background preloader

Studies with independent funding

Studies with independent funding
Related:  GMOEvaluations habituelles défaillantes

Do GMOs mean more allergies? Fears are widespread: Consumers will suffer from more allergies with the arrival of genetically modified food, and new genes will turn harmless foods into serious threats. Although it isn’t easy to predict the allergenic potential of new foods, rejecting GMOs because of allergies is unjustified. When a new gene is introduced into a plant’s genome, the principal end result is the production of a new protein. Sometimes, new proteins found in transgenic plants can be entirely new to the human diet. Therefore, we can not simply assume that these new substances are non-allergenic based on past experience. GMOs cause allergies? The more genetically modified plants become present on the market, the more people will be consuming proteins new to the human diet. There are many ways of predicting the allergenic potential of a new protein before it reaches the market. In the last several years, knowledge on allergens has increased significantly. Genetically modified, but not always a new protein

Comment le test sur les rats échoue à protéger les hommes LE MONDE | • Mis à jour le | Par Stéphane Foucart S'agit-il des "bons rats" ? L'étude controversée de Gilles-Eric Séralini (université de Caen, Criigen) sur la toxicité du maïs génétiquement modifié NK603 et de son herbicide-compagnon, le Roundup, a soulevé de nombreuses discussions sur le type de rongeurs utilisés dans l'expérience. Le rat de Sprague-Dawley est-il approprié aux expériences de nourrissage menées sur deux ans, alors qu'il a tendance, passé un certain âge, à développer spontanément des tumeurs mammaires ? Certes, les industriels ont utilisé la même souche pour leurs propres tests, mais sur 90 jours seulement… Entre autres choses, l'"affaire Séralini" illustre les limites de l'évaluation des risques toxiques, telle que menée aujourd'hui sur les animaux de laboratoire. L'intérêt est donc de se passer d'animaux de laboratoire. "Il y a des techniques bien connues pour orienter les résultats des tests réglementaires actuels, dit M. La toxicogénomique ferait-elle mieux ?

GMO pigs study – more junk science When I saw on Twitter that a ‘major new peer-reviewed study’ was about to reveal serious health impacts from GMO corn and soya, I was intrigued to say the least. Would this be Seralini 2.0, a propaganda effort by anti-biotech campaigners masquerading as proper science, or something truly new and ground-breaking? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – and it would take a lot of extraordinary evidence to confound the hundreds of studies showing that GMO foods are just as safe as conventional, as summarised in this recent AAAS statement: “The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. So when I found the paper, again via Twitter, I determined to read it as I would a climate ‘denier’ paper which aimed to overturn the scientific consensus in that area – with an open mind, but a sceptical one. Really? What about the co-authors?

EFSA 2008: Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants Why Does Monsanto Sue Farmers Who Save Seeds? Monsanto patents many of the seed varieties we develop. Patents are necessary to ensure that we are paid for our products and for all the investments we put into developing these products. This is one of the basic reasons for patents. When farmers purchase a patented seed variety, they sign an agreement that they will not save and replant seeds produced from the seed they buy from us. A very small percentage of farmers do not honor this agreement. Whether the farmer settles right away, or the case settles during or through trial, the proceeds are donated to youth leadership initiatives including scholarship programs. We pursue these matters for three main reasons. Corinne Lepage: Dix ans d'Efsa: ça suffit! Lorsque l'Agence européenne de sécurité alimentaire (Efsa) a été créée, l'Europe était encore engluée dans la crise de la vache folle. C'est en effet cette affaire, et le scandale qu'elle a révélé au niveau de sa gestion par les institutions européennes, qui ont rendu nécessaire la création d'une agence dont l'indépendance et l'impartialité au regard des pressions, qu'elles soient étatiques ou économiques, étaient la raison d'être. Dix ans plus tard, si la nécessité d'une telle agence au regard de l'évaluation des risques et d'une bonne qualité de leur gestion par les décideurs politiques apparaît toujours aussi pertinente, force est de constater que l'objectif est loin d'être atteint. La multiplication des conflits d'intérêts et l'institutionnalisation d'une forme "de portes tournantes" à l'européenne ont en effet gangréné l'institution. Les 10 ans de l'Efsa devraient être l'occasion d'un changement de cap.

Roseanne’s Nuts about GMOs Lately, a lot has been going on in the crop biotechnology arena in Hawai’i. There’s Hawai’i Bill 79, and Kaua’i Bill 2491, and, well, Roseanne Barr. Following her showbiz career, she moved to Hawai’i and started up an organic macadamia nut farm. Roseanne testified in favor of Hawai’i Bill 79 last week, stressing her connection to the people pf Hawai’i, and, well, her burning desire to see genetically engineered crops gone. But there was another statement of hers that started getting promoted – that she believed that the papaya variety that was genetically engineered to be resistant to the devastating Papaya Ringspot Virus wiping out farms in Hawai’i was actually the cause of the viral outbreak itself! To be absolutely clear, this scenario isn’t even possible. I was concerned, because Roseanne Barr is well known, and repeating such an obvious falsehood amplified by celebrity status could do much damage – not only to the public knowledge of this topic, but the dialog itself.

