"The reactions appeared shockingly quick and this is a cause for concern because I find it takes time to thoroughly read a scientific paper of this complexity." - Prof. Jack Heinemann "We are surprised by the violent and rapid reactions by scientists within 24 hours. Was it because of their financial interests? Or, were they involved in the insufficient assessment of agricultural GMOs on health? 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." - Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini "The SMC introduced these experts to the media solely by listing the universities and public institutions that employ them, failing to give the full flavour of their interests: seven out of eight are either evangelical advocates of GM food, or have received funding from, or worked with, prominent biotech corporations." - Joanna Blythman The corporate links and orchestrated character of the attacks on the research of Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini et al (Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (2012) 4221-4231)  has been exposed in broad terms by the French journalist Benjamin Sourice, among others. This is an attempt to look at the details. AFBV - Association Francaise des Biotechnologies Vegetale (The French Association of Plant Biotechnology) issued a press release contradicting the Seralini study's findings on the day of its publication. AgBioWorld http://presswire.einnews.com/247pr/309289 Académie des sciences (The French Academy of Sciences) Klaus Ammann quoted in AgBioWorld press release about the AgBioWorld petition http://presswire.einnews.com/247pr/309289 Colin Berry BfR - Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment)  Alan Boobis Jay Byrne Bruce Chassy Presenting himself as Professor Emeritus of Food Safety at the University of Illinois, Chassy is a lobbyist who participated in the drafting of a paper for Dow Chemicals, another biotech giant, aimed at simplifying or removing food safety regulations for GMOs. He is also the lead author, with an employee of Monsanto, of two policy reports [2004, 2008] on the regulation of GMOs for the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), the main lobby group of the food industry. Andrew Chesson Andrew Cockburn Dr. Andrew Cockburn modestly presents himself as a toxicologist at the University of Newcastle. However, until 2003, Mr. Cockburn was Scientific Director for Monsanto Europe/Africa before setting up his lobbying firm Toxico-Logical Consulting Ltd. And since it's a small world, Dr. Cockburn is also the director of the ILSI expert task force on the evaluation of foods containing nanomaterials. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14424-the-covert-war-to-discredit-seralinis-study EFSA - European Agency for Food Safety Jon Entine Nina Fedoroff Marc Fellous L. Val Giddings Wendy Harwood HBC - The Higher Biotechnologies Council ILSI  John Innes Centre Chris Leaver Ottoline Leyser Henry I Miller Alan McHughen Maurice Moloney Martina Newell-McGlaughlin Has co-authored papers with Bruce Chassy and Alan McHughen Leila Macedo Oda Georges Pelletier - the man now identified as having helped to shape the unsigned statement of the six science academies. Pelletier had also personally signed onto a public statement that dismissed Seralini's study as principally "a publicity gambit."  This is because of Pelletier's role as Chairman of the Executive Committee of Genoplante. Genoplante is a public private plant genomics research partnership. Its principal corporate partners are the aggressively pro-GM French seed giant Limagrain Group, via its biotech research arm Biogemma, and Bayer. Established in 1999, one of the driving forces behind Genoplante was Limagrain Group Chairman Pierre Pagesse who became Vice-President of Genoplante. It was under Pagesse's leadership that the Limagrain Group heavily committed itself to developing GM crops. The strength of Pagesse's own commitment, as well as his firm's frustration at the opposition it met, is reflected in the fact that at one point Pagesse even lead a group of pro-GM vigilantes who came to blows with anti-GM protesters. http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Pierre_Pagesse Georges Pelletier's current deputy at Genoplante is Georges Freyssinet, Limagrain's Scientific Affairs Manager. A Limagrain publication called "Embracing Our Vision" gives the views of different leading figures within the Limagrain Group. For Georges Freyssinet it says, "Limagrain's future goes hand in hand with the development of GMOs... Georges Freyssinet, Limagrain's Scientific Affairs Manager, is behind the Group's new research on this subject. He takes a look at how this technology has become so vital for the Group..." http://www.limagrain.com/publications/embracing/embracing-our-vision-georges-freyssinet/article-271/gb.html CS Prakash Tom Sanders Science Media Centre - Joanna Blythman has noted, "the SMC is a well-oiled PR machine, funded in part by chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotech companies with a vested interest in seeing potentially profitable new technologies and products commercialised. Recently, the SMC tried to stifle concerns arising from a study by molecular biologists at the University of Caen, which showed that rats fed long-term on a combination of GM corn, and its partner pesticide Roundup, developed higher levels of cancer than normal Within minutes of the results being published in a peer-reviewed journal, the SMC swung into action, spoon-feeding journalists ready-made quotes from eight hand-picked scientists, rubbishing the research and its authors. The SMC introduced these experts to the media solely by listing the universities and public institutions that employ them, failing to give the full flavour of their interests: seven out of eight are either evangelical advocates of GM food, or have received funding from, or worked with, prominent biotech corporations." The director of the SMC claims credit for shaping coverage of the paper in the UK. An article in Times Higher Education titled Shock troops check 'poor' GM study says Fiona Fox "took pride in the fact that [SMC] scientists' emphatic thumbs down had largely been acknowledged throughout UK newsrooms... She had also heard that several television news programmes had also rejected the story after reading the [SMC's] quotes." And that impact was achieved with the non-pre-publication-disclosure policy in place. How much of a hearing would the research have got without it? Sivramiah (Shanthu) Shantharam Lúcia de Souza Mark Tester Anthony Trewavas David Tribe (+ Chassy) v-Fluence  Prof Maurice Moloney, Chief Executive of Rothamsted Research. What the SMC fails to tell journalists is that Moloney doesn't just drive a Porsche with a GMO number plate, but has a c.v. to match. It is in fact Moloney's GM research that lies