A recent article (Snell Chelsea et al., Food and Chem. Tox.) provokes debate in December 2011. It was co-signed by Gérard Pascal who has contributed to allow the authorization of a large number of GMOs in french regulatory authorities. After reviewing - that is what he said - twenty-four long-term or over several generation studies, Gérard Pascal pretends that the latter demonstrate that GMOs in food are safe. Of course, this gentleman obediently produces the results of the manufacturers explaining that all significant effects compared to controls are not a problem as they are included within the "normal biological variation." So what is the point of having controls in an experiment then ? He does not carry out the statistics again, unlike we did. 

The authors qualifie as "long term" tests conducted over a few months on salmon or macaques, over two years on cows that live fifteen years, and that only lasted for a few weeks on chickens or quails, and they did not notice either that all these studies were not requested before the commercialization of the GMOs in question. Our reviews largely consulted by the scientific community (Séralini et al. Env. Sci. Europe, 2011, 23, 10-20, see the link on our website in the welcome page) detailing the contrary are ignored, which is not at all ethical from a scientific point of view. 

Never mind the subjectivity! Worse, the large number of long-term studies by Malatesta and colleagues on mice eating soybeans with Roundup, that we had already identified as highlighting the negative effects of GMOs (in depths liver, pancreatic, testicular cell disorders) are considered as showing nothing to the despair of  the authors in their conclusion! 

They re-judge international publications as they pleas, transform the findings or ignore them for very dubious or misleading reasons like: "the GM soy might not have grown next to a field non-GMO control before being eaten by mice!" When one is concerned by such matters instead of thinking about public health, isn’t there a risk of creating generations of students who will be ashamed of science? A perfect "stage" for contradictory expertise !