→Defence of the study: clarified relationship between CRIIGEN and ENSSER, added ref and link in existing refs |
→Defence of the study: added description of Testbiotech and more accurate decription of their report |
||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
Considering the issues raised by the study (i.e. long term assessment), the Biosafety Advisory Council proposes EFSA urgently to study in depth the relevance of the actual guidelines and procedures. It can find inspiration in the GRACE project to find useful information and new concerted ideas."<ref name=Belgium>Bioveiligheidsraad Conseil de Biosécurité (Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council) (2012). [http://www.bio-council.be/docs/BAC_2012_0898_CONSOLIDE.pdf Advice of the Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council on the article by Séralini et al., 2012 on toxicity of GM maize NK603]</ref>{{rp|9}} </blockquote> |
Considering the issues raised by the study (i.e. long term assessment), the Biosafety Advisory Council proposes EFSA urgently to study in depth the relevance of the actual guidelines and procedures. It can find inspiration in the GRACE project to find useful information and new concerted ideas."<ref name=Belgium>Bioveiligheidsraad Conseil de Biosécurité (Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council) (2012). [http://www.bio-council.be/docs/BAC_2012_0898_CONSOLIDE.pdf Advice of the Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council on the article by Séralini et al., 2012 on toxicity of GM maize NK603]</ref>{{rp|9}} </blockquote> |
||
==Defence of the study== |
==Defence of the study and opposition to reaction of the scientific community== |
||
Scores of scientists wrote letters of support for Séralini's study.{{citation needed|date=May 2013}} Support for the study also came from ENSSER (European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility), of which CRRIGEN, the institute that Seralini founded and that funded the study, is a member.<ref>Staff, ENSSER. Page last modified: 10-18-2012. [http://www.ensser.org/democratising-science-decision-making/ensser-comments-on-seralini-study/ ENSSER Comments on Séralini et al. 2012]</ref><ref>European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) (2012). [http://www.ensser.org/fileadmin/files/ENSSER-Comments-Seralini-etal2012-en.pdf Questionable biosafety of GMOs, double standards and, once again, a "shooting-the-messenger" style debate]</ref> |
Scores of scientists wrote letters of support for Séralini's study.{{citation needed|date=May 2013}} Support for the study also came from ENSSER (European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility), of which CRRIGEN, the institute that Seralini founded and that funded the study, is a member.<ref>Staff, ENSSER. Page last modified: 10-18-2012. [http://www.ensser.org/democratising-science-decision-making/ensser-comments-on-seralini-study/ ENSSER Comments on Séralini et al. 2012]</ref><ref>European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) (2012). [http://www.ensser.org/fileadmin/files/ENSSER-Comments-Seralini-etal2012-en.pdf Questionable biosafety of GMOs, double standards and, once again, a "shooting-the-messenger" style debate]</ref> |
||
An open letter in support of Seralini's article, signed by about 130 scientists, scholars, and activists, was published in Independent Science News, a project of the [[Bioscience Resource Project]], both of which oppose GM crops.<ref>Independent Science News (2012) [http://independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/ Seralini and Science: an Open Letter], Oct 2 2012</ref> A statement opposing the controversy, and especially the attacks on Seralini was published in the newspaper Le Monde and was signed by 140 French scientists; the letter said: "We are deeply shocked by the image of our community that this controversy gives citizens. Many of the threats to our planet have been revealed by scientists isolated and confirmed by many studies coming from the scientific community. In this case, it would be more efficient to implement research on the health and environmental risks of GMOs and pesticides, improve toxicological protocols used for placing on the market and finance a variety of researchers in this domain...."<ref>Andalo C, Chercheuse AHS, Atlan A, Auclair D, Austerlitz F, Barot S. [http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2012/11/14/science-et-conscience_1790174_3232.html Science et conscience] [http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lemonde.fr%2Fidees%2Farticle%2F2012%2F11%2F14%2Fscience-et-conscience_1790174_3232.html English translation via Google Translate: Science and conscience]. Le Monde. 14 November 2012.</ref> |
An open letter in support of Seralini's article, signed by about 130 scientists, scholars, and activists, was published in Independent Science News, a project of the [[Bioscience Resource Project]], both of which oppose GM crops.<ref>Independent Science News (2012) [http://independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/ Seralini and Science: an Open Letter], Oct 2 2012</ref> |
||
