Farm Press Blog

More GMO-bashing, but as usual the other side gets short shrift in media


A French study reporting that mice that ate genetically modified corn sprayed with glyphosate — or drank water with glyphosate levels similar to that in U.S. tap water — were much more likely to die, and to die younger is the latest we’re-all-being-poisoned-the-sky-is-falling scenario from those those who would have agriculture revert to mules and manure — and certainly is nothing new in France, where opposition to GMOs has been a cause célèbre from Day 1.

Also, The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has issued a statement that the paper about the French study “is of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment.”

EFSA’s initial review found that “the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate.” To enable the fullest understanding of the study the Authority has invited authors Séralini et alto share key additional information.

“Such shortcomings mean that EFSA is presently unable to regard the authors’ conclusions as scientifically sound,” the organization’s statement said. “The numerous issues relating to the design and methodology of the study as described in the paper mean that no conclusions can be made about the occurrence of tumors in the rats tested.

“Therefore, based on the information published by the authors, EFSA does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize NK603 nor to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate.

EFSA assessed the paper against recognized good scientific practices, such as internationally agreed study and reporting guidelines.

Per Bergman, who led EFSA’s work, said: “Some may be surprised that EFSA’s statement focuses on the methodology of this study rather than its outcomes; however, this goes to the very heart of the matter. When conducting a study it is crucial to insure a proper framework is in place. Having clear objectives and the correct design and methodology create a solid base from which accurate data and valid conclusions can follow. Without these elements a study is unlikely to be reliable and valid.”

The director of scientific evaluation of regulated products added that the consideration of possible long-term effects of GMOs “has been, and will continue to be, a key focus of EFSA’s work to protect animals, humans and the environment.”

EFSA’s preliminary review issued today is the first step in a two-stage process, Bergman noted. A second analysis will be delivered by the end of October.

“This will take into account any additional information from the study authors, who will be given an opportunity to supply study documentation and procedures to the Authority to insure the broadest possible understanding of their work. It will also include an overview of member state assessments of the paper and an analysis from the German authorities responsible for the assessment of glyphosate.

Discuss this Blog Entry 7

Anonymous (not verified)
on Oct 12, 2012

There is more wild hyperbole in this editorial than I've seen in any Pro-GMO Labeling argument.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Oct 13, 2012

Absolutely! The same argument is made against scientists that work for Monsanto, et al. Oh my... science, and spin! Common sense will prevail one day when people listen to it instead of being led by others.

Eatfresh (not verified)
on Oct 14, 2012

Another lopsided article from the GMO protaganists & yes Americans are experiencing allergies & diseases at a rate far in excess of other western countries. maybe this has something to do with the 90% of all their crops which are GM.

Why does this industry fight tooth & nail to exclude GM labelling of their frankenfoods??
I think everyone smells a rat, one with lots of tumours.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Oct 15, 2012

Yikes! Tumors? GMO opponents forget that the earth itself has been "genetically modifying" food, animals and plants since time began. Its called evolution and cross-polination. Maybe some folks should have taken more science classes instead of those touchy-feely ones.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Oct 15, 2012

who funds Delta Farm Press? I'm guessing Monsanto and a bunch of other chemical companies. I'd really be interested to know...

Anonymous (not verified)
on Oct 15, 2012

GMO' technology...this must be feared. And in 1900 electricity was also feared. This stuff is dangerous, it must not be allowed in our homes! In fact, in one instance a dog was electrocuted every evening to display just how deadly this new technology truly was. Yes, let's ban GMO's, airplanes, cars, cell phones, and electricity. Rural america will be just fine- they can handle organic farming just fine. However, the folks in New York high-rises, and suburbia, USA that pass judgement on modern agriculture...I don't know how well they will fare with the food shortage, or with the request to come hand-weed crops.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Oct 15, 2012

Gasoline is explosive, poisonous and highly carcinogenic. We should probably wear gloves and gas masks, and move our children upwind whenever we stop for gas. Unfortunately, my yard also contains some highly toxic fungi growing on some old logs. My TV shoots out radiation- much like my dentists X-ray machine. When I get sick, I take antibioltic pills which is actually a selective pesticide which kills bacterial cells, but not me. There's some wild deer in my yard, and they might have ticks that carry lymes disease. And I also heard about some e-coli contaminated organic lettuce a few months back. Maybe the intensively tested, USDA and EPA approved ag products are farmers grow aren't so bad?

Please or Register to post comments.

What's Farm Press Blog?

The Farm Press Daily Blog

Connect With Us

Blog Archive
Continuing Education
Potassium nitrate has a positive effect in controlling plant pests and diseases when applied...
This online CE course details sound mechanical irrigation design and management practices to...