2013-01-14
|
permalink
Séralini’s team and CRIIGEN have just filed complaints of defamation against claims of “fraud” and “falsified data” that were respectively published in “Marianne” and “La Provence” by Jean-Claude Jaillette and Claude Allègre who is a member of the French association for plant biotechnologies (AFBV).
In 2013 Séralini’s team and CRIIGEN will launch other legal actions to force disclosure of hidden and poor quality toxicological data. To set an example, we are arranging the formal delivery of the raw data of our last study to a notary. We will make these public as soon as the regulatory agencies or Monsanto do the same for their data, or when governments consent to publish the industry data.
2012-11-30
|
permalink
Unsurprisingly, after a preliminary negative opinion, EFSA has now rejected once more the conclusions of the Séralini et al. study on the long term health impacts of GM maize NK603 and its associated herbicide, Round-up. [...] As we have already noticed, the EFSA review has been made by scientists who had been involved in GMO risk assessment and discarded the need for long term assessments and who had already a long standing negative opinion of Seralini's team. It would have been more honest for EFSA to explain how the critiques in the study did not apply to the industry studies, which have not been made public for independent scientists to review.
2012-11-30
|
permalink
Pressure is growing for retraction of a study which concluded that a genetically modified maize and a weedkiller called glyphosate cause cancers in rats. [...] ”Given that the EFSA concludes that the authors' conclusions cannot be regarded as scientifically sound because of inadequacies in the design, reporting and analysis, is it not time for Food and Chemical Toxicology to retract the manuscript?” asked Cathie Martin of the John Innes Center in Norwich, UK, and editor-in-chief of another journal, The Plant Cell.
2012-11-27
|
permalink
A group of environmental activists destroyed a cargo of genetically modified soya in the French port of Lorient on Friday, hoping to highlight the presence of GM products in the food chain. About 100 protesters climbed to the tip of a silo and poured ricin oil over the soya on Friday morning so as to render it unusable. The grain was destined to be used as animal feed, they said, and they wanted to alert the public that GM products were present in meat, despite France’s restrictions on their cultivation.
2012-11-19
|
permalink
Aware of the health concerns that GMOs raise among Europeans, we MEPs ask for: 1. Transparency in the risk assessment studies on health and the environment that have led to the approval of pesticides and cultivation and/or import of GMOs in the European Union. We require the release of the raw data from these studies to the public online in a statistically analyzable form; 2. Independent studies encouraging open debate into the effects over the long-term (two years and more) of the use of GMOs, with or without pesticides
2012-11-13
|
permalink
There's a simple way to definitively discredit Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini's controversial study that apears to show the potentially harmful effects of GMOs: pressurise the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology that published it to ”retract” the study from its list of publications. This is what many experts are fighting to achieve in what appears to be an orchestrated attack. It's a veritable public relations war with no holds barred. The journal has received many letters from critics. It has published around twenty, and a response to the critics by the Séralini team is also available online. Legitimate scientific debate, you might say. But behind the cohort of academic titles that are listed is a hidden ”biotech sphere” which brings together biotechnology researchers, regulatory policy experts and representatives of industry.
2012-10-22
|
permalink
I have to draw the public’s attention to the fact that the said statement can not engage any of these academies in their entirety. Indeed, a group of experts was convened in an emergency, we do not know by whom, no one knows how, with a total lack of transparency in the selection of its members, and on the basis of two representatives from each academy. These people have seen fit to write in a very short space of time an opinion highly critical of this study. They cannot claim to embody the opinion of the entire French scientific world, and it would be a crime to suggest that they do. As the only member of the Academy of Sciences representing the discipline of statistics, it would have been normal for me to be consulted, yet that was not the case.
2012-10-22
|
permalink
Two expert panels on Monday rejected a French study linking genetically-modified corn to tumours in rats but called for wider probes into issues raised by the contested research. Acting on a government request to deliver a fast-track verdict, two groups of specialists reported they found no evidence to back what the study said. The Higher Biotechnologies Council (HCB) and the National Agency for Food Safety (ANSES) said they saw nothing to challenge existing safety assessments for Monsanto’s NK603 corn or its Roundup weed killer, which was part of the experiment. “The study provides no scientific information regarding the detection of any health risk linked to NK603 corn, whether it was treated with Roundup or not,” said the 66-member HCB, set up in 2009 to provide an independent view.
2012-10-16
|
permalink
The quickest rejection of the study came from Maurice Moloney, institute director and chief executive of Rothamsted Research, who said: “Although this paper has been published in a peer–reviewed journal, there are anomalies throughout the paper that normally should have been corrected or resolved through the peer-review process. [...] Moloney, who is said to hold more than 300 patents, was earlier with Calgene where he developed the world’s first transgenic oilseeds, which led to the development of RoundUp Ready Canola and other such crops. Calgene was acquired by Monsanto in 1997. In response to the criticism, Seralini told Down To Earth that: “We are surprised by the violent and rapid reactions by scientists within 24 hours. [...] The first reactions have come essentially from people who have not published any peer-reviewed scientific papers on mammalian or human physiological and toxicological studies. This is the case with Maurice Moloney who works on GMO development and patents, not on food safety.”
2012-10-12
|
permalink
Last week, the European Food Safety Authority in Parma, Italy, and Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment 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 Séralini and his team used only ten rats of each sex in their treatment groups. [...] 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.
Gehe zu Seite: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... →
