So there was a study done showing gmo are carcigenic but than was removed and had valid points and even as thousands of scientist demanded it be brought back they still wont

Expert response from Community Manager

Moderator for GMOAnswers.com

Friday, 16/10/2015 13:08

We believe you are referring to the study conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini, which researched the health effects of genetically modified corn on rats, and would like to know why it was rejected by the scientific community. Dr. Alan McHughen, Cooperative Extension Biotechnology Specialist at the University of California, Riverside has previously discussed the Séralini study, explaining why it has been reviewed and rejected by several scientific groups:

 

“The paper was criticized by public scientific and medical societies worldwide for its faulty experimental design, statistical analysis, interpretation and presentation of results. Problems included the well-known fact that the strain of rats used in the study (Sprague-Dawley) are prone to develop tumors at around age two regardless of their diet; Séralini attributed the tumors to the GM corn rations, but he could as easily have shown pictures of rats fed no GM corn but still full of tumors. Séralini’s data analysis was also unusual; the German risk assessment agency found it “impossible to comprehend.”  At the request of the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reviewed Séralini’s  study and released an opinion, which it summarized as follows:

 

“’EFSA’s final review reaffirmed its initial findings that the authors’ conclusions cannot be regarded as scientifically sound because of inadequacies in the design, reporting and analysis of the study as outlined in the paper. It is not possible, therefore, to draw valid conclusions about the occurrence of tumors in the rats tested.’  (Frequently Asked Questions on review of Séralini et al. (2012) study)”

 

Dr. McHughen also noted several scientific agencies from EU Member States that reviewed and rejected the study:

 

• Belgium: BAC (Biosafety Advisory Council);
• Germany: BVL (The Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety) and BfR (The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment);
• Denmark: DTU (The National Food Institute)
• France: ANSES (French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety);
• France: HCB (High Council For Biotechnology);
• Italy: ISS (Istituto Superiore di Sanità ) (National Institute of Health) & IZSLT (Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Regioni Lazio e Toscana);
• Netherlands: NVWA (Nederlandese Voedsel-en Warenautoriteit) (Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority).

 

“All these agencies were extremely critical of the Séralini project and stated that it provided no new grounds for concern about the alleged tumor-causing properties of GM corn.  The EFSA final review and annex with the national reviews may be accessed here.

 

“Numerous independent scientists wrote letters of rebuttal and protest to the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.  These may be accessed here.”

 

You might also be interested in these additional resources:

 

• Michael Koch, New Technologies in Toxicology Lead at Monsanto Company, explains why the number of Sprague Dawley rats Séralini used “was not appropriate to draw the conclusions he did” in this post.
• A summary of the conversation around this study is available in this article from Jon Entine with the Genetic Literacy Project.
• Information about the scientific process, peer review, and evaluating scientific data is available through Biology Fortified’s GENERA studies database.

 

If you have any additional questions, please ask.

Expert response from Community Manager

Moderator for GMOAnswers.com

Friday, 16/10/2015 13:08

We believe you are referring to the study conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini, which researched the health effects of genetically modified corn on rats, and would like to know why it was rejected by the scientific community. Dr. Alan McHughen, Cooperative Extension Biotechnology Specialist at the University of California, Riverside has previously discussed the Séralini study, explaining why it has been reviewed and rejected by several scientific groups:

 

“The paper was criticized by public scientific and medical societies worldwide for its faulty experimental design, statistical analysis, interpretation and presentation of results. Problems included the well-known fact that the strain of rats used in the study (Sprague-Dawley) are prone to develop tumors at around age two regardless of their diet; Séralini attributed the tumors to the GM corn rations, but he could as easily have shown pictures of rats fed no GM corn but still full of tumors. Séralini’s data analysis was also unusual; the German risk assessment agency found it “impossible to comprehend.”  At the request of the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reviewed Séralini’s  study and released an opinion, which it summarized as follows:

 

“’EFSA’s final review reaffirmed its initial findings that the authors’ conclusions cannot be regarded as scientifically sound because of inadequacies in the design, reporting and analysis of the study as outlined in the paper. It is not possible, therefore, to draw valid conclusions about the occurrence of tumors in the rats tested.’  (Frequently Asked Questions on review of Séralini et al. (2012) study)”

 

Dr. McHughen also noted several scientific agencies from EU Member States that reviewed and rejected the study:

 

• Belgium: BAC (Biosafety Advisory Council);
• Germany: BVL (The Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety) and BfR (The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment);
• Denmark: DTU (The National Food Institute)
• France: ANSES (French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety);
• France: HCB (High Council For Biotechnology);
• Italy: ISS (Istituto Superiore di Sanità ) (National Institute of Health) & IZSLT (Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Regioni Lazio e Toscana);
• Netherlands: NVWA (Nederlandese Voedsel-en Warenautoriteit) (Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority).

 

“All these agencies were extremely critical of the Séralini project and stated that it provided no new grounds for concern about the alleged tumor-causing properties of GM corn.  The EFSA final review and annex with the national reviews may be accessed here.

 

“Numerous independent scientists wrote letters of rebuttal and protest to the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.  These may be accessed here.”

 

You might also be interested in these additional resources:

 

• Michael Koch, New Technologies in Toxicology Lead at Monsanto Company, explains why the number of Sprague Dawley rats Séralini used “was not appropriate to draw the conclusions he did” in this post.
• A summary of the conversation around this study is available in this article from Jon Entine with the Genetic Literacy Project.
• Information about the scientific process, peer review, and evaluating scientific data is available through Biology Fortified’s GENERA studies database.

 

If you have any additional questions, please ask.