Re: [DIYbio] Study on GMO feed in pigs shows increased stomach inflammation

A few items that pop-up on my 'radar':
26 weeks (158 or 159 days of feeding depending on the slaughter day)
seems short, but says that's the standard piglet to slaughter time...
so, why don't I own a composter that makes bacon for me?

The sample size appears to change from start to results, but it's due
to mortality rate and sex differenes. Started with N=168, of 24 day
old piglets, but then the N==33 and 37 for the organ weight tests.
Mortality was similar, 13% and 14%, so avg 13.5% 168-(168*0.135) =
145.32 pigs alive at the end of the study. Assuming splitting in half
(GM, non-GM eaters) that's 72 subjects each, then splitting again by
sex (it says equal numbers present in each group) that's 36 subjects

I really wish they would have used Bt and Roundup-ready as separate
GMO groups, I'd really like to see more data on pesticide-residue, so
separating the modded feeds would help. I doubt anyone grows unsprayed
(pesticide/insecticide-virgin) roundup-ready corn in significant
quantities to support a study.

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Daniel C. <dcrookston@gmail.com> wrote:
> Article: http://gmojudycarman.org/new-study-shows-that-animals-are-seriously-harmed-by-gm-feed/
> Study (PDF warning):
> http://gmojudycarman.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/The-Full-Paper.pdf
>
> I'll skip the article because it's little more than scare-mongering
> and adds nothing to the article. I'm including the text of the
> article below. I would be very interested to hear what the list
> thinks about this study.
>
> -Dan
>
> A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically
> modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet
>
> Judy A. Carman 1,2*, Howard R. Vlieger 3, Larry J. Ver Steeg 4, Verlyn
> E. Sneller 3, Garth W. Robinson5**, Catherine A. Clinch-Jones 1, Julie
> I. Haynes 6, John W. Edwards 2
>
> 1 Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Kensington Park, SA,
> Australia.
> 2 Health and the Environment, School of the Environment, Flinders
> University, Bedford
> Park, SA, Australia.
> 3 Verity Farms, Maurice, Iowa, USA.
> 4 Ana-Tech, Monroe, Wisconsin, USA.
> 5 Sioux Center Veterinary Clinic, Sioux Center, Iowa, USA.
> 6 School of Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
> * Email: judycarman@ozemail.com.au, judy.carman@flinders.edu.au.
> ** Present: Robinson Veterinary Services PC, Sioux Centre, Iowa, USA.
>
> Abstract
>
> A significant number of genetically modified (GM) crops have been
> approved to enter
> human food and animal feed since 1996, including crops containing
> several GM genes
> 'stacked' into the one plant. We randomised and fed isowean pigs
> (N=168) either a mixed
> GM soy and GM corn (maize) diet (N=84) or an equivalent non-GM diet
> (N=84) in a longterm toxicology study of 22.7 weeks (the normal
> lifespan of a commercial pig from
> weaning to slaughter). Equal numbers of male and female pigs were
> present in each
> group. The GM corn contained double and triple-stacked varieties. Feed
> intake, weight
> gain, mortality and blood biochemistry were measured. Organ weights
> and pathology
> were determined post-mortem. There were no differences between pigs
> fed the GM and
> non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine
> blood biochemistry
> measurements. The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine
> differences in pigs.
> GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs
> (p=0.025). GM-fed
> pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of
> 32% of GM-fed pigs
> compared to 12% of non-GM-fed pigs (p=0.004). The severe stomach
> inflammation was
> worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0
> (p=0.041), and
> GM-fed females compared to non-GM fed females by a factor of 2.2 (p=0.034).
> Key words: GMO, GM corn, GM soy, GM animal feed, toxicology, stomach
> inflammation,
> uterus weight.
>
> Introduction
>
> Genetically modified (GM) crops have entered human food and animal
> feed in increasing
> amounts since they were commercially released into fields in the USA
> in 1996 (USDA,
> 2011). The main traits in GM crops to date have been to express
> proteins for herbicide
> tolerance (Ht) and insect resistance (Carman, 2004; USDA, 2011).
> Herbicide tolerant
> crops are engineered to produce one or more proteins that allow the
> crop to survive being
> sprayed with a given herbicide. Insect resistant crops are usually
> engineered to produce
> 38 ISSN 1177-4258one or more insecticidal proteins that are toxic to
> target insects. The latter proteins are
> usually Bt proteins, so named because they are structurally similar to
> naturally-occurring
> Cry proteins from a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (ANZFA,
> NDb). Hence these
> crops are also called Bt crops.
>
> Of the GM crops planted in the USA, herbicide-tolerant GM soy has been
> widely adopted
> and now constitutes 94% of the soy planted in the USA (USDA, 2011). GM
> corn varieties
> have also been widely adopted in the USA (USDA, 2011). They usually
> contain Ht or Bt
> traits, or a 'stacked' combination of them (Pioneer Hi-Bred, 2012).
>
> Prior to the release of a new GM crop into the food supply, the
> developer provides food
> regulators in many countries with studies it has done on the crop.
> These studies often
> include animal feeding studies, even though some regulators, such as
> Australia's, do not
> require them (FSANZ, ND; Carman, 2004), while the USA has a voluntary
> system. Many
> food regulators do not require any studies to be done on crops
> containing several
> "stacked" genes if all the genes in the stack have previously been
> individually approved
> for use in the same kind of plant (EFSA, 2010; FSANZ, 2010).
> Consequently, safety
> studies on stacked crops are less frequent, even though an analysis of
> official data
> (USDA, 2011) indicates that over 37% of GM corn varieties currently
> planted in the USA
> are stacked with both Ht and Bt traits.
>
> There have been a number of reviews of the published literature on the
> safety of GM
> crops. For example, Flachowsky et al. (2005) and Preston (2005) both
> conducted reviews
> and both concluded that GM crops were safe for animals and people to
> eat. However,
> many of the feeding studies reviewed used non-mammals (e.g. birds,
> fish) or animals
> were fed the crop in a form that humans do not eat (e.g. silage) or
> only animal production
> outcomes were measured such as body weight, carcass weight, breast
> meat yield or milk
> production, which may not be indicative of potential human health
> outcomes (Carman,
> 2004). Only a small proportion of published animal feeding studies
> have been longer-term
> toxicological studies where a GM crop was fed to animals that are
> physiologically
> comparable to humans, and organs, blood and tissue samples were taken from the
> animals and examined to assess if the crop caused any adverse effects.
>
> Two recent reviews of these rarer toxicology-type studies have
> recently been published.
> Snell et al. (2011) reviewed 12 studies of 90 days or longer duration
> and concluded that
> GM plants were nutritionally equivalent to non-GM plants and could be
> safely used in
> food and feed. However, once again, most of the studies reviewed used
> animals that
> were either not physiologically comparable to humans, or used only
> small numbers of
> animals. A broader picture is given in a series of three reviews by
> Domingo (2000; 2007)
> and Domingo & Bordonaba (2011). The first two papers concluded that
> there were few
> published studies investigating toxicology or health risks, while the
> third found that most
> of the more recent studies concentrate on only a few GM crops (soy,
> corn and rice),
> ignoring many other GM crops such as potatoes, peas and tomatoes.
>
> Another review of 19 studies of mammals fed GM soy or maize has recently been
> conducted (Séralini et al., 2011). These authors also reviewed the raw
> data of some other
> authors' 90-day feeding studies. They found some evidence for adverse
> liver and kidney
> effects from eating some GM crops and concluded that 90-day feeding
> studies were
> insufficient to evaluate chronic toxicity of GM crops.
