Can you show me studies with geriatric animals that have been fed GM crops their entire lives? Its been shown that livestock being fed GMOs have had no negative effects over their lifetime, but they are slaughtered before reaching what would be considered old age. Considering mice are considered geriatric within a few years, it seems possible to conduct a study with that goal. I think it would be nearly impossible to argue that GMOs are unsafe if this has been tested already.

Expert response from GMOAnswers Admin_1

Monday, 16/05/2016 19:16

Summary

The short answer to your question is that long-term feeding studies with GM crops have already been conducted with both livestock and rodents (mice and rats) as research projects by public-funded organizations. None of them have convincingly shown any adverse effects.

In addition to studies with geriatric animals as mentioned in the question, multi-generational feeding studies were conducted with several generations of animals continuously fed GM crops over long periods of time. Again, no adverse findings have been observed (see review publications: Snell et al. 2012, Van Eenennaam 2013, Bartholomaeus et al. 2013, and Herman et al. 2014.

Detailed answer

The safety assessment of GMO seeds and agricultural products is based on a “weight-of-evidence” basis, meaning that a combination of information is collected and analyzed in order to define whether or not a GM crop is as safe as conventional products already safely consumed. To date, more than 100 regulatory submissions have demonstrated (1) compositional equivalence and (2) comparable levels of safety between GM crops and their conventional counterparts.

Despite the fact that the scientific weight of evidence from these hundreds of studies have not revealed unique risks associated with GMOs, some groups have been calling for more animal feeding studies, including long-term rodent studies. In order to address these interrogations, research projects entirely supported by public funds have addressed the following question: “Do long-term (up-to 2 years) and multi-generational GMO feeding studies provide any new evidence indicative of some adverse effect(s) that were not previously identified in the usual compositional equivalence and safety studies?”

The most-recent example of these public-funded studies is the GRACE project, funded by the European Commission (GMO Risk Assessment and Communication of Evidence, http://www.grace-fp7.eu). One objective of the GRACE project was to assess the need and scientific added-value of (1) conducting a 90-day rat feeding study* in all cases and (2) extending the duration of 90-day rat feeding study for GMOs. The project found that when the composition of the GM plant is equivalent to its conventional counterpart, or when there are no other indications of toxic effects, there is no indication that a 90-day rat feeding study would provide any new evidence of some adverse effects. In addition, extending the duration of the safety study (up to 2 years) would not bring any additional value, in the absence of a clear and reasonable scientific testing hypothesis. This conclusion is in line with the position of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concerning the risk evaluation of GM crops: “When molecular, compositional, phenotypic, agronomic, and other analyses have demonstrated equivalence of the GM food/feed, animal feeding trials do not add to the safety assessment.”

In conclusion, long-term feeding studies with GMOs have already been conducted in livestock or rodents (mice and rat) and none of them have convincingly shown any adverse effect. Despite the existence of one highly controversial study from Seralini in 2012, which was later retracted by the journal (Retraction in Food Chem Toxicol. 2014 63: 244), there is a general consensus among the scientific community as well as the regulatory bodies that animal feeding studies should only be required if there is some reasonable food safety concern indicated during the regulatory evaluation of GM crops that has not been adequately addressed by in silico and in vitro analyses. In addition, extending the duration of a 90-day rat feeding study for GMOs, without a specific testing hypothesis, would not bring any additional information and would raise substantial ethical concerns.

Selected references:

Snell C, Bernheim A, Berge JB, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A, Ricroch AE: Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food Chem Toxicol 2012, 50: 1134–1148. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399

Bartholomaeus A, Parrott W, Bondy G, Walker K; ILSI International Food Biotechnology Committee Task Force on Use of Mammalian Toxicology Studies in Safety Assessment of GM Foods. The use of whole food animal studies in the safety assessment of genetically modified crops: Limitations and recommendations. Crit Rev Toxicol, 2013, 43: 1–24. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3833814/  

Van Eenennaam AL. GMOs in animal agriculture: time to consider both costs and benefits in regulatory evaluations. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 2013, 4:37 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015968/

Herman RA and Ekmay R. Do whole-food animal feeding studies have any value in the safety assessment of GM crops? Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 2014, 68: 171–174. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230013001050