The recent study published in “Food and Chemical Toxicology” by Gilles-Eric Séralini and co-workers (“Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize”) does indeed deserve careful study. Here are conclusions from several European governmental agencies that have done just that:
The European Food Safety Authority concluded that “… the recent paper raising concerns about the potential toxicity of genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 and of a herbicide containing glyphosate is of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment.”
The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Safety and Health stated, “The conclusions advanced by the authors are not sufficiently supported by the data published.”
The French Higher Biotechnologies Council said it found ” ‘no causal relationship’ between the rats’ tumours and consumption of Monsanto’s NK603 corn or the Roundup herbicide that was part of the experiment.”
Six French national academies (agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies) reported, “This work does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn,” adding bluntly that the affair helped “spread fear among the public.”
The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment concluded that “… the authors’ main statements are not sufficiently corroborated by experimental evidence, due to deficiencies in the study design and in the presentation and interpretation of the study results. Therefore, the main conclusions of the authors (that rats fed with genetically modified NK603 maize throughout their life have a shorter lifespan than animals fed with conventional maize) are not supported by the presented incomplete data. The study does not comply with internationally recognised standards for long-term carcinogenicity studies.”
Finally, more than 700 scientists and academics signed a petition urging the author to release the data from this study, but they have not responded to the petition.
Once again, opponents of biotechnology can only provide flawed and biased reports to claim harm.