GEO Watch| The continuing Séralini Affair, or We smell a rat
 |
| Credit: Union of Concerned Scientists |
Moderator’s Note: I am reposting a statement from the European Network
of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) that defends
the Séralini study but goes further by demonstrating that the latest analysis by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which supports the retraction, also violated scientific standards and applied double standards. Recall, that the editorial
authority at the Elsevier publishing corporation that piublishes the journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology violated scientific principles
by issuing the retraction. It appears we have another rat in the mix and EFSA is also adopting a double standard in which only studies challenged are those suggesting GMO food safety is a
legitimate concern. The double standard in this case is clear since the
Monsanto and Séralini studies adopted comparably well-vetted and quite similar
research designs and methodologies.
ENSSER
is a scientific organization and not very well known outside European circles.
After observing their work with the Séralini case I believe we need an
organization similar to ENSSER that is willing and able to step into and
challenge the corporate-dominated and market-steered regime that defines the
world of cost/benefit analysis in risk science and management in North America
and much of the rest of the world.
ENSSER
was founded in 2009 to improve the quality of basic and regulatory science used
in the risk analysis of existing and emerging technologies and their products
such as genetically modified organisms, chemicals, food technologies, geo-engineering,
nanomaterials, and synthetic biology, including the risk of their military use.
We would do well to follow the example of scientists in Europe and create an
organization focused on transforming the regime of risk science and management.
Retractions are political betrayal of scientific values
DOUBLE STANDARD APPLIES AS PRO-GMO STUDIES GET SOFT TOUCH
TREATMENT
 |
| Credit: hcn |
Lucas Wirl | Berlin | November 17, 2013
The
controversy about the Séralini et al. study, which reported negative health
effects of Monsanto’s NK603 GM maize and Roundup herbicide fed to rats over the
long term,[1] is still going on. According to a new review published
in Environmental Sciences Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
used unscientific double standards to dismiss the Séralini study on genetically
modified (GM) maize.[2]
The
publication of this latest review comes just days after the retraction of the
Séralini paper by Elsevier, the publisher of Food and Chemical Toxicology
(FCT), on the unprecedented grounds of the “inconclusive” nature of some of the
findings. ENSSER condemned the retraction[3].
The
Séralini study triggered an immediate storm of criticism by scientists and organisations,
most of whom are known for their support of GMOs and their pleas for sweeping
deregulation of GM plants in the EU and relaxation or even abandonment of risk assessment
standards.[4]
Retrospective and selective application of new standards by EFSA
In
September 2012, the European Commission asked EFSA to review the Séralini
study. EFSA did so by retrospectively applying new standards released in 2011
to scientific work that Séralini planned and started in 2008.[5]
EFSA concluded that the Séralini study was “inadequate”.[6]
But
EFSA did not apply these same standards retrospectively to the original rat
feeding study by Monsanto, even though the underlying design for the Monsanto
study was later repeated by Seralini.[7] The Monsanto study concluded
that this same GM maize was safe to eat, resulting in the approval for
consumption of this GM crop by millions of animals and EU citizens in 2005.
EFSA review undermined the basic
principles of science
Hartmut
Meyer, one of the authors of the new review, said, “Use of such double
standards is a common response from scientists calling for GMO deregulation
and, somewhat surprisingly, also from some government authorities, to studies
that show negative environmental and health effects of GMOs. Only those studies
that find problems are subjected to excessive scrutiny and rejected as
defective. This approach appears to be a tactic to avoid dealing with ‘inconvenient’
results, whilst selecting for
‘convenient’ results.”
The
new review then applied the same criteria used by EFSA to reject the Séralini
study to 21 other 1-2-year feeding studies published in peer-reviewed
scientific journals during the last 20 years. Those studies did not test feed
derived from GM plants but mostly chemicals, used the same strain of rat,
similar low numbers of tested animals and likewise modified protocols that extended
or diverged to some degree from the strict OECD protocols and EFSA criteria as
both Seralini and Monsanto did.
Restore scientific principles of
objectivity
Angelika
Hilbeck, the second author of the new review and chair of the European Network
of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), said, “ENSSER
wants to see scientific objectivity restored. We are calling for an end to the use of double standards, particularly by EFSA, in the evaluation of
scientific research on substances that may pose risks to public health. We need
a reasoned, respectful debate with the aim of reaching a consensus on the
evaluation standards that must be consistently applied to all toxicity and
carcinogenicity trials, regardless of whether they have findings that are ‘inconvenient’
for certain parties. EFSA should take the lead here.”
“It’s
time to stop selectively attacking methods and begin to deal with the results.”
Double standards used to claim GMO
safety
Another
example of selective scrutiny of study methods in order to avoid dealing with
the results is a review of GMO safety studies conducted by Snell et al. (2012)[8].
In their review of 24 animal feeding trials with GM plant-derived feed, the
authors noticed severe methodological shortcomings in a majority of the analysed publications,
e.g. isogenic lines as controls were only used in 10 studies. However, Snell et
al. used these shortcomings as arguments to dismiss those studies stating
negative effects – but not those stating safety. Based on this asymmetrical,
result-triggered approach, the review incorrectly concludes that no health hazards were found in 24 analysed publications.
Hartmut Meyer and Angelika Hilbeck are
founding members of the European Network of Scientists for Social and
Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER). The European Network of Scientists for
Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) was founded in 2009 to improve
the quality of basic and regulatory science used in the risk analysis of
existing and emerging technologies and their products such as genetically
modified organisms, chemicals, food technologies, geo-engineering,
nanomaterials, and synthetic biology, including the risk of their military use.
To enable such scientific work, ENSSER advocates the creation of spaces for scientific work independent from the influence of the developers and
owners of current technologies, supports early-warning scientists and promotes
their protection from discrimination and discreditation. ENSSER members are
contributing to the current scientific debates on technology and risk
assessment in modern biotechnology[9], nanotechnology and other
fields.
Endnotes
1 Séralini
G-E, E Claira, R Mesnage, S Gress, N Defarge, M Malatesta, D Hennequin, JS de
Vendômois. 2012. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a
Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem Toxicol 50: 4221-4231.
2 Meyer H,
A Hilbeck. 2013. Rat feeding studies with genetically modified maize - a
comparative evaluation of applied methods and risk assessment standards.
Environmental Sciences Europe 25: 33; http://www.enveurope.com/content/25/1/33/about.
4 Science
Media Centre: Study on cancer and GM maize - experts respond. Science Alert of
20.09.2012. http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2012/09/20/study-on-cancer-and-gm-maize-experts-respond/;
Public Research and Regulation Initiative: Letter and Q&A - Seralini et al
2012;http://www.prri.net/questions-and-answers/qa-seralini-et-al-2012/.
5 EFSA
Scientific Committee. 2011. EFSA guidance on conducting repeated-dose 90-day
oral toxicity study in rodents on whole food/feed. EFSA J 9(12):2438.
6 European
Food Safety Authority. 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
J 10(10):2910.
7 Hammond
B R Dudek, J Lemen , M Nemeth. 2004. Results of a 13 week safety assurance
study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem Toxicol 42:
1003-1014.
8 Snell C,
A Bernheim, J-B Bergé, M Kuntz, G Pascal, P Paris, AE Ricroch. 2012. Assessment
of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational
animal feeding trials: A literature review. Food Chem Tox 50:1134-1148.
9 See for example “Implications
for GMO-cultivation and monitoring”, a thematic series in Environmental
Sciences Europe; http://www.enveurope.com/series/GMO_cultivation
Comments
Post a Comment