behind Monsanto's GM canola (oilseed rape). He also launched his own GM company in which Dow Agro Science were investors. In other words, Prof Moloney's career and business activities have long been centered around GM. http://www.spinwatch.org.uk/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/46-gm-industry/5505-science-one-whining-greenies-nil Another expert quoted by the SMC is Dr Wendy Harwood. Dr Harwood is a GM scientist at the UK's John Innes Centre, which has had tens of millions of pounds invested in it by GM giants like Syngenta. In fact, a previous director of the JIC told his local paper that any major slow down or halt in the development of GM crops "would be very, very serious for us." http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/John_Innes_Centr  Prof Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh is another of the experts that the SMC quotes. They don't mention that Prof Trewavas is also a GM crop scientist, as well as a fervent opponent of organic farming, or that he is notorious for his attacks on scientists who publish research critical of GM. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14211-gm-lobby-wades-in-on-new-study Prof Mark Tester is yet another GM scientist quoted by the SMC. He is described by the SMC as Research Professor, Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, University of Adelaide. His University of Adelaide profile tells us: "His commercial acumen is clear from his establishment of private companies and successful interactions with multinational companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and Pioneer-DuPont." http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/mark.tester The SMC describes Prof Ottoline Leyser as Associate Director of the Sainsbury Laboratory, University of Cambridge. They don't mention that the Laboratory is funded by the Gatsby Foundation of Lord Sainsbury, the well known GM enthusiast and biotech entrepreneur, who also set up and funds the GM-related work of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the John Innes Centre. http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/David_Sainsbury  Prof Alan Boobis is described by the SMC as Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology, Imperial College London. They don't mention that he is a long-time member of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), i.e the very body that approved the GM corn in question, or that he has also long been on the board of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) - a biotech and food industry lobby group whose backers include the GM giants BASF, Bayer and Monsanto. http://bit.ly/Q9tZSw http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/International_Life_Sciences_Institute  Prof Tom Sanders is described by the SMC as Head of the Nutritional Sciences Research Division, King’s College London. Like Prof Trewavas, Prof Sanders was involved in attacking the Pusztai study that suggested concerns about GM. His criticisms do not appear to have been well founded. http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Tom_Sanders This was back in the late 1990s. According to an article in The Independent in 1996, Prof Sanders was at that time "Nutrasweet's professional consultant". Up until 2000, Nutrasweet was owned by Monsanto. http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Tom_Sanders The letter from the senior scientists condemning Seralini's paper that is mentioned in this Daily Mail article is the one from CS Prakash, Henry Miller, Bruce Chassy, Marc Fellous, etc. that Benjamin Sourice writes about in his article on "The covert war to discredit Seralini's study". http://gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14424 Such attacks on scientists who highlight risks of GM plants are normal. It's always the same industry-linked GM proponents who immediately try to defame the critical studies and their authors in a concerted campaign. This is about money. Now they're pointing the large caliber weapons at Séralini, because his feeding study focused on the health of animals, which in turn serve as a model for humans. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14451-attacks-on-seralini-qabout-large-sums-of-money  BfR ...the German authorities minimized the findings of birth defects in their 1998 report to the EU authorities and member states. They used unscientific practices such as using irrelevant "historical control data" to make findings of birth defects disappear amid the resulting "data noise". They even redefined a birth defect as a "developmental variation". As a result, the German authorities set – and the EU accepted in 2002 – a "safe" level for glyphosate exposure that is not safe at all  Now, Seralini's experiment shows that a level thousands of times lower than the EU "safe" level is, in fact, highly toxic, causing early death, increased tumours and organ damage in rats. Germany remains the rapporteur for glyphosate and is currently re-assessing the chemical for the EU renewed approval scheduled for 2015. In October the German office for risk assessment, BfR, issued a statement dismissing Seralini's study, citing long-term studies in rats and mice that it said showed "no … carcinogenic potential". [4] http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14475 science academies. That statement subsequently proved to be the work of a small group that included a leading member of an industry-linked pro-GM lobby group with a record of defamatory attacks on Seralini. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14362 the French Academy of Medicine issued a report in 1996 supporting the safety of asbestos, even though asbestos had by then been classified as a human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer for nearly a decade. A year later the French government moved to ban it permanently. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14362 French academies' report on Seralini study highly suspect http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14335-french-academies-report-on-seralini-study-highly-suspect NOTE: Six French scientific academies have released a joint statement dismissing the Seralini study as a "scientific non-event." http://www.academie-sciences.fr/activite/rapport/avis1012.pdf However, it has immediately drawn a rejoinder from the renowned French statistician Paul Deheuvels, himself a prominent member of the Academy of Sciences. Deheuvels points out that far from representing the six academies in their entirety, the joint statement came from just 12 academicians who were convened at short notice and selected in a totally untransparent way. http://leplus.nouvelobs.com/contribution/661194-l-etude-de-seralini-sur-les-ogm-pomme-de-discorde-a-l-academie-des-sciences.html We will be posting a translation of the full Deheuvels article, but one other important point to note is that Deheuvels says he wasn't consulted about the Seralini study "even though he is the only member of the Academy of Sciences representing the discipline of statistics", and so, in the normal way of things, would be consulted on a case like this. Although the statement has been issued in the names of the national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, science, technology, and veterinary studies, it is unsigned, and an obvious question is why the statement has been rushed out when, according to the article below, the statement "admits that no 'in-depth evaluation' has been carried out yet." In fact, the academies' statement uses the same superficial attacks on Seralini's study that have been debunked previously. For instance, its authors appear unaware that the same type of rat that Seralini used in his study is commonly used in other long term chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies by industry and others. And the authors cite carcinogenicity studies on glyphosate, Roundup's main chemical ingredient, with the implication that they counter Seralini's findings on the tumorigenic effects of Roundup. This in spite of the fact that Seralini's team have shown in previous studies that formulations such as Roundup are more toxic than glyphosate alone, as have other studies. If such superficial attacks seem extraordinary, then it's worth remembering that key sections of a landmark report promoting GM crops that was issued by six of India's academies of science were shown to have been plagiarized from a pro-GM article produced by a biotech industry backed lobby. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12528 Hatchet jobs by prestigious science bodies trying to undermine inconvenient GM research are also not unknown. Witness the scandalously partisan and inaccurate attacks on the research of Dr Arpad Pusztai by the UK's Royal Society. http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai Overall, this "opinion" of the academies is as suspect as that of the European Food Safety Authority's kangaroo court, which issued a similar condemnation of Seralini's study with the participation of very few member states. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14269- --- --- French academies trash GM corn cancer study Jacques Demarthon RFI, 19 October 2012 http://www.english.rfi.fr/americas/20121019-french-acadamies-trash-gm-corn-cancer-study http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14335-french-academies-report-on-seralini-study-highly-suspect BfR Claire Robinson said the German authorities’ dismissal of the carcinogenicity data was scientifically unjustifiable: “Seralini’s study shows that Roundup causes toxic effects in a nonlinear pattern. This is a known feature of chemicals that affect hormones. “The German authorities’ actions show that that citizens cannot trust regulatory claims for the safety of glyphosate. They must take their own steps to minimize exposure.” The task of assessing industry’s studies fell to Germany as the “rapporteur” member state for glyphosate, responsible for liaising between industry and EU authorities. Germany remains in this role and is currently reviewing glyphosate for the EU’s 2015 re-approval. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14428 The AFBV is behind the Academies' attack on Gilles-Eric Seralini as a "militant" responsible for the "orchestration of a scientific reputation [...] by spreading fear". [http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14362] A number of Marc Fellous' co-signatories are linked to the pro-GM group AgBioWorld, led by the geneticist CS Prakash, who is himself a signatory of the joint letter. Prakash and his organization are also the originators of two petitions (the first collected 57 signatures and the second 731) calling for "the release of the raw data" of Gilles-Eric Seralini. Astonishingly, the first signatories of each petition are the same people who sent the letters to the journal FCT. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14424-the-covert-war-to-discredit-seralinis-study AgBioWorld In 2002, the British newspaper The Guardian revealed that AgBioWorld had played a major role in a "viral campaign" of defamation against the whistleblower Ignacio Chapela after he uncovered the genetic contamination of Mexican corn. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/may/14/greenpolitics.digitalmedia The inquiry revealed that the [AgBioWorld] organisation's website was hosted by the communications firm Bivings, which was employed by Monsanto and directed by one Jay Byrne. http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Jay_Byrne It used false identities ("Mary Murphy" and "Andura Smetacek") to speak in the name of "the scientific community" and promote the idea that Chapela was linked to environmentalists, who were likened to "terrorists" and "vandals". http://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Center_for_Food_and_Agricultural_Research Miller/Byrne The Bivings company was dissolved in December 2011 after a cyber attack by Anonymous in the guise of "Operation End Monsanto." But Byrne has continued to operate from a headquarters in St. Louis (Illinois, USA), where Monsanto is also headquartered along with his new company V-fluence. http://www.v-fluence.com/ This strategy of defamation was exactly the one used by Henry Miller, a signatory of the joint letter to FCT, "health regulation" expert at AgBioWorld, and member of the neoconservative think tank, the Hoover Institution. http://www.agbioworld.org/experts/index.html In a series of articles published by Forbes, he describes Seralini's study as "fraudulent", and he denounces the "fear profiteers" of a "protest industry funded by organic interests". This vitriolic attack has Jay Byrne as a co-author, who, the magazine had to disclose, was responsible for viral [PR] communications for Monsanto (1997-2001). Henry Miller's CV is just as interesting because he is the "founding father" (1989-1994) of GMO regulation at the US Food and Drug Administration. He is the architect, with former Monsanto lawyer Michael Taylor, of the infamous "principle of substantial equivalence", the cornerstone of GMO regulation across the world. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14424-the-covert-war-to-discredit-seralinis-study Bruce Chassy Bruce Chassy, experts in biology and GMOs at AgBioWorld, and both authors of a letter demanding the retraction of Seralini's paper by the journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology. Presenting himself as Professor Emeritus of Food Safety at the University of Illinois, Chassy is a lobbyist who participated in the drafting of a paper for Dow Chemicals, another biotech giant, aimed at simplifying or removing food safety regulations for GMOs. He is also the lead author, with an employee of Monsanto, of two policy reports [2004, 2008] on the regulation of GMOs for the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), the main lobby group of the food industry  Note that two leaders of the GMO Panel of the European Agency for Food Safety (EFSA), Harry A. Kuiper, its former chair for nearly ten years (2003-2012) and Gijs A. Kleter, current vice-chair, appear on these strategic documents of ILSI under the direction of Chassy. Furthermore, while three of the letter writers [to the journal] openly specify their contractual relationship with Monsanto, Dr. Andrew Cockburn modestly presents himself as a toxicologist at the University of Newcastle. However, until 2003, Mr. Cockburn was Scientific Director for Monsanto Europe/Africa before setting up his lobbying firm Toxico-Logical Consulting Ltd.. And since it's a small world, Dr. Cockburn is also the director of the ILSI expert task force on the evaluation of foods containing nanomaterials. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14424-the-covert-war-to-discredit-seralinis-study BfR http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14418-new-paper-exposes-regulatory-failure-over-roundup industry studies on glyphosate dating back as far as the 1980s, including some by Monsanto, showed that the chemical caused birth defects in lab animals. But German government authorities tasked with reporting on the industry studies to the EU Commission and member states played down the findings, giving a false impression of glyphosate's safety. The EU approved glyphosate in 2002. Said Claire Robinson, research director at the science policy platform Earth Open Source and a co-author of the study: "The German authorities introduced irrelevant data to 'disappear' significant findings of birth defects and even went so far as to redefine a birth defect as a 'developmental variation'. "As a result, Germany set – and the EU authorities accepted – a 'safe' level for glyphosate exposure that may not be safe at all." The new study's findings back those of a separate study published in September by a team led by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini. Seralini found increased incidence of tumours, mortality, and organ damage in rats fed with low levels of Roundup and a GM maize genetically engineered to tolerate the herbicide. The levels of Roundup that were toxic were well below levels permitted in drinking water and feed.[2] In response to Seralini's study, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, BfR, sprang to the defence of the herbicide. BfR cited the industry tests on glyphosate, which it said showed the chemical does not cause carcinogenic effects.[3] These industry tests, and the German authorities' 1998 assessment of them, underpin the EU's current approval of glyphosate. The new study is the first peer-reviewed research to analyze the validity of the regulatory approval of glyphosate. The authors of the study have not seen the industry studies, which are kept secret under commercial confidentiality rules. However, they were able to examine the German authorities' report on them as a result of an access to information request to the German government. While the new study confines itself to birth defects, the German authorities' report shows that the industry studies also revealed a carcinogenic effect from glyphosate. Germany dismissed this effect on the grounds that it does not follow a linear dose-response pattern: the effect does not increase in a straight line upwards as the dose increases. Claire Robinson said the German authorities' dismissal of the carcinogenicity data was scientifically unjustifiable: "Seralini's study shows that Roundup causes toxic effects in a nonlinear pattern. This is a known feature of chemicals that affect hormones. "The German authorities' actions show that that citizens cannot trust regulatory claims for the safety of glyphosate. They must take their own steps to minimize exposure." The task of assessing industry's studies fell to Germany as the "rapporteur" member state for glyphosate, responsible for liaising between industry and EU authorities. Germany remains in this role and is currently reviewing glyphosate for the EU's 2015 re-approval. Claire Robinson said: "It's time to overhaul the way in which pesticides and GM foods are assessed for safety. Meanwhile the industry tests on which the approval of glyphosate is based must be made public on the internet." Notes [1] Antoniou M, Habib MEM, Howard CV, Jennings RC, Leifert C, Nodari RO, Robinson CJ, Fagan J (2012) Teratogenic Effects of Glyphosate-Based Herbicides: Divergence of Regulatory Decisions from Scientific Evidence. J Environ Anal Toxicol S4:006. doi:10.4172/2161-0525.S4-006. http://www.omicsonline.org/2161-0525/2161-0525-S4-006.php?aid=7453 Note: This published study includes material previously published in: Antoniou, M., M. Habib, et al. (2011). Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?, Earth Open Source. http://bit.ly/IP2FWH The new study has been updated with a more comprehensive assessment of the industry studies and additional peer-reviewed studies. Additional material includes a re-evaluation of the data of Rull et al (2004, 2006), which suggests a modest link between exposure to Roundup and neural tube defects, a type of birth defect; and Argentine research showing an association between pesticide exposure in an area of intensive cultivation of GM soy, and birth defects, confirming reports by residents and doctors. The new study exposes conflicts of interest in industry-sponsored reviews of glyphosate and Roundup that conclude they are safe. [2] Séralini, G. E., E. Clair, et al. (2012). Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology. [3] BfR (Germany) (2012) A study of the University of Caen neither constitutes a reason for a re-evaluation of genetically modified NK603 maize nor does it affect the renewal of the glyphosate approval. 