GMO Are Harmful Food Study Validated By European Food Safety Authority

reply to post by opopanax

Are you implying that this fact somehow negates the serious flaws contained in the original study? Or are you so blinded by your agreement with the study's conclusions that you're unable to see that those flaws exist? You shouldn't accept bad science just because you like the results.

The conflict of interest here is undeniable.

Perhaps you can break down the study for us and explain where the researcher went wrong.


This whole thing is really weird.

FDA

FDA encourages developers of GE plants to consult with the agency before marketing their products. Although the consultation is voluntary, Keefe says developers find it helpful in determining the steps necessary to ensure that food products made from their plants are safe and otherwise lawful.

reply to post by beckybecky


So an article from natural news claims the study was rigorous. That’s a joke right. It must be. The thing was horribly flawed in fact the Widely Discredited Study that Fuelled Fear of GM ‘Frankenfoods’ Finally Retracted

Natural news isn’t known for being truthful and that article proves it.

So we've gone from Gilles-Eric Seralini lying about the EFSA using his methods to the entire study being thrown out.

The anti GMO crowd really are a disingenuous bunch.

dusty1
reply to post by opopanax

 

The conflict of interest here is undeniable.

I would agree with you if it was the sole decision of Richard Goodman to retract the study (it wasn't), in spite of the study itself appearing sound (it doesn't).

dusty1
Perhaps you can break down the study for us and explain where the researcher went wrong.

Nature News (as in the journal Nature, not Natural News) has a good article about the debacle which you can read here. There's also this article from over a year ago that details some of the study's flaws. From the second article:

The biggest criticism from both reviews is that Séralini and his team used only ten rats of each sex in their treatment groups. That is a similar number of rats per group to that used in most previous toxicity tests of GM foods, including Missouri-based Monsanto’s own tests of NK603 maize. Such regulatory tests monitor rats for 90 days, and guidelines from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) state that ten rats of each sex per group over that time span is sufficient because the rats are relatively young. But Séralini’s study was over two years — almost a rat’s lifespan — and for tests of this duration, the OECD recommends at least 20 rats of each sex per group for chemical-toxicity studies, and at least 50 for carcinogenicity studies.

Moreover, the study used Sprague-Dawley rats, which both reviews note are prone to developing spontaneous tumours. Data provided to Nature by Harlan Laboratories, which supplied the rats in the study, show that only one-third of males, and less than one-half of females, live to 104 weeks. By comparison, its Han Wistar rats have greater than 70% survival at 104 weeks, and fewer tumours. OECD guidelines state that for two-year experiments, rats should have a survival rate of at least 50% at 104 weeks. If they do not, each treatment group should include even more animals — 65 or more of each sex.

Then, from the statement of retraction itself:

Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. However, there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected.
[...]
Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology.

Does that really sound like a shady Monsanto hit job on a legitimate piece of research? I guess for those with a certain paradigm it will look like that no matter what actually occurred, though.

dusty1
The new Associate Editor of the FCT which retracted the study, used to work for Monsanto.

Used to work for Monsanto **NINE YEARS** ago.
Nine years.

In more recent years, that guy has been working at the University of Nebraska so going by your logic it must all be a conspiracy by the University of Nebraska to hide that study.

But wait.
How clever of them to have a time machine and start complaining about the quality of that journal article, at a time 6 months before Goodman even had a job there. As you see from opopanax's posting above mine, quoting an article from over a year ago.
Goodman only got the job in March this year... but he's still to blame anyway?

reply to post by alfa1

Yeah, it's fun to play "follow the money" or "connect the dots" or whatever but we can't assume that just because someone previously had ties with an entity that they're still doing the work of and/or still support or are supported by that entity. I understand why a scientist having former ties to or having once received grant money from Monsanto, the FDA, the DOD, or whatever might cast suspicion on their later/future work. However, it's foolish to assume that every such scientist will forever be corrupt, evil, shilling for the company/agency, etc. Who knows, some of these ex-employees may even have come to disagree with the practices of their former employers.

reply to post by opopanax

I would agree with you if it was the sole decision of Richard Goodman to retract the study (it wasn't), in spite of the study itself appearing sound (it doesn't).

As far as Mr Richard Goodman and Monsanto, I smell a rat.

As far as the study being unsound, not so fast.

No fraud was found in the study.

The study was retracted apparently because not enough rats were used (200 rats were used), and the wrong strain, in accordance with OECD guidelines.

What is the OECD?

Our mission

The mission of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is to promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world.

The OECD provides a forum in which governments can work together to share experiences and seek solutions to common problems. We work with governments to understand what drives economic, social and environmental change. We measure productivity and global flows of trade and investment. We analyse and compare data to predict future trends. We set international standards on a wide range of things, from agriculture and tax to the safety of chemicals.

A global organization that works with industry and governments to establish global economic policies.


But according to the OECD long term toxicology study guidelines:

1. TextThere are no guideline requirements for specific strain of rodents.

2. 10 rodents of each sex per group are required to meet its guidelines.

Summary of Considerations in the Report from the OECD Expert Groups on Short Term and Long Term Toxicology

A sufficient number of animals should be used so that at the end of the study enough animals in every group are available for thorough biological evaluation. After considerable discussion, it was agreed that for rodents each dose group and concurrent control group should contain at least 10 animals of each sex.

Similarly, there is no firm recommendation for the use of specific strains as it is considered that at the present time the state of development testing provides no firm justification for such a recommendation.

OECD LIBRARY

The Sprague-Dawley SD rat which was used in the study, has the same life expectancy as the Wistar rat
Table 1

In toxicity studies, Wistar Han (WH) and Sprague Dawley (SD) rat strains are both utilized and acceptable for EU and US test guidelines. In general, however, WH are preferentially used in Europe and SD rats are generally preferred in the US.

Link



It appears the study that was retracted, did follow acceptable guidelines.