The German research group Testbiotech, which opposes GMOs and which believes that regulators have been captured by the biotech industry, posted a report critical of the EFSA's reaction to the study as not applying the same standards to studies submitted by industry as it did to Seralini's study.<ref>Staff, Testbiotech. [http://www.testbiotech.de/en/testbiotech Testbiotech: About Us\</ref><ref>Then, C. (2012). [http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/the%20double%20standards%20of%20EFSA_0.pdf The European Food Safety Authority: Using double standards when assessing feeding studies]</ref> |
|||
A statement opposing the controversy, and especially the attacks on Seralini, was published in the newspaper Le Monde and was signed by 140 French scientists; the letter said: "We are deeply shocked by the image of our community that this controversy gives citizens. Many of the threats to our planet have been revealed by scientists isolated and confirmed by many studies coming from the scientific community. In this case, it would be more efficient to implement research on the health and environmental risks of GMOs and pesticides, improve toxicological protocols used for placing on the market and finance a variety of researchers in this domain...."<ref>Andalo C, Chercheuse AHS, Atlan A, Auclair D, Austerlitz F, Barot S. [http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2012/11/14/science-et-conscience_1790174_3232.html Science et conscience] [http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lemonde.fr%2Fidees%2Farticle%2F2012%2F11%2F14%2Fscience-et-conscience_1790174_3232.html English translation via Google Translate: Science and conscience]. Le Monde. 14 November 2012.</ref> |
|||
==Criticism of the way the study was publicized== |
==Criticism of the way the study was publicized== |
Revision as of 18:34, 25 May 2013
The Séralini affair began in September 2012, and involved the publication and publicization of the results of experiments conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini; the experiments involved feeding Roundup-resistant maize and Roundup to rats, over the two year lifespan of the rats.[1] In the paper and in the press conference, Séralini claimed that the results showed that Roundup-resistant maize and Roundup are extremely toxic. Séralini had required that journalists sign a confidentiality agreement in order to receive a copy of the paper prior to the press conference - an extremely rare requirement in scientific publishing. During the press conference Séralini also announced that he was releasing a book and a documentary film on the research. The press conference was widely covered in the media, were used in the debate over Proposition 37 in California (a referendum over labeling of GM food that was voted on in November 2012), and led to bans on importation of certain GMOs in Russia and Kenya. After the paper was published, the conclusions that Séralini drew from the experiments were widely criticized, as was the design of the experiments. The release of the book and movie in conjunction with the scientific paper, and the requirement that journalists sign a confidentiality agreement, were also widely criticized.
Background
Gilles-Eric Séralini is a professor of molecular biology at University of Caen in France and is founder and president of the scientific advisory board of the Committee of Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), which is known for being opposed to genetically modified food.[2][3][4] Séralini founded CRIIGEN because he judged that studies on the harmlessness of GMOs are inadequate, and questioned their scientific evaluation.[2]
In 2004 Monsanto sought approval in Europe to introduce a rootworm resistant (MON863) maize, which led to controversy over acceptance by regulatory bodies of industry-funded toxicity studies and over the design of those studies. Pr Gilles Eric Séralini, who was on the committee that reviewed MON863 for the French government,[5] was a major figure in those controversies and continues to be a critic of toxicity study design.[6]
In 2004 the GMO Panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) twice concluded that it had no reservations about recommending the authorisation of MON863, and published its opinion on MON863 maize.[7] The report described the data that Monsanto provided, and referenced changes in some blood cell parameters and in kidney weights of rats that were tested.[7] Because of concerns in general but specifically referencing these changes, Greenpeace sued for release of the rat feeding studies that Monsanto had provided. Monsanto fought against the suit in order to protect its trade secrets. In June 2005 a German court ordered the release of the original study[8] in June 2005.[9] With the full study in hand, critics of GM foods, including Séralini, pointed to differences in kidney size and blood composition found in this study, suggesting that the observed differences, as well as the design of the studies, raised questions about the regulatory concept of substantial equivalence.[10]