1 October. http://bit.ly/Sz6lRI http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14418 The Higher Biotechnologies Council (HCB) HCB more concerned with assuaging public fears than finding out truth? http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/57946 On the plus side though they did ask for long-term studies on GMOs, we shd emphasise that—it’s what Seralini has argued for years HBC experts: Annex 2: Development of the opinion An ad hoc working group was constituted in response to the referral of 24 September 2012, consists of expert rapporteurs selected for their skills in disciplines relevant to the analysis of the article Seralini et al. (2012), they belong to the public and their independence: - Four external experts rapporteurs HCB: Dr. Avner Bar-Hen, Professor at the University Paris-Descartes, statistician, Dr. Martine Kolf-Clauw, Professor at Ecole Nationale Veterinaire de Toulouse, veterinary toxicologist Dr. Francelyne Marano, Professor Emeritus University of Paris-Diderot, specialized in cell biology, toxicology and genotoxicity, and Dr. Daniel Marzin, Professor Emeritus of the University of Lille II, a toxicologist; - Three members of the expert rapporteurs CS HCB: Dr. Joel Guillemain, pharmacist expert toxicologist course load at the University of Tours, Dr. Marc Lavielle, Research Director at INRIA, statistician, and Dr. Maximilian Remy, Director of Research CEA, a toxicologist; - Two members of the expert rapporteurs CS HCB, President and Vice-President of HCB CS: Dr Jean-Christophe Pages, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Hospital Doctor at the Faculty of Medicine at Tours, and Dr. Jean-Jacques Leguay Research Director CNRS vegetable biology and physiology. An additional private sector expert (Dr Roy Forster International Center of Toxicology, toxicologist) was consulted by the working group on technical issues. The working group has realized an analysis of the article Seralini et al. (2012) under the guidance of Dr. Remy Maximilian, and provides a report for consideration by the CS HCB October 2, 2012. Each external expert has signed a commitment to confidentiality, and certify they have no conflict of interest with the record relates. The experts of the working group rapporteurs have analyzed the issue in their field of expertise, and have been auditioning for the CS. However, they did not directly contribute to the elaboration of this opinion, which remains the responsibility of the CS HCB. The definitive opinion has been elaborated by the CS HCB, under the chairmanship of Dr Jean-Christophe Pages, the Vice-presidency of Dr. Jean-Jacques Leguay, and under the scientific coordination of Dr. Catherine Goldstein, Head of Scientific and chargee HCB European affairs. CS HCB is a multidisciplinary committee composed of scientific personalities appointed by order under their specialty in relation to the tasks of HCB. Alphabetical order of surnames, HCB is the CS consists of: Bagnis Claude, Yves Bertheau, Boireau Pascal Denis Bourguet, François-Christophe Coleno, Couvet Denis, Jean-Luc Darlix, Elie Dassa, Maryse Deguergue, Marion Desquilbet, Hubert de Verneuil, Robert Drillien, Nathalie Eychenne, Anne-Dubart Kupperschmitt, Claudine frank Philippe Guerche Joel Guillemain, Mireille Jacquemond, Andre Jestin, Klonjkowski Bernard, Marc Lavielle, Jane Lecomte, Olivier Le Gall, Jean-Jacques Leguay, Didier Lereclus, Remy Maximilian Messean Antoine, Nicolas Munier-Jolain, Pages Jacques, Jean Christopher Pages, Parzy Daniel, Catherine Regnault-Roger, Red Stone, Patrick Saindrenan, Annie Sasco, Pascal Simonet, Virginie Tournay, Vaissiere Bernard, Jean-Luc Vilotte. Antoine Messean did not contribute to the elaboration or to the writing of this opinion because of his membership in the EFSA, which has also been seized on the subject. No other members of the CS have not declared conflicts of interest that might interfere with the elaboration of this view. Participation in the elaboration of the notice does not mean that the notice is received adopts the full and complete agreement of all participants, but indicates that a majority was in favor degagee, within the limits of the competences experts and after sets of all points of view. [from annex 2 of HCB report - Claire's email pdf 24/11 17:14] EFSA EFSA cosies up to the biotech industry again! www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/38-1999/14373 [Extract only] ...Lobbying scandals have plagued EU institions, as shown by the resignation earlier this month of the European Commissioner responsible for health and consumer affairs, including GMOs, John Dalli, because of the results of an anti-fraud investigation centered on tobacco lobbying. The Commission's cavalier attitude to the lobbying issue was also reflected in its nomination a few months back of a leading food industry lobbyist and former Monsanto employee to EFSA's Management Board. http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/631 And EFSA itself has faced repeated complaints over its cosy relationship with industry. Its handling of conflicts of interest has drawn criticism from both the EU's Court of Auditors and the European Parliament, with the Parliament even postponing approval of EFSA's budget over the issue. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14315 Also earlier this year, EFSA admitted to the European ombudsman that it had not properly responded to the case of Suzy Renckens, the former head of EFSA's GMO unit, who left EFSA and moved directly to a lobbying job with GM giant Syngenta. Then there was the head of EFSA's management board who was finally forced to resign back in May because of her continuing relationship with the food and biotech industry lobby group the International Life Sciences Institute Europe (ILSI). And then there's the complaint currently with the EU ombudsman over the alleged ties to ILSI of the man who chaired EFSA's GMO panel for almost a decade. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/13910 ILSI also influenced the OECD Guidelines on risk assessment that EFSA used in its criticisms of Seralini's recent paper, even though it has been shown that EFSA does not always apply those guidelines to studies that support the safety of GMOs! http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/the%20double%20standards%20of%20EFSA_0.pdf In the context of these double standards and multiple conflicts of interest, for EFSA to be participating in a biotech industry lobbies' workshop on how to assess the risks of GMOs could hardly be more inappropriate. http://www.europabio.org/agricultural/positions/workshop-risk-assessment-requirements-gm-food-and-feed-respect-toxicology-and *EFSA EFSA's discharge [accounts], which had been postponed for the 1st time in its 10 years history last May (See GMO (In)digest 5), has been granted in the EP Plenary on 23rd October. http://gmo.greens-efa.eu/gmo-in-digest-7677.html The rapporteur, EPP (Conservative) MEP Macovei has received assurances from EFSA that it has and is working on a major overhaul of its conflict of interest policies and some other sectors where the first reports in April criticised it. The Greens/EFA group finds it absolutely necessary to have a strong independent EU safety agency and voted in favor of granting the 2010 discharge. It thinks the signal that was sent in postponing the discharge may lead to a major shift in policies in the agency. Still, outstanding issues remain. We believe that the conflicts of interest that we have denounced many times and that a recent report from the European Court of Auditors pointed out invalidate the risk assessment guidelines for GMOs, as well as the safety assessments of individual