CRIIGEN press conference on the study of Prof. Séralini's group – INVITATION FOLLOWS AT THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

TOXICITY CONFIRMED FOR A GMO AND THE PESTICIDE ROUNDUP
COMPLAINTS OF DEFAMATION AGAINST CRITICS

Raw data released to a notary

CRIIGEN welcomes the confirmation of the research of Prof. Séralini's group on the long-term toxicity of Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world, and of a genetically modified (GM) maize which absorbs it without being killed. Both are products of Monsanto Company. This study has become one of the most frequently accessed in the world since it was published in September 2012 (Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50 (2012), 4221-4231). The journal, one of the best toxicological journals, did not retract the study, despite relentless pressure to do so. Now it has published Séralini's group’s detailed answers to critics (Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2013, online). The group has new experimental data on Roundup, which will soon be released.

Negative criticisms came from around 40 scientists or groups, including agencies responsible for GMO or pesticide authorisations. Most were subsequently revealed to have conflicts of interest, either directly with Monsanto Company, or with other commercial interests, or with bodies that had previously authorized the commercialization of these or similar products [i]. Most are not specialists in the areas of pesticide toxicology or GMO risk assessment and do not publish papers on these topics. CRIIGEN and the research team have received statements of support and positive comments from more than 300 scientists from 33 countries across five continents. In our opinion these scientists are more representative of the scientific community at large.

CRIIGEN also welcomes the fact that the French food safety agency ANSES and several countries, including France, have recognized that long-term tests on GMOs are needed and that of the toxicity of pesticides has been underestimated. A project in this direction has been submitted to the French Parliament. In addition, the Directorate General for Health and Consumers of the European Commission has disavowed EFSA's opinion on the lack of necessity of long term toxicity testing [ii]. Séralini's study revealed the laxity of assessment which has allowed the commercialization of such products, on the part of agencies including EFSA. Their serious professional misconducts could endanger public health and lives.

Séralini's team and CRIIGEN have just filed complaints of defamation against claims of "fraud" and "falsified data" that were respectively published in "Marianne" and "La Provence" by Jean-Claude Jaillette and Claude Allègre who is a member of the French association for plant biotechnologies (AFBV).  AFBV and its president Marc Fellous was convicted of defamation against Séralini’s team in 2011. Other complaints of defamation are in process. In 2013 we will launch other legal actions to force disclosure of hidden and poor quality toxicological data. These data were used by the regulatory agencies to enable the commercial release of the products that we tested, among others. To set an example, we are arranging the formal delivery of the raw data of our last study to a notary. We will make these public as soon as the regulatory agencies or Monsanto do the same for their data, or when governments consent to publish the industry data.  Thus the scientific community will have full access to all the data on these industrial products. This will enable a true assessment, contradictory and transparent, and not a pseudo-assessment distorted by lobbies that are more concerned with protecting their own interests than with public health.

[i] http://www.spinwatch.org.uk/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/46-gm-industry/5546-smelling-a-corporate-rat

[ii] http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14524

On 10 May, the European Parliament voted against granting discharge of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) budget for the year 2010. By doing so, it adopted a report from its Committee on Budgetary Control criticising EFSA very harshly for conflicts of interest and revolving door cases (http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/661).

On 8 May, just two days before the vote, Diána Bánáti, Chair of the EFSA Management Board, had resigned with immediate effect. She will take up a professional position at the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). Diána Bánáti had been subject to criticism since September 2010 because she was Board Member of ILSI Europe. After leaving ILSI, she was re-elected as chair of EFSA’s Management Board in October 2011. Now she is returning to ILSI Europe, which is funded by food industry and agrochemical companies (http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/656).

EFSA wrote a letter to ILSI explaining that according to its new regulations on independence, experts from ILSI are excluded from various working levels at EFSA:

"Regarding the classification of ILSI involvement as a category V activity “ad hoc or occasional consultancy”, EFSA’s new rules explicitly exclude the involvement of scientific experts participating in scientific work related to services provided to products, their development and/or assessment methods carried out on behalf of trade associations or other bodies with an interest in this subject matter, such as ILSI."
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/120516a.htm

Obviously, in a reaction to the pressure from the EU Parliament, EFSA then decided to postpone the nomination of new experts for several scientific panels. The nominations, which were scheduled for 8 May, will now take place on 27 June.

EFSA suggests harmonised default values for use in risk assessment

We have some criticisms concerning the harmonised default values suggested by EFSA:

 First, the extrapolation of the exposure time. Using an uncertainty factor out of two factors implies that the effects are simply regarded as duplicated from a subchronic to a chronic study. This operation does not take into account the specific effects of chronic periods such as hormonal effects that may appear in the range of nanomolar or even less. Here, no factor is applicable because we can not foresee what may happen. Secondly, reducing the uncertainty factor of 100 to specific factors when knowing the toxicokinetic or toxicodynamic characteristics of a compound seems unjustifed. It is less cautious. Thirdly, there is only one adult category. It still lacks some subpopulation such as pregnant women who at present are "treated" like men weighing an average of 70 kg. Factors to convert a dietary dose to a physiological dose appear to be correct and the idea of using Benchmark doses to be more accurate than a LOAEL seems interesting. It avoids the uncertainty associated with the choice of experimental doses, but it must not fall into the trap of linear dose response paradigms.