Anti-GMO study is garbage
A French study released at the end of September claimed there are cancer concerns from eating genetically modified (GM) corn and the use of glyphosate herbicide in conjunction with the corn, but scientists around the world have called the design of the rat feeding study and the reported results a mockery of science.
Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, the study’s principal lead and results author, a molecular biologist and endocrinologist, has an open anti-GM agenda of trying to claim their are dangerous effects from GM crops/foods. Nearly every true scientist without an anti-GM agenda and the European Union’s regulatory agencies have refuted Seralini’s previous claims and this latest one, too.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a statement saying it “does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize (Monsanto’s) NK603 nor to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate.”
Several scientists didn’t mince words about the study and the lead researcher. One of those outspoken critics is Bruce Chassy, Ph.D., professor emeritus, University of Illinois Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition. “Let’s get to the core of the matter, the senior author of the study (Sealini) is a very prominent anti-GM crusader in Europe. He is funded by people who are anti-GM. He is the president of the board of scientific directors of an anti-GM NGO, which he hosts at his university laboratory, which I find odd. And he has a long history of papers that get discredited as bad science that attack GM. He has written and said he is opposed to GM. So, you have both bias and conflict of interest,” said Chassy during a segment of AgriTalk radio.
The rat feeding study results claimed a high number of rats died from tumors after being fed NK603 corn, which is resistant to glyphosate herbicide. Scientists noted the control group and total number of rats tested, and the number of those who developed tumors and died while eating the GM corn was completely unscientific. The researchers used the Sprague-Dawley line of rats that is bred to be highly susceptible to the development of tumors. That particular strain has a more than 80 percent chance of growing tumors within two years under non-experimental conditions, noted many scientists including members of the American Society of Animal Science.
“What’s wrong with this study? I can’t even count the ways,” said Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D., a Cooperative Extension specialist at the University of California-Davis, who was quoted by Dan Murphy, a contributing columnist for Vance Publishing. “The authors refused to share their data with other scientists, they didn’t perform a statistical analysis of the data and the strain of rats they used is known to spontaneously develop tumors.