GMOs. http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/17186745.PDF So far, even though EFSA has claimed it has improved its policy on conflicts of interest (and it has somewhat), it is not questionning its past work on risk assessments guidelines and systematic positive opinions on all GMO dossiers. The progress that we expect to be made on the quality, independence and credibility of EFSA's scientific expertise will guide us when we shall vote on the 2011 discharge. The process begins already in November. EFSA is celebrating its 10th anniversary with a joint conference with DG SANCO to review the Authority’s main achievements over the past decade and to look ahead to the challenges that it faces in the future, on 13th November. Green MEP José Bové has been invited to attend the conference and will bring our message to the heart of the agency. On the day before, from 16h to 19h30, NGOs are holding a citizens’ conference on the governance of EFSA and the science and expertise needed to protect public health and the environment. The event is at Aula Magna Economy Faculty of the University of Parma. José Bové is also a panellist at the NGOs forum. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14379 Seralini accuses EFSA of a con trick NOTE: Gilles-Eric Seralini has said from the start that he is reluctant to hand over more information about his recently published study on the impact of NK603 GM maize and Monsanto's herbicide Roundup unless the regulators release - ideally on a public website - all the health and environmental risk studies on GMOs and Roundup, including all the details of the blood analyses performed during mammalian tests, so that all the scientists, journalists and citizens who wish to can compare the details of Seralini's study with the studies that led to the European Food Safety Authority's market approvals of these products. If EFSA would do this, Seralini has said he will reciprocate, although he has also said that if his work is to be evaluated fully and fairly it needs to be assessed by an independent group of scientists who, unlike EFSA, are untainted by conflicts of interest and by past regulatory decisions that Seralini's research challenges. Seralini's desire for full disclosure is not only about transparency, but also about making sure that like is compared with like, so that a double standard cannot be applied where EFSA can identify apparent weaknesses in Seralini's research that might equally apply to studies that EFSA has fully accepted. There is, in fact, good evidence that EFSA has already in its preliminary rejection of Seralini's work applied just such a double standard. There is also evidence that Seralini's research has used comparatively higher scientific standards than research EFSA has accepted as supporting the safety of Monsanto's products. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14372 http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14288 Now, according to two of the articles below (items 1 and 3) EFSA has moved things forward by giving Seralini's team access to all the available information relating to its evaluation of Monsanto's NK603 maize from 2003 and 2009. The articles say that despite EFSA's full disclosure of this information Seralini has not reciprocated. However, the French article that we've translated below (item 2) tells a very different story. According to one of Seralini's co-authors, when they dug into the information that EFSA had provided, they discovered that "there is no biological data (analyses of blood and tissues) on which you can work. This is really a con trick." If that is the case then the question that arises is, has EFSA claimed it is making a full disclosure while actually retaining critical information about the studies that it used to approve Monsanto's products? And, if so, why? What has it got to hide? Or, on the other hand, has EFSA done what it says and fully disclosed all the information that was used in its approval process for Monsanto's products? Because if so, this would suggest something still more disturbing, that EFSA never had access to the information that would be necessary to evaluate the studies fully. That would in turn raise the question as to why EFSA is demanding that kind of depth of information from Seralini. That question also applies to all those pro-GM scientists and commentators who have also been demanding full disclosure from Seralini but who have never made the same demand about the data relating to the applications for GM approvals. Such a double standard would only make sense if people are intent on finding fault with one type of study - the type that raises concerns about Monsanto's products, while nodding through the other. Either way, Seralini's goal of the complete release of all the details of the health and environmental risk studies on GMOs and Roundup, including his own, remains the only sensible way forward. As Seralini has also requested, this information should be made available on a public website where everyone can see the basis of regulatory discussions and decision making. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14374-seralini-accuses-efsa-of-a-con-trick EXTRACTS: ...we believe that none of [the studies discussed in this briefing] describing chronic feeding studies with genetically engineered plants have met the standards being used by EFSA to criticize the research of Seralini et al., 2012. The comparison with the studies reviewed by Snell et al. (2011) shows that Seralini's research was conducted using comparatively higher scientific standards. In conclusion, EFSA does not apply OECD standards to sub-chronic, 90-day feeding studies when these are prepared by industry and do not show health effects from consuming genetically engineered foods. In contrast, the OECD standards have been used by EFSA to attack the research of Seralini et al., 2012. ...The results should be taken seriously and used as a starting point for further investigations, as has been proposed by the French food safety and biotechnology authorities (ANSES 2012). http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14372 EFSA's over-friendly relations with industry have been under fire for nearly a decade, and particularly in the last year. The criticism has come not just from NGOs but also from Members of the European Parliament who earlier this year postponed signing off on EFSA's budget because of its problems with conflicts of interest. The head of EFSA's board of management even had to resign earlier this year over her own conflicts of interest with industry, and this is just one of the ongoing controversies affecting EFSA on this issue. http://gmwatch.org/component/content/article/13914 Of course, Americans may be forgiven their ignorance of European institutions, but Hiltzik is a highly experienced journalist. Yet it seems that this Pulitzer