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

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

No risk with GMO food, says EU chief scientific advisor

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 24 July 2012, updated 05 November 2012

EXCLUSIVE: Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are no riskier than their conventionally farmed equivalents, the European Commission’s Chief Scientific Advisor Anne Glover has told EurActiv in an exclusive interview, calling for countries impeding GMO use to be put to proof.

The endorsement of GMO safety will rattle member states where bans are in place (see background), and represents the CSA’s highest-profile policy intervention since Glover became Commission President José Manuel Barroso’s scientific advisor last December.

“There is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health or environmental health, so that’s pretty robust evidence, and I would be confident in saying that there is no more risk in eating GMO food than eating conventionally farmed food,” Glover told EurActiv, saying the precautionary principle no longer applies as a result.

Glover said she was not promoting GMOs, and added that “eating food is risky”, explaining: “Most of us forget that most plants are toxic, and it’s only because we cook them, or the quantity that we eat them in, that makes them suitable.”

Scarce resources

But she said that scientific evidence needed to play a stronger role in policymaking, firing a warning shot at countries that have banned GMOs. “I think we could really get somewhere in Europe if when evidence is used partially, there were an obligation on people to say why they have rejected evidence,” she said.

GMOs and other scientific advances must be explored in order to head off the increasing scarcity of energy and other resources and competition for land use, Glover suggested.

“If we are using land to produce biofuels, we are not producing food, and that that means we have to intensify food production,” she said.

Glover, a former professor of biology at the University of Aberdeen, served as chief scientific advisor for Scotland before from 2006-2011. She joined the Commission on 1 January.

Her role is to bolster scientific evidence by saying things that politicians and officials are sometimes uncomfortable with, she said, adding: “The evidence with which I work is independent, the evidence with which I work does not change according to political philosophy. And that should give people a lot of confidence.”

Glover said that discomfort around the subject of GM crops in the 1980s and 1990s was “a generation ago, we’ve moved on and the challenges are completely different”.

She said that the precautionary principle was appropriate when applied properly, but added: “We should not … somehow tie our hands behind our back in such a way that we will be so precautionary that we will wait for everyone else to use our knowledge before we use it.”

"That would be my worry, because knowledge is an international currency, and we are amongst the slowest in taking advantage of the knowledge we create, and that cannot be right."

Grabbing the attention of teenage girls

Glover also defended the recent teaser video issued by the Commission in support of its 'Women in Science' campaign. The teaser – which depicted young women mixing chemicals morphing into cosmetics – was pulled by the Commission amidst complaints that it pandered to sexist stereotypes.

“I may not like the fact that young girls think about high heels and lipstick. Now, if that’s what young girls think about then you would be foolish if you were an advertiser to ignore that,” Glover said, expressing disappointment with the criticism from “many older scientists and women my age”.

She said: “They had perhaps not thought about who was the focus of the campaign. It was not them, but adolescents.”

Glover also said that she was examining the possibility of creating a network of individual chief scientific advisors within member states, to provide more clearly focused lines of communication on scientific evidence within EU policymaking.

Jeremy Fleming

COMMENTS

  • I am a skeptic, I want more long term proof.
    When changed will the product, grain or other change their. A bacteria can change their form, a tuberculin can change a virus can why not this modified.

    By :
    Michael Kadin
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • What are Anne Glover's connections to the Biotech industry cartel? Sounds like a spokesperson to me. Her comments and "recommendations" are extremely simple and quite frankly "naive". It is a known fact that the biotech ag cartel is in the middle of a gigantic global arm-twisting effort (Mexico, Africa, India and Europe) to "greenwash" the yet to be proven GMO seeds and all the attending pesticides, chemicals, fertilizers that poison the environment and destroy biodiversity and ecosystems.
    It is up to the biotech industry, the Monsanto's of the world and their cartel to prove them safe with independent, peer reviewed research which they have not done as they patent the gmo seeds making independent research very difficult. Particularly as the global epidemic of obesity, diabetes and cancer align with the increasing global introduction of these synthetic food crops.
    I offer the following archives on GMO foods world-wide as they affect and impact human health and the environment for both your readers and Ms. Glover to counter her "glowing" reports.
    YOUR FOOD, YOUR HEALTH http://www.scoop.it/t/agriculture-and-gmos-gm

    By :
    Pam Jacob
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • Since the antiobotic marker gene problem has been addressed, there has been no real problem with GMO technology. It's as safe as any breeding programme. The real problem is the use to which it has been put in much of developed country agriculure. This is a different issue.

    By :
    Bernard O'Connor
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • Monsanto Threatens Europe: Industrial Food Giants Bully European Lawmakers http://ow.ly/cs77J
    Craig Stapleton, former U.S. ambassador to France, was quoted by the New American, supporting the spread of GMOs:
    “Europe is moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy, and even the [European] Commission…. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voice.”

    By :
    Pam Jacob
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • I'm currently in a country that bans GMO products and very happy about it.

    For GMO permission to be adopted, i would:

    1) Confirm long-term studies that prove no effects. The comparison to non-GMO foods should have independent evaluations by each country.
    2) confirm all decisions have no conflicts of interest with any GMO first. Run extensively through an Ombudsman.
    3) Have GMO companies publicly present their business strategies. Typically, the GMO firm looks at tying seed supplies so that a farmer/producer has few choices.

    For those in the USA, there are two relevant facts that will affect farmers as well as farming costs:
    - a 3 year "dormant" period if a farmer decides to go from GMO to non-GMO, to make sure there is no seed mixing.
    - equipment from a GMO farm cannot be used on a non-GMO farm, unless specially cleaned.

    The second aspect causes 'switching costs' in business parlance and keeps a farmer on the GMO track once he gets in. These are secondary effects and costs that a country incurs as well as the economy, in addition to potential health benefits.

    GMO could make sense for ethanol and other types of production, but that is a different question.

    The GMO firms are very savvy, and EU politicians should not be short sighted. Total impact cost is very important in this case, in my opinion.

    By :
    Jack
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • What she says does not make much sense to me:

    "Can I say categorically that there is no risk from eating genetically modified food, for example? Well, as a scientist, I can’t say ‘no, there is no risk’ because there is a risk associated with everything. I can, however, categorically say that there is risk associated with eating conventionally farmed produce – there is risk associated with everything."

    http://www.neurope.eu/article/talking-risk-and-benefits-eu-s-first-lady-science

    I do not trust her.

    By :
    Pietro Fornara
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • Here is what fully qualified and independent geneticists have to say about GMO foods and how dangerous they really are:

    Dr. Mae-Wan Ho is a world renowned geneticist & biophysicist. She is Director of the Institute of Science in Society, she is co-founder of the International Science Panel on Genetic Modification and is scientific advisor to the Third World Network. She has written more than 300 publications and over a dozen books including "Genetic Engineering - Dream or Nightmare?" and "The Case for a GM-free Sustainable World." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUKEd5BSJM4

    Dr. David Suzuki on the dangers of genetic modification (horizontal gene transfer) specifically here regarding GE trees. A monoculture world will kill it. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of science and natural systems knows this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w437uQf_A7c

    See also:

    http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3.pdf

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS72J9bDvPM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D3TUk-XX1o

    I could post hundreds more links demonstrating the real dangers of GMO foods and of genetic engineering.

    By :
    Vierotchka
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • At last a scientific comment on GMO's.
    Europe invented GMO's but let it be used by the Americans to there benefit since the early nineties. Nobody was ill or ever died from eating GMO's. But thousands die every week from all the pesticides farmers are using on their plants. And GMO's allow to largely reduce the use of pesticides.The US is followed now by the emergent countries. So many European GMO labs left Europe for the States with our young and brilliant scientists following. This is only one example of Europe loosing its scientific edge.
    It is high time we stop the collective obsession about GMO's in Europe.

    By :
    Tony Van der haegen
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • At last a scientific comment on GMO's.
    Europe invented GMO's but let it be used by the Americans to there benefit since the early nineties. Nobody was ill or ever died from eating GMO's. But thousands die every week from all the pesticides farmers are using on their plants. And GMO's allow to largely reduce the use of pesticides.The US is followed now by the emergent countries. So many European GMO labs left Europe for the States with our young and brilliant scientists following. This is only one example of Europe loosing its scientific edge.
    It is high time we stop the collective obsession about GMO's in Europe.

    By :
    Tony Van der haegen
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • @Tony Van der haegen - actually, there are deaths that have been linked to GMO foods, and also hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of severe health problems linked to GMO foods. Let me refer you to two of the links I posted above, namely:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS72J9bDvPM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D3TUk-XX1o

    By :
    Vierotchka
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • @Tony Van der haegen

    "Fears grow as study shows genetically modified crops 'can cause liver and kidney damage'"

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244824/Fears-grow-study-shows-genetically-modified-crops-cause-liver-kidney-damage.html

    My 2 cents: A person with an average intelligence cannot pretend to understand the dependencies of a living organism within an ecosystem.
    If you modify a few variables (DNA) in a living organism it will have some effect on other parts of this organism or even effects on other organisms living around it. Never mind eating this stuff.

    We need many more years and very powerful computers to be able to safely genetically modify some organisms.

    So in the meantime, please keep GMO experiments safely in a lab and continue studying. There is a very long way to go.

    By :
    Pietro Fornara
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • Good interview - thanks.

    Unfortunately sensible comments like those from Anne Glover won't be picked up by the tabloid press who prefer scare stories of 'Frankenfood'.

    By :
    brian
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • @ Brian - may I recommend this documentary to you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXz4oo1qsXs

    By :
    Vierotchka
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • This comment is absolutely laughable and so preposterous as to sound plausible. Something unproven to be beneficial has to be proven and those proposing it need to put up their proof. This opposite of truth statement requires that those who are willing to just hold their cards and stick with the tried and true, prove that they should not become the human laboratory experinment for some administrator shooting off their mouth.

    European Commission Chief Scientific Advisor Anne Glover - YOU PROVE UP OR SHUT UP!

