EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

French study re-launches GMO controversy

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 20 September 2012, updated 15 April 2013

Rats fed a lifetime diet of Monsanto's genetically modified corn or exposed to its top-selling weedkiller Roundup suffered tumours and multiple organ damage, says a French study published yesterday (19 September).

The French government immediately asked the country's health watchdog to investigate the findings further and called on European authorities to "take all necessary measures to protect human health", including an "emergency suspension" of imports of the maize variety in Europe.

Frédéric Vincent, European Commission spokesman on health and consumer issues, said the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, would examine it in detail.

“If it will be ascertained that the study indeed has scientific groudings, the Commission will draw the consequences,” he said.

French study results

Gilles-Eric Seralini, a biologist at the University of Caen, and colleagues said rats fed on a diet containing NK603 - a seed variety made tolerant to dousings of Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller - or given water with Roundup at levels permitted in the United States, died earlier than those on a standard diet.

The animals on the genetically modified (GM) diet suffered mammary tumours, as well as severe liver and kidney damage, according to the peer-reviewed study which was published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology and presented at a news conference in London.

The researchers said 50% of male and 70% of female rats died prematurely, compared with only 30% and 20% in the control group.

In a telephone conference call with US reporters, Seralini noted that GM animal studies typically conclude after three months, likely because companies behind genetically modified foods don’t want to know the long-term consequences of their products, the Washington Post reported.

“After four months” Seralini said about his own long-term study on 200 rats, “the tumours began”, the Post reported.

“After one year, there was a ... high increase in the number of tumours,” said Seralini, who is also the president of CRII-GEN’s scientific board. He said that most of the female rats had two or three tumours.

Some experts sceptical

Experts not involved in the study were sceptical, with one accusing the French scientists of going on a "statistical fishing trip" and others describing its methods as well below standard.

Monsanto spokesman Thomas Helscher said the company would review the study thoroughly. However, he added: "Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies performed on biotech crops to date, including more than a hundred feeding studies, have continuously confirmed their safety, as reflected in the respective safety assessments by regulatory authorities around the world."

Genetically modified organisms are deeply unpopular in Europe but dominate major crops in the United States after Monsanto introduced a soybean genetically altered to tolerate Roundup in 1996.

Experts asked by reporters to review the scientific paper advised caution in drawing conclusions from it.

Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London, noted that Seralini's team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were.

"This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumours particularly when food intake is not restricted," he said. "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."

Mark Tester, a research professor at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide, said the study's findings raised the question of why no previous studies have flagged up similar concerns.

David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge said the methods, statistics and reporting of results were all below standard. He added that the study's untreated control arm comprised only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also got tumours.

Long-term effects?

While supporters of GM crops say previous studies have overwhelmingly pointed to their safety, critics argue there is still limited information about the long-term effects since the crops have only been around for just over 15 years.

In France, the government said it had asked its health and safety agency to assess the study and had also sent it to EFSA.

"Based on the conclusion ..., the government will ask the European authorities to take all necessary measures to protect human and animal health, measures that could go as far as an emergency suspension of imports of NK603 maize in the European Union," the French health, environment and farm ministries said in a joint statement.

Seralini, the scientist at the centre of the latest research, previously raised safety concerns based on a shorter rat study in 2009. His new study takes things a step further by tracking the animals throughout their two-year lifespan.

Positions: 

France's José Bove, vice chairman of the European Parliament's agriculture committe and known as an opponent of GM, called for an immediate suspension of all EU cultivation and import authorisation of GM crops. "This study finally shows we are right and that it is urgent to quickly review all GMO evaluation processes," he said in a statement.

EuropaBio, a trade association representing the biotech industry, declined to comment on the scientific value of the study, saying specialists will first carefully analyse it.

However, it cited European Commission funded-studies involving 500 independent research groups over 25 years, which concluded that "There is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms."

EuropaBio further warned that "media should be aware of the track record of the papers’ authors", saying that "some of the researchers behind the study are closely associated with anti-GM campaigning groups."

EurActiv.com with Reuters

COMMENTS

  • ORDINARY EU'S AND EFSA'S FIASCO - BUREAUCRATIC IMITATION OF ACTIVITIES AS USUAL.

    By :
    ORDINARY EU'S AND EFSA'S FIASCO
    - Posted on :
    20/09/2012
  • Here are some comments published in Science 2.0.

    "In my opinion, the methods, stats and reporting of results are all well below the standard I would expect in a rigorous study – to be honest I am surprised it was accepted for publication." - Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding Of Risk, University of Cambridge

    "The full data set has not been made available, but the findings do not contradict previous findings that genetic modification itself is a neutral technology, with no inherent health or environmental risks." - Dr Wendy Harwood, senior scientist, John Innes Centre

    "Like most of the GM debate, this work has very little to do with GM. The authors of the paper do not suggest that the effects are caused by genetic modification" - Prof Ottoline Leyser, Associate Director of the Sainsbury Laboratory, University of Cambridge

    "No food intake data is provided or growth data. This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumours particularly when food intake is not restricted." - Prof Tom Sanders, Head of the Nutritional Sciences Research Division, King’s College London

    "The first thing that leaps to my mind is why has nothing emerged from epidemiological studies in the countries where so much GM has been in the food chain for so long? If the effects are as big as purported, and if the work really is relevant to humans, why aren’t the North Americans dropping like flies?! - Prof Mark Tester, Research Professor, Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, University of Adelaide

    By :
    Bernard O'Connor
    - Posted on :
    20/09/2012
  • Dancers and payers...

    By :
    ORDINARY EU'S AND EFSA'S FIASCO
    - Posted on :
    20/09/2012
  • All the recherché before was made and under control of the GMO lobbying ,who is react already but before to tha studie made by French was not 3 month studie but 2 years nobody did that before,of everything r made to slowing down the evidence that GMO kills poeple in USA everyday ,but money talk!

    By :
    Laurent cali
    - Posted on :
    20/09/2012
  • This is a highly controversial study. It's approach is questionable. Seralini's work is not science but political campaigning.

    Prof Maurice Moloney, Institute Director and Chief Executive , Rothamsted Research, said:

    "Although this paper has been published in a peer–reviewed journal with an IF of about 3, there are anomalies throughout the paper that normally should have been corrected or resolved through the peer-review process. For a paper with such potentially important findings, it would have been more satisfying to have seen something with a more conventional statistical analysis."

    Prof David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding Of Risk, University of Cambridge, said:

    "In my opinion, the methods, stats and reporting of results are all well below the standard I would expect in a rigorous study – to be honest I am surprised it was accepted for publication.

    By :
    Frank Gibbons
    - Posted on :
    20/09/2012
  • What is failed to be included in the discussion, are the hundreds of independent studies that show damage to organs, fertility, genetic integrity, the mutations existing in plants, insects and even animals, etc., etc.

    As is usual, the Pro-GMO folks want to isolate this study as if it were the only one, then do whatever they can to denigrate it and convince the Mainstream Media that it's a waste of time to even consider. Oops...hundreds of millions of INDIVIDUALS globally know better. We have Family, Friends and Animals that have been adversely affected by GMO.

    To the Scientists above...go get just a handful of raw corn from a GMO field-swallow it, then write about your reactions-DO make sure someone's there to witness it with a camera uploading to YouTube...it should be QUITE entertaining.

    By :
    R Andrew Ohge
    - Posted on :
    20/09/2012
  • I'm not particularly pro or anti GMO but the hysteria, myths and downright lies from the antis - e.g. above "go get just a handful of raw corn from a GMO field-swallow it, then write about your reactions-DO make sure someone's there to witness it ...blah blah blah" make sure than in Europe there will never be sensible debate on the subject. Most of the anti GMO's wouln't know a gene from a monkey wrench and are about as scientifically literate as the creationists are when faced with Darwin.

    By :
    Charles_M
    - Posted on :
    20/09/2012
  • Nice pot shot at me, Charles.

    Notably it doesn't answer the issues presented about the research. There ARE hundreds if not thousands of Studies and Papers that refute the denigrations of the Scientists above...they, in fact know it, but refuse to acknowledge it.

    My CHALLENGE stands, as I know they would NEVER do it. At the very least they would become very sick..or in the worst cases die...hence the point of the challenge.

    Europe has had innumerable sensible debates, but the shills and paid-off experts have more resources available to further their agenda.

    By :
    R Andrew Ohge
    - Posted on :
    20/09/2012
  • For those who demand it, here's a video from a Fellow of the Kings College School of Medicine to discuss the study above: http://farmwars.info/?p=9277&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FarmWars+%28Farm+Wars%29

    By :
    R Andrew Ohge
    - Posted on :
    20/09/2012
  • I am a researcher acquainted with statistics, although not working in the same field. I am first surprised to how strongly people react against the supposedly methodological flaws of this study. I think we have all experienced that statistics is not the miracle tool and that results can often remains unclear, since changing one parameter might lead to different interpretations. This happens even when one uses the state-of-the-art approaches. That is why we need to replicate studies, changing several parameters.

    However, the more important fact is probably whether or not the scientist have a good reason to find a specific outcome out of the data or not. That's why I am very suspicious about the studies that have been conducted previously by the GMO companies.

    As long as there are contradictory studies on the topic, I feel that the reasonable behavior would be not to allow extensive growing of GMO and try to reach stronger scientific consensus first. Surprisingly - or not!-, the companies does not want this. Does that means they don't care about the risks they are actually posing to the population?

    So, my answer to all these well-intentioned savior of the science is: since when science should support the use of technologies we don't really know about it? Since when science can be used to defend economical interests of multinational companies ?

    By :
    Thomas Francois
    - Posted on :
    20/09/2012
  • Tomas Fracois -- EXACTLY!
    Since when science (ALSO EFSA AND OTHER EU BUREAUCRATIC STRUCURES) can be used to defend economical interests of multinational companies ?

    By :
    ORDINARY EU'S AND EFSA'S FIASCO
    - Posted on :
    21/09/2012
  • The GM debate has turned into an us (an assortment of sensible and ignoranat people) versus the multinationals, and spilled over from scientific debate to some sort of left/right struggle. What crap! Plenty of reputable and ethical scientists and companies try to work in the GM field, only to see their work demonised and their experiments trashed by masked neanderthals trampling crops. No wonder europe is turning into a technology backwater.

    By :
    Charles_M
    - Posted on :
    21/09/2012
  • Professor Spiegelhalter works at times for many of the Big pHARMa companies and cannot be expected to give an unbiased reply to research that shows Big pHARMa not only harming but denying any harm. (NOVARTIS for example who dabble in GMO and herbicides I think.)The money he gets is probably too great to risk rocking the boat when someone has pulled the plug out and most of the bottom of the boat as well.

    The research of Professor Seralini is in direct AGREEMENT with every industry funded study done on this GMO product but he has EXTENDED the work so that cannot reasonably be called food but rather a TOXIC provider of female breast cancer virtually guaranteed given enough time.

    It cant do this when you eat it or 90 days later when all industry studies END, but give yourself ten years of so and BINGO, you will probably need VERY EXPENSIVE Big pHARMa treatments and no chance of proving THEY were responsible for your bad health so long after the first exposure.

    By :
    John Fryer
    - Posted on :
    24/09/2012
  • While ONE vaccine preventable measles case is enough to cause national headlines, the 47 per cent of GMO eaters that have pre-diabetes gets absoluely no mention, so most will find this figure for the first time and not believe it. (Like Professor Seralini's fine research.)

    Similar figures for Multiple Sclerosis pre-brain lesions in GMO eaters is currently at 10 per cent.

    Most will be aware of GMO eaters and the families with AUTISM rising from ZERO in 1940 to over 1 per cent today.

    All these and many other (Alzheimer Disease) are RISING FAST.

    And like GMO HARM, this is all highly DENIED or IGNORED but affects hundreds of millions and condemns them to poor quality health and in need of more big pHARMa medical "wonder" cures.

    By :
    John Fryer
    - Posted on :
    24/09/2012
Background: 

EU countries are able to restrict genetically modified crop cultivation under strict conditions as authorisation licences are valid across the 27-country bloc, in accordance with the principles of the EU's single market.

Several member states have repeatedly invoked an EU safeguard clause enabling them to suspend the marketing or growth on their territory of GM crops that enjoy EU-wide authorisation, but the European Commission has never substantiated their applications and has always ordered the lifting of national bans.

In addition, the safety assessments performed by the European Food Safety Authority have come under criticism over the years. The EU executive has tried to introduce practical changes to the EFSA's GMO-approval process and in spring 2008, it mandated  the agency to revise its guidance for the long-term environmental risk assessment of GM plants.

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising