Hyped Genetically Modified Maize Study Faces Growing Scrutiny

Image: nysm.nysed.gov/

• 

  Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...

  Read More??

From Nature magazine

The storm of scientific criticism over claims that a genetically modified (GM) maize causes severe disease in rats shows no signs of abating.

Gilles-Eric S?ralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen, France, is under intense pressure to report the full data behind his team?s finding that rats fed for two years with Monsanto?s glyphosate-resistant NK603 maize (corn) developed many more tumours and died earlier than controls (see Nature 489, 484; 2012). The study, run in collaboration with the Paris-based Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), also found that rats developed tumours when their drinking water was spiked with glyphosate, the herbicide that is used with the GM maize. The findings have had a huge public impact in Europe, empowering those opposed more broadly to GM foods, and leading some politicians to call for tighter regulations or outright bans of the maize.

Last week, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in Parma, Italy, and Germany?s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin both issued initial assessments slamming the paper, bluntly asserting that its conclusions are not supported by the data presented. ?The design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate,? says the EFSA in a press release, adding that the paper is ?of insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment?.

The biggest criticism from both reviews is that S?ralini and his team used only ten rats of each sex in their treatment groups. That is a similar number of rats per group to that used in most previous toxicity tests of GM foods, including Missouri-based Monsanto?s own tests of NK603 maize. Such regulatory tests monitor rats for 90 days, and guidelines from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) state that ten rats of each sex per group over that time span is sufficient because the rats are relatively young. But S?ralini?s study was over two years ? almost a rat?s lifespan ? and for tests of this duration, the OECD recommends at least 20 rats of each sex per group for chemical-toxicity studies, and at least 50 for carcinogenicity studies.

Moreover, the study used Sprague-Dawley rats, which both reviews note are prone to developing spontaneous tumours. Data provided to Nature by Harlan Laboratories, which supplied the rats in the study, show that only one-third of males, and less than one-half of females, live to 104 weeks. By comparison, its Han Wistar rats have greater than 70% survival at 104 weeks, and fewer tumours. OECD guidelines state that for two-year experiments, rats should have a survival rate of at least 50% at 104 weeks. If they do not, each treatment group should include even more animals ? 65 or more of each sex.

?There is a high probability that the findings in relation to the tumour incidence are due to chance, given the low number of animals and the spontaneous occurrence of tumours in Sprague-Dawley rats,? concludes the EFSA report. In response to the EFSA?s assessment, the European Federation of Biotechnology ? an umbrella body in Barcelona, Spain, that represents biotech researchers, institutes and companies across Europe ? called for the study to be retracted, describing its publication as a ?dangerous case of failure of the peer-review system?.

S?ralini argues that a battery of observations in the study reinforces his tumour-incidence and mortality claims. ?Of course, this should be replicated by others, but we believe in these results,? he says. He agrees that more rats would have boosted his study?s statistical power, but says that he did not design the experiment to show differences in tumour incidences, because he was not expecting to find any ? no previous tests on GM foods had suggested a cancer risk.

Source: http://rss.sciam.com/click.phdo?i=fed06d76849a8702a6c08cb4f36b023e

super bowl coin toss madonna super bowl halftime kelly clarkson super bowl giants super bowl 2012 half time show halftime show 2012 kelly clarkson super bowl 2012