In 2007, Séralini and two other authors from Caen University and the University of Rouen published a study of these data, funded by Greenpeace.[11][12][13] This study found that the weights of female weight increased by 3.7%, while male weight decreased by 3.3%. These weight changes could be indicative of organ dysfunction. Triglyceride levels increased in females, and urine phosphorus and sodium excretions decreased in males. Séralini also claimed that MON 863 adversely affects liver and kidney function, as well as causes varying degrees of damage to the adrenal glands, heart, spleen, and other components of the haematopoietic system. The study concluded that experiments longer than 90-days must be conducted before the safety of MON 863 can be known, as chronic organ problems are rarely evident within such a short amount of time.[11] Greenpeace cited the study in a press release, in which it demanded that MON 863 be completely recalled from the global market and called for a strict review of current testing methods.[14]
The Séralini 2007 paper prompted the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to reexamine the safety data on this strain of corn. This task force also asked countries from the European Union if they had any new data on MON 863 or new views on the original Monsanto toxicity study and had a technical meeting with the authors of the 2007 CRIIGEN paper. The EFSA concluded that the observed small numerical decrease in rat kidney weights were not biologically meaningful, and the weights were well within the normal range of kidney weights for control animals. There were no corresponding microscopic findings in the relevant organ systems, and they stated that all blood chemistry and organ weight values fell within the "normal range of historical control values" for rats.[15] In addition the EFSA review stated that the statistical methods used in Séralini 2007 paper were incorrect.[16] These conclusions were reported by Markos Kyprianou (European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy) to the European Parliament on 9 July 2010.[17] The EFSA's critical conclusions (and also those of the French Commission du Génie Biomoléculaire (AFBV)[18]) were the subject of a subsequent article in Le Figaro, titled "European Experts claim GMO is harmless".[17]
Food Standards Australia New Zealand also reviewed the 2007 Séralini study and concluded that "...all of the statistical differences between rats fed MON 863 corn and control rats are attributable to normal biological variation."[19][20]
The Séralini 2007 paper was also assessed by a panel of independent toxicologists from the US, Germany, UK and Canada funded by Monsanto; that panel also dismissed the findings on the grounds that it "...failed to demonstrate a dose–response relationship, reproducibility over time, association with other relevant changes (e.g., histopathology), occurrence in both sexes, difference outside the normal range of variation, or biological plausibility with respect to cause-and-effect.".[21]
In 2009 the Séralini lab published another re-analysis study.[22] (This paper is often called the "Vendômois et al. 2009" paper as the first author listed on the paper is Joël Spiroux de Vendômois; however the paper came from the Séralini lab and Séralini is listed as the last author.) This paper re-analyzed toxicity data submitted by Monsanto for NK603 (glyphosate resistance) maize, and included three rat feeding studies published by Monsanto scientists on MON 810 (Bt corn).[23][24][25] The Séralini 2009 article concluded that the three crops caused liver, kidney, and heart damage in the rats.[22]
The European Food Safety Authority reviewed the 2009 Séralini paper and concluded that the authors' claims were not supported by the data in their paper, that many of their fundamental statistical criticisms of the 2007 paper also applied to the 2009 paper, and that there was no new information that would change the EFSA's conclusions that the three GM maize types were safe for human and animal health, and for the environment.[26]
The French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee (HCB) also reviewed the Séralini 2009 study and concluded that it "..presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs."[27] The HCB also questioned the authors' independence, noting that, in 2010, the Séralini web page still showed a 2008 Austrian anti-GM article which had been previously withdrawn by the authors themselves as flawed.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand concluded that the results from the 2009 Séralini study were due to chance alone.[28]
A 2011 review by the Séralini lab, which used 19 published animal feeding studies as well as data from several animal feeding studies submitted for regulatory approval, continued to find that GM food had liver and kidney effects that were sex and dose dependent, and advocated for longer and more elaborate toxicology tests for regulatory approval.[6]
2012 study and release
The paper published in September 2012 by Séralini and his colleagues was titled "Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize" and was published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.[1] The published research was funded by CRIIGEN, and comprised a two-year study of the effect of Monsanto's genetically modified maize NK603, which is resistant to the herbicide Roundup, on rats.