>
> Carman, Vlieger, Steeg, Sneller, Robinson, Clinch-Jones, Haynes & Edwards
> ISSN 1177-425 39More recently, a highly publicised (e.g. Poulter,
> 2012), much longer study of two-years'
> duration on NK603 herbicide-tolerant corn (which contains one of the
> genes fed in the
> present study) has been published (Séralini et al. 2012). There were
> indications of higher
> death rates, more tumours and liver and kidney pathologies in GM-fed rats.
> The aim of the present study was to perform a thorough, long-term
> toxicology study (for
> 22.7 weeks, being the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from weaning
> to slaughter) on
> pigs in a USA commercial piggery in order to compare the effects of
> eating either a mixed
> GM soy and GM corn diet, or an equivalent diet with non-GM
> ingredients. Pigs in the
> USA are usually fed a mixed corn and soy diet, containing a high
> proportion of GM
> varieties. Even though pigs are physiologically similar to humans,
> particularly for
> gastrointestinal observations, very few toxicology studies have been
> conducted on them
> for GM crops (Walsh et al., 2012a). In doing this study, we not only
> used animals that
> were physiologically similar to humans, but we also weighed and
> internally examined
> organs and took blood for biochemical analysis. We further used a
> large enough sample
> size (168 pigs, 84 per group) to be able to determine statistical
> significance for key
> toxicological outcomes. We also used GM crops that are planted in
> significant quantities
> in the USA (Ht soy, and Ht and Bt corn) and hence are commonly eaten
> by pigs and
> humans in the USA. We further fed these crops as a mixed diet. Mixed
> diets commonly
> occur for pigs and humans. This study therefore reflects the effects
> of eating GM crops in
> the 'real world'. To our knowledge, this is the first study of its
> kind conducted.
>
> Materials and Methods
>
> Animal feed
>
> In accordance with usual commercial USA piggery practice, soy and corn
> were obtained
> direct from farmers who had grown it commercially. Different GM corn
> varieties are
> usually co-mingled in farm storage. The corn used in this study
> contained 90% DK 42-88
> RR YG PL (a triple stack of NK603, MON863 and MON810 genes) with the remainder
> being equal quantities of Pannar 5E-900RR (containing NK603), Pannar
> 4E-705RR/Bt (a
> double stack of NK603 and MON810) and Producers 5152 RR (containing NK603).
> Therefore, the GM corn that was used was genetically modified to
> produce three new
> proteins. Two were Bt proteins that protected the plant against insect
> attack, while the
> third protein provided the plant with tolerance to the herbicide
> glyphosate (Testbiotech,
> 2012; Monsanto, 2012).
>
> Because Roundup ReadyTM (RR) soy is predominant in the GM soy market, this was
> used. This crop contains a gene that provides tolerance to the
> herbicide glyphosate. GM
> DNA analysis (Genetic ID, Fairfield, Iowa, US) confirmed that the GM
> corn contained a
> combination of NK603, MON863 and MON810 genes (expressing the CP4 EPSPS, Cry
> 3Bb1 and Cry 1Ab proteins respectively), that the RR soy was 100% RR
> soy (expressing
> the CP4 EPSPS protein), that the non-GM feed contained a median of
> 0.4% GM corn and
> that the non-GM soy contained a median of 1.6% GM soy. Such GM contamination of
> apparent non-GM material is common in the US.
>
> In a similar way to the GM crops used, non-GM soy and non-GM corn were
> also obtained
> direct from farmers who had grown it commercially for human food and
> animal feed.
> Isogenic parental varieties of the GM crops, from which the GM crops
> were developed,
> were not used because they are generally not commercially available to buy.
> Furthermore, triple-stacked corn containing all three genes used here
> was developed
> Journal of Organic Systems, 8(1), 2013
>
> 40 ISSN 1177-4258from conventionally cross-breeding several GM crops,
> each of which has a non-GM
> parent, leading to a multiplicity of isogenic parental varieties that
> would need to be used
> in combination for a control diet. As the aim of this study was to
> compare the effects of
> GM and non-GM varieties present in animal feed and human food in the
> real world, the
> soy and corn for the control diet was instead chosen as a mixture of
> non-GM soy and
> corn that was destined for animal feed and human food and that came
> from the same
> geographical area. The GM soy and corn used in this study have been
> determined to be
> compositionally and substantially equivalent to non-GM varieties of
> soy and corn by
> government regulators (ANZFA, 2002, NDa, NDb; FSANZ, 2003, 2006) which
> indicates
> that there should be no phenotypical variation between the GM and
> non-GM varieties
> used in this study that could influence the outcomes measured in this study.
>
> GM and non-GM corn were both ground using the same cleaned equipment,
> size screen
> and revolutions per minute to obtain the same particle size. GM and
> non-GM soy beans
> were also processed on the same type of cleaned equipment - using
> Insta-Pro extruders
> and expellers, rather than being solvent-extracted, in order to
> preserve the identity of the
> beans during processing into soybean meal. This process purees the beans and
> squeezes out most of the oil, leaving a residual oil content of 8%. In
> the process, the
> beans are heated to 153oC to 166oC. As pigs grow, they require
> different amounts of
> nutrients, so six different sub-diets were progressively used. Soy
> content decreased from
> 26.5% to 13.0%, corn increased from 56.4% to 83.8% and protein
> decreased from 18.3%
> to 13.3% of the diet (Table 1). Ingredients, including supplements,
> were those routinely
> used by the piggery and were the same between groups. The GM and
> non-GM diets had
> the same protein, energy, macro- and micro-nutrient contents and only
> differed in the use
> of GM or non-GM soy and corn. Pigs were fed on a self-feeding,
> full-feed basis. The
> amount of feed consumed by each group was recorded.
>
> Table 1. Details of the six body-weight-specific sub-diets used
> progressively as pigs grew.
> Sub-diet number
> 1 2 3 4 5 6
> Pig weight (lb)a
> 14-25 25-60 60-90 90-130 130-200 200-260
> No. days on dietb
> 39-40 17-18 23-24 24-25 37-38 15-17
> Average daily intake (lb) 0.9 2.43 3.45 4.71 6.10 6.78
> Protein (%) 18.6 18.0 17.4 16.3 15.2 14.7
> Soy (%)c
> 26.5 25.0 23.4 20.4 17.5 16.0
> Corn (%)d
> 70.0 71.6 73.2 76.3 79.8 81.3
> UN premix (%)e
> 2.5 2.5 — — — —
> UG premix (%)f
> — — 2.5 2.5 — —
> UF premix (%)g
> — — — — 2.5 2.5
> Boost premix (%)h
> 0.0025 0.0025 0.001 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015
> Extra lysine — — 0.001 0.0005 — —
> Extra CaCO3 (%) 0.0075 0.0075 0.006 0.006 0.002 0.002
> 200 mesh bentonite clay (%) 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035
> Carman, Vlieger, Steeg, Sneller, Robinson, Clinch-Jones, Haynes & Edwards
> ISSN 1177-425 41a
>
> As the piggery was in the USA, pig diets were changed when pigs
> reached a certain weight in pounds.
>
> b Because pig handlers were required to keep to usual piggery
> practices and were blinded as to the GM
> feeding status of each group of pigs, pigs in each group were changed
> from one sub-diet to the next
> according to the body weight of the group. Consequently, one group was
> often changed to the next sub-diet a
> day before the other group. While the GM-fed group spent one day
> longer on a particular diet than the non
> GM group for three diets, the non-GM group spent a day longer on a
> particular diet for the other three diets.
> Therefore, there was neither a trend nor a difference in the
> progression of the two groups from one diet to
> another. Pigs were fed for a total of 158 days if they were
> slaughtered on the first of the two slaughter days,
> and 159 days if they were slaughtered on the second slaughter day.
>
> c GM soy went into the GM diets and non-GM soy into the non-GM diets.
>
> d GM corn went into the GM diets and non-GM corn into the non-GM diets.
