- Also by the fact that such a sensitive subject as transgenesis should be part of tutorial classes and be presented as a totally mastered technique to young students who necessarily don’t have the benefit of hindsight to appreciate the consequences and spin-offs of such technologies.
- We deeply regret that the time devoted to the teaching of this biotechnology (acquisition of a know-how) should infringe on the necessary time that ought to be devoted to the acquisition of knowledge in biology and observation (for the students to develop their observation skills).
- We question the safety conditions in which such experiments do take place with a view to avoid environmental contaminations due the reagents used and the products obtained during the tutorial classes, and we wonder about the sterilization, autoclave and decontamination equipment of high schools.
- We also wonder about the violation of European directives pertaining to the handling of GMOs in sealed environments.
voir ici : http://www.terre.tv/fr/3472_le-lanceur-dalerte-gilles-eric-seralini-attaque-en-diffamation-
La Fondation Sciences Citoyennes et le réseau de chercheurs européens engagés pour une responsabilité sociale et environnementale (ENSSER) se félicitent du jugement rendu par le Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris dans le procès en diffamation intenté par Gilles-Eric Séralini, Professeur à l’Université de Caen, président du Conseil scientifique du CRIIGEN (Comité de recherche et d’information indépendantes sur le génie génétique) et spécialiste des effets des pesticides et des OGM sur la santé. Ce procès visait le lobby des biotechnologies incarné par l’Association française des biotechnologies végétales (AFBV) et son président Marc Fellous. Celui-ci a été condamné à 4000 € de remboursement de frais de justice ainsi qu’à 1000 € d’amende avec sursis et 1 € de dommages et intérêts.
Après la publication de ses contre-expertises remettant en cause l’innocuité sanitaire de trois maïs OGM de la firme Monsanto, et interrogeant donc le bien-fondé des autorisations délivrées par la commission européenne sur l’avis de l’Agence européenne de sécurité des aliments (AESA), G. -E. Séralini a fait l’objet d’une violente campagne de dénigrement, notamment de la part de scientifiques de l’AFBV dont de nombreux membres sont directement liés aux firmes de biotechnologies, soit parce qu’ils sont en relation d’affaires avec elles, soit parce qu’ils occupent des fonctions dans ces groupes industriels.
Ce verdict condamne la démarche de certains scientifiques qui utilisent les armes du discrédit mensonger pour masquer leur incapacité à porter une contradiction argumentée, encadrée par les règles de déontologie et les procédures en vigueur au sein de la communauté scientifique. En plein scandale sanitaire autour du Médiator et de nombreuses autres affaires (perchloroéthylène, héparine chinoise, bisphénol A,...) où se multiplient les exemples de conflits d’intérêt, il est urgent de promouvoir le respect d’une expertise transparente et contradictoire comme l’ont manifesté plus de 1000 scientifiques à travers le monde et 15000 citoyens en apportant leur soutien à Gilles-Eric Séralini.
A new critical review has been published about the definite scientific shortcomings of regulatory committees, such as EFSA, in relation to the health risk assessment of edible GMOs. The critical review in question was recently published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences and was signed by a CRIIGEN's group coordinated by Prof. Séralini. It is a detailed answer to Monsanto, and to a number of website comments from various national committees which have approved Monsanto GMOs, in relation to a previous CRIIGEN study highlighting kidney and liver toxicity signs after the consumption of commercial GMOs. All these GMOs do enhance the presence of new pesticide residues in food. The scientific reasons for the crucially different biological interpretations of admitted significant effects are presented in our paper, which highlights the shortcomings in the experimental protocols designed by the company and that were nonetheless accepted by authorities. For instance, only 40 rats had blood analyses among 80 eating GMOs out of a total of 400; these experiments only lasted three months, whereas the assessment of a worldwide consumption for a population during its whole life is at stake. Such a context implies a huge responsibility towards public health, especially since the traceability or epidemiological studies do not exist in the GMO-producing countries. In fact, this paper questions the independence of regulatory committees.
de Vendômois JS, Cellier D, Vélot C, Clair E, Mesnage R, Séralini GE. Debate on GMOs Health Risks after Statistical Findings in Regulatory Tests. Int J Biol Sci 2010; 6(6):590-598.
The assessment of the health impact of agricultural GMOs (plants containing pesticides) and pesticides, relies on inappropriate scientific facts endangering public health.
CRIIGEN has completed and published several expert analyses on the health tests. These were conducted by Monsanto before the commercialization of three of its genetically modified corn (MON863, MON810 and NK603) (1). The revelation of Monsanto and some official organisms’ answers (HCB, EFSA, FSANZ) is staggering (2).