The abstract indicates: "The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles were comparable." The study used 200 Sprague-Dawley rats, 100 male and 100 female, and divided them into twenty groups with 10 rats each; ten experimental conditions were tested on male rats and separately on female rats for two years. The paper's method section states: "For each sex, one control group had access to plain water and standard diet...; six groups were fed with 11, 22 and 33% of GM NK603 maize either treated or not with R (Roundup). The final three groups were fed with the control diet and had access to water supplemented with respectively 1.1x10-8% of R (0.1 ppb of R or 50 ng/L of glyphosate, the contaminating level of some regular tap waters), 0.09% of R (400 mg/kg, US MRL of glyphosate in some GM feed) and 0.5% of R (2.25 g/L, half of the minimal agricultural working dilution)."[1]
Séralini held a press conference on the day the study was released that also included an announcement of the release of a book and film about the study; selected journalists were given access to the paper prior to the press conference, and each writer was required to sign a confidentiality agreement that prevented them from discussing the paper with other scientists before the embargo expired. The agreement included a penalty for non-compliance: “A refund of the cost of the study of several million euros would be considered damages if the premature disclosure questioned the release of the study.”[29]
Reaction by public and government officials
The press conference led to wide coverage in the media, which "energized opponents of GM food, especially in Europe."[30] Le Nouvel Observateur covered the press conference in a story called, "Yes, GMOs are poisons!".[31] French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said that, if the results are confirmed, the government would press for a Europe-wide ban on the maize and The European Commission instructed the independent European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) in Parma, Italy, to assess the study.[30] In late September 2012, the government of Russia temporarily suspended importing genetically-modified corn as a result of the study[32] and in November 2012, the government of Kenya banned all GM crops.[33]
The Guardian's Environmental Blog stated that the study linking GM maize to cancer must be taken seriously by regulators" and that although it "attracted a torrent of abuse," "it cannot be swept under the carpet."[34] Proponents of California's GM labeling referendum, Proposition 37, hailed the study.[35]
Criticism of the study by scientists and regulatory bodies
After the study was released there was widespread criticism of the study.
Many claimed that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the statistical power of the study. Sprague-Dawley rats have a lifespan of about two years and have a high tendency to get cancer over their lifespan (one study found that over eighty percent of males and over seventy percent of females got cancer under normal conditions).[36][37][38][39] The Séralini experiment lasted the normal lifespan of these rats, and the longer the experiment goes, the more statistical "noise" there is - the more rats get cancer naturally, regardless of what you do to them. So for the experiment to have adequate statistical power, all the groups - control groups and test groups - would have to include at least 65 rats per group in order to sort out any experimentally caused cancers from cancers that would occur anyway - but the Séralini study had only ten per group.[36] OECD guidelines recommend 20 rats for chemical-toxicity studies, and 50 rats for carcinogenicity studies.[40]: 5–6 In addition, if the survival of the rats is less than 50% at 104 weeks (which is likely given the Sprague Dawley rats used in the study) the recommended number of rats is 65.[38][39][29]
Tom Sanders, who works at Kings College London, wrote that since Sprague-Dawley rats are susceptible to mammary tumors when food intake is not restricted, data should have been provided about how much food the rats were fed (as well as the presence of fungus in the feed, another confounder). Sanders also wrote of this study, "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."[41] The Washington Post quoted Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University and food safety advocate: "'[I] can’t figure it out yet....It’s weirdly complicated and unclear on key issues: what the controls were fed, relative rates of tumors, why no dose relationship, what the mechanism might be. I can’t think of a biological reason why GMO corn should do this.....So even though I strongly support labeling, I’m skeptical of this study.'"[42] Maurice Moloney, among others, went on record wondering why there were so many pictures in the study, and in sympathetic news reports about it, of treated rats with horrific tumors, but no pictures of the rats in the control group.[43]
Many national food safety and regulatory agencies reviewed the paper and condemned it. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment VP Reiner Wittkowski said in a statement, ""The study shows both shortcomings in study design and in the presentation of the collected data. This means that the conclusions drawn by the authors are not supported by the available data."[44] Similar conclusions were reached by the French Higher Biotechnologies Council and the National Agency for Food Safety,[45][45] the Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie,[46] the Technical University of Denmark,[47], Food Standards Australia New Zealand,[48]the Brazilian National Technical Commission on Biosafety,[49] and the European Food Safety Authority.[40] A joint report by three Canadian regulatory agencies also "identified significant shortcomings in the study design, implementation and reporting."[50]
Nonetheless, the French agencies ANSES and HCB concluded, based on the Seralini study's findings, that long-term safety tests were needed on GM foods (as the tests carried out by industry on its products prior to commercialisation last for a maximum of 90 days).[51][52]
