A review of available scientific evidence about genetically modified (GM) crops clearly indicates their benefits for environmental sustainability and managing drought, according to an article by New Scientist.

“By reducing the need for tilling, for example, GM crops have enabled farmers to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, a small but important contribution to the fight against climate change. And GM promises more: creating drought-resistant crops that will thrive in the warmer climates of the future, for instance,” it points out in the October issue of the magazine.

The journal notes that considering biotechnology along with other agricultural traditions is necessary to develop solutions for “more productive, sustainable and environmentally friendly agriculture.” 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 widely-criticized study by a French team claiming that genetically modified corn caused laboratory rats to develop tumors has been thoroughly rebutted by an agency of the German government, which said the “study” is full of holes and reaches conclusions that are not supported by the data, which the agency said was inadequate and badly presented.

“The study shows both shortcomings in study design and in the presentation of the collected data,” said Professor Dr. Reiner Wittkowski, vice president of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BFR), an agency of the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV). The agency advises the German federal government and state governments on questions of food, chemical and product safety. “This means that the conclusions drawn by the authors are not supported by the available data,” Wittkowski said. READ MORE »

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 »