The Toxic Impacts of GMO Maize: Scientific Journal Bows to Monsanto, Retracts anti-Monsanto Study
There exist rigid
criteria for a serious scientific journal to accept a peer-reviewed
paper and to publish it. As well there are strict criteria by which such
an article can be withdrawn after publication.
The
once-respected Elsevier Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology has
apparently decided to violate those procedures and has announced it is
retracting a long-term study on the toxic effects of Monsanto
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)—GMO Maize–it published a year ago.
The bizarre
announcement comes only six months after Elsevier created a special new
position, Associate Editor for Biotechnology (i.e. GMO), and fills it
with a former Monsanto employee who worked for Monsanto’s
front-organization—the International Life Sciences Institute—which
develops industry-friendly risk assessment methods for GM foods and
chemical food contaminants and inserts them into government regulations.
Sound like something wrong with this picture?
Some Background
In its November, 2012
issue, The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper
titled, “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a
Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize.” by Gilles-Eric Séralini
and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University.[1]
It was a highly important study as it was the first and, astonishingly,
still the only long-term study under controlled conditions of possible
effects of a diet of GMO Maize treated with Monsanto Roundup herbicide.
Seralini submitted
his study results to the respected journal following a rigorous four
month review by scientific peers regarding methodology and such.
Seralini’s group tested more than 200 rats of a diet of GMO corn over a
period of a full two years at a cost of €3 million. The study was done
in absolute secrecy to avoid industry pressure.
The publication
created an atomic blast rocking the entire edifice of the GMO industry.
Pictures of test rats with grotesque cancer tumors appeared in
newspapers around the world.
Seralini’s group
studied the effect of a Monsanto GMO maize diet on the rats for much
longer than Monsanto had in their study submitted to the EU European
Food Safety Authority for approval. They did their study for the full
two year average life-time instead of just 90 days in the Monsanto
study. The long time span proved critical. The first tumors only
appeared 4 to7 months into the study. In industry’s earlier 90-day study
on the same GMO maize Monsanto NK603, signs of toxicity were seen, but
were dismissed as “not biologically meaningful” by industry and EFSA
alike. [2]
It seems they were indeed very biologically meaningful.
The study was also
done with the highest number of rats ever measured in a standard GMO
diet study. They tested “also for the first time 3 doses (rather than
two in the usual 90 day long protocols) of the Roundup-tolerant NK603
GMO maize alone, the GMO maize treated with Roundup, and Roundup alone
at very low environmentally relevant doses starting below the range of
levels permitted by regulatory authorities in drinking water and in GM
feed.” [3]
Their findings were more than alarming. Mammary tumors that developed in rats fed GMO corn and/or low levels of Roundup. From
the paper “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a
Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,” published in Food and
Chemical Toxicology
The Seralini study
concluded, “In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than
controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups
fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the
pathological profiles were comparable. Females developed large mammary
tumors almost always more often than and before controls; the pituitary
was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was
modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver
congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was
confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and
severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males
presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls…” [4]
Monsanto on defensive
Monsanto and the
related GMO industry immediately went on a war footing to control the
potentially fatal damage from the Seralini study. Suddenly, with
worldwide attention to the new Seralini results, the EU Commission and
its EFSA was under fire as never in their history. How they reacted was
worthy of a bad copy of an Agatha Christie murder novel. They piously
announced that they had passed the Seralini study on to their EFSA
scientific panel for evaluation.
The Brussels EU
scientific food regulatory organization, EFSA, was under the gun from
the damning results of the long-term Seralini study. EFSA had
recommended approval of Monsanto’s NK603 Roundup-tolerant maize in 2009
without first conducting any independent testing. They admitted that
they relied on “information supplied by the applicant (Monsanto).” EFSA
also admitted that the Monsanto tests on rats were for only 90 days.
Seralini’s group noted that the massive toxic effects and deaths of
GMO-fed rats took place well after 90 days, a reason why longer-term
studied were obviously warranted. [5]
The EFSA concluded at
the time of its initial Monsanto NK603 approval in 2009 that, “data
provided [by Monsanto-w.e.] are sufficient and do not raise a safety
concern.” The Brussels body added, “The EFSA GMO Panel is of the opinion
that maize NK603 is as safe as conventional maize. Maize NK603 and
derived products are unlikely to have any adverse effect on human and
animal health in the context of the intended uses.” [6] Oops!
Now comes this guy Seralini and puts EFSA and the entire regulatory control process for GMO under grave doubt.
The EU Commission
was on record stating that no independent non-GMO industry long-term
studies were needed on animals to test their safety. The EU guidelines
for testing stated, “Toxicological assessments on test animals are not
explicitly required for the approval of a new food in the EU or the US.
Independent experts have decided that in some cases, chemical analyses
of the food’s makeup are enough to indicate that the new GMO is
substantially equivalent to its traditional counterpart…In recent years,
biotech companies have tested their transgenic products (maize, soy,
tomato) before introducing them to the market on several different
animals over the course of up to 90 days. Negative effects have not yet
been observed.” [7]
The “up to 90 days”
is the key statement. Seralini’s study only observed serious tumors and
other effects after 120 days in their two-year study.