Snell 2012: Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets Unraveling Five Popular Anti-GMO Claims | Debunking Denialism The mainstream scientific community, specific science organizations and the scientific literature converge on the conclusion that genetically modified foods are safe for human consumption (European Commission, 2010; National Research Council, 2004; AAAS Board of Directors, 2012; WHO, 2013; Ronald, 2011). However, anti-GMO zealots oppose genetically modified foods for a variety of ideological reasons. They attempt to prop up their pseudoscientific beliefs by dressing up their assertions and make them appear scientifically credible. However, most of these anti-GMO arguments are either based on flawed research or relate to things that are not specifically related to GMOs. Sometimes the assertions consists of little more than fear-mongering based on myths. There is a popular anti-GMO message that is making its way across the Internet in various forms. As we shall see, they turn out to not be scientifically accurate. The first claim is about seed patents. Farmers are not forced to by GM seeds

OGM: les études de toxicité à long terme sont quasi-inexistantes Suite à la publication de Gilles-Eric Séralini sur les effets à long terme d’un OGM et d’un pesticide, l’agence française de sécurité sanitaire et le haut conseil des biotechnologies reconnaissent le manque de documentation sur ce sujet. Elles ne remettent pour autant pas en cause les évaluations réglementaires qui ont permis la mise en marché de ces produits. Trois. C’est le nombre d’études qui se seraient intéressées aux effets sur la vie entière des organismes génétiquement modifiés (OGM), selon l’autorité nationale de sécurité sanitaire (Anses) et le haut conseil des biotechnologies (HCB), dans leurs avis rendus publics le 20 octobre 2012. Et trois, c’est en comptant l’étude de Gilles-Eric Séralini, publiée le 19 septembre dans la revue Food and chemical toxicology. Parmi les deux autres études, l’une n’était disponible qu’en japonais. Les évaluations européennes des OGM pour mise sur le marché posent question.

Look who’s squealing now: GMO lovers freak over new study of sick pigs OK, everyone have a seat and take a few deep breaths. Go to your calming place. Ready? OK, another deep breath. You’ll remember, I’m sure, the recent brouhaha over a French study by scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini that purported to find evidence that a GMO-based diet caused tumors in rats. So is this new study [PDF], as the critics are already asserting, “L’affaire Seralini” redux? Australian scientists, working with an Iowa farmer and U.S. veterinarians, studied 168 “commercial” piglets as they were raised and fattened for slaughter. The vets who examined the pigs post-mortem didn’t know whether they were looking at an animal raised on GMO feed or not — to preserve the “blind” nature of the study. The results, as reported by Reuters: So what are we to make of this? Some critics, like crop scientist Anastasia Bodnar, co-director of the nonprofit group Biology Fortified, take serious issue with a lack of attention to ensuring the feeds were truly equivalent except for their GMO status.

Flachowsky 2012: Animal feeding studies for assessments of feeds from GMPs In the future there will be a very strong competition between arable land use for phytogenic biomass production for feed/food, fuel, fibre and other industrial materials, as well as for settlements and natural conservation areas because of the growing population and limited natural resources. Therefore plants with high and stable yields, and requiring low external inputs (low input varieties) should be the main aim of plant breeding. In addition to traditional breeding, plant biotechnology seems to have the potential to contribute to this objective. Nutritional and safety studies with feed/food made from such modified plants are one of the most important prerequisite for public acceptance, and to improve knowledge in the feed/food sciences.

A Pediatrician’s Inside Monsanto? Yes, Monsanto has a pediatrician; I have been with Monsanto for 15 years, and it has been, at many levels, a gratifying experience. As a pediatrician and as a parent, I understand how deeply mothers and fathers care about the well-being of their children. In light of recent allegations about plant biotechnology and children’s health, I want to take a moment to talk about how I got here and what I do to everyday to protect the health and safety of those who may come into contact with our products, including children. How does a pediatrician end up at Monsanto? Following my training in pediatrics, I entered a fellowship training program in pediatric pharmacology – the study of drugs and drug treatment- and medical toxicology – the assessment and management of human exposures to materials in the environment. Five weeks later, I was at Monsanto. What do I do? My day-to-day focus, however, is on product safety. In the end, I’m a doctor. Dr.

OGM : comment une étude bidonnée par Monsanto a été validée par les autorités sanitaires - Santé publique Photo : source Avant d’être commercialisés, les OGM sont-ils vraiment évalués avec la plus grande rigueur scientifique, comme leurs promoteurs le prétendent ? Toute entreprise sollicitant une autorisation de mise sur le marché de son OGM doit produire une évaluation censée démontrée que sa semence transgénique est inoffensive. Ces analyses sont réalisées par des laboratoires que les entreprises de biotechnologie rémunèrent directement. Les autorités sanitaires qui étudient ensuite le dossier, comme l’Agence européenne de sécurité des aliments (EFSA [1]), ne disposent ni de temps ni de crédits pour pratiquer leurs propres analyses. Que doivent évaluer les experts ? Le Mon810 « aussi sûr » qu’un grain de maïs conventionnel ? Concernant son maïs Mon810, Monsanto a affirmé en 2007 : « Comme il a été démontré dans ce dossier de renouvellement d’autorisation, Mon810 est équivalent à un maïs conventionnel à l’exception de sa protection contre certains papillons parasites ». Conflits d’intérêts

Related: