2014 articles

GMO lobbyist Julian Little misleads the public over Factor GMO study

As proof of GMO safety, Little cites EU Commission report that failed to test any commercialised GMO for safety!

Dr Julian Little of the GMO industry lobby group, the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, has been misleading the public about GMO safety studies.



Talking to the Daily Mail, Little (item 1 below) disputes the description of the Factor GMO study as the largest ever study on GM. He appears to believe that the largest ever study was a report (not a study in itself) by the EU Commission which concluded that GM foods were no more risky than non-GM foods.



What Little fails to tell us is that while this report swallowed 300 million Euros of public money, it failed to investigate the safety of a single GMO that is actually in our food and feed supply!



The authors of GMO Myths and Truths searched the report for published animal feeding trials with GMOs and were only able to find five.



None of the studies tested a commercialized GM food; none tested the GM food for long-term effects beyond the medium-term period of 90 days; all found differences in the GM-fed animals, which in some cases were statistically significant; and none concluded on the safety of the GM food tested, let alone on the safety of GM foods in general.



The findings of three of the studies raised concerns, including differences in organ weights and immune responses in the GM-fed animals. These findings should be followed up in long-term studies.



Therefore the EU research project provides no evidence that could support claims of safety for any single GM food or of GM crops in general.



It does provide yet more evidence that all GMOs are potentially unsafe and should be tested in long-term studies that can answer the questions raised by the handful of 90-day mini-studies performed by the EU researchers.



Julian Little appears to have misrepresented science and misled the readers of the Daily Mail.



1. World’s largest inquiry into safety of GM crops will use thousands of rats and cost £15.6 million

2. GMO battles over 'settled' science spur new study of crops

---

1. World’s largest inquiry into safety of GM crops will use thousands of rats and cost £15.6 million

By Sean Poulter

Daily Mail, 11 Nov 2014

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2830199/World-s-largest-inquiry-safety-GM-crops-use-thousands-rats-cost-15-6-million.html



* The £15.6m project will involve using 6,000 rats to test safety of GM crops

* Scientists from Europe, America and Russia will work on Factor GMO

* It has been called the largest inquiry into GM crops and linked pesticides

* Project will involve tests on five generations of rats over two or three years

* Experts hope it will give an answer about how safe GM crops are to eat

* Previous studies found increased risk of cancer in rats undergoing tests



The world’s largest safety inquiry into GM crops and linked pesticides has been announced.



The $25million - £15.6m - project will involve feeding trials with 6,000 rats at laboratories in Western Europe and Russia.



The research, which is being run under the banner of Factor GMO, involves a collaboration between European, American and Russian scientists.



It is being organised by the Russian National Association for Genetic Safety, which describes itself as a non-governmental, non-profit organisation, and will be overseen by a board of neutral scientists.



To date, most of the safety research on GM crops and farming systems has been conducted or funded by the biotech companies, such as Monsanto, or critics of the technology.



Factor GMO says its research will be independent of vested interests and will finally give an answer to questions about the safety of GM crops and the associated weedkiller glyphosate.



Some rat feeding trials have linked the two to an increased risk of cancer, however these have been dismissed by the industry and the European Food Safety Authority.



Most GM crops, such as soya and maize, have been genetically engineered to withstand spraying with glyphosate, which is the active ingredient in the weedkiller sold as the brand Roundup.



This allows farmers’ fields to be blanket sprayed with the chemical, which kills off the weeds but allows the crops to thrive.



The scientific review board overseeing the research includes Dr Bruce Blumberg, the Professor of Developmental and Cell Biology in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of California.



He said: ‘The Factor GMO study has the potential to provide invaluable information on the health effects of a commercialised, herbicide-resistant GM food and its associated herbicide.



‘The cultivation of herbicide resistant crops is widespread in the US, and the use of the herbicides to which these crops are resistant has increased many-fold in the decades since they were introduced.



‘There is a notable lack of published, peer-reviewed data on their safety, as well as data on the safety of the increased use of herbicides with which they are grown. The Factor GMO study could be very useful in reducing the uncertainty about the safety of these products.’



Elena Sharoykina of Factor GMO said: ‘Food is the main source of energy for all living beings, and its safety is the key to their health and well-being, as well as to sustainable development. In order to prevent irreversible consequences, humankind must ensure the total safety of GM crops and their associated pesticides before they are planted even more widely.’