>
> e Ultra Nursery Plus Premix from Advanced Biological Concepts, Osco,
> Illinois, containing (as copied directly
> from the label) guaranteed amounts of 0.5% crude protein, 6.0% lysine,
> 0.5% crude fat, 3.0% crude fiber
> 13.0% to 15% calcium, 13.0% phosphorus, 16.0% to 18.0% sodium
> chloride, 10ppm selenium, 1,500 ppm
> zinc, 190,000 IU/lb vitamin A, 25,000 IU/lb vitamin D3 and 800 IU/lb
> vitamin E. Other ingredients on the label
> (not quantified), include: copper, iron, zinc, manganese, choline,
> ascorbic acid, niacin, riboflavin, pantothenic
> acid, vitamin K, vitamin B12, carotene and iodine.
>
> f Ultra Grower Premix Plus from Advanced Biological Concepts, Osco,
> Illinois, containing (as copied directly
> from the label) guaranteed amounts of 0.5% crude protein, 1.0% lysine,
> 0.5% crude fat, 3.0% crude fiber,
> 15.0% to 17% calcium, 12.0% phosphorus, 15.0% to 17.0% sodium
> chloride, 3ppm selenium, 1,500 ppm
> zinc, 160,000 IU/lb vitamin A, 22,000 IU/lb vitamin D3 and 800 IU/lb
> vitamin E. Other ingredients on the label
> (not quantified) include: copper, iron, zinc, manganese, choline,
> niacin, riboflavin, pantothenic acid, vitamin K,
> vitamin B12, carotene and iodine.
>
> g Ultra Finisher Premix Plus from Advanced Biological Concepts, Osco,
> Illinois, containing (as copied directly
> from the label) guaranteed amounts of 0.5% crude protein, 3.0% lysine,
> 0.5% crude fat, 3.0% crude fiber,
> 18.0% to 20.0% calcium, 10.0% phosphorus, 6.5% to 7.5% sodium
> chloride, 3ppm selenium, 4,000 ppm zinc,
> 125,000 IU/lb vitamin A, 20,000 IU/lb vitamin D3 and 500 IU/lb vitamin
> E. Other ingredients on the label (not
> quantified) include: copper, iron, zinc, potassium, magnesium,
> manganese, choline, ascorbic acid, niacin,
> riboflavin, pantothenic acid, vitamin K, vitamin B12, carotene and iodine.
> h Natural Boost from Advanced Biological Concepts, Osco, Illinois,
> containing (as copied directly from the label)
> guaranteed amounts of 10.0% crude protein, 0.005% lysine, 0.005%
> methionine, 1.0% crude fat, 24.0%
> crude fiber, 40.0% acid detergent fiber, 0.2% to 0.7% calcium, 0.2%
> phosphorus, 1.0% to 1.5% sodium
> chloride, 0.5% potassium, 500ppm copper, 1,500 ppm zinc, 180,000 IU/lb
> vitamin A, 55,000 IU/lb vitamin D3
> and 500 IU/lb vitamin E. Other ingredients on the label (not
> quantified) include: iron, zinc, magnesium,
> manganese, choline, cobalt, ascorbic acid, niacin, riboflavin,
> pyridoxine HCl, pantothenic acid, biotin, vitamin
> K, vitamin B12, folic acid, carotene and iodine.
>
> Mycotoxin analyses (Midwest Laboratories Inc, Omaha, Nebraska, US)
> showed 2.08 ppb
> total aflatoxins and 3.0 ppm total fumonisins in a pooled sample of
> the GM feed and no
> aflatoxins and 1.2 ppm total fumonisins in a pooled sample of the
> non-GM feed. No other
> mycotoxins were detected. These levels are well below the USA and EU limits for
> mycotoxins in pig feed. In addition, according to common industry
> practice, a mycotoxin
> binding agent (200 mesh bentonite clay) was added to the diets of
> young pigs (Table 1).
>
> Animals
>
> Standard commercial Yorkshire-cross piglets were obtained from a
> commercial farrowing
> facility as a result of crossing Hampshire Duroc males with Yorkshire
> Landrace females.
> All sows were fed the same diet containing some GM ingredients and
> were impregnated
> at a similar time to obtain isowean piglets. Male piglets were
> neutered at three days of
> age in order to fulfill market requirements for meat free of boar-taint.
> Unweaned piglets (N=168; average 24 days of age) were transported to
> the piggery
> nursery and randomly placed into pens of 14 each. Pens were then
> randomly allocated to
> receive either a GM or non-GM diet. Animals were weighed and then fed
> their allocated
> diet as their first solid food. After 32 days, pigs were transported
> to a different facility for
> the 'growing and finishing' phase, where they continued on their
> allocated diets but were
> housed as 42 pigs per pen with outside access. Throughout, pigs were
> housed according
> Journal of Organic Systems, 8(1), 2013
>
> 42 ISSN 1177-4258to usual industry practices, under shelter on
> concrete floors. They experienced the
> natural daytime/night-time temperature and light/dark cycle.
>
> Data collected from live pigs
>
> Individual weights were recorded weekly and animals were monitored
> daily by observers
> who were blinded to a pig's dietary group. Daily measurements included
> inside and
> outside air temperature, air quality, weather conditions, level of
> activity of pigs around the
> feeder and the appearance of the feeder itself, the level of activity
> of the pigs around the
> water and the appearance of the water, details of any pigs found dead,
> details of any pigs
> that were moved away from, or back to, the 'home pen' and the reasons
> for this (e.g. they
> were being harassed by other pigs), level of contentment (measured as
> content, irritable
> or aggressive), presence of cough or sneeze, the presence of any skin
> problems (e.g.
> pale or discoloured skin or the presence of rashes or sores), any eye
> problems, and the
> consistency of the stools (normal, some loose or runny stools, lots of
> loose or runny
> stools). Blood was taken from the jugular vein of awake pigs according
> to standard
> industry methods two days before the first pigs were slaughtered. The
> blood was taken
> from a random subset of pigs in the following pattern to prevent any
> time-related bias:
> approx. half the pigs in the non-GM-fed group, approx half the pigs in
> GM-fed group, the
> remainder of the non-GM-fed group, and the remainder of the GM-fed
> group. Blood was
> centrifuged and serum was removed and frozen. Blood biochemical analyses were
> undertaken by Marshfield Clinic Laboratories, Marshfield, WI, USA, who
> were blinded to
> all aspects of the study. The laboratory's reference range for awake
> three to four month
> old Yorkshire cross pigs was used as it was most applicable for this study.
>
> Autopsy procedure
>
> When the pigs were 26 weeks old, they were fasted for 18 hours and
> transported to a
> large commercial abattoir where they were slaughtered according to the
> usual, approved
> methods of the abattoir on two consecutive days. On each day,
> approximately equal
> numbers of GM-fed and non-GM-fed pigs were slaughtered to prevent any temporal
> between-group bias. Pigs on each day were killed within a few minutes
> of each other. The
> internal organs were carefully removed to prevent faecal contamination
> and placed in
> individual identified buckets with 2 litres of cold phosphate-buffered
> saline to quickly chill
> the organs. Organs were kept under near-freezing conditions until they
> were examined by
> two licenced, practicing veterinarians with considerable porcine
> experience. They were
> blinded as to which pigs were fed GM feed. To remove any
> between-inspector bias, one
> veterinarian examined all the kidneys, hearts, lungs and stomachs
> while the other
> examined all the livers, spleens, intestines, uteri and ovaries.
