Anti-GMO research: once again, fraudulent

[Loren Pechtel]

http://retractionwatch.com/2016/10/12/retraction-notice-for-gmo-paper-updated-to-include-fraud/

When they keep committing fraudulent research it makes it pretty clear they know they don't have a case.

 

[Will Wiley]

The findings of the paper are still valid

http://retractionwatch.com/2016/10/12/retraction-notice-for-gmo-paper-updated-to-include-fraud/

When they keep committing fraudulent research it makes it pretty clear they know they don't have a case.

According to the retraction notice they

Also called duplicate or repetitive publication. Definition: "Publishing or attempting to publish
substantially the same work more than once."

The retraction notice goes on to explain that the data in one of the images of the paper came from a previously published paper by some of the same authors, including Infascelli himself.

The journal decided that the authors are guilty only of “honest error” rather than “misconduct”.

And crucially, though unfortunately for Biology Fortified, the journal says that the findings of the paper are “still valid”.

Is the latest study retraction really good news for the GMO lobby?

 

[Will Wiley]

http://retractionwatch.com/2016/10/12/retraction-notice-for-gmo-paper-updated-to-include-fraud/

When they keep committing fraudulent research it makes it pretty clear they know they don't have a case.

Does the same apply to pro GMO research?

http://retractionwatch.com/2012/11/...o-crops-at-least-seven-corrections-to-follow/

two biotechnology researchers at the National Autonomous University of Mexico have been disciplined for manipulating images in 11 papers.

The episode resulted in seven journals agreeing to publish corrections and to Bravo and Soberon resigning from chair positions they held at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. But inexplicably, none of the papers affected by the fake images were retracted.

What is more, just one year after the story broke, Bravo and Soberon’s university reversed its sanctions against them. Two journals accepted their corrections “without further actions”, and one of those journals actually appointed Soberon as editor only a few months later.

 

[Will Wiley]

And of course there are numerous studies showing this sort of thing.

Detection of transgenic DNA in tilapias (Oreochromis niloticus, GIFT strain) fed genetically modified soybeans (Roundup Ready)

Assessing the Transfer of Genetically Modified DNA from Feed to Animal Tissues

Availability of genetically modified feed ingredient: investigations of ingested foreign DNA in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss

Detection of transgenic DNA in tilapias (Oreochromis niloticus, GIFT strain) fed genetically modified soybeans (Roundup Ready)

 

[bigfield]

And of course there are numerous studies showing this sort of thing.

Detection of transgenic DNA in tilapias (Oreochromis niloticus, GIFT strain) fed genetically modified soybeans (Roundup Ready)

Assessing the Transfer of Genetically Modified DNA from Feed to Animal Tissues

Availability of genetically modified feed ingredient: investigations of ingested foreign DNA in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss

From Mazza et al:

Only fragments of specific maize genes (Zein, Sh-2) could be detected with different frequencies in all the examined tissues except muscle. A small fragment of the Cry1A(b) transgene was detected in blood, liver, spleen and kidney of the animals raised with the transgenic feed...Statistical analysis of the results showed no difference in recovery of positives for the presence of plant DNA between animals raised with the transgenic feed and animals raised with the conventional feed, indicating that DNA transfer may occur independently from the source and the type of the gene.

Both transgenic and non-transgenic DNA fragments were found in all of the examined tissues except the muscles. Therefore the mere fact that transgenic DNA was detected in these tissues is not a cause for concern as that transfer occurs with both GMOs and non-GMOs.

The intact Cry1A(b) gene or its minimal functional unit were never detected.

The transgenic DNA detected can't even do anything, anyway.

From the data obtained, we consider it unlikely that the occurrence of genetic transfer associated with GM plants is higher than that from conventional plants.

So what exactly are you afraid of?

 

[Will Wiley]

The transgenic DNA detected can't even do anything, anyway.

From the data obtained, we consider it unlikely that the occurrence of genetic transfer associated with GM plants is higher than that from conventional plants.

Fate of transgenic DNA and evaluation of metabolic effects in goats fed genetically modified soybean and in their offsprings

Abstract
The presence of DNA fragments in blood and milk from goats fed conventional (control) or Roundup Ready® soybean meal solvent extracted (s.e.; treated) was investigated by using a polymerase chain reaction approach. The same investigation was carried out on blood, skeletal muscle and organs from kids of both groups fed only dams’ milk until weaning. Moreover, the possible effects on cell metabolism were evaluated by determination of several specific enzymes in serum, heart, skeletal muscle, liver and kidney. Fragments of the multicopy chloroplast (trnL) gene were found in blood and milk samples from goats of both groups. In kids, the chloroplast fragments were found in samples of both groups. In samples, which proved positive for the presence of chloroplast DNA, fragments of the specific soybean single copy gene (lectin) were detected in several blood and milk samples. The same fragment was also found in control and treated groups of kids. Transgenic fragments were not found in those samples, which were found positive for chloroplast fragments of control groups of either goats or kids. On the contrary, in blood and milk of treated goats, fragments both of the 35S promoter and the CP4 epsps gene were detected. These fragments were also found in treated kids with a significant detection of the 35S promoter in liver, kidney and blood, and of the CP4 epsps gene fragment in liver, kidney, heart and muscle. A significant increase in lactic dehydrogenase, mainly concerning the lactic dehydrogenase-1 isoenzyme was found in heart, skeletal muscle and kidney of treated kids, thus suggesting a change in the local production of the enzyme. Finally, no significant differences were detected concerning kid body and organ weight

GE Soybeans Give Altered Milk and Stunted Offspring, Researchers Find

Pregnant goats fed with genetically engineered (GE) soybeans have offspring who grow more slowly and are shorter, according to a new Italian study (Tudisco et al., 2015). Publishing in the journal of Small Ruminant Research, the researchers were testing the results of supplementing the feed of female goats with Roundup Ready GE soybeans. Roundup Ready soybeans are engineered to resist the herbicide Roundup and are sold by agribusiness giant Monsanto. They are some of the most widely grown soybeans in the world.