    Study links Monsanto GM Corn to Kidney Failure

    New comprehensive study on the effects of GMO foods on mammal health shows Monsanto GMO corn linked to hepatorenal toxicity (rapid deterioration in kidney function).

    http://igfsn.blogspot.com/2012/07/new-study-on-effects-of-gmo-foods-in.html

    Iyel Bey - Food Security Critic
    Outspoken critic in the multibillion dollar food security industry, Exposing the rhetoric and practices and diversions of statisticians, mathematicians, governments, NGO's, chemical companies and theoreticians who have not, will not and do not intend to produce food. Offering clarity and insight in what has become a business where the industry leaders grow rich by explaining to others why they are so poor. Articles and commentary examine the fallacies of reliance on solutions offered by businesses that offer solutions to a problem that once solved, will put them out of business. The world will soon demand food from all of the food security investment and programs, which plainly shows why, when it comes to food security, talk is cheap. The supply exceeds demand. His writings show that food security specialists usually don’t know what they're talking about - and make you feel it’s your fault. 

    By :
    Iyel Bey - The Food Security Critic
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • http://www.digital-athanor.com/PRISM_ESCAPE/article_usb312.html?id_article=18

    Gilles-Eric Seralini is a university lecturer and a researcher in molecular biology. He is also the author of a book entitled OGM, Le Vrai Débat (GM foods, the real debate). He was one of the first scientists to warn the public opinion against the dangers linked to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). In this interview, he reminds us of a few basic facts about GMOs and tells us about the threat they represent.

    What is your current research about ?
    My research focuses on the intimate functioning of a cell, on the dialogue between organs and organisms, and on molecular dialogues. More specifically, I am studying molecular endocrinology and the relations between hormones/cancers and pesticides.

    In 1997, along with a group of scientists, you asked for a moratorium to be set on the distribution of GMOs.I was asked to be part of the government commissions which were evaluating GMOs at the French Ministry of Environment and Agriculture. I knew the side effects of pesticides on health and I also knew the mode of creation of transgenic plants that produce or absorb pesticides. From the beginning, I became suspicious of the controls that had been done. And I unveiled the scandal : a consortium of lobbies had taken control of the situation, They were putting a brake on research on the side effects of pesticides on health. Those corporations want to distribute technological products rapidly and without any control, they want to patent the base of the food trade. This moratorium enabled us to make it clear to agricultural associations, agricultural trade unions, consumer associations, as well as to various ecological and environment friendly groups that there was a public health problem. Then we also very quickly warned ministries.

    We need a global reflection and action. Is that what you are doing with the Independent Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRII-GEN) ?
    The CRII-GEN is a Committee of associative and independent expertise ; it is mostly based on volunteering for it works only thanks to subscriptions. We provide our subscribers with new elements so that they can decide whether they want to accept or to refuse certain ideas conveyed by the GMO file. We have also managed to talk to several firms producing GMOs. We explained to them the risks implied by the distribution of transgenic plants on the environment and health. They can no longer say that they don’t know. It is legally very important, in case there are deaths due to the consumption of transgenic soy or corn in the future.

    Deaths due to GM Foods ?
    It is the same problem as mad cow disease. For the cows that had been fed with meat-and-bone meal, there was a possibility that they would die and it turned out to be true. Genetically modified foods are mainly plants created to produce or absorb pesticides. The side effects of pesticides on health can be discovered after months or years. They will be multifactorial and complex, and they won’t have the same action as a virus that kills within a few days. It took us years to acknowledge that smoking causes cancer, and daily smoking is easy to trace. If GMOs are disseminated without labeling il will take dozens of years.

    How can you trace GM Foods ?
    The main result of our fight is that now GM Foods are being traced more and more in Europe. From a worldwide viewpoint, people are beginning to label, and Europe’s labelling and tracing system is used as an example. The United States doesn’t label GM Foods and is more and more isolated. Even Canada wants to start to label. We were the first ones to ask to trace GM Foods in 1997. People thought it was irrational because the US exported GM and non-GM products. Everything was mixed. Today everybody knows that we need to trace GM Foods, but we still need to improve animal testing. I’m not talking about refuting a science. it just has to be used to the benefit of mankind.

    More at the link.

    Another scientist harrassed for his work.

    By :
    Vierotchka
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • Before claiming that there is no more risk in eating GM food than eating conventionally farmed food, Prof Glover would do well first to address the studies and data presented in this report:
    http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/gmo-myths-and-truths

    By :
    Elisa
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • As a Scientist and a family Farmer I am always interested whenever someone posts a research paper to defend their viewpoints. I took time to go directly to the research itself (Spiroux de Vendômois1, et al, A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health, Int'l Journal of Biological Sciences, 2009; 5(7):706-726) and reviewed their findings. I thought it was striking that the Authors themselves repeatedly admitted in the paper that they did not have enough information from the study groups of rats to draw statistically relevant conclusions. Even more shocking was that while they used a control group of over 300 rats, their experimental group (being fed GM-corn) was only 80 rats and of those animals they only included 10 into their data. Why not use all 80 animals since they were already starting with a shockingly low numbered group study?
    Being open-minded, I assumed that since this article is already outdated in the scientific community (3 years), I searched for more recent works by the Authors. Perhaps they have filled in some of the blanks in their research since such a simple feeding study should be easily replicated in 3 years time to include more animals? I could find none, but I did discover that Greenpeace was the original study's funding source.
    As a Scientist, it is critically important that research be done through an independent, peer-reviewed system. It maintains an objective viewpoint which reduces chances of data being used to further any specific predetermined viewpoint. I am open to looking through any other studies that I can find that meet these requirements. Unfortunately, none of the previous links provided meet those standards.

    By :
    Melinda Miller
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • Some science-based NGOs recently forwarded an email they'd sent to Professor Glover inviting her to meet with them to discuss how to get more rigorous science into the GMO and pesticide/chemical risk assessment process -- the point being that at the moment there is little scientific rigour in the process and the safety assessment is mostly based on studies done by the industry that's wanting to market the product! They were disappointed that Prof Glover did not reply. This is odd, for someone who says that more scientific evidence should be included in policy making.

    By :
    Peter Russell
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • @Melinda Miller - You seem to be under a serious misapprehension about this study (Spiroux de Vendômois1, et al, A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health, Int'l Journal of Biological Sciences, 2009; 5(7):706-726) which was an analysis by independent scientists of feeding trials commissioned by Monsanto on its own GM corn! In other words, the shortcomings in the studies that you point to, were entirely Monsanto's responsibility and yet Monsanto used these studies, which you rightly characterise as flawed, to successfully gain approval for its GM corn, which is now in our food and feed supply.

    It is exactly this point that the independent (of industry) scientists who analysed the data were drawing attention to -- that the Monsanto studies were badly designed but even they showed that the GM corn was toxic (having toxic effects on liver and kidney of rats only fed for a short time on the GM food. I urge people to read the study and thank you for drawing attention to its shortcomings.

    By :
    Peter Russell
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • @Melinda Miller
    Have a look at this:
    http://www.responsibletechnology.org/article-gmo-soy-linked-to-sterility

    Why would other scientists not pickup and reproduce these experiments?
    Could it really be the following?

    "Scientists who discover adverse findings from GMOs are regularly attacked, ridiculed, denied funding, and even fired. When Ermakova reported the high infant mortality among GM soy fed offspring, for example, she appealed to the scientific community to repeat and verify her preliminary results. She also sought additional funds to analyze preserved organs. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Samples were stolen from her lab, papers were burnt on her desk, and she said that her boss, under pressure from his boss, told her to stop doing any more GMO research. No one has yet repeated Ermakova's simple, inexpensive studies."

    I am no scientist.
    Maybe you know someone who is really, completely and utterly independent?

    If so, can they try to reproduce these "inexpensive studies"?

    By :
    Pietro Fornara
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • @Peter Russell: Thank you for drawing more attention to my original point that these types of studies are incredibly easy to produce using many 100's of animals at a low cost (my area of research included animal studies and reviewing effects on various organs). If the Authors of the study were upset by the lack of data couldn't they have replicated the study in the past 3 years to further their point against Monsanto? The feeding of the rats only took place over 14 weeks, processing of samples and data review should easily be done within a year. I noticed the Author's issues with Monsanto withholding information from them, but again this should be an easily replicated study that could be done independent of any company's data.
    @Pietro Fornara The Authors of the above study seem to have a laboratory doing research on GMO products and publishing their thoughts without detriment to their persons. I can name several National labs that are also doing research continually on agricultural products and they are not allowed by law to receive funding from companies. My area of expertise is medical research, but if you'd be interested I could do some looking around for you and try to find some individuals that you could contact and they themselves could attest to pursuing research in this field and not being threatened about their objectivity.
    This is such a wonderful and open discussion to be had. Thank you!

    By :
    Melinda Miller
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • @Peter Russell: Sorry, I forgot an important point. The Authors admit that they received data from the Monsanto study that included 80 animals in the GM-fed group, my point is why did they only choose to include 10 of these animals in their data review? I know from experience that animal model studies are extremely variable and that many factors (including gender, age, weight, and conditioning) can show extreme differences in organ functions/biochemical processes that are completely independent of the variables that a scientist is trying to study. This is why animal studies use a large number of animals to normalize these differences and why the data must be replicated. Why then did the Authors pick 10 specific animals out of 80? It makes me wonder if they picked data from animals that would further their point, maybe if all animals were included in their data the results would not implicate any difference between the control and experimental group? We'll never know because the Authors did not give us this information for us to view in context of the study.

    By :
    Melinda Miller
    - Posted on :
    24/07/2012
  • @Melinda Miller.

    Since the US FDA bases its decisions on the safety of the foods on corporate provided science, the question I have for you is why are you Not placing the burden of proof for safety of GMOs on Monsanto et al?
    Monsanto Should provide scientifically and statistically valid studies.
    Monsanto should replicate questionable studies to refute them.... if they can.
    Monsanto should also perform proteomic analysis to evaluate mammals ingesting GMOs for up regulation and down regulation of proteins in liver cells, kidney cells, pancreatic cells and perform multigenerational histochemical studies.
    Can you cite any?
    I can not.

    By :
    Ena Wizeman
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • @Ena Wizeman - considering the fact that the US FDA consists largely of people who were previously high-up in Monsanto, any such studies would by definition be unreliable and untrustworthy. See "Revolving Doors: Monsanto and the Regulators" http://www.psrast.org/ecologmons.htm for example.

