Disturbing breaches of scientific ethics, as shown by correspondence with the editor of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) and the Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE) released today
Retracting Séralini Study Violates Science and Ethics
by Dr Mae-Wan Ho and Prof Peter Saunders
read more :
EFSA suggests harmonised default values for use in risk assessment
We have some criticisms concerning the harmonised default values suggested by EFSA:
First, the extrapolation of the exposure time. Using an uncertainty factor out of two factors implies that the effects are simply regarded as duplicated from a subchronic to a chronic study. This operation does not take into account the specific effects of chronic periods such as hormonal effects that may appear in the range of nanomolar or even less. Here, no factor is applicable because we can not foresee what may happen. Secondly, reducing the uncertainty factor of 100 to specific factors when knowing the toxicokinetic or toxicodynamic characteristics of a compound seems unjustifed. It is less cautious. Thirdly, there is only one adult category. It still lacks some subpopulation such as pregnant women who at present are "treated" like men weighing an average of 70 kg. Factors to convert a dietary dose to a physiological dose appear to be correct and the idea of using Benchmark doses to be more accurate than a LOAEL seems interesting. It avoids the uncertainty associated with the choice of experimental doses, but it must not fall into the trap of linear dose response paradigms.
The conference tour in Australia and Phillipines of Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini and Chef Jérôme Douzelet (see pictures http://www.flickr.com/photos/79123951@N07/sets/72157629830513273/ ) was appreciated and acknowledeged in the Universities of Sydney, Canberra, Adelaïde, Perth, and Los Banos (next to Manilla), and in front of the public or cooks in Sydney, Perth, Margaret River, Manilla. Several radio or press interviews were performed together with meetings with politicians. A contradictory debate in the ABC australian radio with the Chief Scientist of FSANZ (the Australian and New Zealand regulatory authority for GMOs) is available (see link http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/are-gmos-safe3f/3858030).
The conferences were in particular on the poor assessments and the risks of transgenic wheat and brinjal requested for cultures over there.
Criticisms were numerous since big economical issues are the goal for biotech companies. These criticisms are not surprisingly those already made by biotech companies and their defenders already convicted of defamation against Prof. Séralini. These pseudo-scientific judge details regularly of his resume, awards, but do not bother read his scientific international peer-reviewed studies that support the purpose of his lectures. These are available upon request at firstname.lastname@example.org
The food and health agencies like FSANZ in Australia or FDA in the United States, or EFSA in Europe, where these lobbies stand as demonstrated by numerous journalists, only publish opinions on websites. This is not enough to reach the international scientific community that, by contrast, congratulates Prof. Séralini on a regular basis. However these so-called independent agencies wait for health scandals to react and proofs by deaths (3000 for the Mediator drug authorized by this kind of agencies). Then, they can to some extent take evidence into account and alerts that often so against the business interests that they seem to serve.
On another hand more than 1200 researchers from 30 countries have defended science transparency and scientific controversies in the defamation trial won by Prof. Séralini in the Court affair that opposed him to M. Fellous, who lost the case.Finally those who criticize the supposed links between Prof. Séralini and the « business homeopathic » certainly did not read the studies where this researcher tested in fact plant extracts in a non homeopathic manner on cell detoxification. Stupidity is rife in countries where GMOs or dollars try to be kings.
A recent article (Snell Chelsea et al., Food and Chem. Tox.) provokes debate in December 2011. It was co-signed by Gérard Pascal who has contributed to allow the authorization of a large number of GMOs in french regulatory authorities. After reviewing - that is what he said - twenty-four long-term or over several generation studies, Gérard Pascal pretends that the latter demonstrate that GMOs in food are safe. Of course, this gentleman obediently produces the results of the manufacturers explaining that all significant effects compared to controls are not a problem as they are included within the "normal biological variation." So what is the point of having controls in an experiment then ? He does not carry out the statistics again, unlike we did.
The authors qualifie as "long term" tests conducted over a few months on salmon or macaques, over two years on cows that live fifteen years, and that only lasted for a few weeks on chickens or quails, and they did not notice either that all these studies were not requested before the commercialization of the GMOs in question. Our reviews largely consulted by the scientific community (Séralini et al. Env. Sci. Europe, 2011, 23, 10-20, see the link on our website in the welcome page) detailing the contrary are ignored, which is not at all ethical from a scientific point of view.
Never mind the subjectivity! Worse, the large number of long-term studies by Malatesta and colleagues on mice eating soybeans with Roundup, that we had already identified as highlighting the negative effects of GMOs (in depths liver, pancreatic, testicular cell disorders) are considered as showing nothing to the despair of the authors in their conclusion!
They re-judge international publications as they pleas, transform the findings or ignore them for very dubious or misleading reasons like: "the GM soy might not have grown next to a field non-GMO control before being eaten by mice!" When one is concerned by such matters instead of thinking about public health, isn’t there a risk of creating generations of students who will be ashamed of science? A perfect "stage" for contradictory expertise !
A new report reviewing 19 studies of mammals fed with commercialized GM soybean and maize (which represent more than 80% of all GMOs grown on a large scale) indicates liver and kidney signs of toxicity in mammals fed on a GM diet. The report by Gilles-Eric Séralini et al is published in Environmental Sciences Europe (2011, 23, 10-20).
The authors studied data from biotech companies from 90-day-long feeding tests on rats that include biochemical blood and urine parameters of mammals eating GMOs modified for herbicide tolerance and insecticide production. The tests were conducted as a result of court actions or official requests and the authors reviewed the studies in the scientific literature.
Though the tests may not point to chronic toxicity of GMOs since the 90 day period is too short, the authors nonetheless cautioned that the signs highlighted in the kidneys and livers could spell the onset of chronic diseases: on a total of 9% of disturbed parameters, 43% are concentrated in the kidneys of the male rats. The researchers suggested that more detailed and prolonged studies should be conducted. They underlined that since no minimal length for the tests is yet compulsory for any of the GMOs cultivated on a large scale, it was socially unacceptable in terms of consumer health.
The authors also suggested an alternative to conventional feeding trials, to understand the biological significance of statistical differences. This approach will make it possible to avoid both false negative and false positive results, in order to improve safety assessments of agricultural GMOs before their commercialization for cultivation for food and feed as well as for imports. This is the most comprehensive review on this topic to date.
The full paper is available at: http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10
CRIIGEN is filing a complaint against Marc Fellous and the AFBV for forgery and use of forgery
CRIIGEN and Prof. Gilles-Eric SERALINI have submitted a complaint to the Public Prosecutor of Paris on May 20th 2011, for forgery and the use of forgery in relation to a document that was produced in Court by Prof. Marc FELLOUS and the AFBV (Association Française des Biotechnologies Végétales), during a trial at the end of which Marc FELLOUS was convicted of defamation against Gilles-Éric SERALINI, on January 18th 2011. The plaintiffs are shocked by such attitudes, especially since the declarations of the AFBV defamatory letters were pretending to react to the dissemination of “false information” and “stretching of the rules of scientific neutrality”.
Furthermore, during the defamation trial that was won by Prof. SERALINI, a connection was established between the AFBV and the biotechnology firms. CRIIGEN and Prof. Gilles-Eric SERALINI would like to thank very warmly the more than 1100 scientists of 35 different countries who expressed their support, as well as about 12,000 citizens, and the Fondation Sciences Citoyennes, the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility ENSSER and many other societies, foundations and organizations. These people have signed a petition in favour of a healthy and contradictory debate, beyond lies, disgraceful acts, and biased interests that tread on health and environment risk studies, mostly where agricultural GMOs and pesticides are concerned.
Lawyer Bernard Dartevelle : email@example.com
Tel : + 33 1 43 12 55 80
TO PREVENT THE EFFECTS OF POLLUTANTS
AND TO DETOXIFY OUR CELLS: IT IS POSSIBLE !
Prof. Seralini's group in the University of Caen and CRIIGEN (www.criigen.org) demonstrate the negative effects of common pollutants (the herbicides Roundup or Atrazine, the plasticizer BisphenolA) on human cells. Extracts of organic plants in precise combinations are rapidly able to prevent or cure at least in part these cellular effects. These have been made by Sevene Pharma Company. This work opens the door of a new ecomedicine, which does not avoid a stronger regulation of pesticides and other pollutants.
"Dig1 protects against cell death provoked by glyphosate-based herbicides in human liver cell lines" Gasnier et al. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology 2010, 5:29
"Defined plant extracts can protect human cells against combined xenobiotic effects" Gasnier et al. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology 2011, 6:3
"Sustainability and holistic assessment of technologies and
University of Caen, France, in the House of Human Sciences (MRSH)
March 23-26, 2011
Co-organized by: University of Caen MRSH-CNRS (www.unicaen.fr), Risk Pole (www.unicaen.fr/recherche/mrsh/risque.), CRIIGEN (www.criigen.org), ENSSER (www.ensser.org), Foundation for Citizen Sciences (www.sciencescitoyennes.org), Genok (www.genok.org), Society of Environmental Health in Western France.http://www.criigen.org/SiteEn/user/site/stories/meetingensser-march2011.pdf
CULTIVATED GMOs IN THE WORLD in 2010
15 years after their commercial release, GMOs represent 9.8% (148 millions ha) of crops worldwide, with an annual increase <1%. GMOs are still distributed only in 4 plants (soya, maize, cotton and colza or canola) and the first two represent 81% of the total, despite a large number of growing authorizations that remain unused so far. They all are pesticide plants modified to be either herbicide tolerant (i.e. to absorb an herbicide like Roundup without dying 61%), or to produce one or more insecticides (17%), or they have both characteristics, with the production of up to 3 herbicide tolerances and 6 insecticides, depending on the plant. None the other promises are kept. 87% of GMOs in surface, grow on the American continent, which represents 97% GMOs grown for food and feed, whereas cotton is essentially grown in India and China. In response to GMOs, resistance is rising round the world. In India for instance the Bt brinjal aubergine has been stopped. In the United States, like everywhere else, GMOs are not labeled, nor assessed for more than three months on mammalian health before being authorized, and often without blood analyses, as used to be the case. With no labeling, GMOs are easily disseminated. By contrast, Europe cultivates less than 0.001% of GMOs and mostly in Spain.
We deeply regret that a body like ISAAA should begin its report by stating "Consistent and substantial economic, environmental and welfare benefits offered by biotech crops". The GMOs in question have from the beginning been fed to porks, cows and chickens essentially for rich countries. They contribute to poverty and worldwide malnutrition, as well as to environmental and chronic health risks.
Contact : Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini - firstname.lastname@example.org