> Veterinarian comments and
> organ weights were recorded by the same person to remove any between-person
> measurement bias or recording bias. Where evisceration resulted in
> incomplete removal
> of an organ, veterinarians determined if disease had caused part of an
> organ to adhere to
> the chest or abdominal wall and hence remain with the carcass, as well
> as the nature of
> that disease. The weights of partial organs were not included in
> statistical analyses due to
> the errors they would have produced. Kidney weights were the sum of
> both kidneys per
> pig. Ovary weights were the sum of both ovaries per pig except for two
> GM-fed pigs
> where one ovary was accidentally removed by the abattoir. Here, the
> weight of both
> ovaries was estimated by doubling the weight of the remaining ovary.
> Intestines could not
> be weighed or inspected due to the amount of digesta still present in
> them, even after 18
> hours of fasting, so the external surface of the intestines was
> examined for abnormalities
> Carman, Vlieger, Steeg, Sneller, Robinson, Clinch-Jones, Haynes & Edwards
> ISSN 1177-425 43and any intramural, palpable tissue masses. Organ
> weights were analysed as a
> percentage of body weights.
>
> In addition to externally examining the organs, veterinarians also
> examined the interior of
> every kidney using a single, deep transverse cut, every heart by
> slicing into both
> ventricles and both atria, and every lung using at least two deep cuts
> through the dorsal
> surface of each lung lobe, and if abnormalities were found, several
> more cuts to properly
> identify the abnormality and its extent. Every stomach was examined by
> cutting it open
> along the length of its greatest curvature, washing out the contents
> and inspecting the
> entire internal surface of the opened-flat stomach, including rugae.
>
> Data analysis
>
> A stomach erosion was defined as an abnormal stomach surface that had
> a visible area
> of current inflammation and oedema and where the mucosa was starting
> to separate (and
> which could potentially progress to form an ulcer). The length of any
> ulcer was measured
> in millimetres. If an ulcer had a clot in it, or showed frank
> bleeding, it was recorded as a
> bleeding ulcer. If an ulcer was less than 1 mm in length, it was
> recorded as a pin-point
> ulcer, otherwise as a frank ulcer. When calculating the total length
> of ulceration in each
> stomach in mm, each pin-point ulcer was numerically rounded to be 1mm
> in length.
> Stomach inflammation was scored by the attending, blinded veterinarian
> as a result of
> expertise obtained from numerous pig autopsies and a classification
> system developed
> as a result of an earlier, preliminary study on pig stomachs. These
> stomachs were
> obtained from a random sample of pigs from the same abattoir and came from pigs
> raised by other commercial pig producers. Inflammation was classified
> as nil, mild,
> moderate, or severe based on a combination of the area of current
> inflammation and level
> of redness and swelling. Typical examples of each of the four
> categories of inflammation
> are shown in Figure 1. For a severe level of inflammation, almost the
> whole fundus had to
> be swollen and cherry-red in colour.
>
> Data were analysed using the statistical packages SPSS and EpiInfo.
> Continuous data
> were analysed by removing SPSS-identified extreme outliers, being
> those more than
> three times the interquartile range away from the lower or upper
> quartiles. This
> conservative and well-established approach better tests the nature of
> the underlying
> distribution. Data were then tested for normal distribution using the
> Shapiro-Wilk test. If a
> normal distribution was found for both dietary groups, data were
> expressed as means
> and standard deviations and were analysed using parametric methods
> (t-test), otherwise
> data were expressed as medians and ranges and analysed using non-parametric
> methods (Mann-Whitney U test). Categorical data were analysed using
> uncorrected chi
> squared tests unless an expected cell value was less than five, when
> Fisher's Exact was
> used.
>
> Journal of Organic Systems, 8(1), 2013
> 44 ISSN 1177-4258Figure 1. Different levels of stomach inflammation
> found (clockwise from top left):
> nil (from a non-GM-fed pig, number B41), mild (from a non-GM-fed pig,
> number B15), moderate (from a
> GM-fed pig, number C34) and severe (from a GM-fed pig, number D22).
>
> Results
>
> There were no statistically significant differences in food intake,
> feed conversion ratios,
> number or nature of illnesses, number or nature of veterinary
> interventions, veterinary
> costs or mortality between the non-GM-fed and GM-fed groups of pigs.
> Mortalities were
> 13% and 14% for the non-GM-fed and GM-fed groups respectively, which are within
> expected rates for US commercial piggeries. All dead pigs were
> autopsied by blinded
> veterinarians and deaths were assessed as due to usual commercial
> piggery-related
> matters and not to their diets. There was also no difference in body
> weights between the
> two dietary groups, initially, during, or at the end of the
> experiment. Initial weights in kg
> were : non-GM-fed group: 6.71 + 1.05 (mean + standard deviation);
> GM-fed group: 6.87 +
> 0.97. Final weights were: non-GM-fed group: 100.42 + 22.84; GM-fed
> group: 101.75 +
> 21.92.
>
> Autopsy results
>
> Organ weights were not statistically different between GM-and
> non-GM-fed pigs except
> for uterine weights (Table 2). After removing one extreme outlier, the
> medians of the non
> GM-fed (now N=33) and GM-fed (N=37) groups became 0.084% and 0.105% of the body
> weight respectively. That is, the median uterus weight of GM-fed pigs,
> as a proportion of
> Carman, Vlieger, Steeg, Sneller, Robinson, Clinch-Jones, Haynes & Edwards
> ISSN 1177-425 45body weight, was 25% higher than that of non-GM-fed
> pigs, which was statistically
> significant (p=0.025).
>
> There was no difference in the disease status of organs between the
> two groups of pigs
> except for the level of inflammation in the stomachs of the pigs
> (Table 3, Figure 1). For
> non-GM-fed pigs, stomach inflammation was concentrated in the mild and moderate
> range, whereas GM-fed pigs showed much more severe inflammation
> (p=0.004). GM-fed
> pigs showed severe stomach inflammation at a rate of 2.6 times that of
> non-GM-fed pigs
> (95% confidence interval = 1.29-5.21) (Table 3). This occurred in both
> male (p=0.041)
> and female (p=0.034) pigs (Table 4). We found severe stomach
> inflammation in 22.2% of
> male pigs fed the GM diet and in 41.7% of female pigs fed the GM diet
> (compared to
> 5.6% and 18.9%, respectively, in pigs fed the non-GM diet (Table 4).
>
> Blood biochemistry
>
> Blood biochemistry results are given in Table 5. Aspartate transaminase (AST),
> potassium and creatine kinase (CK) were not statistically analysed
> because they were
> raised substantially in both dietary groups due to the way blood was
> collected and hence
> they were unable to reflect any effect of feeding a GM diet. AST and
> potassium were
> raised because the collection needle was pushed through muscle, while
> CK was raised
> due to the pigs being alert and restrained while blood was taken.
> While bicarbonate can
> increase if pigs pant or squeal unduly during blood taking, no pigs
> recorded a bicarbonate
> concentration higher than the reference range (Table 6), so this
> variable was retained in
> analyses.
>
> To determine if feeding the GM diet was associated with a clinically abnormal
> biochemistry profile, the proportion of pigs in each dietary group
> that lay above (or below)
> the reference (normal) range were then compared (Table 6). No
> statistically significant
> differences were found. The means or medians of the biochemical
> variables were also
> compared. No significant differences were found (Table 5).
