Cited by 85Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchAgricultural safety and regulationsInsect Resistance and Genetics

Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn

Hammond, B.G., Dudek, R., Lemen, J.K., Nemeth, M.A.·2006·Food and Chemical Toxicology

Abstract

The results of a 90-day rat feeding study with grain from MON 810 corn (YieldGard Cornborer -- YieldGard Cornborer is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology, LLC) that is protected against feeding damage from corn and stalk boring lepidopteran insects are presented. Corn borer protection was accomplished through the introduction of cry1Ab coding sequences into the corn genome for in planta production of a bioactive form of Cry1Ab protein. Grain from MON 810 and its near-isogenic control was separately formulated into rodent diets at levels of 11% and 33% (w/w) by Purina Mills, Inc. (PMI). All diets were nutritionally balanced and conformed to PMI specifications for Certified LabDiet (PMI Certified LabDiet 5002 is a registered trademark of Purina Mills, Inc.) 5002. There were a total of 400 rats in the study divided into 10 groups of 20 rats/sex/group. The responses of rats fed diets containing MON 810 were compared to those of rats fed grain from conventional corn varieties. Overall health, body weight, food consumption, clinical pathology parameters (hematology, blood chemistry, urinalysis), organ weights, and gross and microscopic appearance of tissues were comparable between groups fed diets containing MON 810 and conventional corn varieties. This study complements extensive agronomic, compositional and farm animal feeding studies with MON 810 grain, confirming that it is as safe and nutritious as grain from existing commercial corn varieties.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fct.2006.01.003

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A detailed analysis of the data in the subchronic toxicity studies has revealed statistically significant alterations in kidney and liver function that may constitute signs of the early onset of chronic toxicity.

    “A detailed analysis of the data in the subchronic toxicity studies [2–5] has revealed statistically significant alterations in kidney and liver function that may constitute signs of the early onset of chronic toxicity.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hammond, B. G., Dudek, R., Lemen, J. K., & Nemeth, M. A.
Affiliations
Monsanto (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Hammond, B.G.
Venue
Food and Chemical Toxicology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-07
Volume
44
Issue
7
Pages
1092-1099
ISSN
0278-6915 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4251106106
Cited by
85
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 11
FWCI
9.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Food and Chemical Toxicology (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Insect Resistance and Genetics
Keywords
transgenic maize, Bt maize, Cry1Ab toxin, rat feeding study, clinical pathology, organ weight, food safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review