She said: ‘Comprehensive scientific safety studies on GM organisms and their related pesticides are long overdue.



‘All previous studies caused controversy for various reasons: choice of animal, insufficient statistics, duration of tests, research parameters, and researchers’ connections to the anti-GM movement or the biotech industry.



‘Factor GMO is intended to remedy the situation. The project organisers have considered all of the points of disagreement and distrust surrounding this subject. Factor GMO has in its arsenal a scientific protocol drawn up with all the necessary standards, an international scientific team of leading professionals with a neutral background, independent funding, and perhaps most importantly, full transparency.’



Dr Oxana Sinitsyna, who works in Russia’s Sysin Research Institute of Human Ecology and Environmental Health and will sit of the governing board, said most rat feeding trials with GM food have been limited to 90 days and looked at two generations.



This project will follow five generations of rats as part of a comprehensive study lasting two to three years. It will look at any changes to cancer rates or any birth abnormalities.



She said: ‘There has never been comprehensive research investigating the effects of a GM food on reproductive function.’



Dr Fiorella Belpoggi, who is director and chief of pathology of the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Centre of the Ramazzini Institute, in Bentivoglio, Italy, said: ‘The concern over GM crops is largely due to the fact that plant breeders can construct synthetic DNA sequences and insert these into crop genomes, effectively adding new traits to the plant.



‘This raises enormous possibilities for developing benign products, but equally it has the potential to create products with unwanted traits and side-effects.



‘The long-term study design will reveal any effects that take time to show up. It could provide the detailed data needed for a scientific evidenced-based risk assessment of possible human health hazards from the GM crop and its associated pesticide.’



Funding for the research is to come from private donors, rather than the industry or campaigners. A list will be published.



Biotech companies insist that many studies have already proved that GM crops and food and safe.



Dr Julian Little, chairman of the industry’s Agricultural Biotechnology Council, said: ‘The plant biotechnology industry takes product safety regarding biotech food and feed very seriously and is committed to the highest standards of testing for its products.



‘The Factor GMO study is far from the biggest ever study on the safety of GM, despite claims from its sponsors.



‘It falls a long way short of the European Commission’s report in 2011 when they released research from over 130 research projects, involving 500 independent research groups, over the period of 25 years, at a cost of €300m, which concluded that ‘there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.’

---

2. GMO battles over 'settled' science spur new study of crops

By Carey Gillam

Reuters, 12 Nov 2014

http://news.yahoo.com/gmo-battles-over-settled-science-spur-study-crops-211541748--finance.html



Monsanto Co, the world's largest seed company, and its brethren of global biotech crop developers are spreading the word that as far as the safety of their genetically modified grain goes, the science is solidly on their side.



The message of "settled" science has become the rallying cry for defenders of the crops and food commonly referred to as GMOs as they push back against consumers, environmentalists, lawmakers and others who want the crops labeled, restricted or banned.



"We believe the science is settled," Andrew LaVigne, CEO of the American Seed Trade Association, said in an interview.



But critics of the products say that is not the last word on the issue.



Some international scientists are challenging the assertion and say many scientific studies show concerns with crops whose DNA has been spliced in ways not seen in nature.



On Tuesday, a group with backing from institutions in Russia, the United States and Europe said it would undertake the longest, largest and most definitive study of GMOs to date to try to settle the debate once and for all.



The $25 million study of 6,000 rats to be fed a GMO corn diet is designed as an independent examination of the health impacts of GMO corn and the herbicide used on it. The research is to be done in Russia and western Europe over two to three years. (http://factorgmo.com/en/)



"The science on these GMOs is not settled by a long shot," said Bruce Blumberg, an endocrinology expert at the University of California, Irvine, who sits on the study review board. "Studies that were done by the manufacturers are the main ones showing safety, and those have an inherent conflict of interest."



Monsanto, the leading developer of GMO crops, has stacks of research underscoring the safety of its products. Many U.S. university scientists also back the safety of GMOs, as does the U.S. government.



Karen Batra, a spokeswoman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, says "merely a handful of studies" point to health or safety issues, and all have been debunked.



Still, the debate rages on. Some biotech crop critics worry about pesticide residues in GMO foods, while others worry about what impact the crops have on the environment.



"The claim that there is a consensus among scientists that GM food products are safe ... is simply a PR campaign sponsored by the industry," said Dave Schubert, of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, California.



(Reporting by Carey Gillam; Editing by Dan Grebler)