>
> The analyses of several biochemical variables were confounded by the level of
> haemolysis in the blood sample. Haemolysis can be a problem when
> taking blood from
> alert animals, and in non-laboratory settings due to lag times between
> sampling and
> centrifuging blood. Haemolysis was reported as nil, mild, moderate or
> severe by the
> laboratory. Total bilirubin, urea nitrogen, creatinine, phosphorus,
> calcium, sodium,
> chloride, bicarbonate, and anion gap were found to be significantly
> correlated with the
> level of haemolysis (results not shown) and hence haemolysis was regarded as a
> confounder for these variables. Spearman's rho test was used as a
> measure of the
> association rather than the Pearson correlation co-efficient as it is
> less sensitive to
> outliers and does not assume normality. These biochemical variables
> then underwent
> multiple linear regression to control for the effect of haemolysis. As
> known confounders
> should be controlled-for, even if they do not appear as actual
> confounders in initial
> studies, glucose also underwent this process. No biochemical variable
> was found to have
> a significant relationship to the diet with the level of haemolysis
> controlled-for (results not
> shown). Consequently, no biochemical differences were found between
> non-GM-fed and
> GM-fed pigs. However, the concentration of GGT, which is a measure of
> liver heath, was
> 16% lower in GM-fed pigs than non-GM-fed pigs and this result was on
> the borderline of
> statistical significance (Table 5).
>
> Journal of Organic Systems, 8(1), 2013
> 46 ISSN 1177-4258Table 2. Organ weights (as a percentage of body
> weight) - descriptive statistics of raw data
> and statistical comparisons of extreme outlier-removed data.
> Non-GM-fed GM-fed
> Statistical
> comparison
> of dietary
> groups
> na
> Mean SDb
> Median Min Max na
> Mean SDb
> Median Min Max Test
> usedc
> pd
> Kidneys 66 0.32 0.066 0.31 0.19 0.66 68 0.33 0.057 0.32 0.16 0.56 t 0.51
> Heart 69 0.40 0.065 0.40 0.27 0.63 69 0.41 0.059 0.40 0.27 0.61 MW 0.79
> Liver 71 1.81 0.342 1.77 1.27 3.20 72 1.79 0.348 1.71 1.25 3.16 MW 0.45
> Spleen 73 0.16 0.033 0.16 0.11 0.33 71 0.16 0.032 0.15 0.093 0.30 t 0.40
> Lung 67 0.91 0.241 0.87 0.58 2.00 68 0.98 0.315 0.94 0.57 2.52 MW 0.20
> Stomach 73 0.62 0.130 0.57 0.42 0.99 71 0.64 0.129 0.60 0.44 1.01 MW 0.26
> Uterus 34 0.10 0.048 0.086 0.040 0.31 37 0.12 0.053 0.105 0.036 0.244 MW 0.025*
> Ovaries 36 0.0085 0.0027 0.0081 0.0040 0.019 36 0.0086 0.0023 0.0084
> 0.0047 0.014 t 0.38
> a An organ was not included in the analysis if adhesions caused only a
> partial organ to remain with the viscera,
> due to the errors inclusion would have caused.
> b Standard deviation
> c After tests for normality, groups were compared by 2-tailed t-test
> if data from both dietary groups were
> normally distributed, Mann Whitney U test (MW) otherwise.
> d* p<0.05 to 0.01, ** p<0.01 to 0.001, *** p<0.001
> Table 3. The proportion of pigs in each dietary group with adverse
> findings on gross
> pathology
> Organ Condition
> Proportion with condition
> Relative
> risk of
> condition
> in GM-fed
> pigs
> 95%
> confidence
> interval of
> the relative
> risk
> pa
> Organ Condition
> Non-GM-fed GM-fed Relative
> risk of
> condition
> in GM-fed
> pigs
> 95%
> confidence
> interval of
> the relative
> risk
> pa
> Organ Condition No.
> N=73 %
> No.
> N=72 %
> Relative
> risk of
> condition
> in GM-fed
> pigs
> 95%
> confidence
> interval of
> the relative
> risk
> pa
> Kidney Any abnormality 0 0.0 0 0.0 —b
> —b
> —b
> Heart Any abnormalityc
> 11 15.1 5 6.9 0.46 0.17-1.26 0.119
> Liver Any abnormalityd
> 6 8.2 3 4.2 0.51 0.13-1.95 0.494
> Spleen Any abnormalitye
> 3 4.1 2 2.8 0.68 0.12-3.93 1.000
> Lung
> Pneumoniaf
> 42 57.5 43 59.7 1.04 0.79-1.36 0.789
> Lung Fibrous pleuritis or pericarditis 9 12.3 4 5.6 0.45 0.15-1.40 0.153 Lung
> Abnormal lymph nodesg
> 13 17.8 16 22.2 1.25 0.65-2.40 0.506
> Stomach
> Nil inflammation 4 5.4 8 11.1 2.03 0.64-6.44 0.218
> Stomach
> Mild inflammation 31 42.5 23 31.9 0.75 0.49-1.16 0.190
> Stomach
> Moderate inflammation 29 39.7 18 25.0 0.63 0.39-1.03 0.058
> Stomach
> Severe inflammation 9 12.3 23 31.9 2.59 1.29-5.21 0.004**
> Stomach
> Erosion(s) 63 86.3 58 80.6 0.93 0.81-1.08 0.352
> Stomach
> Pin-point ulcer(s) 13 17.8 9 12.5 0.70 0.32-1.54 0.373
> Stomach
> Frank ulcer(s) 15 20.5 17 23.6 1.15 0.62-2.12 0.657
> Stomach
> Bleeding ulcer(s) 0 0.0 2 2.8 —b
> —b
> 0.245
> Intestines Any abnormality 0 0.0 0 0.0 —b
> —b
> —b
> Uterus Filled with fluidh
> 0
> i
> 0.0 2
> j
> 5.6 —b
> —b
> 0.493
> Ovary Any abnormality 0
> k
> 0.0 0
> l
> 0.0 —b
> —b
> —b
> Carman, Vlieger, Steeg, Sneller, Robinson, Clinch-Jones, Haynes & Edwards
> ISSN 1177-425 47a Uncorrected chi-square test unless an expected cell
> value was less than five, when Fisher exact test (2-tailed)
> was used. * p<0.05 to 0.01, ** p<0.01 to 0.001, *** p<0.001
> b No statistic could be calculated because one or more cells contained zeros.
> c Adhesions and/or fibrous pericarditis and/or scar tissue.
> d Adhesions and/or fibrinous tags and/or the presence of fibrin.
> e Adhesions and/or fibrinous tags.
> f Consolidating bronchopneumonia of the cranial ventral lung lobe(s)
> and/or caudal lobe(s).
> g Haemorrhagic and/or swollen bronchial lymph node(s).
> h When two uteri were removed from neighbouring organs, fluid oozed from them.
> i N=36. Of 37 females, one had a congenital defect. It had only the
> beginnings of a uterine tract and no uterus or
> ovaries.
> j N=36.
> k N=36. Of 37 females, one had a congenital defect. It had only the
> beginnings of a uterine tract and no uterus
> or ovaries.
> l N=35. Of 36 females, one had a uterus but no ovaries, which were
> removed by accident during slaughter and
> retained by the slaughterhouse.
> Table 4. Stomach inflammation by gender.
> Gender Level of
> stomach
> inflammation
> Proportion with condition
> Relative
> risk of
> condition
> in GM-fed
> pigs
> 95%
> confidence
> interval of the
> relative risk
> Gender Level of pa
> stomach
> inflammation
> Non-GM-fed GM-fed
> Relative
> risk of
> condition
> in GM-fed
> pigs
> 95%
> confidence
> interval of the
> relative risk
> Gender Level of pa
> stomach
> inflammation No.b
> % No.c
> %
> Relative
> risk of
> condition
> in GM-fed
> pigs
> 95%
> confidence
> interval of the
> relative risk
> pa
> Males
> Nil 1 2.8 4 11.1 4.00 0.47-34.07 0.357
> Malesaes Mild 16 44.4 12 33.3 0.75 0.42-1.35 0.334
> Moderate 17 47.2 12 33.3 0.71 0.40-1.26 0.230
> Males
> Severe 2 5.6 8 22.2 4.00 0.91-17.56 0.041*
> Females
> Nil 3 8.1 4 11.1 1.37 0.33-5.70 0.711
> Females Females Mild 15 40.5 11 30.6 0.75 0.40-1.41 0.373
> Moderate 12 32.4 6 16.7 0.51 0.22-1.22 0.118
> Females
> Severe 7 18.9 15 41.7 2.20 1.02-4.76 0.034*
> a Uncorrected chi-square test unless an expected cell value was less
> than five, when Fisher exact test (2-tailed)
> was used. * p<0.05 to 0.01, ** p<0.01 to 0.001, *** p<0.001
> b N=36 for males, N=37 for females.