 

[bigfield]

FSANZ response to the findings in Tudisco et al:

FSANZ has the following comments on the study:

• Insufficient information is provided about the diet fed to the goats. Soybean varieties can vary considerably with regard to nutritional quality, digestibility and anti-nutritional factors. Variability can also occur within a single variety due to agronomic and climatic variation, processing methodology, and storage conditions and duration. Tudisco et al do not provide any information on the variety of the conventional soybean or how and where it was produced, nor is the data provided on chemical composition of the diets extensive enough to determine if they were truly equivalent (e.g. the level of anti-nutrients is not provided).

For example, Gu et al (2010) found significant differences in body weight gain and feed conversion ratios for rats whose diets differed only in the variety of soybean meal (all non-GM varieties). The study indicated that anti-nutritional factors, such as trypsin inhibitor and lectin, varied as much as 2 to 3-fold among the varieties.

• The level of protein in the colostrum (first milk) of GM fed goats was only around half that of the conventional soy diet fed goats. This is a remarkable finding given there were no signs of any maternal toxicity prior to delivery and the kids were of normal weight and size. Reduction in milk quality is typically associated with poor maternal condition.
• Several large farm animal feeding studies exist with the same GM soy (MON40-3-2) in which this claimed effect is not observed (e.g. pigs - see Świątkiewicz et al (2013)). Tudisco et al do not comment on the lack of concordance of their results with other similar studies.
• The fact that the different treatment and control groups of goats were housed separately prior to kidding may be a confounding factor. The authors do not provide any information in the paper to indicate the housing conditions were the same for each group. Differences in housing conditions between groups could affect the lactation of the dams.
• Although the dams in the study were selected as homogeneous in parity and milk production during the previous lactation, the authors provide no evidence they were homogeneous for colostrum composition in the previous lactation. By chance, the treatment groups might have had more dams producing colostrum that is lower in immunoglobulins.
• The authors provide data on various body dimensions of the kids (height, chest dimensions, rump length and width etc.) but there is no information about the conformation of their dams. Differences in conformation between the kids might have been inherited from the dams. Again, there is no evidence that the dams were homogeneous for size and conformation. The body dimensions of the kids should have been corrected statistically for the size of their dams.
• A number of organs from the kids were weighed but not their brains. This is an important omission because central nervous tissue mass is very highly conserved. It is therefore usual to weigh brain and to calculate both organ-to-bodyweight and organ-to-brain weight ratios. The only data provided in the paper are the group mean organ weights. The parenchymatous organ weights are fairly consistent across groups, which suggest the differences between groups are attributable to the musculoskeletal system. This again raises the question about the extent to which the size and conformation of the kids was due to genetics (i.e. inherited from their dams).
• While the smaller size of the kids may be attributed to a lower protein and fat content in the colostrum/milk it could also equally be attributable to other factors (different genetics, husbandry conditions). The authors failed to address these other possibilities in the discussion of their results.
• It is also of note that no dose response was observed in either the protein levels in the milk, or the slaughter weights of the kids. This suggests the reported effects are more likely to do with animal husbandry, rather than the amount of GM soy fed.
• The authors do not report the volume of milk consumed by the kids following parturition and whether this was similar between groups. Nor do the authors report the group body weight gains, as would normally be expected for a study such as this. It is well known, in lambs at least but probably also for kids, that separation from mothers soon after birth can affect milk consumption.
• No evidence is provided to show that the colostrum and milk were so low in protein/fat that it would have inhibited growth. That is, the lower protein and fat levels observed in milk for the first 15 days of lactation may still have been more than adequate to ensure the kids met their full genetic potential for growth.
• In relation to the detection of transgenic DNA in some of the milk samples, FSANZ notes that soybean DNA was detected in the majority of samples from both the control and GM-fed dams. It is therefore not surprising, particularly given the sensitivity of the analytical technique used, that some of the transgenic DNA would also be detected. There are no safety concerns about the presence of transgenic DNA or other DNA fragments in milk.

FSANZ conclusion

The paper does not provide convincing evidence that the reduced protein, fat and IgG content of the colostrum fed to the test group is responsible for the reduced growth in the kids, or that the observed differences in milk composition can be attributed to the GM soy present in the diet fed to the dams. The authors also failed to acknowledge and address possible alternative (and more plausible) explanations for the observed effects.

Based on those criticisms, it's fair to say that Tudisco et al. leapt to an unsupported conclusion.

FSANZ also publish responses to other studies; you can access the list here.

 

[Will Wiley]

Based on those criticisms, it's fair to say that Tudisco et al. leapt to an unsupported conclusion.

Could have just been a coincidence and due to something else. I guess better studies are needed to clarify