Carman Pig Study

A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM mazie diet

Judy A. Carman, Howard R. Vlieger, Larry J. Ver Steeg, Verlyn E. Sneller, Garth W. Robinson, Catherine A. Clinch-Jones, Julie I. Haynes, & John W. Edwards

Dr. Judy Carman, associate professor in Health and the Environment at Flinders University (Adelaide, South Australia) and seven other scientists have released results of a long-term, peer-reviewed toxicology study that has found even more adverse effects resulting from the consumption of genetically modified foods.  Using 168 just-weaned piglets from a commercial pig farm located in the United States, researchers fed half the subjects a mixed diet of widely-used varieties of GM maize (corn) and soy. The other half—the control group—were fed an equivalent non-GM diet. Pigs were specifically chosen as the test animal since their digestive system is similar to that of humans. Another factor was that investigators in the past had observed both digestive and reproductive problems in pigs fed GM crops, so this provided a basis for further scientific investigation. 

Dr. Carman and her team discovered a 25% increase in uterus weight in the animals fed the GM diet as compared to the control group.  In addition, GM-fed male pigs were four times more likely to be afflicted with severe stomach inflammation, while females had more than double the risk of the control group.  Researchers also found indications in the blood of the GM-fed pigs that their liver health had been dangerously impacted. The doctor emphasizes that these findings are all biologically and statistically significant. 

To read the Summary of the Carman Pig Study, click here
To read the Abstract, click here
To the read the Full Paper,
click here






Dr. Judy Carman

Interview with Dr. Judy Carman

ABC NEWS: “Study Casts Doubt on Safety of GMO Foods
Date: June 13, 2013

This interview by Simon Lauder of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation with Dr. Judy Carman sheds light on her recent pig-feeding study, which casts doubt on the safety of genetically modified crops.  As the lead author, Carman says the adverse results show the need for better regulation of GM foods. The biotech industry has responded by attacking her credibility, as well as the journal responsible for publishing the study. To read more, click here.


News Coverage of Carman Pig Study


Three Rebuttals By Dr. Judy Carman

Prof. Carman answers critics of her GE feeding study with pigs:

A Specific Reply To Monsanto
Date: June 14, 2013

SUMMARY:  Monsanto, the agrochemical and biotechnology firm which owns 55% of all seeds in the United States,
has released its comments on the landmark Carman, et al, GE pig-feeding study. Their assertions, according to the
doctor, were not sufficiently supported by any scientific data. To the corporation’s position along with Dr. Carman’s
answers to those critiques, click here.

A Specific Reply To Mark Lynas
Date: June 14, 2013

Lynas Attack On GMO Feed Study Shredded
Date: June 13, 2013


SUMMARY:  Prominent pro-GM activist, Mark Lynas has, as expected, attacked the new GM pig-feeding study by
Dr Judy Carman and her reputable colleagues. He downplays and distorts their roles as researchers, as well as
attempting to invalidate their sixty years of combined experience and expertise in areas ranging from medicine to
farming to veterinary science. On her website, Dr. Carman posted a rebuttal to Mr. Lynas’ remarks. To read the
rebuttal or an article about the Lynas attack, click here.

Reply To Andrew Kniss' Blog On Statistics
Date: June 14, 2013


SUMMARY:
  In his blog, Andrew Kniss professes to know more about statistics than the authors of the Carman
research paper, even though two of its authors have accrued 45 years total experience in utilizing and teaching
statistics at the university level. In addition, the pair has expertise in agricultural, toxicological, medical and
epidemiological statistics. In her insightful rebuttal, Dr. Carman neatly puts Kniss in his place, asserting that the
statistical methods which he proposes “are not appropriate to this or any other data.”
To read her comments, click here.