On October 19, 2012, six French national academies of science issued a joint statement - "an extremely rare event in French science"[53] - condemning the study and the journal that published it.[54] "In withering terms, it dismissed the study as 'a scientific non-event'"[53]
However, Paul Deheuvels, an Academician and the Academy's sole statistician, condemned the Academies' statement publicly as not representative of the Academy's full membership. He also said that as the Academy's sole statistician, it would have been natural for him to be consulted, but he was not:
- "I have to draw the public’s attention to the fact that it did not engage any of these academies in their entirety. Indeed, a group of experts was convened in an emergency, we do not know by whom, no one knows how, with a total lack of transparency in the selection of its members, and on the basis of two representatives from each academy. These people have seen fit to write in a very short space of time an opinion highly critical of this study. They cannot claim to embody the opinion of the entire French scientific world, and it would be a crime to suggest that they do. As the only member of the Academy of Sciences representing the discipline of statistics, it would have been normal for me to be consulted, yet that was not the case."[55]
CRIIGEN's funding of the research was noted by the Guardian, which reported Séralini's response: namely, that studies in support of GM food are usually funded by "corporates or by pro-biotech institutions."[34]
As Jon Entine put it at Forbes, "Seralini's research is anomalous. Previous peer-reviewed rat feeding studies using the same products (NK603 and Roundup) have not found any negative food safety impacts. The Japanese Department of Environmental Health and Toxicology released a 52-week feeding study of GM soybeans in 2007, finding “no apparent adverse effect in rats.” However, Seralini's research can hardly be "anomalous" when it was the first long-term feeding study on this NK603 maize.[56] Only one feeding study was conducted prior to this study, by Monsanto, and it lasted only for 90 days.[57] Seralini's team re-analysed the data from this experiment and concluded that the data showed signs of liver and kidney toxicity, so he conducted his 2-year experiment to see if the initial signs of toxicity vanished or worsened.[58][59]
In 2012, a team of scientists at the University of Nottingham School of Biosciences released a review of 12 long-term studies (up to two years) and 12 multi-generational studies (up to 5 generations) of GM foods, concluding there is no evidence of health hazards."[60] Andrew Revkin dubbed it another instance of "single-study syndrome", and contended that the study was in support of an "agenda".[61]
Henry I. Miller, writing for Forbes, wrote of the study that "the investigators have refused to release all the data from the experiment, which constitutes scientific misconduct."[62] Séralini responded by saying, "...that he won’t make any data available to the EFSA and the BfR until the EFSA makes public all the data under-pinning its 2003 approval of NK603 maize for human consumption and animal feed."[63]
The European Federation of Biotechnology, which counts Monsanto and other GM firms among its members,[64] called for the paper to be retracted, calling its publication a "dangerous failure of the peer-review system."[63]
As a result of the publication of the Séralini paper, the Belgian Federal Minister of Public Health asked the Biosafety Advisory Council (BAC) to evaluate the paper. The BAC was asked to "inform the Minister whether this paper (i) contains new scientific information with regard to risks for human health of GM maize NK603 and (ii) whether this information triggers a revision of the current authorisation for commercialisation for food and feed use of this GM maize in the European Union (EU)."[65]
Responding to the two point mandate, the BAC concluded that:
"Given the shortcomings identified by the experts regarding the experimental design, the statistical analysis, the interpretation of the results, the redaction of the article and the presentation of the results, the Biosafety Advisory Council concludes that this study does not contain new scientifically relevant elements that may lead to reconsider immediately the current authorisation for food and feed use of GM maize NK603. Considering the issues raised by the study (i.e. long term assessment), the Biosafety Advisory Council proposes EFSA urgently to study in depth the relevance of the actual guidelines and procedures. It can find inspiration in the GRACE project to find useful information and new concerted ideas."[65]: 9
Defence of the study and opposition to reaction of the scientific community
Scores of scientists wrote letters of support for Séralini's study.[citation needed] Support for the study also came from ENSSER (European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility), of which CRRIGEN, the institute that Seralini founded and that funded the study, is a member.[66][67]
An open letter in support of Seralini's article, signed by about 130 scientists, scholars, and activists, was published in Independent Science News, a project of the Bioscience Resource Project, both of which oppose GM crops.[68]
The German research group Testbiotech, which opposes GMOs and which believes that regulators have been captured by the biotech industry, posted a report critical of the EFSA's reaction to the study as not applying the same standards to studies submitted by industry as it did to Seralini's study.[69][70]
A statement opposing the controversy, and especially the attacks on Seralini, was published in the newspaper Le Monde and was signed by 140 French scientists; the letter said: "We are deeply shocked by the image of our community that this controversy gives citizens. Many of the threats to our planet have been revealed by scientists isolated and confirmed by many studies coming from the scientific community. In this case, it would be more efficient to implement research on the health and environmental risks of GMOs and pesticides, improve toxicological protocols used for placing on the market and finance a variety of researchers in this domain...."[71]
Criticism of the way the study was publicized
The method by which the Séralini team publicized their 2012 paper was widely criticized. The original Agence France-Presse story noted: "Breaking with a long tradition in scientific journalism, the authors allowed a selected group of reporters to have access to the paper, provided they signed confidentiality agreements that prevented them from consulting other experts about the research before publication."[72] The confidentiality agreement contained a severe penalty for breaching the agreement: "A refund of the cost of the study of several million euros would be considered damages if the premature disclosure questioned the release of the study."[29] An editorial at the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, noted: "With such strong claims and the predictably large effect they will have on public opinion, researchers should take care how they present their findings to the public and the media. They should spell out their results clearly; emphasize the limitations and caveats; and make it clear that the data still need to be assessed, and replicated, by the scientific community. That didn’t happen. The paper was promoted in a public-relations offensive, with a related book and film set for release this week. Furthermore, journalists wishing to report the research had to sign confidentiality agreements that prevented them from contacting other scientists for comment on the paper until after the embargo had expired. Some, to their credit, refused, or accepted and then revisited the story critically once their hands were no longer tied by these outrageous restrictions. The result was the exclusion of critical comment in many of the breaking stories — the ones that most people will remember."[73][74][75] National Public Radio's program, On the Media, discussed the way the paper was released to the media on 28 September 2012, with Carl Zimmer, a science journalist, who was especially critical of science journalists who allowed themselves to be manipulated, as well as criticizing the Séralini lab.[76] Zimmer had earlier posted on his blog at Discover magazine, "This is a rancid, corrupt way to report about science."[77] Cosmos Magazine's Elizabeth Finkel, wrote, "...a clause barring the gathering of independent opinions is extraordinary. What it meant was that Séralini’s story, when it broke, got to prance unfettered in the media limelight before second opinions could dull its shine. By the time the storm of criticism blew in, the media limelight had moved on."[78] The ethics committee of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) also criticized the public-relations offensive as "inappropriate for a high-quality and objective scientific debate, and reminded researchers working on controversial topics of the need to report results responsibly to the public."[63]
References
- ^ a b c Séralini GE; et al. (2012). "Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize". Food and Chemical Toxicology. 50 (11): 4221–4231. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005. PMID 22999595.
{{cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=
(help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - ^ a b "HH", CRIIGEN, 12 November 12, 2008 Profile, Pr Gilles Eric Séralini – President of the Scientific Board – Molecular Biology Professor
- ^ Carman, Tim (September 19, 2012). "French scientists question safety of GM corn". Washington Post. Retrieved May 20, 2013.
- ^ "French study finds tumours in rats fed GM corn". Reuters. September 19, 2012. Retrieved May 20, 2013.
- ^ Seralini bio on CRIIGEN
- ^ a b Séralini, Gilles-Eric; Mesnage, Robin; Clair, Emilie; Gress, Steeve; De Vendômois, Joël; Cellier, Dominique (2011). "Genetically modified crops safety assessments: Present limits and possible improvements". Environmental Sciences Europe. 23: 10. doi:10.1186/2190-4715-23-10.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ a b "Opinion of the Scientific Panel on genetically modified organisms [GMO] on a request from the Commission related to the safety of foods and food ingredients derived from insect-protected genetically modified maize MON 863 and MON 863 x MON 810, for which a request for placing on the market was submitted under Article 4 of the Novel Food Regulation (EC) No 258/97 by Monsanto". EFSA Journal. 2 (4). 2004. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2004.50.
- ^ Monsanto, 2002. 13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002 Note, original links to document at Monsanto site are dead as of Sept 2012 - dead links are http://monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf and http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/products/technicalandsafety/fullratstudy.pdf. Internet archive has the document here
- ^ MON863 maize: Court orders disclosure of all documents: No secrets in safety matters
- ^ Jeffrey M. Smith January 2008. Study reveals GM threats Biophile Magazine, Issue 6.
- ^ a b Séralini GE, Cellier D, de Vendomois JS (2007). "New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity". Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 52 (4): 596–602. doi:10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5. PMID 17356802.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ "GM maize MON863: French scientists doubt safety". GMO Compass. 16 March 2007. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
- ^ Ananda, Rady (2010). "Three Approved GMOs Linked to Organ Damage" (PDF). Z Magazine. 23 (3). Retrieved 21 July 2010.
The data 'clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen, and haematopoietic system,' reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at Caen University.
- ^ "Regulatory systems for GE crops a failure: the case of MON863" (PDF). Greenpeace. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 March 2009. Retrieved 21 July 2010.
