After scientists internationally widely disclaimed a study on rats claiming ill effects from exposure to genetically modified foods-it appears that one pragmatic group of scientists from the University of Cambridge have found a use for it.

“I am grateful for the authors for publishing this paper, as it provides a fine case study for teaching a statistics class about poor design, analysis and reporting. I shall start using it immediately,” said the Statistical Laboratory at Cambridge University, according to Examiner.com.

Other scientists and reporters continued to condemn the French study, pointing to its reliance on emotional claims rather than sound, scientific evidence. Here are some of their comments from this week:

“There were problems with the sample sizes, issues about the types of rats used and questions about why, if the genetically engineered corn was the culprit, rats that ate a lot of the corn did not get as sick as those that ate more moderate amounts. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the study, though, is the effort made by the researchers to ensure that the first wave of coverage of their study would include no criticism of it.” - Los Angeles Times

“The study came as quite a surprise to scientists. Reputable regulatory and health agencies in the U.S. and EU that have looked closely at GMOs found them safe, as have the National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Academy.” - Forbes

“Within 24 hours, the study’s credibility was shredded by scores of scientists. The consensus judgment was swift and damning: The study was riddled with errors-serious, blatantly obvious flaws that should have been caught by peer reviewers.” - Slate

“What we need in the GMO controversy is reasoned argument, not scandalous headlines…The study shows nothing like that. What it does show is the readiness of some GMO opponents to jump on a questionable study to promote their fearmongering agenda.” - Montreal Gazette

Remember Mark Twain’s famous quote about “lies, damned lies and statistics”? Add to that list the widely-disclaimed junk science of the Seralini study.

A bizarre study by French researchers claiming ill effects on laboratory rats fed genetically modified corn and given water spiked with herbicide has been rejected by American scientists who questioned the motives and methods of the authors.

“This study appears to be without scientific merit,” said Dr. Martina Newell-McGloughlin, director of the International Biotechnology Program at the University of California/Davis. “The problem here appears to be with the experimental design,” she said. “Whether it was deliberately devised to attain the desired outcome remains to be seen.”

“This is not an innocent scientific publication,” Dr. Bruce M. Chassy, professor emeritus of food science at the University of Illinois, said. “It is a well-planned and cleverly orchestrated media event. The study was designed to produce exactly what was observed and it was deliberately allowed to continue until grotesque and fear-evoking tumors developed. The way the study was conducted, including the treatment of the animals, especially those who developed tumors as these rats are known to do, raises serious ethical concerns and profound questions of possible scientific misconduct.” READ MORE »

CBI has pointed out some of the shortcomings of a paper claiming previously unheard-of health impacts on rats on a diet of biotech corn and weedkiller- a study that some experts think is so questionable that it should not have been published.

“The study published today is a continuation of work that has been denounced by responsible scientific bodies and by scientists who know the subject very well,” the CBI statement said of a paper by Gilles-Eric Seralini, a French biologist, author, and long-time anti-biotech activist.

“Studies by independent scientists have found again and again that food from plants produced with biotechnology is as safe as the same plants produced by conventional means,” the CBI statement said. “More than 400 studies have confirmed the safety of food with biotech ingredients, and not one has documented any ill effect to human health of eating food produced in whole or in part with biotechnology.

Scientists in Europe have pointed out a host of flaws in the current study, including the fact that the rats chosen for the study are known for their tendency to develop tumors. A previous study by Seralini was denounced as invalid by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and experts are very critical of the statistical methods employed in the new study.

“To be honest, I am surprised it was accepted for publication,” said Prof. David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge in England.

Seralini claimed that this was the first long study based on feeding biotech grain to animals. In fact, several other studies as long or longer have concluded that there is no impact from biotech food or feed ingredients, according to a major study published earlier this year in the very same journal that published Seralini’s study (”Food and Chemical Toxicology). Experts were reported to the “skeptical” of the latest from Seralini.

The Reuters news agency reported:

Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King’s College London noted that Seralini’s team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were.

“This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted,” he said in an emailed comment.

“The statistical methods are unconventional and probabilities are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. There is no clearly defined data analysis plan and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip.”

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), commenting on a previous Seralini study, said:

“Following a detailed statistical review and analysis by an EFSA Task Force, EFSA’s GMO Panel has concluded that this re-analysis of the data does not raise any new safety concerns.” EFSA noted that “The statistical analysis made by the authors of the paper did not take into account certain important statistical considerations. The assumptions underlying the statistical methodology employed by the authors led to misleading results. EFSA considers that the paper does not present a sound scientific justification in order to question the safety of (the) maize.”

Prof. David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk, University Of Cambridge, gave this statement to the media:

“In my opinion, the methods, stats and reporting of results are all well below the standard I would expect in a rigorous study - to be honest I am surprised it was accepted for publication.

“All the comparisons are made with the ‘untreated’ control group, which only comprised 10 rats of each sex, the majority of which also developed tumors. Superficially they appear to have performed better than most of the treated groups (although the highest dose GMO and Roundup male groups also fared well), but there is no proper statistical analysis, and the numbers are so low they do not amount to substantial evidence. I would be unwilling to accept these results unless they were replicated properly.” Read more.

Biotechnology is critical to the goal of producing more food for a growing world population, according to leaders of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), a forum for 21 Pacific Rim countries comprising 40 percent of the world’s population.

“Sustainable agricultural growth is a priority for all our economies,” the leaders said in a declaration at the end of a summit in Vladivostok, Russia. “In pursuing this goal we will take concrete actions to raise productivity in agriculture by boosting investment and adopting innovative technologies in agriculture, including agricultural biotechnology.”

The leaders said that the world faces growing challenges to regional and global food security.

“Given the growing world population, reducing the number of undernourished people by raising food production, improving the individuals’ or households’ economic access to food and improving the efficiency and openness of food markets will require more concerted effort by and cooperation among all APEC economies,” they wrote. APEC promotes free trade and economic cooperation throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Read more.

As we’ve noted previously on this blog, the summer’s severe drought has presented significant economic and food security challenges, while highlighting the need for innovative agricultural solutions that equip farmers with the tools to combat drought in the future. Agribusinesses are hoping to achieve just this with new GM corn varieties that are designed to better withstand arid conditions, reports TIME Magazine’s Bryan Walsh.

While trials are still underway, the initial findings are promising. “Hundreds of farmers in the western end of the Corn Belt-an area that runs to dry even in normal years-are field-testing DroughtGard, and Monsanto says early results indicate that the GM crop might improve yields by 4% to 8% over conventional crops in some arid conditions,” the article explains. Read more.