It would improve us doubters' confidence if you would allow truly independent labs (not associated with, supported or controlled by biotech companies) to conduct long term tests on the impact of glyphosate, pesticide-producing plants and other agricultural chemicals. Longer term analyses by European labs indicate that your too-brief tests were "completed" before the most serious chemical-induced maladies began to appear. Will you please address these issues?

Expert response from Community Manager

Thursday, 21/08/2014 20:37

You are not alone in your concerns, and it is not surprising that you are skeptical of some scientific results, as there have been some high-profile examples of fraudulent research in the recent past. This leaves people asking what studies to trust, and the simple answer is that this is not a simple thing to evaluate.

The belief that biotech companies limit or control research with their products is common but not based on facts. Testing done by biotech companies’ technology developers has little room for manipulation because most of the testing strategy and protocols are based on regulations and guidelines developed by international agencies like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). These protocols were developed by international experts who evaluated the types of data that were needed to establish the safety of GM crops.
 
Certainly, there have been exceptions over many years, and they deservedly receive attention and challenge, but those cases are not representative and not typical. To ensure transparency and access to seeds for research, the biotech companies worked with the American Seed Trade Association in 2010 to establish guidelines for research with seed containing patented traits. Monsanto enables researchers at U.S. institutions and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service to conduct research with our products for teaching and extension-education purposes. Researchers are not required or obligated to contact Monsanto in any way. Naturally, many do, and we prefer to collaborate, but we do not require it. After the research is completed and published, consumers are able to compare the results of company-sponsored studies with those of independent researchers. The findings typically validate and reinforce one another and contribute to a growing weight of evidence supporting the safety and benefits of GM technologies. (See my response to a similar question about where to find independently conducted scientific studies on GMOs.)
 
Your mention of “longer-term analyses” by European labs reporting negative effects from GM crops makes me think of the rat-feeding study by Gilles-Eric Séralini and team. One of the author’s conclusions is that longer-term studies are needed to assess the safety of GMOs. While the Séralini study has raised this question, the study itself was poorly designed, did not meet widely accepted guidelines for assessing carcinogenicity and ultimately was found inadequate for addressing questions of GMO safety. For more on that topic, please see this response by Alan McHughen, biotechnology specialist and geneticist at the University of California, Riverside, as well as responses from multiple experts in this article from the Genetic Literacy Project.
 
Now to your question: Are longer-term feeding studies useful for assessing the safety of GM crops? This question was answered by Agnès E. Ricroch, from the University of Paris, in her 2013 paper published in the journal New Biotechnology. She examined 17 long-term animal feeding studies and 16 multigenerational studies on animals fed GMOs. There were no adverse health effects from feeding GM crop varieties to different animals. She concluded the data “does not provide evidence that more food safety testing is necessary for GE crop varieties.” Importantly, they state that “there is no need to perform such long-term studies in a case-by-case approach, unless reasonable doubt still exists after conducting a 90-day feeding test.” For more background on this study, please see this response by Harold Cohen, licensed pharmacist and editor-in-chief for U.S. Pharmacist.
 
Regulators in several countries require 90-day rodent feeding studies as a part of their assessment of potential unintended effects from GMOs. These studies have been conducted on virtually all approved GM crops, and there have been no adverse effects attributed to the consumption of GMOs. Bryan Delaney, research fellow at DuPont Pioneer, explains the 90-day time frame for rat-feeding studies in this response.
 
In summary, there is extensive information validating the safety and benefits of GMOs from the public sector, and no adverse health effects have been found resulting from existing long-term and multigenerational feeding studies with GM crops. Your question is important because it is on the minds of many people who worry whether biotech companies have adhered to robust safety-assessment requirements when developing GMOs. In the end, as a plant geneticist, husband, father and neighbor to my extended family in St. Louis, I recommend that consumers ask questions and insist on good answers so that they are confident that foods from GM crops are as safe as other foods. I do it, and so should you.

Expert response from Community Manager

Thursday, 21/08/2014 20:37

You are not alone in your concerns, and it is not surprising that you are skeptical of some scientific results, as there have been some high-profile examples of fraudulent research in the recent past. This leaves people asking what studies to trust, and the simple answer is that this is not a simple thing to evaluate.

The belief that biotech companies limit or control research with their products is common but not based on facts. Testing done by biotech companies’ technology developers has little room for manipulation because most of the testing strategy and protocols are based on regulations and guidelines developed by international agencies like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). These protocols were developed by international experts who evaluated the types of data that were needed to establish the safety of GM crops.
 
Certainly, there have been exceptions over many years, and they deservedly receive attention and challenge, but those cases are not representative and not typical. To ensure transparency and access to seeds for research, the biotech companies worked with the American Seed Trade Association in 2010 to establish guidelines for research with seed containing patented traits. Monsanto enables researchers at U.S. institutions and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service to conduct research with our products for teaching and extension-education purposes. Researchers are not required or obligated to contact Monsanto in any way. Naturally, many do, and we prefer to collaborate, but we do not require it. After the research is completed and published, consumers are able to compare the results of company-sponsored studies with those of independent researchers. The findings typically validate and reinforce one another and contribute to a growing weight of evidence supporting the safety and benefits of GM technologies. (See my response to a similar question about where to find independently conducted scientific studies on GMOs.)
 
Your mention of “longer-term analyses” by European labs reporting negative effects from GM crops makes me think of the rat-feeding study by Gilles-Eric Séralini and team. One of the author’s conclusions is that longer-term studies are needed to assess the safety of GMOs. While the Séralini study has raised this question, the study itself was poorly designed, did not meet widely accepted guidelines for assessing carcinogenicity and ultimately was found inadequate for addressing questions of GMO safety. For more on that topic, please see this response by Alan McHughen, biotechnology specialist and geneticist at the University of California, Riverside, as well as responses from multiple experts in this article from the Genetic Literacy Project.
 
Now to your question: Are longer-term feeding studies useful for assessing the safety of GM crops? This question was answered by Agnès E. Ricroch, from the University of Paris, in her 2013 paper published in the journal New Biotechnology. She examined 17 long-term animal feeding studies and 16 multigenerational studies on animals fed GMOs. There were no adverse health effects from feeding GM crop varieties to different animals. She concluded the data “does not provide evidence that more food safety testing is necessary for GE crop varieties.” Importantly, they state that “there is no need to perform such long-term studies in a case-by-case approach, unless reasonable doubt still exists after conducting a 90-day feeding test.” For more background on this study, please see this response by Harold Cohen, licensed pharmacist and editor-in-chief for U.S. Pharmacist.
 
Regulators in several countries require 90-day rodent feeding studies as a part of their assessment of potential unintended effects from GMOs. These studies have been conducted on virtually all approved GM crops, and there have been no adverse effects attributed to the consumption of GMOs. Bryan Delaney, research fellow at DuPont Pioneer, explains the 90-day time frame for rat-feeding studies in this response.
 
In summary, there is extensive information validating the safety and benefits of GMOs from the public sector, and no adverse health effects have been found resulting from existing long-term and multigenerational feeding studies with GM crops. Your question is important because it is on the minds of many people who worry whether biotech companies have adhered to robust safety-assessment requirements when developing GMOs. In the end, as a plant geneticist, husband, father and neighbor to my extended family in St. Louis, I recommend that consumers ask questions and insist on good answers so that they are confident that foods from GM crops are as safe as other foods. I do it, and so should you.