ” thou protestif unnessarily , it is obvious to all except your sheltered self that i wyte in shaekprearian english . = duh !!!!