The study's own discussion section lists out some of the most glaring deficiencies in this study! Namely, the limited timeline (the study last for 90 days? you need a much longer study to get a real feel for chronic effects), the study is conducted only once AND with only one mammalian species, etc. The most ridiculous thing I read was in the Data Collection section: In addition, some parameters measured were related to bone marrow (blood cells) and pancreas (glucose) function. Unfortunately, some important measurements serving as markers for liver function were not conducted for technical or unknown reasons. This included gamma glutamyl transferase after 90 days feeding, cholesterol and triglyceride levels in the NK 603 and MON 810 trials, and cytochrome P450 family members in all cases. In addition, important sex difference markers were also ignored such as blood sex or pituitary hormone levels. Furthermore, it is well known and present in OECD guidelines that measurements should be conducted for at least 3 different experimental points to study dose- or time-related effects. Contrastingly and for reasons that are not stated, in all three studies for all three GMOs, only 2 doses and periods of feeding were measured, which makes it difficult to evaluate dose and cumulative effects. We have in a first instance indicated lacking values for different parameters (Annexes, Tables B, C, D). Regardless, I don't agree with the crap that Monsanto pulls and the ridiculous lack of regulation (just watch Food, inc.) But, I also don't agree with ridiculous claims that GMO crops are "bad for you" when there is no practical biochemical reason why.
Study or no study (whether or not it was done correctly), can anyone really believe having this much non-nutrient corn in our diet be a good thing? King of Corn, while not the best documentary, was certainly eye-opening.
You're not going to avoid corn there as a lot of commercial dog food has corn, most likely GMO corn, as an ingredient.
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350" data="http://i.adultswim.com/adultswim/video2/tools/swf/viralplayer.swf"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.adultswim.com/adultswim/video2/tools/swf/viralplayer.swf"/><param name="FlashVars" value="id=8a25c3921a5ee2a6011a5f4017b0002e" /><embed src="http://i.adultswim.com/adultswim/video2/tools/swf/viralplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" FlashVars="id=8a25c3921a5ee2a6011a5f4017b0002e" allowFullScreen="true" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
I am all for figuring out if there are safety concerns, but I am skeptical about the dangers downstream of the food chain. That is, even if it isn't great as cattle feed, it doesn't necessarily follow that eating that beef is bad. I am much more concerned with antibiotic and hormone overuse.
He would be safe with my dogs. They only eat raw meat now and never ate dog food with corn in it. Oh wait, now they are eating raw meat from animals most likely fed with corn. We can never escape the corn!!
High Fructose Corn Syrup shown to lead to considerable weight gain in rats. (Duh) Lots more at the link.