Greenpeace demands an immediate and complete recall of MON863 from the global market. We also call upon governments to undertake an urgent reassessment of all other authorised GE products and a strict review of current testing methods.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ Statement of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on the analysis of data from a 90-day rat feeding study with MON 863 maize [1]
- ^ "EFSA review of statistical analyses conducted for the assessment of the MON 863 90-day rat feeding study". EFSA Journal. 5 (6). doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2007.19r.
- ^ a b Les experts européens innocentent un OGM Le Figaro, 13 July 2007. Retrieved 27 October 2010
- ^ Les Organismes Génétiquement Modifiés Annexe B Avis de la commission du génie biomoléculaire sur l’étude statistique du CRIIGEN du maïs MON863 Report prepared for the French Prime Minister by the Centre d'Analyse Strategique, 20 July 2007. Retrieved 11 November 2010
- ^ "Review of the report by Séralini et al., (2007): "New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity"". FSANZ final assessment report. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
- ^ "FSANZ reaffirms its risk assessment of genetically modified corn MON 863". FSANZ fact sheets 2007. 25 July 2010. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
- ^ Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, Lovell DP, Lynch B, Munro IC (2007). "Report of an Expert Panel on the reanalysis by of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863)". Food Chem. Toxicol. 45 (11): 2073–85. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2007.08.033. PMID 17900781.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ a b de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. (2009) A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Int J Biol Sci. 10;5(7):706-26.
- ^ Hammond B, Dudek R, Lemen J, Nemeth M (2004). "Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn". Food Chem. Toxicol. 42 (6): 1003–14. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.013. PMID 15110110.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Hammond B, Lemen J, Dudek R, Ward D, Jiang C, Nemeth M, Burns J (2006). "Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn". Food Chem. Toxicol. 44 (2): 147–60. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2005.06.008. PMID 16084637.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Hammond BG, Dudek R, Lemen JK, Nemeth MA (2006). "Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn". Food Chem. Toxicol. 44 (7): 1092–9. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2006.01.003. PMID 16487643.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ "EFSA Minutes of the 55th Plenary Meeting of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms Held on 27–28 January 2010 IN Parma, Italy, Annex 1, Vendemois et al 2009" (PDF). European Food Safety Authority report. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
- ^ "Opinion relating to the deposition of 15 December 2009 by the Member of Parliament, François Grosdidier, as to the conclusions of the study entitled "A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health"". English translation of French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee document. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
- ^ "Feeding studies and GM corn MON863". Food Standards Australia New Zealand. 2012. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - ^ a b c Declan Butler for Nature News, 10 October 2012. Hyped GM maize study faces growing scrutiny: Food-safety bodies slam feeding study that claims increased cancer incidence in rats.
- ^ a b Declan Butler for Nature News. September 25, 2012 Rat study sparks GM furore
- ^ [2]
- ^ Staff, Phys.org. September 26, 2012 Russia suspends Monsanto corn imports
- ^ Emily Willingham for Forbes. December 9, 2012. Seralini Paper Influences Kenya Ban of GMO Imports
- ^ a b "Study linking GM maize to cancer must be taken seriously by regulators". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 May 2013.
- ^ Staff, Right to Know. [Posts tagged Seralini
- ^ a b Andrew Kniss for Control Freaks Blog. 19 September 2012 Explanation of rat study
- ^ Suzuki H, Mohr U, Kimmerle G (1979). "Spontaneous endocrine tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats". J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 95 (2): 187–96. PMID 521452.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ a b "Mortality and In-Life Patterns in Sprague-Dawley" (PDF). Huntingdon Life Sciences. Retrieved 26 October 2012.
- ^ a b "Sprague Dawley" (PDF). Harlan. Retrieved 26 October 2012.