> c N=36 for males, N=36 for females.
> Journal of Organic Systems, 8(1), 2013
> 48 ISSN 1177-4258Table 5. Blood biochemistry descriptive statistics of
> raw data and statistical comparisons of
> extreme outlier-removed data.
> Non-GM-fed GM-fed Reference rangea
> Statistical
> comparison
> of dietary
> groups
> N Medianb
> (Mean)
> Rangeb
> (SD)
> N Medianb
> (Mean)
> Rangeb
> (SD)
> Standard
> (asleep)c
> Awake
> (Yorkshire
> X)d
> Test
> usede
> pf
> Glucose (mg/dL) 39 89.0 58 – 109 38 90.5 52 – 111 85 – 150 58.0 – 197.0 MW 0.81
> ASTg
> (U/L) 39 60.0 21 – 2757 38 57.0 12 – 1724 32 – 84 0.0 – 45.0 MW 0.72
> Total bilirubin (mg/
> dL)
> 39 0.10 0.1 – 0.3 38 0.10 0.1 – 0.3 0.0 – 1.0 0.1 – 0.2 MW 0.76
> Cholesterol (mg/dL)39 100.0 56 – 140 38 100.0 55 – 125 36 – 54 50.0 –
> 92.0 MW 0.85
> Total protein (g/dL) 39 (6.48) (0.95) 38 (6.63) (0.91) 7.9 – 8.9 5.1 –
> 6.9 t 0.16
> Albumin (g/dL) 39 4.00 1.7 – 4.7 38 4.10 1.7 – 4.8 1.9 – 3.3 3.0 – 4.4 MW 0.59
> Urea nitrogen (mg/
> dL)
> 39 11.0 5 – 22 38 12.0 8 – 29 10 – 30 4.3 – 12.7 MW 0.30
> Creatinine (mg/dL) 39 0.90 0 – 1 38 0.70 0 – 1 1.0 – 2.7 0.9 – 1.9 MW 0.21
> Phosphorus (mg/
> dL)
> 39 (9.1) (1.5) 38 (9.1) (1.5) 5.3 – 9.6 6.2 – 9.2 t 0.99
> Calcium (mg/dL) 39 10.70 5.5 – 11.3 38 10.50 5.1 –12.0 7.1 –11.6 9.1 –
> 10.8 MW 0.94
> Sodium (mmol/L) 37 140.0 98 – 148 37 140.0 98 – 145 135 - 150
> 132.0–144.0 MW 0.60
> Potassium (mmol/
> L)
> 38 6.35 4.6 – 13.9 37 6.40 4.3 –16.3 4.4 – 6.7 3.4 – 5.0 MW 0.56
> Chloride (mmol/L) 38 97.0 67 – 104 37 98.0 66 – 102 94 – 106 94.0 –
> 103.0 MW 0.86
> Bicarbonate (mmol/
> L)
> 39 33.0 19 – 37 38 33.5 18 – 37 18 – 27 28.0 – 37.0 MW 0.44
> CKh
> (U/L) 39 2416.0 214 –22500 38 1960.0 10 –22500 61 –1251264.0–1247.0 MW 0.73
> GGTi
> (U/L) 39 (35.1) (18.4) 38 (29.5) (18.1) 10 – 60 0.0 – 60.0 t 0.05
> Anion gap (mmol/
> L)j
> 37 16.0 12 – 23 37 15.0 11 – 27 – – MW 0.61
> a From Marshfield Clinic, Marshfield, WI, USA.
> b Medians and ranges are reported for non-parametric comparisons,
> means and standard deviations for
> parametric comparisons.
> c Marshfield Clinic's usual reference range. Pigs were anaesthetised
> to obtain blood.
> d Marshfiled Clinic's reference range for awake, 3-4 month-old
> Yorkshire cross pigs. This was used as it is much
> more applicable to this study.
> e After tests for normality, groups were compared by two-tailed t-test
> if data from both dietary groups were
> normally distributed, Mann Whitney U test (MW) otherwise.
> f * p<0.05 to 0.01, ** p<0.01 to 0.001, *** p<0.001
> g Aspartate transaminase.
> h Creatine kinase.
> i Gamma-glutamyl transferase.
> j There is no laboratory reference range for anion gap. Sorbitol
> dehydrogenase results were not given by the lab
> on this occasion.
> Carman, Vlieger, Steeg, Sneller, Robinson, Clinch-Jones, Haynes & Edwards
> ISSN 1177-425 49Table 6. Biochemical variables compared to the reference rangea
> to determine clinical
> significance.
> Biochemical
> variable
> Number (%) above or below reference range
> Biochemical
> variable
> Non-GM-fed (N=39) GM-fed (N=38)
> Biochemical
> variable Above
> reference
> range
> Below
> reference
> range
> Above
> reference
> range
> Below
> reference
> range
> Glucose 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (5)
> ASTb 23 (59) —c
> 24 (63) —c
> Total bilirubin 1(3) 0 (0) 1 (3) 0 (0)
> Cholesterol 29 (74) 0 (0) 28 (74) 0 (0)
> Total protein 10 (26) 4 (10) 17 (45) 3 (8)
> Albumin 7 (18) 5 (13) 3 (8) 5 (13)
> Urea nitrogen 10 (26) 0 (0) 16 (42) 0 (0)
> Creatine 0 (0) 18 (46) 0 (0) 23 (61)
> Phosphorus 12 (31) 2 (5) 16 (42) 1 (3)
> Calcium 10 (26) 9 (23) 14 (37) 6 (16)
> Sodium 2 (5)d
> 4 (11)d
> 0 (0)d
> 4 (11)d
> Potassium 34 (89)e
> 0 (0)e
> 36 (97)d
> 0 (0)d
> Chloride 1 (3)e
> 7 (18)e
> 0 (0)d
> 4 (11)d
> Bicarbonate 0 (0) 5 (13) 0 (0) 5 (13)
> CKf
> 24 (62) 2 (5) 27 (71) 1 (3)
> GGTg 2 (5) —c
> 1 (3) —c
> a Awake Yorkshire cross pig reference range from Marshfield Clinic,
> Marshfield, WI, USA. Anion gap has no
> reference range so was not included in the table.
> b Aspartate transaminase.
> c It was not possible for a pig to record a concentration below the
> bottom of the reference range, which was
> zero.
> d N=37.
> e N=38.
> f Creatine kinase.
> g Gamma-glutamyl transferase.
>
> Discussion
>
> In this study, we found that female pigs fed the GM diet had median
> uterine weights that
> were 25% greater than non-GM-fed pigs (p=0.025). This result is
> attributed to the
> difference in diet as other variables were controlled for, including
> the presence of
> mycotoxins, and possible confounders such as infectious diseases,
> animal husbandry
> considerations and various forms of bias such as temporal, between-person,
> measurement or recording bias, as these were all controlled-for. The
> concentration of
> mycotoxins in the feed was insignificant, both dietary groups received
> the same nutrients
> and care, the care complied with industry standards, and all those
> doing laboratory
> analyses and weighing, caring for, slaughtering and doing autopsies on
> pigs were blinded
> as to the dietary group of each pig.
