Agricultural GMO developers and regulatory agencies have systematically neglected secondary effects of GMOs and pesticides. This was clearly demonstrated by the EFSA and the US FDA when each assessed the controversial GM maizes M0N863 and MON810 that produce artificial insecticides. The finding is contained in a study by eight international experts from three continents just published.
Regulatory tests conducted prior to commercial release analyse the blood of mammals that are fed GMOs. The length of these studies is generally dangerously short periods of exposure (3 months) and the number of animals tested is usually insufficient to determine safety.
However, when significant statistical results from these tests were observed that showed signs of toxicity, they were ignored and/or dismissed. Moreover, such effects are often judged to be of no importance if they are not similar in males and females, or do not show an increase with the dose of GMO fed to the animal. Such systematic bias results in a significant underestimation of initial signs of chronic diseases such as cancers, hormonal disruptions, immune, nervous or reproductive deficiencies, among others.
This is an inexcusable error in light of modern scientific knowledge. By endorsing techniques adopted by developers to mask statistically significant results, the authorities have demonstrated their inability to learn the lessons of past health scandals. In addition any regulatory study should be done long term by an independent body.
CRIIGEN calls on food safety regulators to immediately release the mammalian blood analyses and other such relevant safety data used to authorize GMOs and pesticides such as Roundup in the past. If they do not allow this information to be reviewed by independent third parties, they will become complicit if new health scandals arise involving prior approvals because they will have refused to allow the data to be independently evaluated when there is credible reason for doubt. Health scandals could arise more crucial than financial ones, at an international level, by transparency lack or too light controls in regulatory instances.
For contact firstname.lastname@example.org