- ^ a b EFSA, 4 October 2012. Press release with summary of findings. Full review: EFSA (2012) Review of the Séralini et al. (2012) publication on a 2-year rodent feeding study with glyphosate formulations and GM maize NK603 as published online on 19 September 2012 in Food and Chemical Toxicology EFSA Journal 2012;10(10):2910 doi=10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2910
- ^ Ben Hirschler and Kate Kelland. Reuters. September 20, 2012 Study on Monsanto GM corn concerns draws skepticism
- ^ Tim Carman for the Washington Post. Posted at 07:30 PM ET, 19 September 2012. French scientists question safety of GM corn [3]
- ^ French GM-fed rat study triggers furore
- ^ Staff (1 October 2012) A study of the University of Caen neither constitutes a reason for a re-evaluation of genetically modified NK603 maize nor does it affect the renewal of the glyphosate approval German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). Retrieved 14 October 2012
- ^ a b Staff (22 October 2012) French panel rejects study linking GM corn to cancer Agence France Presse. Retrieved 23 October 2012
- ^ Staff (8 October 2012) VIB concludes that Séralini study is not substantiated VIB Life Sciences Research Institute, Belgium. Retrieved 14 October 2012
- ^ Staff (October 2012 The Technical University of Denmark National Food Institute's assessment of a new long-term trial with genetically modified maize NK603 and spray Roundup (In Danish) Technical University of Denmark, Danish National Food Institute, Rertrieved 23 October 2012
- ^ Staff (October 2012) Response to Séralini paper on the long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Retrieved 14 October 2012
- ^ [4]
- ^ Staff, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada; Animal Feed Division, Animal Health Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency; Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada. October 25, 2012 Health Canada and Canadian Food Inspection Agency statement on the Séralini et al. (2012) publication on a 2-year rodent feeding study with glyphosate formulations and GM maize NK603
- ^ ANSES (French Agency for Food Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety) (2012). ANSES highlights the weaknesses of the study by Séralini et al, but recommends new research on the long-term effects of GMOs.
- ^ Haut Conseil des Biotechnologies Comité Scientifique (France) (2012). Avis en réponse à la saisine du 24 septembre 2012 relative à l’article de Séralini et al (Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2012).
- ^ a b Agence France-Presse. 19 October 2012, as posted on phys.org. Six French academies dismiss study linking GM corn to cancer (Update 2)
- ^ Avis des Académies nationales d’Agriculture, de Médecine, de Pharmacie, des Sciences, des Technologies, et Vétérinaire sur la publication récente de G.E. Séralini et al. sur la toxicité d’un OGM Communiqué de presse 19 octobre 2012
- ^ Deheuvels P. L’étude de Séralini sur les OGM, pomme de discorde à l’Académie des sciences The Seralini GMO study - A bone of contention at the Academy of Sciences. Le Nouvel Observateur. 19 October 2012.
- ^ Séralini, G. E., et al. (2012). "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize." Food and Chemical Toxicology 50(11): 4221-4231.
- ^ Hammond, B., et al. (2004). "Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn." Food Chem Toxicol 42(6): 1003-1014.
- ^ Séralini, G. E., et al. (2012). "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize." Food and Chemical Toxicology 50(11): 4221-4231.
- ^ Séralini, G. E., et al. (2013). "Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide." Food and Chemical Toxicology 53: 461-468.
- ^ "Does the Seralini Corn Study Fiasco Mark a Turning Point in the Debate Over GM Food?". Forbes.com. Retrieved 11 May 2013.
- ^ Single-Study Syndrome and the G.M.O. Food Fight
- ^ "Scientists Smell A Rat In Fraudulent Genetic Engineering Study".
- ^ a b c [5]
- ^ EFB (2013) Members
- ^ a b Bioveiligheidsraad Conseil de Biosécurité (Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council) (2012). Advice of the Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council on the article by Séralini et al., 2012 on toxicity of GM maize NK603
- ^ Staff, ENSSER. Page last modified: 10-18-2012. ENSSER Comments on Séralini et al. 2012
- ^ European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) (2012). Questionable biosafety of GMOs, double standards and, once again, a "shooting-the-messenger" style debate
- ^ Independent Science News (2012) Seralini and Science: an Open Letter, Oct 2 2012
- ^ Staff, Testbiotech. [http://www.testbiotech.de/en/testbiotech Testbiotech: About Us\
- ^ Then, C. (2012). The European Food Safety Authority: Using double standards when assessing feeding studies
- ^ Andalo C, Chercheuse AHS, Atlan A, Auclair D, Austerlitz F, Barot S. Science et conscience English translation via Google Translate: Science and conscience. Le Monde. 14 November 2012.
- ^ Thomas Lumley for Stats Chat website. 20 September 2012 Roundup scare
- ^ "Poison postures". Nature. 489 (7417): 474. 2012. doi:10.1038/489474a. PMID 23025010.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - ^ Séralini, Gilles-Eric (2012). Tous Cobayes !: OGM, pesticides et produits chimiques. Editions Flammarion. ISBN 9782081262362.
- ^ "Tous cobayes? (2012) - IMDb". IMDB. IMDB.com.
- ^ On the Media Radio Show, 2012 Sep 28 Manipulating Science Reporting
- ^ Carl Zimmer on Discovery Magazine blog, The Loom. 21 September 2012 From Darwinius to GMOs: Journalists Should Not Let Themselves Be Played
- ^ GM Corn and Cancer: the Seralini Affair