Scientists say new study shows pig health hurt by GMO feed

Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:04pm EDT

Pigs stay in their box beside a food dispenser (R) at a pig farm in Bockel between Bremen and Hamburg January 14, 2011. REUTERS/Christian Charisius

Pigs stay in their box beside a food dispenser (R) at a pig farm in Bockel between Bremen and Hamburg January 14, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Christian Charisius

Related Topics

(Reuters) - Pigs fed a diet of only genetically modified grain showed markedly higher stomach inflammation than pigs who dined on conventional feed, according to a new study by a team of Australian scientists and U.S. researchers.

The study adds to an intensifying public debate over the impact of genetically modified crops, which are widely used by U.S. and Latin American farmers and in many other countries around the world.

The study was published in the June issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Organic Systems by researchers from Australia who worked with two veterinarians and a farmer in Iowa to study the U.S. pigs.

Lead researcher Judy Carman is an epidemiologist and biochemist and director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Adelaide, Australia.

The study was conducted over 22.7 weeks using 168 newly weaned pigs in a commercial U.S. piggery.

One group of 84 ate a diet that incorporated genetically modified (GM) soy and corn, and the other group of 84 pigs ate an equivalent non-GM diet. The corn and soy feed was obtained from commercial suppliers, the study said, and the pigs were reared under identical housing and feeding conditions. The pigs were then slaughtered roughly five months later and autopsied by veterinarians who were not informed which pigs were fed on the GM diet and which were from the control group.

Researchers said there were no differences seen between pigs fed the GM and non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine blood biochemistry measurements.

But those pigs that ate the GM diet had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation - 32 percent of GM-fed pigs compared to 12 percent of non-GM-fed pigs. The inflammation was worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0, and GM-fed females compared to non-GM-fed females by a factor of 2.2. As well, GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25 percent heavier than non-GM fed pigs, the study said.

The researchers said more long-term animal feeding studies need to be done.

Biotech seeds are genetically altered to grow into plants that tolerate treatments of herbicide and resist pests, making producing crops easier for farmers. Some critics have argued for years that the DNA changes made to the transgenic plants engineer novel proteins that can be causing the digestive problems in animals and possibly in humans.

The companies that develop these transgenic crops, using DNA from other bacteria and other species, assert they are more than proven safe over their use since 1996.

CropLife International, a global federation representing the plant science industry, said more than 150 scientific studies have been done on animals fed biotech crops and to date, there is no scientific evidence of any detrimental impact.

(Reporting By Carey Gillam; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (12)
gregbrew56 wrote:
A peer-reviewed, double-blind, controlled study. Looks damning. You may want to short Monsanto (NYSE: MON).

Jun 11, 2013 4:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Makersmarc wrote:
I read the study (which Reuters did not link to)and it’s not all that damning. That said, bad press is bad press, even if it is inaccurate.

Jun 11, 2013 7:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
zpaiss wrote:
Is anyone even a tiny bit surprised by the results of this study? What ever happened to the precautionary principle. First test to see if it is safe and if and only if it is, then move forward.

Jun 11, 2013 10:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.