News Releases
CBI COMMENTS ON SERALINI STUDY
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 19, 2012
Contact: Richard L. Lobb (202) 292-4666
The Council for Biotechnology Information released the following comment today on a European study by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his associates:
“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.
“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. 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. Scientists are also very critical of the statistical methods employed. The paper specifically states that all the data is not provided. A previous study by Seralini was denounced as invalid by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
“Distinguished scientists have questioned whether the study should have been published at all.”
FROM REUTERS NEWS:
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 previous Seralini study:
“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.”
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/gmo070628.htm
PROF DAVID SPIEGELHALTER, WINTON PROFESSOR OF THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF RISK, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
"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."
Additional experts quoted at the Science Media Center, UK:
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/press_releases/12-09-19_gm_maize_rats_tumours.htm
The Council for Biotechnology Information is a non-profit 501c6 organization that communicates science-based information about the benefits and safety and benefits of agricultural biotechnology. It is based in Washington, D.C. www.whybiotech.com