Brussels, 31/10/2012 (Agence Europe) - There has been a further development in the controversy over transgenic maize NK603 and the study by Seralini et al. Rather than discredit the work by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) would be better employed putting its own house in order since, with regard to evaluation of scientific studies on the potential risks from GMOs, it is the champion of double standards. That is the conclusion drawn in a report published on Tuesday 30 October by Testbiotech eV (Institute for Independent Impact Assessment in Biotechnology), a German NGO which promotes independent research and examines ethical, social and economic issues related to biotechnology. The report, “The European Food Safety Authority: Using double standards when assessing feeding studies”, looks at the standards used by EFSA to assess the study by Professor Seralini on the long-term effects on rats of genetically engineered maize NK603 and the herbicide Roundup, manufactured by Monsanto. It establishes that the scientific protocols used in Seralini's two-year study were, in fact, more rigorous than those used in earlier studies on the safety of maize NK603 submitted by the company and assessed by EFSA.
Unlike EFSA, which, in a preliminary opinion delivered on 4 October, rejected the scientific validity of the publication by Seralini et al, principally on the grounds of the methodology used - failure to comply with the scientific protocols required of a long-term toxicity and food compatibility study (see EUROPE 10703) -the Testbiotech report feels it is essential, at a time when no satisfactory toxicity study is available, that the findings of the study by Seralini et al be taken seriously and be used as the starting point for further research. It argues that the burden of proof should be placed on the industry and that transgenic maize NK603 and Roundup Ready cannot be considered safe until their safety has been proved by further research.
MEP Corine Lepage (ALDE, France), who is the rapporteur on the legislative proposal seeking to give member states powers to restrict or ban genetically modified crops within their borders, even though these crops have been authorised in the EU, welcomed the report. “This report clearly establishes that EFSA used different standards to assess the study by Professor Seralini from those used for studies conducted by companies in order to obtain authorisation for their product. The study by Professor Seralini was discredited by EFSA for not following specific scientific protocols. Yet, if one looks more closely at the opinions delivered by EFSA, one realises that it has on many occasions accepted without criticism studies which also failed to comply with these protocols”, she said.
Lepage, firmly of the view that “EFSA has a tendency to select the evidence that suits it in order to bolster its view on the issue”, believes that “review of the studies that have been used in the marketing authorisation of NK603 and Roundup is more than ever necessary”.
More specifically, the Testbiotech study flags up that the findings in earlier publications on the assessment of the health risks of genetically modified plants, which have been approved by EFSA, do not meet the scientific standards which have now been used to criticised the Seralini et al study and that, unlike the Seralini et al study, these findings do not demonstrate any health risks.
The report also criticises the double standards of national health authorities. The Dutch health safety authority, NWVA, uses chronic toxicity and food compatibility studies using genetically modified plants which to not comply with the standards used by EFSA and the NWVA to condemn the Seralini et al study. According to Testbiotech, the Seralini et al study would seem to be the fullest chronic study of the effects on health of a genetically modified plant carried out thus far. The report points out, too, that, in France, the national food safety agency, ANSES, has also stated that, despite its criticisms (see EUROPE 10715), the range of criteria studied was much broader than other long-term studies.
Similarly, Testbiotech says, the relevant German authorities, BfR, have highlighted that the Seralini et al research is the only long-term study in the world which assesses the health risks of the herbicide Roundup. The reaction to the Serfalini et al findings should be further experimentation rather than ad hoc rejection, based on supposition.
Transgenic maize NK603 was authorised by the European Commission in October 2004 after EFSA delivered a favourable opinion. EFSA does not, itself, conduct assessments of health and environmental risks from GMOs but bases its opinions on risk assessments carried out by the companies seeking authorisation to market their product in the EU. The Testbiotech report is available online in English and German at the following address: http://www.testbiotech.de/node/725 (AN/transl.fl)