The study comes as France’s environment and agricultural ministers this week urged the European Commission to seek an EU-wide ban on the cultivation of MON810, EurActiv.fr reported. The maize is outlawed in Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg, while France is threatening to re-impose its own ban that was struck down in court if the EU does not act.
Christoph Then, who heads the Testbiotech research firm in Munich, said there is evidence that MON810 produces a toxin that can be harmful to humans through soil, water or animal feed contamination.
The Testbiotech’s study, in conjunction with research done at the University of Caen, shows that insecticides present in genetically engineered maize and similar crops pose a potential risk to humans. The study was released on 17 February.
Although the results are not conclusive and are based on review of high concentrations of toxins, the German-French team of researchers said the finding was a “surprising outcome and this risk was somehow overlooked” in past assessments of biotech crops.
“We don’t know yet the final impact for the human consumer is, it’s too early to say that,” Then said in a telephone interview. “We are very cautious about saying we have proof that the consumer risk is high, that it needs more assessments.”
Monsanto last month announced it would scrap plans to sell the maize in France despite a French court ruling in November that overturned a 2008 government ban on the sale of MON810.
'Safe as its conventional counterpart'
The US-based seed and herbicide company has long maintained that MON810 and other genetically modified crops are safe and more environmentally friendly because they produce higher yields, require fewer pesticides and need less water than conventional seeds.
The European Food Safety Authority in 2009 issued an assessment showing that “maize MON810 is as safe as its conventional counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health” and is unlikely to have “any adverse effect on the environment.” A 2004 study by the Parma, Italy-based EU agency reached similar conclusions.
However, the accuracy of EFSA reports on GM crops have been criticised by MEPs, national governments and researchers – including Then’s Testbiotech – for allegedly relying too heavily on industry-based information and research.
Acknowledging that there are divergent views on GM safety, Then called for additional independent research on the use of the Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, toxin that is used in GM crops like MON810 to strengthen their resistance to insects.
COMMENTS
This "study" by green activists was done in a highly artificial context. It is totally irrelevant to real food consumption.
We have recently published 2 articles which compile numerous publication by independent public research laboratories:
http://www.marcel-kuntz-ogm.fr/article-no-long-term-effect-92354920.html
They confirm the food safety of GM derived food.
Marcel Kuntz, Director of research at CNRS
Perhaps Seralini et al are unaware of:
ENV/JM/MONO(2007)14
Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 19-Jul-2007
English - Or. English
ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE
JOINT MEETING OF THE CHEMICALS COMMITTEE AND
THE WORKING PARTY ON CHEMICALS, PESTICIDES AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
CONSENSUS DOCUMENT ON SAFETY INFORMATION ON TRANSGENIC PLANTS EXPRESSING
BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS - DERIVED INSECT CONTROL PROTEINS
If they look at the page 33 on human risk assessment they will read:
4. Human Risk Assessment
65. The acute oral toxicity data on Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac, Cry9C, Cry3A, Cry1F, Cry2Ab2, Cry3Bb1,
Cry34Ab1, and Cry35Ab1 supports the prediction that the Cry proteins would be non-toxic to humans.
When proteins are toxic, they are known to act via acute mechanisms and at very low dose level (Sjoblad
et al., 1992). Therefore, since no effects were seen in the acute tests, even at relatively high dose levels,these δ-endotoxin proteins are not considered toxic to humans. Both the long history of safe use of B.thuringiensis and the acute oral toxicity data allow for a conclusion that these and other δ-endotoxins pose
negligible toxicity risk to humans. The one aspect of human health concern identified in their assessments
was the potential for the Cry9C protein to be a food allergen. Cry9C was conditionally registered in the
U.S. for animal feed uses only, with restrictions on cultivation to provide containment. However some
unintentional mixing occurred probably either in the field through pollination or after harvest at grain
handling facilities and resulted in low levels of the toxin appearing in a few processed maize products. The
registration was subsequently withdrawn at the company‘s request. Studies by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did not reveal any cases of human
allergenicity attributable to exposure to Cry9C. One individual who showed possible allergenicity to the
Cry9C protein by self-administered oral doses and one skin test volunteered for a fully controlled, doubleblind,
test in a medical centre which proved that he was not allergic to Cry9C protein (Sutton et al., 2003).
The overall safety record for Bt has been established in laboratory and field studies, which have looked at both formulated Bt sprays and specific Bt genes in planta (Betz et al., 2000; Siegel, 2001; Federici, 2002).
an answer by Henry Miller:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/02/22/the-science-of-things-that-arent-so/
What is being missed is the fact that these crops are cauing damage to the natural flora.
EurActiv reserves its right to remove comments regarded as offensive, racist, or homophobic as well as hate-speech in general. Spamming or posts with an obvious commercial character will be removed as well. Thank you for your understanding.