Response to Ena Valikov Comments 2

The reason I do not give charts and figures is because my blog is called the everyday scientist, to present the researchers findings in that manner would mean little to my audience. I try to read the literature, examine the data and reiterate those findings to my audience in an easy to read manner. I do however include all of my references, so if I have made a mistake anyone can read them and then comment. I do not need to copy and paste the results; anyone can read them for themselves. That being said I can miss things, I am not perfect, if I had overlooked something I would appreciate the insight.


There are large differences from the control and reference groups. There reference groups were feed conventional dies, whereas the control/treatment groups had altered diets.


You have still ignoring my criticisms of the Malatesta papers; their findings are irrelevant because they are so flawed.


In your comments you make is seem like they are hiding results but that is not the case. In their explanation they clearly say, “Blood was collected via the jugular vein from the first 10 surviving rats/sex/group during week 5 and again at terminal sacrifice after week 13”. That means that they tested 10 rats for each parameter. I do agree that it would have been better if they tested all the rats in each group. This is a flaw of this study. I am by no means saying these findings are perfect. Considering they had two groups (11% and 33%) there is still a large number of rats being tested for each parameter. I would assume they were trying to reduce the work load, and save money. In the end I do however agree that this is a flaw of this study.
Malatesta however only had 12 rats in each group making his conclusions much less significant.


I would have liked to see the data for the urine analysis (the numbers that is) however they do comment on their findings. They explain all statically significant differences in paragraph form. You would have to accuse them of lying to discount this. They could have also put together a table with fraudulent information just as easily.


Your comment on the rats dying is not accurate. They clearly state that they were only going to take readings from 10 rats in each group, it wasn’t because they died. There were a few incidental deaths; one on the MON 863 diet, one from the control group and two from the reference groups.


I do agree that the statistics on rages of rats is a little puzzling however that is not always the case. Table 2, 4, 5. All had an exact number of rats 10.


In regard to your comments on “advanced inflammatory kidney disease”, here is what the article said. “There were small increases in the incidences of focal inflammation and tubular regenerative changes in the kidneys of 33% MON 863 males when compared to their controls. In contrast, the incidence of cardiomyopathy was decreased in 33% MON 863 males when compared to controls. These findings illustrate the variability in the incidence of common microscopic changes that occur in rats of this age and strain. Most of the microscopic findings were of minimal severity and none of the aforementioned pathology findings were considered by the study pathologist to be test article related.” 1 There was not “advance inflammatory kidney disease” as you indicated.


In the end when talking about sample size Hammond’s sample size is 10 rats from each sex for each group (11% and 33%). Meaning 20 rats for 11% and 20 rats for 33%.That leads to 40 rats on GMO crops and 40 rats on non GMO. This is much larger than Malatestas sample size, and yet you still have not acknowledged that fact. If you believe “It wouldn't just be nice to have larger sample sizes, it is mandatory” I would suggest having the same criticism for your references.


Isogenic lines not doable? This is simply not the case, do a DNA analysis on the two varieties and determine if they are analogous. That is a requirement if your results are going to be valid.


In explaining why they chose to use a reference group this is what they said: “Six conventional corn varieties representing a diversity of corn germplasm were also planted to serve as reference controls for the rat feeding study”. In this instance they wanted to have rats on multiple types of corn to see any differences in that respect. They wanted reference values for rats on normal diets, a legitimate endeavor.


All that being said, I did not just reference the Hammond papers. I referenced a review article that looked at 12 long-term studies and 12 multigenerational studies. To discount their findings you would have to go through each article and show why they are invalid. I have provided a plethora of DATA, and all you have provided is the Malatesta studies, which have been heavily criticized by UK Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. Your argument is not supported by credible data.

If you decide to comment again please to not swear, I would like this to be a professional discussion without such language.

References

1. Hammond, B., Lemen, J., Dudek, R., Ward, D., Jiang, C., Nemeth, M., Burns, J., 2006a. Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn. Food Chem. Toxicol. 44, 147–160.