New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity

  • Gilles-Eric Séralini
  • Dominique Cellier
  • Joël Spiroux de Vendomois
Article

Abstract

Health risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cultivated for food or feed is under debate throughout the world, and very little data have been published on mid- or long-term toxicological studies with mammals. One of these studies performed under the responsibility of Monsanto Company with a transgenic corn MON863 has been subjected to questions from regulatory reviewers in Europe, where it was finally approved in 2005. This necessitated a new assessment of kidney pathological findings, and the results remained controversial. An Appeal Court action in Germany (Münster) allowed public access in June 2005 to all the crude data from this 90-day rat-feeding study. We independently re-analyzed these data. Appropriate statistics were added, such as a multivariate analysis of the growth curves, and for biochemical parameters comparisons between GMO-treated rats and the controls fed with an equivalent normal diet, and separately with six reference diets with different compositions. We observed that after the consumption of MON863, rats showed slight but dose-related significant variations in growth for both sexes, resulting in 3.3% decrease in weight for males and 3.7% increase for females. Chemistry measurements reveal signs of hepatorenal toxicity, marked also by differential sensitivities in males and females. Triglycerides increased by 24–40% in females (either at week 14, dose 11% or at week 5, dose 33%, respectively); urine phosphorus and sodium excretions diminished in males by 31–35% (week 14, dose 33%) for the most important results significantly linked to the treatment in comparison to seven diets tested. Longer experiments are essential in order to indicate the real nature and extent of the possible pathology; with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product.

References

  1. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Control 19:716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Castelli D, Seralini GE, Lafaurie M, Stora C (1986) Ovarian function during aflatoxin B1-induced hepatocarcinogenesis in the rat. Res Commun Chem Pathol Pharmacol 53:183–194Google Scholar
  3. Clive J (2006) Global status of biotech/GM crops. ISAAA Briefs 35:1Google Scholar
  4. Crawley MJ (2005) Statistics: an introduction using R. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Domingo JL (2000) Health risks of GM foods: many opinions but few data. Science 288:1748–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hammond B, Lemen J, Dudek R, Ward D, Jiang C, Nemeth M, Burns J (2006) Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn. Food Chem Toxicol 44:147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hard GC, Khan KN (2004) A contemporary overview of chronic progressive nephropathy in the laboratory rat, and its significance for human risk assessment. Toxicol Pathol 32:171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Huet S, Bouvier A, Poursat MA, Jolivet E (2004) Statistical tools for nonlinear regression. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Ito A, Sasaguri Y, Kitada S, Kusaka Y, Kuwano K, Masutomi K, Mizuki E, Akao T, Ohba M (2004) Bacillus thuringiensis crystal protein with selective cytocidal action to human cells. J Biol Chem 279:21282–21286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Malatesta M, Biggiogera M, Manuali F, Rocchi MB, Baldelli B, Gazzanelli G (2003) Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem 47:385–388Google Scholar
  11. Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MB, Serafini S, Tiberi C, Gazzanelli G (2002) Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Function 27:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Meningaud JP, Moutel G, Herve C (2001) Ethical acceptability, health policy and foods biotechnology based foods: is there a third way between the precaution principle and on overly enthusiastic dissemination of GMO? Med Law 20:133–141Google Scholar
  13. Miller N, Estoup A, Toepfer S, Bourguet D, Lapchin L, Derridj S, Kim KS, Reynaud P, Furlan L, Guillemaud T (2005) Multiple transatlantic introductions of the western corn rootworm. Science 310:992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pitot HC, Campbell HA, Maronpot R, Bawa N, Rizvi TA, Xu YH, Sargent L, Dragan Y, Pyron M (1989) Critical parameters in the quantitation of the stages of initiation, promotion, and progression in one model of hepatocarcinogenesis in the rat. Toxicol Pathol 17:594–612Google Scholar
  15. Rani SS, Balaraman K (1996) Effect of insecticidal crystal proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis on human erythrocytes in vitro. Indian J Exp Biol 34:1241–1244Google Scholar
  16. Ratkowsky DA, (1990) Handbook of non linear regression models. Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Richard S, Moslemi S, Sipahutar H, Benachour N, Seralini GE (2005) Differential effects of glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells and aromatase. Environ Health Perspect 113:716–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sarich TC, Youssefi M, Zhou T, Adams SP, Wall RA, Wright JM (1996) Role of hydrazine in the mechanism of isoniazid hepatotoxicity in rabbits. Arch Toxicol 70:835–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shaban NZ, Helmy MH, El-Kersh MA, Mahmoud BF (2003) Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis toxin on hepatic lipid peroxidation and free-radical scavengers in rats given alpha-tocopherol or acetylsalicylate. Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol 135:405–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Vecchio L, Cisterna B, Malatesta M, Martin TE, Biggiogera M (2004) Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem 48:449–454Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gilles-Eric Séralini
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dominique Cellier
    • 1
    • 3
  • Joël Spiroux de Vendomois
    • 1
  1. 1.Committee for Independent Information and Research on Genetic Engineering CRIIGENParisFrance
  2. 2.Laboratory of BiochemistryInstitute of Biology, University of CaenCaenFrance
  3. 3.Laboratory LITISUniversity of RouenMont-Saint-AignanFrance

Personalised recommendations