    By :
    Vierotchka
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • @Ena Wizeman-You are correct! Both sides should be doing experiments with all sorts of design strategies to best determine food safety. I'm sure you would agree that the more people who study such a complex issue as this is all the better! I'm simply pointing out that the research used in this thread to "prove" a viewpoint is faulty in my opinion. If it is so easy to determine that GMO food is unsafe why hasn't it been done in a peer-reviewed objective setting? As I stated, I am not in agricultural research, but I took your challenge and went straight to the source you questioned, Monsanto. Here is a link to a page on their website in which I found studies dating back to 1993, if you click through the studies you will find under most of the research article references to multiple other studies that were done. I can't say I have a desire to sit down and read hundreds of studies and get back to you with my review of each one, but perhaps you will find something interesting in them to carry on this discussion? I will let someone else take over this conversation so I'm not monopolizing it, but thank you again for your views and what a great civil conversation to be had!
    http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-safety-science.aspx

    By :
    Melinda Miller
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • @Melinda Miller: regarding the "ease" with which Monsanto studies can be replicated, perhaps you are unaware that the biotech companies refuse to release GM and isogenic line seed for independent research and they specifically forbid such research? This has been much deplored by scientists, who have even complained to the US government, to no avail. See the Scientific American editorial here: http://earthopensource.org/index.php/2-science-and-regulation/2-1-myth-gm-foods-are-strictly-regulated-for-safety
    Perhaps you are unaware too that Professor Seralini, whose team did the re-analysis of Monsanto data, constantly struggles to find funding for his lab, which depends on public donations and some meagre help here and there from NGOs? And that he has been vilified by industry-linked scientists whom he had to take to court to restore his reputation?

    Re why the authors only analysed 10 animals in their data review, this was the number of animals for which Monsanto provided measurement perameters, so the omission is Monsanto's, not the authors'. This omission by Monsanto is very clear from the study and the authors again deplore it, again, very clearly.

    I should not have to add that it is not the job of independent scientists and the public to prove that Monsanto's products are unsafe, but the job of Monsanto to prove that they are safe, before they are allowed onto the market. Clearly these studies have not done that and questions must be asked as to why the EU authorities accepted these inadequate studies that nevertheless show harm, as proof that this corn was safe for us to eat.

    By :
    Peter Russell
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • @Melinda Miller - I'm baffled that you seem to think that the de Vendomois/Seralini study re-analysing Monsanto data is not peer reviewed - it obvously is, as are all this team's papers.

    As for other peer reviewed studies showing GMOs are unsafe to eat (as revealed in lab animal tests), there are some, in spite of the difficulties the scientists had in accessing the test materials, ie the GM foods, and they are collected here:
    http://earthopensource.org/index.php/3-health-hazards-of-gm-foods/3-1-myth-gm-foods-are-safe-to-eat

    Monsanto's toxicology studies submitted for regulatory approvals of GM foods, like most such industry studies done for regulatory purposes, are NOT peer reviewed or published in peer reviewed journals. Until NGOs forced such data into the open via court cases, no one was allowed to see it. This issue has caused massive controversy in Europe for years, not sure how anyone could miss it!

    I hope that Prof Glover, as a champion of scientific decision making, will take up this cause of transparency of industry data on GMOs and pesticides.

    By :
    Elisa
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • What I find profoundly disturbing about Glover's claims is that she says she wants a more scientific approach to GM foods but cites no data to back up her claims that they are no more risky than non-GM foods. And she ignores research that shows GM foods are more risky than non-GM foods.

    I wonder, though, if she's referring to the EU 'research' that's often claimed to show safety of GM food. Unfortunately it doesn't! On the contrary, it shows yet more risk.
    http://earthopensource.org/index.php/3-health-hazards-of-gm-foods/3-2-myth-eu-research-shows-gm-foods-are-safe

    By :
    Farah Rukh
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • @Peter Russell-Thank you for your thoughts, although I disagree with them I can respect the passion that you have for this topic. I wasn't going to add any more to this discussion, but I decided to do one last quick review of literature after thinking some more about the paper in question. It's very hard to go in-depth in a public forum with little knowledge of the audience's background, but I found this on Monsanto's website and I found it to succinctly explain several issues that I had quickly noticed that I found fault with the Author's research.
    http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Documents/SpirouxdeVendimois.pdf.

    By :
    Melinda Miller
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • @ Melinda Miller.

    I read Monsanto's criticisms. They are inconsistent and make very little scientific sense. Typical of pseudoscientific propaganda, no matter how many politically-influenced agencies endorse it.

    The article posted below addresses most of the items on your Monsanto link. The only conclusion I can draw having read both, is that Monsanto's studies are terribly flawed, BY DESIGN --to hide negative physiological effects of rats ingesting GMOS, which Monsanto ( the self appointed health and statistics expert) unsurprisingly declares to be insignificant.

    Only the naiive/ ignorant would consider Monsanto's opinion medically relevant. They are not health experts. Findings on 20 rats for 3 months have little to no significance to the effects experienced by billions of people eating GMOs for decades across generations.
    Monsanto is a chemical corporation whose fiduciary duty is to maximize profits expanding markets for their chemicals and their chemicals' respective GMOs. Pretty simple to understand. Then again, maybe not.

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
    ― Upton Sinclair

    Debate on GMOs Health Risks after Statistical Findings in Regulatory Tests

    Joël Spiroux de Vendômois1, Dominique Cellier1,2, Christian Vélot1,3, Emilie Clair1,4, Robin Mesnage1,4, Gilles-Eric Séralini1,4

    1. CRIIGEN, 40 rue Monceau, 75008 Paris France
    2. University of Rouen, LITIS EA 4108, 76821 Mont Saint-Aignan, France
    3. University Paris-Sud, Bâtiment 360 91405 Orsay, France
    4. University of Caen, Institute of Biology, Risk Pole MRSH CNRS, EA2608, Esplanade de la Paix 14032 Caen Cedex, France
    How to cite this article:
    de Vendômois JS, Cellier D, Vélot C, Clair E, Mesnage R, Séralini GE. Debate on GMOs Health Risks after Statistical Findings in Regulatory Tests. Int J Biol Sci 2010; 6(6):590-598. Available from http://www.biolsci.org/v06p0590.htm
    Abstract

    We summarize the major points of international debate on health risk studies for the main commercialized edible GMOs. These GMOs are soy, maize and oilseed rape designed to contain new pesticide residues since they have been modified to be herbicide-tolerant (mostly to Roundup) or to produce mutated Bt toxins. The debated alimentary chronic risks may come from unpredictable insertional mutagenesis effects, metabolic effects, or from the new pesticide residues. The most detailed regulatory tests on the GMOs are three-month long feeding trials of laboratory rats, which are biochemically assessed. The tests are not compulsory, and are not independently conducted. The test data and the corresponding results are kept in secret by the companies. Our previous analyses of regulatory raw data at these levels, taking the representative examples of three GM maize NK 603, MON 810, and MON 863 led us to conclude that hepatorenal toxicities were possible, and that longer testing was necessary. Our study was criticized by the company developing the GMOs in question and the regulatory bodies, mainly on the divergent biological interpretations of statistically significant biochemical and physiological effects. We present the scientific reasons for the crucially different biological interpretations and also highlight the shortcomings in the experimental protocols designed by the company. The debate implies an enormous responsibility towards public health and is essential due to nonexistent traceability or epidemiological studies in the GMO-producing countries.

    Keywords: GMOs, Health risks, Pesticides, Regulatory toxicology, Animal tests

    Introduction and Context

    Top
    Introduction and Context
    Debate on the shortcomings of...
    Debate on statistical tests
    Consensus on statistical effects
    Divergent biological...
    Conclusions and perspectives
    Acknowledgements
    References
    The debate on the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) used for food and feed is still very lively throughout the world, more than 15 years after their first commercial release [3-5]. Huge social, economical, and political issues have been raised. Unfortunately, although some stakeholders claim that a history of safe use of GMOs can be upheld, there are no human or animal epidemiological studies to support such a claim as yet, in particular because of the lack of labeling and traceability in GMO-producing countries. As a matter of fact, 97% of edible GMOs among cultivated GMOs (soy, corn and oilseed rape or canola, excluding cotton) are grown in South and North America [6], where GMOs are not labeled. All these plants have been modified to tolerate and/or produce one or more pesticides [6], and contain therefore such residues at various levels [5]. Most are Roundup residues (it is a major herbicide used worldwide and tolerated by about 80% of GMOs). Other residues are from modified Bt insecticide toxins, which are directly synthesized by the GM plants from transgenes.

    The debate on health risks is first of all based on theoretical considerations, and second on the knowledge derived from mammalian experiments fed on GMOs. The latter experiments are not systematically performed, and can be part of non-compulsory regulatory tests. The scientific question about edible GMOs health risks amounts to how they have been tested and interpreted, especially in mammals. Nutritional tests with weight, bone mass, and for instance milk or meat production are available, as well as acute toxicological tests with recombinant proteins, in vitro digestibility of transgenic proteins, and limited compositional analysis among other data. However, the possible chronic side effects of pesticide residues are not scientifically assessed, whereas these edible GMOs were modified in order to either tolerate or produce such residues in the first place. In addition, unpredictable metabolic effects, such as metabolic interferences, or direct or indirect insertional mutagenesis consequences cannot be excluded. All these possibilities have been summarized (Fig. 1). For instance, insertion of the transgene in varieties producing Cry1Ab toxin caused a complex recombination event, leading to the synthesis of new RNA products encoding unknown proteins [7], or/and to metabolic pathways variations which caused up to 50% changes in measured osmolytes and branched aminoacids [8]. The frequency of such events in comparison to classical hybridization is by nature unpredictable and new proteomic technologies have shown to be effective in evaluating the potential collateral effects due to insertional mutagenesis [9].

    In order to analyze subchronic or chronic toxicological signs, it is more informative to focus on studies including numerous blood and organ parameters. Most of these are 90 day-long feeding regulatory trials on rats eating GM corn or soy. The raw data issued by the companies particularly attracted our interest. We obtained the said data by Court order and lawyers (since the data were previously kept secret). We recently published a second batch of new assessments [1, 2, 5]. We reviewed all of them, and they revealed significant statistical differences (~9%) which concentrate mostly on kidneys and livers, and are considered both by the companies and the official approval committees as irrelevant where the safety of GMOs is concerned [10].

    In fact, behind this scientific controversy, what is at stake really is the commercialization (or not) of GMOs around the world, and overall, the rules of scientific assessment that could be modified. The present rules for GMO risk assessment are mainly based on the concept of substantial equivalence that was accepted by OECD in 1993 and then included in the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) regulation (Part IX : Foods Derived From New Plants Varieties) : « In most cases the substances expected to become components of food as a result of genetic modification will be the same as or substantially similar to substances commonly found in food such as proteins, fats and oils, and carbohydrates. » Such a concept is subjected to debate in the scientific community because it is based on a simplistic view of living cells. In particular, it overlooks all the interactions between genes, and the direct or indirect potential metabolic consequences of insertional mutagenesis. This implies that GMOs are insufficiently evaluated. We realize that the requirement for longer and more detailed regulatory tests would reduce the profitability of GMOs, but protecting mammalian and human health seems even more essential in our views.

