Global Research Consortium Presents Findings on Safety of Genetically Modified Food

24 January 2012

A three year feeding study (Walsh et al. 2011; 2012 ; Buzoianu et al. 2012) has shown no adverse health effects in pigs fed genetically modified (GM) maize. The maize, which is a Bt-maize bred for its insect resistant properties, was sourced from Spain.  The results were one of the key findings of trials conducted as part of the GMSAFOOD consortium undertaking post market monitoring: long term, generational and food chain studies to test food safety. 

The research team conducted short-term (31 days), medium-term (110 days) and generational pig feeding studies where the health of piglets of sows fed Bt-maize is measured. No adverse effects were observed, suggesting that feeding Bt-maize to pigs of different ages is safe.  “These findings can offer some assurance to consumers as to the safety of consuming Bt-maize,” Peadar Lawlor, senior researcher at Teagasc, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Ireland, said; “The pig is considered to be an excellent model for humans due to similarities in gastrointestinal anatomy and physiology. Similar responses to Bt-maize consumption could be expected in humans,” he said.

 Researchers of the College of Biotechnology of the Portuguese Catolic University and the University of Porto, found strong indications that commercial interests interfere with the outcomes of  peer reviewed articles that report on health risk or nutritional assessment studies of products derived from genetically modified plants. Results were obtained through statistical analysis and were published in the journal Food Policy. Conclusions go along a line of similar observations made in biomedical sciences, tobacco, alcohol and nutrition research. 

For 94 articles, which were selected through objective criteria, it was found that the existence of conflict of interest, either due to direct private funding, author affiliation to industry or both, was associated to study outcomes that cast genetically modified products in a favorable light (p = 0.005). It was also observed that funding was declared only in 48% of the articles. At the same time results show that when at least one author of the article is affiliated to industry, funding tends to be undeclared (p < 0.001).

According to lead author Johan Diels, “Knowledge on how conflicts of interest interact with outcomes of risk analysis and nutritional assessment studies of GMOs was so far almost solely based on anecdotal information. With our study we contribute to a more complete picture by showing that there exists in fact a statistical relation.”

The authors defined various hypotheses that may explain the underlying dynamics that produced this relation:

-        Publication restrictions imposed by industry funders;

-        Contractual agreements of authors with industry;

-        Industry bias favoring friendly research;

-        Researchers are sensitive to the financial interests of their industrial sponsors or employers.

The authors acknowledge that similar dynamics may apply to researchers and studies funded by other sources than industry, such as government agencies or civil society organizations, since those entities may have a preference towards funding studies or researchers that serve their political agendas. Diels continues: “One cannot escape from realizing that modern science is set by external interests that supply funds and that scientists are influenced by values. While such understanding should certainly not stop us from doing science, it should make us aware of its limits in decision-making, especially in cases like genetic engineering, where both the stakes and uncertainty on future impacts are high. And once we accept that scientists are not free of secondary interests and values, input of non-expert opinions and participation of ordinary citizens and civil society actors in decision-making can no longer be excluded on the basis that their opinions are unscientific or value-laden.”

Diels, J., et al. Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products. Food Policy (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.016

11 fév. 2009

Pour la quinzième année, l'organisme dépendant des industries des biotechnologies ISAAA a publié ce 11 février 2009 ses statistiques 2008 des OGM cultivés dans le monde. Malgré des promesses récurrentes, les OGM se concentrent encore sur 4 plantes : soja 53%, maïs 30%, coton 12% et colza 5%, le tout en progression de 9,3%sur 125 millions d'hectares, soit 8% de l'agriculture mondiale. Hélas, 100% de ces OGM sont encore et seulement des plantes à pesticides : 63% tolèrent un herbicide, 15% produisent un insecticide, et 22%, la seconde génération en croissance, fait les deux à la fois. Cette seconde génération peut tolérer jusqu'à 2 herbicides ou produire 2 insecticides en même temps. La troisième génération à paraître en 2010 aura jusqu'à 8 caractères différents de tolérance à plusieurs herbicides et de production de plusieurs insecticides. Par contre, les tests sur des rats nourris pendant 90 jours ne sont plus faits sur ces OGM plusieurs fois croisés entre eux. Les compagnies promettent toujours pour les années suivantes d'autres caractères.

Il s'agit d'un rapport de laboratoire du même type que ceux qui sont fournis par Monsanto aux Etats afin d'obtenir des autorisations d'OGM. Il correspond à l'étude la plus détaillée au monde avec des animaux de laboratoire, des souris mangeant des OGM commercialisés pendant plusieurs générations.

Cf rubrique "Nos dossiers : MON810, NK603" pour lire le rapport.

Austrian scientists carried out long term studies that showed GM maize fed to mice significantly reduced their fertility over three to four breeding cycles within one generation....

Read the report in our file "MON810, NK603" 

Réglementation du Saumon Transgénique - Déc. 2008

Parmi les premiers OGM animaux du monde qui attendent l’autorisation de commercialisation à grande échelle, on trouve les saumons dopés génétiquement à l’hormone de croissance. Une équipe franco-québécoise vient de publier dans la revue américaine Environmental Science & Policy un dossier complet portant sur les risques et proposant des lignes directrices pour l’évaluation des saumons et plus généralement des animaux transgéniques....

Titre : "Factors to consider before production and commercialization of aquatic genetically modified organisms: the case of transgenic salmon", by Olivier Le Curieux-Belfond, Louise Vandelac, Joseph Caron and Gilles-Eric Séralini. In: Environmental Science & Policy 2008, vol. 12, x , pp xxx-xxx.

Article : http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.10.001