EFSA Coverup
On November 28, 2012,
only a few weeks after the study was published, EFSA in Brussels issued
a press release with the following conclusion: “Serious defects in the
design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not
meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine
(sic!) previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize
NK603.” Per Bergman, who led EFSA’s work, said: “EFSA’s analysis has
shown that deficiencies in the Séralini et al. paper mean it is of
insufficient scientific quality for risk assessment. We believe the
completion of this evaluation process has brought clarity to the issue.”
[8]
EFSA argued that
Seralini had used the wrong kind of rats, not enough rats and that the
statistical analysis was inadequate. By these standards, all toxicity
studies on glyphosate and GMOs should be retracted because they used the
same type and approximate number of rats as those in the Séralini
study.
At the very minimum,
the “precautionary principle” in instances involving even the potential
for grave damage to the human population would mandate that the EU
Commission and its EFSA should order immediate further serious,
independent long-term studies to prove or disprove the results of the
Seralini tests. Refusal to re-examine its earlier decision to approve
Monsanto GMO maize, no matter what flaws might or might not have been in
the Seralini study, suggested the EFSA was trying to cover for the GMO
agrichemical lobby at the very least.
Many members of the
EFSA GMO review panel had documented ties to Monsanto and the GMO
industry, a conflict of interest to put it mildly. Corporate Europe
Observer, an independent EU corporate watchdog group noted about the
EFSA response, “EFSA failed to properly and transparently appoint a
panel of scientists beyond any suspicion of conflict of interests; and
it failed to appreciate that meeting with Europe’s largest biotech
industry lobby group to discuss GMO risk assessment guidelines in the
very middle of a EU review undermines its credibility.” [9]
New blood at Elsevier
While the official
EFSA statement seemed to take pressure off Monsanto, it clearly was not
enough so long as the Elsevier journal study could circulate and be
cited around the world.
Then, out of the
blue, in May 2013, six months after the Seralini study release, Elsevier
announced that it had created a new position, “Associate Editor for
Biotechnology.” The person they hired to fill it was Richard E. Goodman,
a former Monsanto employee who in addition was with the Monsanto
pro-GMO lobby organization, the International Life Sciences Institute
(ILSI) which develops industry-friendly risk assessment methods for GM
foods and chemical food contaminants and inserts them into government
regulations.
As one critical
scientific website posed the obvious ethical sham of hiring Monsanto
people to control GMO publications, “Does Monsanto now effectively
decide which papers on biotechnology are published in FCT? And is this
part of an attempt by Monsanto and the life science industry to seize
control of science?”[10]
Then on November 24,
2013, six months after Goodman took control of GMO issues at the
Journal, Dr A. Wallace Hayes, the editor of the journal Food and
Chemical Toxicology decided to retract the study by the team of
Professor Séralini.
The reasons for the
extraordinary retraction a full year after publishing are in violation
of the guidelines for retractions in scientific publishing set out by
the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), of which FCT is a member.
According to the guidelines, the only grounds for a journal to retract a
paper are:
• Clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct (eg data fabrication) or honest error;
• Plagiarism or redundant publication;
• Unethical research.
Séralini’s paper
meets none of these criteria and Hayes admits as much. In his letter
informing Prof Séralini of his decision, Hayes concedes that examination
of Prof Séralini’s raw data showed “no evidence of fraud or intentional
misrepresentation of the data” and nothing “incorrect” about the data,
and that the retraction was solely based on the “inconclusive” nature of
the findings on tumours and mortality.[11]
As Claire Robinson of
GM Watch points out, “inconclusiveness of findings is not a valid
ground for retraction. Numerous published scientific papers contain
inconclusive findings, which are often mixed in with findings that can
be presented with more certainty. It is for future researchers to build
on the findings and refine scientific understanding of any
uncertainties.” [12]
Elsevier, the
publisher of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, is one of the
giants in worldwide scientific publications. And they are apparently not
so rigorous when it comes to making money over scientific principle. In
2009, Elsevier invented an entire medical journal, complete with
editorial board, in order to publish papers promoting the products of
the pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck. Merck provided the papers,
Elsevier published them, and doctors read them, unaware that the
“Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine” was simply a PR
vehicle for the drug giant Merck. [13]
Notes
[1]
Séralini, G.-E., et al., Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a
Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol.
(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005.
[3] Seralini et al., Op. Cit.
[5]
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Scientific Opinion of the Panel
on Genetically Modified Organisms on applications (EFSA-GMO-NL-2005-22
and EFSA-GMO-RX-NK603) for the placing on the market of the genetically
modified glyphosate tolerant maize NK603 for cultivation, food and feed
uses and import and processing, and for renewal of the authorisation of
maize NK603 as existing product, The EFSA Journal (2009) 1137, 1-50.
[7] GMO-Kompass, Food Safety Evaluation–Evaluating Safety: A Major Undertaking, February 15, 2006, accessed in http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safety/human_health/41.evaluation_safety_gm_food_major_undertaking.html
[8]
EFSA, Séralini et al. study conclusions not supported by data, says EU
risk assessment community, EFSA Press Release, 28 November 2012,
accessed in http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm
[10] Claire Robinson and Jonathan Latham, PhD, The Goodman Affair: Monsanto Targets the Heart of Science,
May 20, 2013, accessed in http://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science/
[11]
Claire Robinson, Journal retraction of Séralini study is illicit
unscientific and unethical, GMWatch,, 27 November 2013, accessed in http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15184-journal-retraction-of-seralini-study-is-illicit-unscientific-and-unethical.
No comments:
Post a Comment