Nowa odsłona walki z GMO

Zwracamy uwagę na artykuł "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide ..." autorstwa Dr Gilles-Eric'a Seralini'ego i wsp. Po opublikowaniu pojawiła się lawina komentarzy krytycznych - poniżej cytujemy niektóre z nich, pochodzące ze środowiska naukowego. W związku z mocnymi wnioskami o wydźwięku anty-GMO zachęcamy też do podpisania petycji o udostępnienie danych nieobrobionych do wglądu społeczności naukowej: "Dr. Seralini - Please release data from your biotech corn study" http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dr-seralini-please-release-data/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=system&utm_campaign=Send%2Bto%2BFriend . Dla osób nie znających jeszcze tego doniesienia podajemy link do artykułu.

A oto niektóre komentarze oraz linki do artykułów i wypowiedzi:

About the methodology:

The statistical analysis is questionable or incorrect. The sample size is too small - the control group is inadequate to make any deductions.
The maize only diet of the rats is dubious and unrealistic. No food intake data or growth data is provided.
The study deals with geriatric rats, for which is normal to die after two years (Prof. Mark Tester for ABC News )
Use of Sprague-Dawley rats: Séralini "happens" to forget to indicate that this species is extremely susceptible to developing cancers.Up to 86% of the men and 72% of the female rats appear to exhibit spontaneous cancer to the attainment of the age of 2 years.This in combination with a limited number of rats (control group), makes it possible to obtain the results of Séralini purely on the basis of chance.
The report does not suggest that the effects are caused by genetic modification.
The choice of rat type is incorrect and deeply questionable. This type is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted. The report does not mention that up to 86% of male and 72% of female rats of this type spontaneously get cancer at the age of 2 years (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/521452).
There was no proper control group of test rats, without those additional controls "these results are of no value".
The French teams claim to be the first to test for the animal's whole lifespan is incorrect. The report does not refer to the hundreds of existing reports, as is good scientific practice.
The study and most media headlines make general conclusions about the GM maize, while the study used for its research only a single GM event. Each GM variety is subject to a separate authorization process (Prof. Jose Miguel Muletet)
"Throughout my entire career, I've never seen such tumors in rats. If the experimentation has been well conducted, I wouldn't have anything to say on it. However, I must confess that I have difficulties to believe that GMOs can have such an effect. Furthermore, these spectacular findings raise a number of questions", said Gerard Pascal, toxicologist at the French Institute INRA (Sciences et Avenir)

About potential other interests than purely scientific research:

The French researcher has long been opposed to GM crops -- often producing "pseudo-science" as one scientist said. The group has conflicts of interest -- funded by large French retailers, and anti-GM NGOs, and with close links to Greenpeace and the organic movement and others in national and European politics with dubious political motivations.
The process of first releasing data to the media, prior to the article, in a highly organized and coordinated fashion, all organized by a PR closely linked with the organic movement, suggests the intention is not to produce good science, but to scare people and media into forming negative opinions of GM. The combination of the report launch with the publication of an anti-GM book by MEP Corinne Lepage is dubious. "Is this science or is this political campaigning?"
The reports by CRIIGEN are put forward by the French authorities as justification to maintaining bans on cultivating GMOs. (Prof. Jose Miguel Mulet , Universityof Valencia)
The inclusion of emotionally distressing photos in the article suggests that the authors have other intentions in mind than scientific data. Rather the interest was to create uproar.

About disclosure of data:

The data has not been made available. From a scientific point of view this is questionable and suggests there is something to hide. The paper is supposed to have been reviewed by other scientists before it was allowed for publication, but the French team refused to allow journalists to show the paper to other scientists before the news reports were published.
The report writes that 'All data cannot be shown in one report and the most relevant are described here'. This is a form of scientific cherry-picking that is not good scientific practice. In that sense the report is "sub-standard" and should not have gotten through peer-review.
No cancer expert veterinarian has detected an increase in tumours associated with feeding (Prof. Mark Tester for ABC News )
The writers of the paper admit to only report the "best" results: "All data cannot be shown in one report and the most relevant are described here". (Biolyrics )

Links to online articles: