European scientists and food safety experts drove the final nail in the coffin on the controversial Séralini rat study this week, finding that it finding that it “does not meet acceptable scientific standards” and raises no valid questions about the safety of genetically modified corn.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) presented a final statement on Wednesday that reaffirmed its initial assessment that “the authors’ conclusions cannot be regarded as scientifically sound because of inadequacies in the design, reporting and analysis of the study as outlined in the paper.”

EFSA noted the emergence of a broad European consensus, as each of the six assessments conducted independently by member states had determined that Séralini’s conclusions regarding the safety of GM corn were not supported by the data presented in the study. Read more.

The French national academies of sciences, technology, medicine, pharmacy, veterinary studies and agriculture have dismissed the controversial study of genetically modified corn conducted by their countryman Gilles-Eric Seralini as meaningless, and chastised him for spreading fear among the public. They also expressed disappointment in the peer-review process that allowed the study to be published in a mainstream scientific journal.

In a joint statement - something described by the French news service AFP as an “extremely rare event in French science” - the academies described the study as a “scientific non-event” that “does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn” from its findings. Seralini and his colleagues at the University of Caen claimed that a diet of the genetically modified corn known as NK603 caused laboratory rats to develop tumors.

“Given the numerous gaps in methods and interpretation, the data presented in this article cannot challenge previous studies which have concluded that NK603 corn is harmless from the health point of view, as are, more generally, genetically modified plants that have been authorized for consumption by animals and humans,” said the statement from the French academies, which are learned societies that advise the government, equivalent to the National Academies in the United States. READ MORE »

Dr. Mehmet Oz gave credence Wednesday to a controversial study that the scientific community has thoroughly discredited, much to the dismay of scientists who hoped for a fact-based discussion of genetically modified food on his syndicated TV program.

“We find these claims and corresponding graphic representations to be highly misleading and irresponsible,” said a statement published by 17 scientists, researchers, and health professionals.

In a 20-minute segment devoted to genetically modified foods, Oz interviewed a physician named Robert Bernhoft, who praised a study by the French anti-biotech activist Gilles-Eric Seralini claiming that genetically modified corn caused lab rats to grow tumors.

Dr. Oz displayed photos of the rats with enormous tumors but failed to mention that the study has been rejected as unscientific by the European Food Safety Authority and other scientific agencies and didn’t mention the fact that the type of rats used in the study typically develop tumors as they age, regardless of their diet.

“The rats shown on the Oz show are a strain that has a very high incidence of cancer, and would have developed the same proportion of cancers no matter what (they were) fed - including organic food and herbal teas, or whatever,” said Professor Jonathan Gressel of Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. “If Dr. Oz is a competent medical practitioner, he surely should have known that.” READ MORE »

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has dismissed a recent study claiming that genetically modified corn caused laboratory rats to develop tumors, saying the study was so badly designed and conducted that it has no scientific validity at all.

The devastating review was published a day after a similar review by a German government agency that reached the same conclusion: the study by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his colleagues means nothing.

“EFSA’s initial review found that the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate,” the agency said in a news release.  “Such shortcomings mean that EFSA is presently unable to regard the authors’ conclusions as scientifically sound. The numerous issues relating to the design and methodology of the study as described in the paper mean that no conclusions can be made about the occurrence of tumors in the rats tested.”

Like other scientists from all over the world, EFSA noted the fact that Seralini - a well-known anti-GMO activist - used a strain of lab rats that are prone to develop tumors as they get older, regardless of what they are fed.  It was no surprise, therefore, that some of the rats fed biotech corn in fact developed tumors.  But so did some of the rats fed conventional corn.

The number of rats used in the experiment was far below the number needed to prove anything, EFSA noted, and the number of “control” rats fed conventional corn was grossly inadequate.  The data were presented in unusual ways that ignored standard statistical methods.  Numerous other violations of scientific procedure mean that the reported results of the experiment are meaningless, EFSA said.

“Some may be surprised that EFSA’s statement focuses on the methodology of this study rather than its outcomes; however, this goes to the very heart of the matter,” said Dr. Per Bergman, a GMO expert at EFSA who headed the review.  

“When conducting a study it is crucial to ensure a proper framework is in place.  Having clear objectives and the correct design and methodology create a solid base from which accurate data and valid conclusions can follow. Without these elements a study is unlikely to be reliable and valid.”

The EFSA review is available at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2910.htm

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 »