    Some official agencies authorizing GMOs consumption eventually decided not to take into account our published results [1, 2], and in particular the agencies defended Monsanto's opinions on their websites. Here, we review the arguments of the scientific debate for data interpretation:

    It is well known that there were different opinions over the interpretations of the significant differences in the blood and organs of rats eating GMOs in comparison to controls, especially in our counter-analyses on the raw data of three toxicological tests carried out by Monsanto, the results of which we obtained by Court decision [1, 2]. These tests pertain to three GM corns owned by Monsanto: MON 863 and MON 810 which are continuously producing a rootworm and a corn-borer insecticide, respectively, and NK 603 Roundup-tolerant maize, which contains Roundup herbicide residues. Although the European legislation requests transparency of health and environmental impacts in regulatory tests, the raw data were first considered as confidential by biotech firms. It is also true for all other commercialized GMOs, especially those varieties producing or tolerating one or several pesticides, for which the data should be made public.

    Fig 1
    Proposed mode of actions of agricultural GMOs and/or associated pesticides on health. Almost all GMOs disseminated in the environment are plants, namely soy, maize, cotton, and oilseed rape (1995-2010). Their genetic and phenotypic modifications are only herbicide tolerance and / or insecticide production (modified Bt toxins) in more than 99% cases. Thus they can be described as pesticide plants. Consequently, two major health risks are described: (1) due to mid or long term side effects, brought by new pesticide residues in food or feed, and directly due to the new genetic characteristic. These residues can be from herbicide(s) absorbed by tolerance (Roundup residues in more than 90% herbicide-tolerant GMOs) in most cases, or from new modified insecticide Bt toxins, mutated or truncated in all insecticide-GMOs. (2) Insertional mutagenesis linked to the genetic modification, or post-genomic metabolic interferences or derivations. These are direct or indirect less specific effects independent from the toxicology assessment of the transgene product. These unexpected possible consequences cannot be approached by gross substantial equivalence studies without metabolomic analyses. They can be invisible on the plant phenotype, but still able to induce long term toxicity after consumption, specific to each genetic transformation. The possible combined effects between all these impacts cannot be excluded, inducing chronic pathologies after regular consumption. Only long term testing (more than 3 months in mammals) could answer these possibilities. Thus, regulatory agencies must adapt their methods for health risk assessments of agricultural GMOs, taking into account associated pesticides and their formulations. They should also approach combined effects at different periods of life and on several generations, to be complete, overall when a new food/feed concerns billions of people without traditional knowledge of its consumption.

    (Click on the image to enlarge.)
    Debate on the shortcomings of the experimental design

    Top
    Introduction and Context
    Debate on the shortcomings of...
    Debate on statistical tests
    Consensus on statistical effects
    Divergent biological...
    Conclusions and perspectives
    Acknowledgements
    References
    All regulatory 90-day rat feeding studies with GMOs have been constructed on the same scheme. The shortcomings of the experimental design are underlined below and summarized (Table 1):

    a) Too small number of animals were studied: 10 individuals were measured for biochemical parameters out of 20 per group. This might be enough for long-term experiments, but not over such a short period of time, as naturally a small number of effects or only effects of low amplitude were induced, to be compared to a slowly developing chronic pathology. This kind of protocol could result in low power statistical tests and therefore too many false negative results (for example, it could be misleading, and induce by mistake the research worker to reject a possible effect of the consumption of GMOs).

    b) Too many control rats: the number of controls is four times higher in the regulatory tests that have been used all over the world to authorize the main GMOs. Such an imbalance between control and treated rats may conceal the visible effects. Out of 400 rats, there were only 80 eating GMOs (and only 40 biochemically analyzed), thus 4 groups of 10 animals, with 2 dosages (11 and 33% GMO in equilibrated diet), and 2 blood analyses per group (after 5 and 14 weeks). Both sexes were equally represented. But overall we judge the 320 “reference animals” too numerous in comparison to the treated ones. As only half of the rats were studied on all the biochemical and blood parameters, this means that the decisions were made only on 40 rats eating GMOs and assessed from a group of 400 animals, over 90 days.

    c) Too many control treatments: the 320 non-GM fed animals were treated in fact with 7 different diets which were supposed to represent a variability of the possible regimen. Six constituted the so-called “reference” groups with feed not demonstrated as substantially equivalent. Moreover, only two dosages in the control groups were chemically equivalent to the GM diets that were made with the isogenic maize or a corn close to the GM variety. But two doses are insufficient to study any dose-related effect.

    d) The rat was the only mammal fed with GMOs for 3 months.

    e) The regulatory test was only performed once for each GMO, which was then supposed to be eaten all over the world.

    f) The duration of 90 days is the longest test on file and only on young adult mammals; it was not long enough to observe chronic effects.

    g) The lack of developmental, reproductive as well as chronic or multi-generational tests is the subject of a heated debate for the GMOs currently available on the market.

    This experimental protocol from Monsanto was accepted by several official committees, first confidentially. This procedure is a point of controversy not only with Monsanto, but also with the agencies that have published opinions on our work [1, 2, 5]. We will refer to their opinions collectively as Monsanto et al. in the following, unless otherwise specified, to simplify the reading of this paper.

    Table 1
    Insufficiencies of currently used tests, criteria and interpretations; proposed improvements for GMOs health risks assessment. We reviewed here the current protocols used by industry and regulatory committees in commercialized agricultural GMOs. The feeding trials described in column 1 were performed in order to obtain GMOs commercialization, via regulatory agencies. The improvements proposed (column 2) will adapt these tests to modern knowledge in toxicology, in order to avoid the main consequences of overlooked risks (column 3).

    Critical parameters and interpretations Present regulatory assessment Improvements proposed Main consequences if improvements not applied
    Number of animals / group 10 measured on 20 /group At least 20 rats for 3 months, 10 or more for 24 months / group Low statistical power
    Number of controls versus treatments Too many reference or control groups (320)/ 80 GMO-treated only Avoid to multiply completely different control groups Risk of concealing statistical effects
    Species Rat only (in mammals with blood analyses) Rat and other(s) species such as Mice / Rabbit Results too much species-specific
    Replication of toxicological test Only once At least two Reproducibility, Reliability not proven
    Length Subchronic (3 months) Chronic (24 months) + developmental + transgenerational Missing long term, fetal or transgenerational effects
    Doses 2 doses 3 doses Missing dose response relationship
    Type of treatment GMO GMOs with/without associated pesticides Confusion between mutagenesis / pesticides effects
    Food composition Substantial equivalence More detailed composition with specific pesticides residues and metabolites, adjuvants Missing potential contaminants and combined effects
    Norms followed OECD 408 strictly or less OECD 408-453 with other details Lack of hormonal sex specific data for instance
    Number of blood analyses 2 measures only after 5 and 14 weeks At least 3 the first trimester Missing punctual phenomena
    Biological interpretations Dose-effects “Dose-related”: proportional effects only taken into account with two doses ! Non linear effects to be studied (U or J curves) Risk to avoid endocrine, carcinogenic, immune long-term effects…
    Biological interpretations Sex specificity Effects studied only if occurring in both sexes Sex specific effects to be studied Risk to avoid endocrine-specific effects
    Biochemical modifications linked to histopathology Necessary Not always possible in 3 months Risk of false negative results
    Amplitude of effects studied Effects inside of undefined historical norm of the species not studied Any statistical difference with controls to be studied Risk of false negative results
    Final biological conclusion for an effect Should be plausible for the regulatory committee Necessity of more objective criteria: ex. lengthening of the test Major risk of subjective interpretation
    Debate on statistical tests

    Top
    Introduction and Context
    Debate on the shortcomings of...
    Debate on statistical tests
    Consensus on statistical effects
    Divergent biological...
    Conclusions and perspectives
    Acknowledgements
    References
    If false positive effects are the concern of Monsanto et al. as well as of Séralini et al. [1, 5], we have underlined that false negative effects may be also amplified by the poor experimental design that curbs enough statistical power. Moreover, the fact that EFSA and HCB asked for a revision of statistical methods [13-14], implies that the accepted regulatory tests are insufficient for the time being, at least at this level. Therefore, as such, the experimental protocols admitted by Monsanto et al., even if advocated by the OECD, do not appear capable of offering statistical proofs of health risks nor of their absence except for highly noticeable health risks. Monsanto's tests should have been rejected by the international committees, if this argument fits. Only early warnings of toxicity can be suggested now, as already indicated [2].

    Moreover, it has to be noticed that Séralini et al. [1] and Spiroux de Vendômois et al. [2] did not try to test mathematically, as a whole, whether there had been a “GMO effect” on all the parameters: dosage, duration and sex. It was rather established by sex, duration and dosage, a list of all the parameters differentially expressed between control groups, and groups fed with GMOs. Note that Monsanto (raw data of MON 810, MON 863 and NK 603) do not calculate more, and even less, since the 11% dosage is not considered, if the highest dose of 33% is not different. Contrary to what Monsanto claims, the number and the nature of the signs we emphasize are not really different from the ones used in their reports. However, our revealed signs are classified by organs and take into account the differential effect related to dosage and sex. The difference between Monsanto's conclusions and ours is, again, about the biological interpretation rather than mere statistical points.

    However, statistics can be discussed. The use of the ANOVA by Monsanto should not exempt them from doing an assessment of the power of the tests. At no time in the company studies this aspect was highlighted, although it is essential. As soon as a statistical test is used (a Student t test as well as an ANOVA), the result interpretation can only be based on the one on the p-value that allows an estimation of the risk α of a Type I error when the null hypothesis is rejected, and on the other hand on the statistical power 1-β that allows an estimation of the risk β of a Type II error, when the null hypothesis is accepted. This power allows the estimation of the effect size. It is not because a hypothesis is not rejected that it is inevitably true.

    We know that this test power depends on the sample size, on the Type I risk α, and on the effect size we want to pick up. In Spiroux de Vendômois et al. [2], the only example of the power calculus in a Student test is just an illustration and not a demonstration of the fact that Monsanto's power tests are weak, even if they are true. The statistical power is never calculated for any of their ANOVA.