Apart from the fact that Monsanto and these organizations support the idea that three months of experimentation on young rats are sufficient to ensure safety for citizens, they defend indirectly the three following major scientific untruths, among others (3):
1) There is always a proportionality between the dose of treatment and the biological effect,
2) The effects of a toxic product are always similar in males and females,
3) Any biological or biochemical abnormalities should be correlated with pathological changes.
The experimental protocols as well as the scientific basis underlying the assessment of GMOs and pesticides do not guarantee the safety of these products in any way. If they were, we would not be getting, like today, the resurgence of environmental diseases, a real health catastrophe. A drastic and urgent reform of the evaluation of GMOs and pesticides is needed.
(3) Séralini et al. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 52, 596-602 (2007) ; J. Spiroux de Vendômois et al., Int. J. Biol. Sci, 5, 706-726 (2009).
(2) See file
(3) Séralini et al. Int. J. Biol. 5, 438-443 (2009)
Contact: Prof. G-E. SERALINI firstname.lastname@example.org phone +33 2 31 56 56 84
A few extracts of the Symposium that took place in Brussels :
The Youth Appeal Collective, support by CRIIGEN and Terraeco, will hold a Press conference on Thursday 25 February 2010 at 10:00 am at the Assemblée Nationale in Paris.
Please join them, they need everybody's support!
For more details: http://appeldelajeunesse.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/CP_invite.pdf
Strasbourg - 20 October 2009
This morning, in the European Parliament, Corinne Lepage received a report from a new independent research centre about the necessity to improve the risk evaluation of transgenic plants in Europe.
Christoph Then, head of the TestBiotech NGO and co-author of the report, pointed out to Mme Lepage, who happens to be 1st Vice-President of the Commission on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, that "the techniques carried out to create transgenic plants are much more detrimental to the gene expression mechanisms than is currently stated by the biotech industry lobby. These disruptions may lead to unexpected effects, and therefore to new risks, concerning transgenic plants, and in particular under stress conditions."
Mme Lepage declared: "Many independent studies show that the risks of GMOs are poorly evaluated in Europe. The time has come for EFSA and the European Commission to take into account other scientific opinions than those provided for by the biotech companies themselves. As a member of Parliament, I will do my best to make European expertise more open, pluralistic and based on debating. The health, environmental and social aspects of new technologies are so important that it would be a shame to go on sacrificing the precaution principle on the altar of commercial interests."
TestBiotech is a new German independent research centre, registered as an NGO, dedicated to promoting independent research work and public debate on biotechnologies. Their first report, « Risks reloaded », is about how the genetically modified plants are evaluated in the EU. It was personally given this morning to Corinne Lepage, and is currently available (english / german) on www.testbiotech.org
Dr Christoph Then, head of TestBiotech (English / German):
+49 151 546 380 40
Corinne Lepage, CRIIGEN President: + 33 6 11 17 50 97
"Scientific or artistic freedom of speech, in the respect of humane values, is a basic right, therefore CRIIGEN fears that a censure would constitute a precedent in the specific field of health and environment risk assessment".
10 September 2009
The Arts & Vaccinations Collective was granted an exhibition room in the Arras « Centre d’animation » in Paris, for an event starting on 14 September. The staff in charge had left already in order to set up the exhibition equipment. I saw it myself in St Germain-sous-Bois and enjoyed it thoroughly. It shows works of art executed by hepatitis-B vaccine victims who wish not to be forgotten. However, four days before the exhibition should have started in Paris, a formal ban was issued about it, and the exhibition room was cancelled for the following reason: “Due to the present period which is aggravated by the influenza epidemic, this exhibition would appear as particularly unfit to be shown.” (See below, the decision of the Direction of the “Centres d'animation” of the 5th and 19th Paris arrondissements.
Apparently, some members of the public complained. They were worried that the exhibition entitled Facing Silence (Face au silence) could be perceived as a plea against hepatitis B vaccination. It seems likely this is a false pretext, as the Arts & Vaccinations Collective hads already organized a number of exhibitions in France and in Belgium without anybody complaining for this reason. This is therefore a political decision endangering a basic right in our constitution: the freedom of speech. If we do not protest, we will de facto let our political leaders establish this exception-based government system.exception style regime.
It was more than 10 years ago that the victims were vaccinated “so that others may be healthy” (the purpose of mass vaccination). The victims’status areis denied, they are themselves forgotten and often reduced to great poverty. They are expecting some sympathy. But this time, this is way to much! They have to shut up not to hamper a new mass vaccination campaign which will necessarily lead to a number of new post-vaccine accidents.