>
> Journal of Organic Systems, 8(1), 2013
> 50 ISSN 1177-4258The reported difference in uterine weight warrants
> further investigation in future studies
> because such a biologically significant difference in uterine weights
> may reflect
> endometrial hyperplasia or carcinoma, endometritis, endometriosis, adenomyosis,
> inflammation, a thickening of the myometrium, or the presence of
> polyps. The uteri from
> two GM-fed pigs were full of fluid compared to nil from non-GM-fed
> pigs (Table 3) which
> may be linked to pathology. The link between an increase in uterine
> weights and GM
> feeding is supported by other authors (Brasil et al., 2009) who found
> that GM soy-fed rats
> had a statistically significant 59% increase in the density of the
> uterine endometrial
> glandular epithelium compared to rats fed an equivalent organic soy
> diet. Further studies
> should include histology, blood oestrogen, progesterone and cytokine
> concentrations, and
> which GM crop(s) and their GM protein products may, or may not, be
> involved. As this
> study used neutered males, further studies are required to investigate
> any potential effect
> of these crops on male reproduction. Multigenerational reproductive
> studies should also
> be considered.
>
> In this study, a diet of GM feed had no effect on stomach erosions or
> ulceration but had a
> significant effect on inflammation. Pigs fed the mixed GM soy and GM
> corn diet showed
> 2.6 times the rate of severe stomach inflammation compared to non-GM
> fed pigs. This
> biologically significant finding was statistically significant
> (p=0.004). GM-fed male pigs
> showed severe stomach inflammation at a rate of 4.0 times that of the
> non GM fed male
> pigs (p=0.041); and female pigs showed a rate of severe stomach
> inflammation that was
> 2.2 the rate of the non-GM fed female pigs (p=0.034).
>
> The pig industry uses finely-ground feed to maximise feed efficiency
> which can increase
> inflammation and ulceration of the stomach (Wolf, 2010). We therefore
> controlled the
> grind size, removing it as a confounder. Hence our results show that
> these GM crops
> were associated with stomach inflammation that was additional to any
> that may be
> caused by particle size. The result is attributed to the difference in
> diet, since the
> presence of mycotoxins, possible confounders such as infectious
> diseases, animal
> husbandry considerations or temporal, between-person, measurement and
> recording bias
> were controlled across the two groups.
>
> One explanation for the inflammation results could lie with the Cry
> 3Bb1 and Cry 1Ab
> proteins that these GM corn varieties are engineered to produce. They
> act as insecticides
> by inducing pore formation and disintegration of the gut tissue (Spok
> et al., 2007) of
> certain grubs that attack corn plants. It has been argued that these
> proteins cannot harm
> the gastrointestinal tract of mammals because mammals lack the necessary gut
> environment and receptors (ANZFA, 2000). However, Vazquez-Padron et
> al. (2000) found
> six proteins in the mouse small intestine that could bind to a Cry
> protein (Cry 1Ac).
> Furthermore, when the Cry protein bound to these proteins, it resulted in
> hyperpolarisation of the intestine, which is consistent with the
> formation of cationic
> channels, as occurs in the insect gut (Vazquez-Padron et al., 2000).
> In addition, an
> independent in vivo study found structural changes and hyperplasia in
> the ileum of mice
> fed a Cry protein for two weeks (Fares & El-Sayed, 1998). Chowdhury et
> al. (2003) and
> Walsh et al. (2012b) found the Cry1Ab protein (which was present in
> the feed in our
> study) throughout the digestive tract of pigs. Chowdhury et al. (2003)
> found the protein
> (and sections of the gene that codes for it) in the stomach, duodenum,
> ileum, caecum
> and rectum of pigs fed Bt11 corn for four weeks, while Walsh et al.
> (2012b) found the
> protein in the stomach, caecum and colon of pigs fed MON810 corn for
> 110 days (they
> Carman, Vlieger, Steeg, Sneller, Robinson, Clinch-Jones, Haynes & Edwards
> ISSN 1177-425 51appear not to have looked in the rectum), indicating
> that this protein is resistant to
> digestion in pigs. In our study, stomach inflammation may be due to
> one or both of the
> Cry proteins fed in the study and future studies may provide answers.
> The findings in this study are conservative since the non-GM diet pigs
> were exposed,
> albeit minimally, to potential GMO impacts. The presence of small amounts of GM
> material in the non-GM feed, using out-bred animals, piglets from
> GM-fed sows, and
> performing the study in a commercial setting (including the potential
> exposure of the pigs
> to any infectious diseases common to US commercial pigs and taking
> blood on site)
> could be expected to reduce any differences between the two dietary groups.
> We found that our key findings were not reflected in the standard
> biochemical tests often
> undertaken by researchers in this area, probably because such tests
> provide a poor
> measure of inflammation and matters associated with uterine size. We
> suggest that the
> following may be better measures: the red blood cell count and
> haematocrit to measure
> anaemia and iron deficiency from possible blood loss, C-reactive
> protein and white blood
> cell count to measure inflammation, and oestrogen and progesterone.
> In addition, if an autopsy is done at the end of a GM crop feeding
> experiment, this often
> involves only a visual inspection of the exterior of organs without
> weighing them.
> However by weighing organs we found a significant 25% increase in
> uterine weights in
> the GM-fed pigs. Moreover, where organs are weighed in such studies,
> they are often not
> examined internally (Carman, 2004) and such an approach would preclude
> finding the
> stomach inflammation reported in the present study.
>
> The present study is an observational study of the action of a mixture
> of GM crops on the
> health of pigs, versus a comparable non-GM diet. Future work will
> investigate individual
> GM crops, will involve histopathology, and will consider mechanisms
> for reported group
> differences.
>
> Conclusion
>
> Pigs fed a GMO diet exhibited heavier uteri and a higher rate of severe stomach
> inflammation than pigs fed a comparable non-GMO diet. Given the
> widespread use of
> GMO feed for livestock as well as humans this is a cause for concern.
> The results
> indicate that it would be prudent for GM crops that are destined for
> human food and
> animal feed, including stacked GM crops, to undergo long-term animal
> feeding studies
> preferably before commercial planting, particularly for toxicological
> and reproductive
> effects. Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and
> these GM crops are
> widely consumed by people, particularly in the USA, so it would be be
> prudent to
> determine if the findings of this study are applicable to humans.
>
> Conflict of Interest Statement
>
> The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
>
> Acknowledgments
>
> This research was funded by the Institute of Health and Environmental
> Research (IHER) and Verity
> Farms. Funding for IHER's involvement came from the Government of
> Western Australia (WA) and
> George Kailis. Funding for Verity Farm's involvement came from Verity
> Farms. We gratefully
> Journal of Organic Systems, 8(1), 2013
> 52 ISSN 1177-4258acknowledge the following people for their assistance
> (alphabetical order): Elaine Attwood, Susan
> Bardocz, Ed Boote, Kim Chance, Nick Costa, John Coveney, Philip
> Davies, Colton Eckmann,
> Peggy Eckmann, Rick Eckmann, John Fagan, Leanne Good, Gene Haverdink,
> Ryan Hawkins, Jack
> Heinemann, George Kailis, Britney Kaufman, Kiley Kaufman, Ron Kaufman,
> Stephanie Kaufman,
> David Kiel, Michelle Koonce, Ed McGuire, Mike McMullan, Julie Newman,
> Arpad Pusztai, Patrick
> Quinn, Wayne Searcy, Brian Setchell, SiouxPreme Packing Co., Jeffrey
> Smith, Duane Spader,
> Rosemary Stanton, David Vlieger, Pamela Vlieger, Rachael Vlieger, John
> Ymker, Irena Zdziarski.
>
> References
>
> ANZFA (NDa). Full assessment report and regulatory impact assessment.
> A338 – Food derived
> from glyphosate-tolerant soybeans. Australia and New Zealand Food
> Authority (ANZFA),
> Canberra, Australia.