    As a matter of fact, in their regulatory reports Monsanto et al. use an ANOVA without statistical power for each parameter, both for each sex and duration (week 5 and 14). Even if there are ANOVA calculations, they lead to the implementation of a large number of statistical tests: 4 times the number of parameters (4 = 2 sexes x 2 durations). Also in this case of multiple comparisons, the study of the false positives is not specific to the Student t test, and is not treated in these Monsanto's studies.

    Our goal while reviewing Monsanto's data [1, 2] was to make a list of all the differentially expressed parameters. Thus it was essential to suggest a study of the false positives. The FDR method, accepted with Benjamini-Yekutieli's correction, makes it possible to take into account the potential dependency between the parameters. Also, we disagree the argument which claims that what is picked up by this method (but still statistically different) is inevitably obtained “by chance” (developed by some experts or agencies, Le Monde, 10/02/2010). The outcome still needs to be interpreted biologically.

    The normal use conditions of the Student t tests are not always satisfied: small samples (equal or fewer than 10) in subchronic tests, normality's rejection by the Shapiro test and non homogeneity of variances. Thus we did apply nonparametric methods. But, even if Monsanto do make it clear (in all the “materials and methods” section of their reports of the raw data) that they do the same, there is not any application of it in their statistical test data: for each parameter, each duration, each sex, only the ANOVA is indicated, even when the data normality or the variance homogeneity is not satisfied. And yet, the physiological interpretation is supposed to be based on these results.

    Consensus on statistical effects

    Not only does Monsanto admit major statistical differences for some parameters, but most of our results demonstrate huge discrepancies [2]. Significant and non-significant effects correspond to Monsanto data (94-96% of the total, depending on the GMO, deduced from Table E p 723 [2]). In the comment of our study, EFSA [15] admits the presence of visible statistical effects in the results « The significant differences highlighted by Spiroux de Vendômois et al. have all been considered previously by the GMO panel... ». Ergo, the major scientific disagreements are only about the biological interpretations of the statistical effects.

    There remains a discussion about the weight curves for MON 863 treated rats which we have published [1], but that were not in the original report of Monsanto. The French committee CGB criticized the failure to take into account the individual variability for each rat in our first paper [1]. However, even when taking that into account, they admitted a significant effect on the female weights' variations of the GMO-fed group in their report on our work, which was used by EFSA, but still disregarded in EFSA's opinion. The authorities should then have reacted to such a serious sign. We certainly consider this as a shortcoming.

    Divergent biological interpretations

    Top
    Introduction and Context
    Debate on the shortcomings of...
    Debate on statistical tests
    Consensus on statistical effects
    Divergent biological...
    Conclusions and perspectives
    Acknowledgements
    References
    Therefore, the biological interpretations become crucial after a global statistical consensus. Two possible issues here: either a demonstration of innocuousness (Monsanto et al.'s opinion), or disturbing disruptions that should be followed by longer tests before approvals (in our opinion).

    There are at least two arguments used by EFSA [15] and Monsanto et al. in general, to reject our study [2]. First, they said that our data were only presented in percentages and not in absolute values. On the contrary, we indeed published absolute values to give an idea of the crude effects for MON 810, NK 603 [[2], pp 724-5] and MON 863 [[1], p 600]. However, it does not change the results in any way. Secondly, the parameter values in our studies are compared to the controls and references (boxes and double boxes in the tables), contrary to what was claimed in EFSA's official opinion.

    In addition, biological interpretations strongly diverge between us and Monsanto et al., on several key-points. We have previously developed this debate, at least in part, in two reviews [5, 10], and suggested improvements in regulatory tests: relative to transparency, length, with a duration corresponding to the lifespan of animals (2 years for the rat in laboratory for instance, as is done for some pesticides and drugs). It has become essential to organize counter-evaluation.

    EFSA and other national official committees have accepted to recommend the commercial release and consumption of these GMOs, based on Monsanto's own tests and interpretation. The main differences between their biological conclusions and ours, following statistical differences in biochemical and organ parameters, are listed below:

    a) For the record, we would like to state that besides the controversy on the shortcomings of the protocol design outlined above, any early sign of difference should be collected in a table to get a global picture of the animal physiology after GMO consumption. It is really impossible within 90 days, with a single experiment worldwide and such a small number of rats, to get a consistent toxicological picture, as requested by Monsanto et al., and to consider the disturbing signs they indicate. This is a major point, because we are concerned by possible chronic pathologies.

    Some effects may not be of major amplitude as yet; however, some are. For instance, the increase of the hearts' weight by 11% in males for NK603, or 40% increase in plasmatic triglycerides in females eating MON 863 (together with a pre-diabetic profile), could be considered as enough to trigger a moratorium. As a matter of fact, Monsanto did not repeat their studies or made them take place over a longer period of time. They even routinely prevent independent reproducibility by refusing to supply the material needed [12] and by blocking access to confidential data, as they did by bringing the case before the Court of Appeal in Germany [1] (however, they lost the case).

    b) The statistical differences are often considered by Monsanto et al. between the GM-treated groups and the so-called “historical standards of the species” which are undefined, as the also undefined “normal range”. This approach makes it possible for them to consider larger variations as normal, for subjective reasons. The differences have to be considered first with the closest control group. It is only afterwards that it might be possible to compare it with experimental reference groups (Monsanto et al. did that first) receiving a non-equivalent regimen (for instance where salts or sugars are concerned). For the record, we wish to underline that the reference groups are still too numerous in comparison to the treated rats.

    c) The significant effects are taken into account by Monsanto et al. only when they are similar in both sexes. This is not acceptable, since by the current knowledge [5] chronic pathologies, as well as the endocrine disturbances or some cancers, are usually sex-related and not proportional to the carcinogen dose taken over a short period of time. The data specificity of the parameters changing and depending on sex has just been admitted in Monsanto's answer to our study ([16], p. 12).

    d) For Monsanto et al., the absence of dose-dependent effects is a reason to overlook the significant differences. This is also unacceptable, simply because, for instance, the potential endocrine disrupting antagonistic actions need to be taken into account [17]. Moreover, it has to be underlined that dose-dependency cannot be studied only with the two-dose study presented to the authorities by Monsanto (11 and 33% of GMO in the diet).

    e) Since anatomo-pathological lesions or plasmatic biochemical disruptions could arise long after the beginning of a treatment, it is not necessary to establish correlations between these statistical differences and histopathological findings (overall within three months) to conclude on a disturbing sign, despite what Monsanto et al are claiming. In addition, histological slides and embedded organs are the property of the company, and were not double-checked by official committees or independent authors. We ask for an official counter-analysis, in particular of the male kidneys in these studies, that concentrate more than 43% of all disrupted parameters in a meta-analysis of all published data on commercialized GMOs [10].

    We already know that during the MON 863 study, Monsanto highlighted anatomic signs of “chronic progressive nephropathy” on GM-fed male rats' kidneys. However, Monsanto did not see these signs as being noteworthy due to the fact that, according to them, they were well known to occur in old Sprague-Dawley rats. This explanation was then publicly repeated by the president of the CGB, the French evaluation committee for the GMO in question. But these rats were only 5 months old, and still quite young at the end of the experiment. Oddly enough, these anatomo-pathological signs on kidneys were not noticed during the studies on MON 810 and NK603 maize. Yet the rats were the same age and from the same strain.

    f) The chemical composition of food/feed is an important indication. However all insecticide toxins/herbicide residues/unintended or unknown metabolites (due for instance to insertional mutagenesis or new metabolites) are not assessed; thus the substantial equivalence with non GM products is not a proof of innocuousness.

    g) A bias for biological interpretations could also be seen in the fact that the regulatory toxicological tests were presented and commented for the authorities only by the companies developing industrial products, and this has been the case, for at least the last fifty years. Few studies have been conducted by independent groups such as Malatesta et al. [17-21] who found ultrastructural alterations of hepatic cells of mice that had eaten Roundup- tolerant GMOs. Finamore's study, which focused on an insecticide-producing variety, suggested gut and peripheral immune response to GM crop ingestion [22]. No industry-funded studies suggest potential side effects of GMO consumption. It is a well-known problem; for instance in the bisphenol A controversy, the meta-analysis of all studies performed showed that none of the industry-funded studies showed adverse effects of bisphenol A, whereas 90% of government funded ones showed hazards at various levels and various doses [23].

    A proposition for studies conducted independently from companies to tackle this issue has been made to the Council of European Ministers by some of us [24].

    Conclusions and perspectives

    Top
    Introduction and Context
    Debate on the shortcomings of...
    Debate on statistical tests
    Consensus on statistical effects
    Divergent biological...
    Conclusions and perspectives
    Acknowledgements
    References
    Controversy on biological interpretations is a usual way of advancement in science. It would however have been beneficial for the acceptance of biotechnologies by the public at large, to close this scientific debate by longer, more detailed, and transparent toxicological tests on GMOs, and in particular twenty years ago when the most widely grown GMOs were still experimental.

    We wish to reassert that our work does not claim to demonstrate the chronic toxicity of the GMOs in question, especially since it is based on the data originating from insufficient tests that were accepted by regulatory authorities and Monsanto et al., a fact for which we are not in any way responsible. For the regulatory authorities, as well as Monsanto et al, these tests prove chronic innocuousness for mammalian and human public health. And they claim it is not essential to demonstrate the GMOs innocuousness. This again raises the same issues and consequences. We have revealed the inefficiency both of these tests and of their statistical analysis and biological interpretations, for the various reasons detailed above. However, some of the in vivo 90-day tests are not performed any longer today to get worldwide commercial authorizations, especially for GMO with “stacked events” (i.e., producing one or several insecticides and tolerating one or two herbicides), and this is even more seriously inadequate since the so-called “cocktail effects” are not taken into consideration.

    The same controversy took place (February 2010) in India, in relation to the authorization process for a transgenic eggplant that produces a new Bt insecticide. This authorization was based on three-month tests on three mammals and other animals for shorter times, which presented significant biological effects after this GM consumption [10, 25]. The same arguments were used in the debate in India. But in this case, the government decided to take the time to study chronic health effects, following our expertise, and therefore to implement a moratorium [26].

    In the present case, we wish to underline that the commercial GMOs in question contain pesticide residues, some of which have been demonstrated as human cellular endocrine disruptors at levels around 1000 times below their presence in some GM feed [27]. Such Roundup residues are present in more than 80% of edible cultivated GMOs. This does not exclude other possible effects.

    As a conclusion, we call for the promotion of transparent, independent and reproducible health studies for new commercial products, the dissemination of which implies consequences on a large scale. Lifetime studies for laboratory animals consuming GMOs must be performed, by contrast to what is done today, like the two-year long tests on rats for some pesticides or some drugs. Such tests could be associated to transgenerational, reproductive or endocrine research studies. And moreover, shortcomings in experimental designs may raise major questions on other chemical authorizations.

    Acknowledgements

    We are grateful to the administrative and scientific councils of CRIIGEN for fruitful discussions and to Herrade Hemmerdinger for the English revision of the manuscript.

    References

    Top
    Introduction and Context
    Debate on the shortcomings of...
    Debate on statistical tests
    Consensus on statistical effects
    Divergent biological...
    Conclusions and perspectives
    Acknowledgements
    References
    1. Séralini GE, Cellier D, Spiroux de Vendômois J. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007;52:596-602

    2. Spiroux de Vendômois J, Roullier F, Cellier D. et al. A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Int J Biol Sci. 2009;5:706-26

    3. Domingo JL. Health risks of GM foods: many opinions but few data. Science. 2000;288:1748-9

    4. Domingo JL. Toxicity studies of genetically modified plants: a review of the published literature. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2007;47:721-33

    5. Séralini GE, Spiroux de Vendomois J, Cellier D. et al. How subchronic and chronic health effects can be neglected for GMOs, pesticides or chemicals. Int J Biol Sci. 2009;5:438-43

    6. Clive J. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2009. ISAAA Brief. 2009;41:1-44

    7. Rosati A, Bogani P, Santarlasci A. et al. Characterisation of 3' transgene insertion site and derived mrnas in mon810 yieldgard maize. Plant Mol Biol. 2008;67:271-81

    8. Manetti C, Bianchetti C, Casciani L. et al. A metabonomic study of transgenic maize (zea mays) seeds revealed variations in osmolytes and branched amino acids. J Exp Bot. 2006;57:2613-25

    9. Natarajan SS, Xu C, Cregan P. et al. Utility of proteomics techniques for assessing protein expression. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2009;54:32-6

    10. Séralini GE, Mesnage R, Clair E. et al. Genetically modified crops consumption at large scale: possible negative health impacts due to holes in assessment. Environ Sci Pollut Res. submitted

    11. Support to Gilles-Eric Séralini and his co-authors in respect of scientific controversy and counter evaluation. CRIIGEN. http://www.criigen.org/SiteEn/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=80&Itemid=119

    12. Waltz E. GM crops: Battlefield. Nature. 2009;461:27-32

    13. EFSA. Statistical considerations for the safety evaluation of GMOs. EFSA Journal. 2010;8:1250-59

    14. HCB. Avis sur le dossier EFSA/GMO/NL/2005/22. France: HCB, French Council of Biotechnologies. 2009

    15. GMO Panel deliberations on the paper by de Vendômois et al, 2009. EFSA. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/event/gmo100127.htm

    16. Monsanto. Response: de Vendômois (Séralini) et al. US: Monsanto. 2009

    17. Moslemi S, Seralini GE. Estrogens and Breast Cancer: Aromatase and Activity Disruption. Trends in Breast Cancer Research. 2005:101-127

    18. Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudon S. et al. Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Function. 2002;27:173-180

    19. Malatesta M, Biggiogera M, Manuali E. et al. Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem. 2003;47:385-388

    20. Malatesta M, Baldelli B, Battistelli S. et al. Reversibility of hepatocyte nuclear modifications in mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem. 2005;49:237-42

    21. Vecchio L, Cisterna B, Malatesta M. et al. Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem. 2004;48:449-454

    22. Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S. et al. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric Food Chem. 2008;56:11533-9

    23. Vom Saal FS, Hughes C. An extensive new literature concerning low-dose effects of bisphenol a shows the need for a new risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113:926-33

    24. 2008. Lepage Reports: CRIIGEN. http://www.criigen.org/SiteEn/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=77&Itemid=116

    25. Jayaraman KS. Transgenic aubergine put on ice. Nature. 2009;461:1041

    26. 2009. Effets on health and environment of transgenic (or GM) Bt Brinjal: CRIIGEN. http://www.criigen.org/SiteFr//images/stories/Dossiers/Divers/btbrinjal-ges_%200109.pdf

    27. Gasnier C, Dumont C, Benachour N. et al. Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines. Toxicology. 2009;262:184-91

    Author contact

    Corresponding author: Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini, Institute of Biology, EA 2608, University of Caen, Esplanade de la Paix, 14032 Caen Cedex, France. Phone +33 2 31 56 56 84; Fax +33 2 56 53 20; Email: criigen@unicaen.fr.

    Received 2010-7-5
    Accepted 2010-9-24
    Published 2010-10-5

    By :
    Ena Wizeman
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • @Melinda Miller: I couldn't believe it when I read Monsanto's non-peer-reviewed 'criticism' that you recommend of the peer-reviewed de Vendomois study--Monsanto is taking refuge in the argument that these toxic effects were not biologically relevant! This term is not scientifically defined by Monsanto and is meaningless. See
    http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/3-health-hazards-of-gm-foods/3-1-myth-gm-foods-are-safe-to-eat
    --for more information.

    It will be of no use to people who suffer toxic effects from eating GMOs to be told that though they may be ill, their condition is not biologically relevant/meaningful! In science, an effect is either statistically significant or not. The toxic effects found in Monsanto's studies were statistically significant but those GMOs were approved anyway. And now Monsanto argues that they are not biologically relevant... It would be a joke if it were not so serious.

    By :
    Elisa
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • I have to chuckle at the links to videos featuring Jeffrey Smith. Try real science rather than the JS variety.

    A discussion of Mr Smith's 'science'

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frY-aY9FCdY

    By :
    brian
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • Anyone who obejcts to Jeffrey Smith as a person or as an authority can just read the peer-reviewed scientific studies his books cite and decide on the merits of the data themselves. Just as I don't have to like or approve of a news anchor in order to listen to and take note of the news. On GMOs, the evidence alone, as referenced in his books, is convincing -- these products are risky.

    By :
    Farah Rukh
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • @brian Logical Fallacies 101:

    Genetic fallacy

    In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of argumentum ab auctoritate or of argumentum ad hominem, depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:

    If P then Q
    Q is true
    P is false
    Therefore Q is false

    When the origin of evidence or of premises is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of law, for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

    But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

    As an example, Gregor Mendel established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding scientists, using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.

    By :
    Vierotchka
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • @Vierotchka

    "in general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable"

    Because those opposed to GM would never do that of course ;-)

    Rather than reviewing evidence and then arriving at a conclusion Smith cherry picks data to support his anti-GM view. Another word for this is 'misinformation'.

    http://academicsreview.org/

    By :
    brian
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • @Vierotchka

    "in general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable"

    Because those opposed to GM would never do that of course ;-)

    Rather than reviewing evidence and then arriving at a conclusion Smith cherry picks data to support his anti-GM view. Another word for this is 'misinformation'.

    http://academicsreview.org/

    By :
    brian
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • What the comments have done, has shown many are skeptical of the genitically modified. Maybe its time to look carefully and wait.

    By :
    Michael Kadin
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • What the comments have done, has shown many are skeptical of the genitically modified. Maybe its time to look carefully and wait.

    By :
    Michael Kadin
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • @brian I can't speak for others, but I certainly don't do that - it seems though that you certainly do.

    By :
    Vierotchka
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • Let's pretend GMO is safe to eat.
    The business is still risky for poor farmers making the extra investment and commitment to these proprietary seeds. Crops can still fail and dependence on credit to establish an artificial ecosystem that is not as miraculous as advertised will further drive the desperately poor to the brink.

    By :
    Rene Prieto Polymeris
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • @Melinda Miller: I take you up on this; please do send me some contact information. You will find my details on the Net, I live in Luxembourg. Thanks!

    @Rene Prieto Polymeris: I agree with comment.

    By :
    Pietro Fornara
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • Amazing to me how people will ignore replicated studies and proof over more than 2 decades of testing that have proven there are no bad affects from biotech crops. Kudos to the scientists who are trying to have their voices heard. Biotechnology is one of the tools we will need to produce enough food to feed a growing population with shrinking land base.

    By :
    Vanessa Kummer
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • @Vanessa Kummer - it does not advance the cause of science to pretend that all the peer-reviewed studies showing harm to lab animals fed GM crops, as well as studies showing unintended environmental harm, simply do not exist. Please begin by checking out the studies collected in this document: http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/gmo-myths-and-truths
    There are plenty to choose from!

    By :
    Farah Rukh
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • @Vanessa Kummer your claim that GM will be needed to feed the growing population assumes that GM crops yield better than non-GM. It would be nice to know your sources for that, as there's plenty of evidence showing that GM yields are lower than non-GM. Or perhaps you think that GM crops will be better at tolerating drought? Er no, conventional breeding does better at producing drought-tolerant crops.

    By :
    Peter Russell
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • As farmers, it has been our experience that we are getting better yields along with using less chemicals, less fuel and less trips across our ground. Overall, biotech has helped us farm more sustainably and more efficiently. There are also traits in the pipeline that will be drought resistant, as well as varieties that will have increased yield. Utilizing science and technology is making food production better.

    By :
    Vanessa Kummer
    - Posted on :
    25/07/2012
  • @Vanessa Kummer GM crops typically have lower yields than non-GM
    http://earthopensource.org/index.php/5-gm-crops-impacts-on-the-farm-and-environment/5-1-myth-gm-crops-increase-yield-potential
    need more pesticides
    http://earthopensource.org/index.php/5-gm-crops-impacts-on-the-farm-and-environment/5-2-myth-gm-crops-decrease-pesticide-use
    and there are already drought-tolerant non-GM crops so who wants to wait for the GM varieties?
    http://earthopensource.org/index.php/7-feeding-the-world/7-3-myth-gm-is-needed-to-provide-the-crops-that-will-enable-us-to-survive-the-challenges-ahead
    So maybe you are an unusual case.

    By :
    Peter Russell
    - Posted on :
    26/07/2012
  • No surprise here, she was spotted as pro-GMOs since beginning

    "EU chief scientist a GM evangelist" (06 December 2011)

    http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/13536

    She also worked with Gates FOundation between 2009/2011 (it's written in her CV on BEPA website)... No surprise she will defend GMOs the same way Gates & Cie do.

    By :
    Anne glover
    - Posted on :
    26/07/2012
  • @Anne Glover - good find, well done!

    By :
    Vierotchka
    - Posted on :
    26/07/2012
  • This woman represents a an industry whose aggressive tactics to further it's Market Hegemony are nefarious in and of themselves. Her claims of "Science" to support her view of GMO "Harmlessness" are facetious at best. She could have as well helped draft the 2012 US Farm Bill, which is nothing but backdoor financing for the same industry. Keep an eye on the Monsanto-DuPont Civil Litigations-the "dirty laundry" is already starting to get wrung out.

    Perhaps she should just resign, go back to being a Bio-tech lobbyist, before she convinces an EU industry to kill innocent people with her trite assurances.

    By :
    R Andrew Ohge
    - Posted on :
    26/07/2012
  • I am seriously fed up with my tax money being spent to pay people like Glover to propagandise for the GM industry though the infamous "third party advocacy" public relations technique (where you put your marketing message in the mouth of an apparently independent "expert"). The industry has its own huge PR budget without paying for this woman to churn out unsubstantiated claims to promote GM foods.

    By :
    Peter Russell
    - Posted on :
    26/07/2012
  • Well said, Mr Russell.

    In the EU, at least you have labeling. In the US, the Farm Bill for 2012-2017 is set to finance Bio-tech through subsidies and payouts-without informing the tax payer.

    Right now, the industry is using every mouthpiece it can "buy" to demonize the very idea of labeling.

    It's a blatant case of "double-dipping", not to mention using some of the most facetious arguments I've ever heard: "It'll hurt [poor people/farmers/food stores], deprive consumers of food options...and they get worse from there.

    I think Consumers the world over are waking up to this nightmare. Ms Glover is a pathetic shill-and one has to take a harder look at whoever "opened the door for her".

    By :
    R Andrew Ohge
    - Posted on :
    26/07/2012
  • Janet Glover said “There is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health or environmental health, so that’s pretty robust evidence, and I would be confident in saying that there is no more risk in eating GMO food than eating conventionally farmed food,”

    Wow... this statement clearly show that Janet Glover is a liar.

    More and more people are noe beginning to understand that the technology behind the living GMOs that are used outside closed laboratories, is nothing else than FRAUDULANT SCIENCE.

    The GMO scientist and the companies behind e.g. genetically modified food-plants, are not in control of the technology. They have no clue about all the different unintended changes in the plant DNA, and they are not able to control the spread of the patented genes from the GM-crops to conventional and organic crops.

    Note that 99,99 percent of all cultivated GMO-crops are either plants that are genetically modified to tolerate high doses of super-toxic herbicides like Glufosinat Ammonium (which by the way is so toxic that Norway authorities has banned it), and Roundup (or Glyphosate).... which should have been banned many years ago, or they are genetically modified to produce toxic proteins in all parts of the plants. These properties has NO benefits for the environment, groundwater, livestock or consumers. How is more poison in our food, water and environment ever going to be a benefit?

    Note that in EU, more than 42 GMO plants are alloved in food and feed. Allmost all of these are either sprayed with the super-toxic herbicides mentioned above, and/or they contain the toxic CRY-genes which makes the hole plant toxic. None of these (probably) GMOs are properly tested (see lecture below by professor Gilles-Eric Seralini):

    GMO Risk Assessments Based on Bad Science - You the Guinea Pig (video):
    http://www.monsanto.no/index.php/en/environment/gmo/gmo-videos/190-gmo-risk-assessments-based-on-bad-science-you-the-guinea-pig

    Here is a few examples of what has went totall wrong with the GMOs that Janet Glover is lying about:

    GM-Soy linked to health damage in pigs - Danish Dossier
    http://www.monsanto.no/index.php/en/environment/gmo/gmo-news/192-gm-soy-linked-to-health-damage-in-pigs-danish-dossier

    Jerry Rosman, An Iowa Pig Farmer, lost many of is pigs because they was poisoned by the GM-plants they ate (video):
    http://vimeo.com/20237421

    GMO eggplant confirmed to be toxic:
    http://www.monsanto.no/index.php/en/environment/gmo/gmo-news/173-gmo-eggplant-confirmed-to-be-toxic

    GMO Bt cotton linked to livestock death in India:
    http://www.monsanto.no/index.php/en/environment/gmo/gmo-news/117-gmo-bt-cotton-linked-to-livestock-deaths-in-india

    Monsanto's herbicide Roundup linked to birth defects in Argentina's agricultural areas:
    http://www.monsanto.no/index.php/en/environment/gmo/gmo-news/92-monsantos-herbicide-roundup-linked-to-birth-defects-in-argentinas-agricultural-areas

    Syngenta Charged for Covering up Livestock Deaths from GM Corn:
    http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/14000-syngenta-charged-for-covering-up-livestock-deaths-from-gm-corn

    Dr. Huber on how Glyphosate and GMO destroy soil quality - affecting health of plants, animals and humans (video):
    http://www.monsanto.no/index.php/en/environment/gmo/gmo-videos/179-dr-huber-on-how-glyphosate-and-gmo-destroy-soil-quality-affecting-health-of-plants-animals-and-humans

    Here are some facts about those GMOs and patent on seeds:

    The Future of Food (video):
    http://www.monsanto.no/index.php/en/environment/gmo/gmo-videos/124-the-future-of-food

    Seeds of Freedom (video):
    http://www.monsanto.no/index.php/en/environment/gmo/gmo-videos/172-seeds-of-freedom

    Genetically modified food - NOT needed to ensure food supply (video):
    http://www.monsanto.no/index.php/en/environment/gmo/gmo-videos/149-genetically-modified-food-not-needed-to-ensure-food-supply

    By :
    Tore B. Krudtaa
    - Posted on :
    27/07/2012
  • @Tore B Krudtaa

    At least try and get the name right. *Anne* Glover. Next, read again what she said "There is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health or environmental health"

    Notice the word 'substantiated'? It means that, while there are plenty of anti-GM blogs and articles, none of them stand up to scrutiny.

    By :
    brian
    - Posted on :
    27/07/2012
  • @brian Are you following the Goebbels tactic of repeating the same falsehood so many times in the hope that it becomes accepted as truth? As has been said before on this thread, and quite apart from the "anti-GM blogs and articles" that you cite, there are MANY peer reviewed published studies showing harm from GM foods.

    The fact that Glover either doesn't know about them or is denying their existence, doesn't make them go away. These studies are cited in this section of the report GMO Myths & Truths:
    http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/3-health-hazards-of-gm-foods

    By :
    Peter Russell
    - Posted on :
    27/07/2012
  • @Melinda Miller:

    I take you up on this.
    Please do send me some contact information.

    You will find my details on the Net, I live in Luxembourg. Just Google my name and country together.

    Thanks!

    By :
    Pietro Fornara
    - Posted on :
    27/07/2012
  • @Pietro Fornara I wish you luck in attracting "Melinda Miller" to a meeting. Her preference for Monsanto marketing claims over peer reviewed published data by independent scientists suggests at least a possibility that she may fall into this category of 'person':
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/may/14/greenpolitics.digitalmedia

    By :
    Peter Russell
    - Posted on :
    27/07/2012
  • Mercola.com has a multitude of scientific articles explaining the hazards of GMO (OGM)s and the pesticides they require. Farmers in Argentina have successfully sued Monsanto. Farmers in the southern US state of GA have had to leave acres fallow because pig weed has mutated and is so strong it will break the disks on plowing equipment.
    John Dalli, EU Commissioner apparently doesn't have the best of reputations in Malta for other reasons. He is pro GMOs. The EU Chief Scientific Advisor, Anne Glover, was a professor of biology at Aberdeen in Scotland. In 2011 Monsanto gave them $10 million dollar BBISP grant via Filipe Luis Savio of Brazil through their ESALQ-USP Researcher program. Part of that will also include Cornell. Now she says, no scientific evidence against GMOs.

    By :
    Rette
    - Posted on :
    27/07/2012
  • @Peter Russell

    Go away and read again what Anne Glover said. There is no *substantiated* evidence against GM.

    Let’s pick one piece of ‘science’ at random from the link you posted shall we?

    “Rats fed GM tomatoes developed stomach lesions (sores or ulcers).”

    Which references, by way of ‘proof’:

    http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/17/ofhlkv1.gif

    But, oddly, doesn’t reference this:

    http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/section-1/1-2-gm-tomatoes-proven-safe/

    See the problem?

    By :
    brian
    - Posted on :
    27/07/2012
  • Smith did a reply to this Academics Review piece here:
    http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12771
    Gives a pretty good argument for trusting the FDA scientists over Academics Review.
    There is no reason to cite such a flawed piece of reasoning as in the Academics Review piece.

    By :
    Peter Russell
    - Posted on :
    27/07/2012
  • I am not sure why we are expected to believe 'Academics Review' (a smear site against J Smith which is emphatically not peer reviewed) over and above the real findings of harm discovered by a biotech company (Calgene) on its own GM tomato. Not that we trust the findings of GM companies as a rule, but when even they find their own GM foods are dangerous we'd better sit up and take note. However, I hope readers of this page will simply look at the FDA scientists' documents and decide for themselves - since presumably Calgene's actual studies, like most industry studies on GM foods, are not available for public scrutiny.

    By :
    Farah Rukh
    - Posted on :
    27/07/2012
  • I see Vanessa Kummer, who posted enthusiastically here on GM is chair of the United Soybean Board, which 'partners' with Monsanto.
    http://www.agbioforum.org/v6n12/v6n12a07-durham.htm
    How depressing.
    @brian If Glover wants to convince us that there is no "substantiated" evidence showing harm from GM foods then she must rebut not only the initial Calgene Flavr Savr study, but every one of the studies showing harm from GM foods cited here:
    http://earthopensource.org/index.php/3-health-hazards-of-gm-foods
    Unfortunately Glover doesn't cite evidence for her assertions.

    By :
    Peter Russell
    - Posted on :
    27/07/2012
  • I have a suggestion...let Ms Glover go on an independently monitored GMO ONLY diet for the next six months, then be checked over by an independent physician before, during and after the experience. I suggest she might have an epiphany from the experience.

    She likely WON'T do it-she KNOWS better, yet expects the working class EU Citizen to do this permanently.

    Leadership by example?

    By :
    R Andrew Ohge
    - Posted on :
    27/07/2012
  • @R Andrew Ohge: A toxicologist who was at one of the first meetings where the GM industry and government representatives met to decide how GMOs should be regulated, said the topic of how GM foods could be tested for human safety arose.

    At this meeting the toxicologist said the only way to do it was to do long term animal tests first (these are not done by industry or required by regulators anywhere) and if no red light appeared, then do a carefully controlled long-term study on human volunteers, whose diet would have to be carefully controlled.

    After he said this, there was silence in the room. Then an industry person said, "But if we did that, the people fed the GM diet might get sick and then they would sue us."

    Another silence. The topic was never raised again, either in that meeting or in any further discussions between industry and 'regulators'.

    By :
    Farah Rukh
    - Posted on :
    27/07/2012
  • If it wasn't that this IS such a serious topic, I'd be rolling around on the floor. The irony of the "Industry Person's" statement is bouncing off the walls.

    (Come on, Ms. Glover-you KNOW you're not going to live forever, anyway-right?)

    By :
    R Andrew Ohge
    - Posted on :
    27/07/2012
  • Iil n'y a aucun intervenat qui un'idèe precise de ce que c'est l'agriculture. Presque la totalitè n'a aucune idèe de ce qui veut dire amelioration des plantes.

    By :
    Alberto Guidorzi
    - Posted on :
    27/07/2012
  • Re: comment that GMO crops require less use of pesticides/herbicides. No.

    That is true for, at best, only a few years, after that, herbicide, et al use is about the same as "conventional"/non-GMO crops. In addition, we now have RoundUp resistant weeds and it is likely that Bt will no longer be a useful pest control for organic farmers, now that Monsanto has included it in one of its GMO crops. Constant exposure to Bt will shorten the time that the targeted pest is killed by the Bt, or continuous exposure (instead of only occasional) will hasten evolution of resistant pests. In addition, Bt affects other beneficial or non-harmful insects--a problem known for years when the NFS in the US was spraying Bt to "eradicate" gypsy moths in the national forests of the Pacific Northwest. It harmed populations of other flying insects as well.

    Because so many weeds have become resistant to RoundUP, Monsanto is introducing new GMOs that utilizes one of its older (and possibly more toxic) herbicides.

    And in any event, traditional breeding, particularly on a small or local scale (i.e, by farmers, by land grant universities in the US) allows development of varieties that did well in specific local environments. Monsanto, BASF, et al DON'T maximize their profits that way, they do so by promoting a "one size fits all" GMO corn or wheat or whatever, or at most a few varieties. How does that benefit farmers, small farmers, and gardeners who want to minimize herbicide/pesticide use or grow organically? It doesn't. Don't they have as much right to grow their food, their crops as Monsanto does to sell its product?

    And what happens when heirloom corn is contaminated w/Monsanto GMO corn pollen? Does Monsanto then own the heirloom genes too? So far, it seems that Monsanto says yes. See the Schmeiser litigation in Canada

    By :
    azurite
    - Posted on :
    27/07/2012
  • As I see it , cutting through all Pro or Contra arguments . It is not SO much a case of whether genetically modified foods are safe and good to eat .

    The real question is whether we want to have Monsanto and like companies operation in European agriculture .

    The answer is NO NO NO !!! We have seen how they operate in the US ; like a Mafia that can completely destroy a farmer and his farm . Wind blow contamination may occur on a neighbouring farm and Monsanto claims the sole right to planting and crops on that farm too . The farmer may eventually win his case in the law courts , but at great expense .

    It is said that farmers may have an increased crop innitially , but in a short time crops will markedly diminish .

    By :
    David Barneby
    - Posted on :
    28/07/2012
  • @azurite I agree with your comment except that there is abundant evidence that GM crops do increase pesticide use (herbicides are technically pesticides), not just make it equivalent to what would be used on a non-GM crop - see data cited here:
    http://earthopensource.org/index.php/5-gm-crops-impacts-on-the-farm-and-environment/5-2-myth-gm-crops-decrease-pesticide-use

    @David Barnaby Monsanto et al's Mafia-like control of farming is indeed terrible, though I would say this aspect is in addition to the health and environmental hazards posed by GMOs -- see these links for what they've done in Brazil with soy farming:
    http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/14091
    http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/14092

    By :
    Farah Rukh
    - Posted on :
    28/07/2012
  • @Peter Russell
    In his reply Smith backs down to admit he doesn't know what caused stomach lesions in rats but the damage is done: 'A feeding study was done on rats using GM food - rats developed lesions' his audience is left with that headline and the implication that one event caused the other.

    Unfortunately this Post Hoc argument is played out so many time in anti-GM propaganda 'Cattle fed on GM crops - cattle died!'. It's guilt by association, not science.

    By :
    brian
    - Posted on :
    28/07/2012
  • @brian wrong -- Smith doesn't 'back down'. I quote:
    Chassy & Tribe (GM promoters): 3a. Rats might have been injured . . . by accidental administration of test material into the lung instead of the stomach.
    3b. Gastric lesions can be caused by acidosis brought on by fasting.

    Smith: Neither of these arguments address why 7 of 20 females fed GM tomatoes had lesions while the controls, reared under the same conditions, did not. Furthermore, since the rats did not fast but ate as much as they wanted, why would they throw in this irrelevant point (if not to obscure the truth)?

    Not exactly backing down. However, if you would like to introduce a hypothesis that in this controlled experiment, something other than the GM food tested caused this dramatic ill effect, you will have to do your ownn experiment to prove that. That is unfortunately how science works.

    By :
    Peter Russell
    - Posted on :
    28/07/2012
  • Farah Rukh
    Thank you for your posts re the Brazilian Soy beans .

    There have been programs one Russian TV English language channel RT.com on the serious problems US farmers have had with Monsanto , just the same and crippling law suits .
    A few years ago a farmers homemade pesticide was banned in Thailand as being dangerous , but containing all the herbs and spices that Thais eat every day .
    Eventually word came that the Prime minister Abhist's father had shares in Monsanto . I suspect that Thai farmers are still making their own brew .

    By :
    David Barneby
    - Posted on :
    28/07/2012
  • @brian It often seems that GM defenders would like to rewrite the rules of science. Calgene's tests on its GM tomatoes, like all such toxicological tests, are designed to find whether feeding the GM food has any toxic effects that are different from feeding the non-GM equivalent diet. If toxic effects are found, as in this test, where the GM food group had stomach lesions, and the non-GM fed group had fewer or no lesions, then you have to conclude that the GM food created that effect.

    If you suspect a confounding factor caused the effect, you have to do another test to confirm or exclude that confounder. It is really quite simple. Calgene's first test found what it found; its second test was different in design and so does not rebut the findings of the first.

    I hope Anne Glover is reading this exchange -- as someone who defends scientific method and GMOs, perhaps she would like to tell us her own analysis of the Calgene GM tests.

    By :
    Elisa
    - Posted on :
    28/07/2012
  • It seems to me that the problems of using GM plants fall into one of 3 categories.
    1. Potential effects on animal life: plants inevitably produce a chemical - maybe only an insect pheromone. It would take decades of in depth observation to access whether or not the eating of this plant affected the health of either human or animal. Plus what are the effects on natural predator populations. They home in on the pheromone hoping for dinner but find only famine conditions.
    2. Potential effects on surrounding plant/weed life: most plants are self pollinating or accept pollen only from members of the same species. However, even without accidental pollination, some plants especially good weeds, will readily accept pollen from members of the same family, perhaps even phyllum. This means that the GM genes can and do turn up in both non GM crops, and other plants in the vicinity - pollen ascending in thermals can travel hundreds of miles before descending to pollinate totally naive plants.
    3. Farmers using GM seed are forced to buy new seed each year; rather than use the more cost effective centuries old practice of retaining a part of their harvest for the next seasons seed. The use of GM seeds does not save on pesticide applications, just on topical applications for the specific pest targetted by the genetic modification. Plus it discourages farmers from using the age-old practice of dilution of disease susceptible species by intercropping and good stubble management.

    By :
    Alison Tottenham
    - Posted on :
    28/07/2012
  • @Elisa

    The problem is taking what appears to be a poorly designed test out of context as somehow proving harm caused by GM food. We know that an earlier study (when rats were fed the tomatoes without stomach tubes) caused no harm, we know that when the test was repeated some rats in the control group had lesions too. But subtleties like this are lost when reported by many anti-GM bloggers.

    By :
    brian
    - Posted on :
    29/07/2012
  • A Dangerous Woman in the back pocket of the powerful global Biotech Cartel... I hope you have all read this preposterous interview with Anne Glover: EU science advisor: 'Lots of policies are not based on evidence' | EurActiv http://ow.ly/czAe8

    "Q. Can you give an example of where you feel evidence has been partially used, or not used?

    A. It would apply to how we implement regulations around genetically modified organism (GMO) foods, because we have so much very robust evidence, and the precautionary principle is no longer relevant with GMO foods or crops.

    If we look at evidence from [more than] 15 years of growing and consuming GMO foods globally, then there is no substantiated case of any adverse impact on human health, animal health or environmental health, so that’s pretty robust evidence, and I would be confident in saying that there is no more risk in eating GMO food than eating conventionally farmed food.

    I would say there is risk in eating food and that’s what people forget. Eating food is risky, most of us forget that most plants are toxic, and it’s only because we cook them, or the quantity that we eat them in, that makes them suitable.

    Q. So you would say GMOs are safe?

    A. The bottom line for me is that there is no more risk in GMO food than conventionally farmed food, it has nothing to do with genetic engineering, so if you decide that you want to implement the regulations in such a way that you want to prevent the use [of GMO food] then that has to be talked about, and people need to be clear why you have rejected it."

    PLEASE READ: YOUR FOOD, YOUR HEALTH: Latest on BiotechAg, GMOs, Pesticides, Chemicals, CAFOs, BigAg | http://ow.ly/czAc6

    By :
    Pam Jacob
    - Posted on :
    29/07/2012
No safer than GMOs, real corn
Background: 

The European Commission proposed allowing national cultivation bans for GMOs in July 2010, in a bid to break a deadlock in EU GM crop approvals which has seen few varieties approved for cultivation in more than 12 years.

The proposal, however, has been subject to bitter divisions in the Council since then, with recent attempts by the Danish presidency to find a compromise agreement making little headway.

To date, seven EU countries have introduced national "safeguard" bans on growing Monsanto's MON 810 insect-resistant maize: France, Germany, Austria, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg and Bulgaria.

In January, German biotech firm BASF Plant Science announced that it was moving its plant biotech research activities from Germany to the United States and would cease all work to develop GM crops specifically for the EU market.

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising

Sponsors

Videos

Video General News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Innovation & Enterprise Promoted videos

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising