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.

A field trial of drought-tolerant corn took place at Western Kentucky University. Photo courtesy Syngenta.

This summer’s severe drought, which has resulted in substantial crop losses throughout the entire Midwest, has put the latest agricultural technologies to the test, MIT’s Technology Review reports. Agricultural researchers and scientists are developing plant breeding and biotechnology innovations which can improve a crop’s ability to use water more efficiently and tolerate drought conditions, in hopes of addressing future challenges presented by adverse weather conditions.

Farmers participating in field trials of drought-tolerant varieties have reported positive results thus far. Illinois farmer Mike Cyrulik notes that his healthier drought-tolerant corn has “wound up being the talk of the town,” adding that he expects a significantly higher yield in his acres planted with the drought-tolerant variety. Read more.

After analyzing data from 237 studies conducted over the last forty years to determine whether organic foods provide additional health benefits, Stanford University scientists have concluded that organic fruits and vegetables are generally no more nutritious than their conventionally-grown counterparts. The scientists also determined that there were no major health advantages to organic meats, reports The New York Times.

The study’s findings, which were published in today’s issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine, made an impact on the researchers, who sought to provide an objective resource for consumers to make more informed choices. “When we began this project, we thought that there would likely be some findings that would support the superiority of organics over conventional food,” said Dr. Dena Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health Policy and the senior author of the paper. “I think we were definitely surprised.” Read more.