> ANZFA (NDb). Final analysis report. Application A346. Food produced
> from insect-protected corn
> line MON810. Australia and New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA),
> Canberra, Australia.
> ANZFA (2000). GM foods and the consumer. ANZFA's safety assessment
> process for genetically
> modified foods. Occasional Paper Series No.1. Australia and New
> Zealand Food Authority
> (ANZFA), Canberra, Australia.
> ANZFA (2002). Final assessment report (Inquiry - s.17). Application
> A416. Glyphosate-tolerant corn
> line NK603. Australia and New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA),
> Canberra, Australia.
> Block, T. (2002). Pseudopregnancies puzzle swine producer. Iowa Farm
> Bureau Spokesman, May,
> 4:12.
> Brasil, F.B., Soares, L.L., Faria, T.S., Boaventura, G.T., Sampaio,
> F.J.B. & Ramos, C.F (2009). The
> impact of dietary organic and transgenic soy on the reproductive
> system of female adult rat.
> Anatomical Record, 292:587-594.
> Carman, J. (2004). Is GM Food Safe to Eat? In: Hindmarsh R, Lawrence
> G, editors. Recoding
> Nature Critical Perspectives on Genetic Engineering. Sydney: UNSW
> Press, p. 82-93.
> Chowdhury, E.H., Kuribara, H., Hino, A., Sultana, P., Mikami, O.,
> Shimada, N., Guruge, K.S., Saito,
> M. & Nakajima, Y. (2003). Detection of corn intrinsic and recombinant
> DNA fragments and
> Cry1Ab protein in the gastrointestinal contents of pigs fed
> genetically modified corn Bt11.
> Journal of Animal Science, 81:2546-2551.
> Domingo, J.L. (2000). Health risks of GM foods: many opinions but few
> data. Science, 288:1748-9.
> Domingo, J. (2007). Toxicity studies of genetically modified plants: A
> review of the published
> literature. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 47:721-733.
> Domingo, J.L. & Bordonaba, J.G. (2011). A literature review on the
> safety assessment of genetically
> modified plants. Environment International, 37:734-742.
> EFSA (2010). Scientific Opinion on application (EFSA-GMO-CZ-2008-62)
> for the placing on the
> market of insect resistant and herbicide tolerant genetically modified
> maize MON 89034 x
> 1507 x MON 88017 x 59122 and all sub-combinations of the individual
> events as present in
> its segregating progeny, for food and feed uses, import and processing
> under Regulation
> (EC) No 1829/2003 from Dow AgroSciences and Monsanto. EFSA Panel on Genetically
> Modified Organisms (GMO). European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),
> Parma, Italy. EFSA
> Journal, 8(9):1781.
> Fares, N. & El-Sayed, A. (1998). Fine structural changes in the ileum
> of mice fed on δ-endotoxintreated potatoes and transgenic potatoes.
> Natural Toxins, 6:219-33.
> Flachowsky, G., Chesson, A. & Aulrich, K. (2005). Animal nutrition
> with feeds from genetically
> modified plants. Archives of Animal Nutrition, 59:1-40.
> Carman, Vlieger, Steeg, Sneller, Robinson, Clinch-Jones, Haynes & Edwards
> ISSN 1177-425 53FSANZ (ND) Genetically modified (GM) foods. Food
> Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)
> http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/, accessed
> 4 April 2012.
> FSANZ (2003). Final assessment report: Application A484. Food from
> insect-protected MON863
> corn. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), Canberra, Australia.
> FSANZ (2006). Final assessment report. Application A548. Food from
> corn rootworm-protected &
> glyphosate-tolerant corn MON88017. Food Standards Australia New
> Zealand (FSANZ),
> Canberra, Australia.
> FSANZ (2010). Food Derived from GM Plants Containing Stacked Genes.
> Food Standards
> Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)
> http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/scienceandeducation/
> factsheets/factsheets2010/foodderivedfromgmpla5015.cfm, accessed 31
> January 2013.
> Monsanto. (2012).
> http://www.genuity.com/corn/Pages/GenuityVTTripleProCorn.aspx,
> accessed 26
> April 2012.
> Pioneer Hi-Bred (2012).
> https://www.pioneer.com/home/site/us/products/catalog, accessed 26
> April
> 2012.
> Preston, C. (2005). Peer-reviewed publications on safety of GM foods.
> AgBioWorld. http://
> www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/peer-reviewed-pubs.html,
> accessed 4
> May 2012.
> Poulter, S. (2012). Cancer row over GM foods as study says it did THIS
> to rats ... and can cause
> organ damage and early death in humans. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/
> article-2205509. Accessed 31 January 2013.
> Séralini, G-E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N.,
> Malatesta, M., Hennequin, D. & de
> Vendômois, J.S. (2012). Long term toxicity of a roundup herbicide and
> a roundup-tolerant
> genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50:4221-4231.
> Séralini, G-E., Mesnage, R., Clair, E., Gress, S., de Vendômois, J.S.
> & Cellier, D. (2011).
> Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and
> possible improvements.
> Environmental Sciences Europe, 23:10. http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10.
> Snell, C., Bernheim, A., Bergem J-B., Kuntzm M., Pascal, G., Paris, A.
> & Ricroch, A. E. (2011).
> Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and
> multigenerational animal
> feedings trials: A literature review. Food and Chemical Toxicology,
> 50:1134-1148.
> Spök, A., Eckerstorfer, M., Heissenberger, A. & Gaugitsch, H. (2007).
> Risk assessment of "stacked
> events". Vienna, Austria: Ministry for Health, Families and Children.
> ISBN 3-900019-99-1.
> Testbiotech (2012). http://www.testbiotech.de/en/node/344, accessed 26
> April 2012.
> USDA (2011). US Department of Agriculture, July 2011:
> http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/biotechcrops/,
> accessed 4 April 2012.
> Vazquez-Padron, R.I., Gonzales-Cabrera, J., Garcia-Tovar, C.,
> Neri-Bazan, L., Lopez-Revilla, R.,
> Hernandez, M., Moreno-Fierro, L. & de la Riva, G.A. (2000). Cry1Ac
> protoxin from Bacillus
> thuringiensis sp. kurstaki HD73 binds to surface proteins in the mouse
> small intestine.
> Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 271:54-58.
> Walsh, M.C., Buzoianu, S.G., Gardiner, G.E., Rea, M.C., Ross, R.P.,
> Cassidy, J.P. & Lawlor, P.G.
> (2012a). Effects of short-term feeding of Bt MON810 maize on growth
> performance, organ
> morphology and function in pigs. British Journal of Nutrition, 107:364-371.
> Walsh, M.C,. Buzoianu, S.G., Rea, M.C., O'Donovan, O., Gelencser, E.,
> Ujhelyi, G., Ross, R.P.,
> Gardiner, G.E. & Lawlor, P.G. (2012b). Effects of feeding Bt MON810
> maize to pigs for 110
> days on peripheral immune response and digestive fate of the cry1Ab
> gene and truncated Bt
> toxin. Public Library of Science (PLoS) ONE, 7:e36141.
> Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036141.
> Wolf, P., Rust, P. & Kamphues, J. (2010). How to assess particle size
> distribution in diets for pigs?
> Livestock Science, 133:78-80.
> Journal of Organic Systems, 8(1), 2013
> 54 ISSN 1177-4258
>
> --
> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
> Learn more at www.diybio.org
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CAGjqrSiUkBH5qnCmG0VHomnoZnAytE74RTZjw_Tyb52SAewgnQ%40mail.gmail.com?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>



--
-Nathan

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CA%2B82U9KQ%3DxGZ%3DioBf%3DWxfdHF1wccEZNiD0tEKcBduM%3D2%2BC76kA%40mail.gmail.com?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.