prize winner is incapable of making even a single search on "EFSA" on Google News. If he had, he would have immediately turned up headlines like: *EFSA criticised by auditors over conflict of interest *EFSA slammed for "not robust enough" screening *Court of Auditors denounces conflicts of interest *EU auditors accuse ECHA and EFSA of failing to manage conflict of interest These headlines were prompted by a report from the European Court of Auditors that found a whole series of problems at EFSA, including not screening thoroughly enough the declared conflicts of interests of the scientists it appointed, and the presence of industry figures on its management board. http://corporateeurope.org/pressreleases/2012/efsa-criticised-auditors-over-conf licts-interest Earlier this year, the European Parliament postponed approval of EFSA's budget over conflicts of interest, and there were protests when the European Commission recommended that one of Europe's chief food lobbyists, and a former Monsanto employee, join EFSA's management board. http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/631 And, as we said, the controversy over EFSA's closeness to industry is nothing new, with repeated charges being made that EFSA has consistently sided with the biotech industry. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14315 But just as importantly in this case, EFSA is not an independent judge when it comes to Monsanto's NK603 maize. EFSA's previous opinion that the NK603 GM maize that Seralini tested was "safe" led to its EU approval. EFSA has also argued against the need for feeding trials and claims that if they are done, 90 days is long enough to see any ill effects. ALL these decisions by EFSA would be overturned if it were to admit that Seralini's study has any merit at all. So how likely is it that EFSA will, as Corinne Lepage MEP put it, cut off the branch on which it sits? http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14316-weapons-grade-junk-journalism-from-the-la-times Court of Auditors slams EFSA http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14315-court-of-auditors-slams-efsa 1.EFSA criticised by auditors over conflicts of interest 2.EFSA on health effects of interaction between GMOs and herbicides NOTE: The European Court of Auditors has slammed the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for its inadequate management of conflicts of interest which it says is "not robust enough." The Court - the independent audit institution of the European Union, whose job it is to examine whether the EU's monies are being used in accordance with the rules - found serious shortcomings in the policies and procedures followed by EFSA. The problems included EFSA not screening thoroughly the declared conflicts of interests of the scientists it appointed. EFSA, for instance, failed to do anything about a conflict of interest involving two experts reviewing food substances relevant to a company that they were simultaneously providing professional advice to. The Court's report also criticises the presence of industry figures on EFSA's management board. The Court's findings come as no surprise. Earlier this year the European Parliament postponed approval of EFSA's budget in the light of all the problems over conflicts of interest at the agency. In fact, EFSA and its GMO Panel have been riven with such conflicts for years. And in May of this year the Chair of EFSA's Management Board, which should be taking the lead in tackling the problem, was forced to quit because of her own flagrant industry links. Disturbingly, all the concern over conflicts of interest at EFSA didn't stop the European Commission earlier this year from nominating a food industry lobbyist and former Monsanto employee to become a member of EFSA's Management Board. http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/631 The resulting controversy made the Commission back down over that nomination, but there has long been similar controversy over EFSA's GMO panel. At one point Friends of the Earth Europe reported that a member of the GMO panel had direct financial links with the biotech industry while several others had indirect ones. FOEE even found that two members of the GMO panel had appeared in promotional videos for the biotech industry. FOEE also reported that several members of the GMO panel, including its then chair, had also been involved in a project tasked with agreeing procedures that would "facilitate market introduction of GMOs in Europe, and therefore bring the European industry in a competitive position." As part of this, the chair of the GMO panel sat on a working group for the project alongside staff from Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta. EFSA, of course, is supposed to be "the independent voice of science" guiding EU institutions. EFSA claims it has made changes that are putting its house in order. But the scepticism about this has only been increased by EFSA's rapid rebuttal of the Seralini paper. The concerns centre on the fact that EFSA seems to be applying standards to Seralini's study that it fails to apply to the far less adequate studies underlying its own GM crop approvals, and also that EFSA appears to be trying to stifle debate and sweep the Seralini study under the carpet rather than seeking further investigation of the issue. In addition, both of the peer reviewers overseeing EFSA's preliminary response to Seralini's paper have also been accused of suffering conflicts of interest of one sort or another. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14296 As a result, Corinne Lepage MEP, the former French Environment Minister who heads up the board of Seralini's institute, is now calling for the executive director of EFSA, Catherine Geslain-Laneelle, to resign. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14286 For Lepage, what adds to the sense that something is seriously awry at EFSA is the fact that the criticisms contained in EFSA's response do not read like carefully considered opinions but like a rapidly assembled copy/paste job of points already circulated by others, and which largely fail to stand up to serious scrutiny. This is well exemplified by what happened at a recent EFSA press conference (item 2), where apparently EFSA's Geslain-Laneelle "recalled the EFSA's preliminary review of Seralini's study, which was released last week, that the Sprague-Dawley strain of rats used in the experiments has been shown to be susceptible to developing tumours spontaneously, particularly as they grow older, making it difficult to interpret the results [of Seralini's study]." (item 2 below) But although this claim has been widely made, the Sprague-Dawley (SD) rat is not only routinely used by industry in its studies to gain approval for GM foods, it is also used in *long-term* toxicity and carcinogenicity tests performed by Monsanto on glyphosate to gain marketing approval for it in the EU. And the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) reports that the National Toxicology Program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services uses the same strain of rat as Seralini in its 2-year studies, uncontested. They also found from a "brief, quick and still preliminary literature search of peer-reviewed journals" that SD rats were also used: - in 36-month studies by Voss et al. (2005); - in 24-month studies by Hack et al. (1995), Klimisch et al. (1997), Minardi et al. (2002), Soffritti et al. (2006) and Gamez et al. (2007); - in 18-month studies by Lee et al. (2010); and - in 12-month studies by Perry et al. (1981), Conti et al. (1988), Morcos & Camilo (2001), Flamm et al. (2003) and Gutierrez et al. (2011). Four of these studies had been published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology - the same journal that published Seralini's study. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14288 As Mute Schimpf of Friends of the Earth Europe recently commented: "For the past decade, EFSA has consistently sided with the biotech industry and disregarded health or environment concerns about genetically modified crops. Instead of picking holes in independent, peer-reviewed research, it should be taking public concerns seriously and making long-term safety tests for genetically modified foods compulsory in the EU. The reaction from EFSA shows their double standards. If they had been as thorough with Monsanto's applications as they were with this new research then no GMO would have been approved in the EU." http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14270 --- --- 1.EFSA criticised by auditors over conflicts of interest Corporate Europe Observatory, October 11 2012 http://corporateeurope.org/pressreleases/2012/efsa-criticised-auditors-over-conflicts-interest http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14315-court-of-auditors-slams-efsa Academies, Pelletier and AFBV It could hardly have been more damning - six French science academies jointly dismissing Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini's recent paper in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology as a "scientific non-event." Or so it seemed until news began to trickle out about how few people had actually been involved in producing the academies' unsigned statement. And then it emerged that this tiny group of academicians had included Georges Pelletier. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14352 That changed everything. Not only had Pelletier been involved in the regulatory approval of Monsanto's NK603 maize - an approval Seralini's study directly challenged, but he is also a leading light of the AFBV - the French Association of Plant Biotechnology [Association Francaise des Biotechnologies Vegetale], which has waged war on Seralini for years. In a press release in 2009, for instance, the AFBV claimed Seralini's GM research had been discredited by the scientific community. The AFBV also wrote to various media organisations challenging their coverage of Seralini's research and denouncing him as a "merchant of fear" and a researcher who was "first and foremost an anti-GMO activist, purporting to be independent whereas his studies are financed by Greenpeace." It was attacks like these that lead Seralini to successfully sue the AFBV's President for defamation. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12815 What makes Pelletier's role in shaping the science academies' statement even more scandalous is that whoever selected Pelletier to evaluate Seralini's recent paper could not fail to know that he would be bound to condemn it. This was because the AFBV had already publicly attacked the paper. As head of the AFBV's Scientific Committee, such an attack would almost certainly have required Pelletier's approval. And in any case, Pelletier had also personally signed onto a public statement that dismissed Seralini's study as principally "a publicity gambit." http://gmopundit.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/laffaire-seralini-les-dangers-de-la.html What makes Pelletier's role in judging Seralini's paper even more dubious is the corporate connections of the AFBV. These first emerged in the evidence presented in court by Seralini's lawyer during the libel case, as the film maker and writer Marie Monique Robin notes in an article written at the time that takes a detailed look at the AFBV's multiple  conflicts of interest. http://robin.blog.arte.tv/2010/12/06/le-proces-seralini-fellous-et-les-conflits-dinteret-de-lafbv/ Robin notes that the AFBV denied Seralini was independent on the basis that his institute had accepted funding from Greenpeace, even though it only amounted to a tiny fraction - under 4% - of CRIIGEN's income. On the other hand, the AFBV declared itself to be strictly independent of industry when the evidence shows that many of the AFBV's leading lights are anything but. Here are some of the corporate connections that Robin lists: *Alain Deshayes, founding member of the AFBV and one of its directors, with Nestle. *Roland Douce, founding member of the AFBV and on its Scientific Committee, with Rhone-Poulenc Agrochemicals, now part of Bayer. *Claude Fauquet, founding member of the AFBV, with the Donald Danforth Center, co-founded and backed by Monsanto. http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Roger_Beachy *Lise Jouanin, a member of AFBV's Scientific Committee, with the chemical giant ICI and Genoplante - see below. *Axel Kahn, sponsor of the AFBV, with Rhone-Poulenc. From 1988 to 1997 Kahn chaired the French regulatory body the Biomolecular Engineering Commission (CGB), before becoming Chief Scientist at Rhone-Poulenc, the agrochemical giant with GM interests. His first patent with Rhone-Poulenc was apparently filed in 1994, i.e. while still a regulator. *Marcel Kuntz, founding member of the AFBV and one of its directors, with Syngenta, the GM and agrochemicals giant. *Alain Toppan, founding member of the AFBV and one of its directors, with a number of companies including Biogemma, the biotech research arm of French seed giant Limagrain. *Chris Bowler, founding member of the AFBV, with the GM firm Plant Genetic Systems Inc, now part of Bayer. *Marc Van Montagu, identified by the AFBV as a key supporter, with Plant Genetic Systems Inc. which he founded. *Philippe Joudrier, founding member of the AFBV and on its Scientific Committee, with Biogemma, the GM research arm of Limagrain. *Alain Boudet, founding member of the AFBV, with Biogemma - see above, ICI and Zeneca (now part of AstraZeneca). *Michel Caboche, founding member of the AFBV and Member of the Academy of Sciences, with Genoplante - see below. *Jean-Pierre Decor, founding member of the AFBV, with Rhone-Poulenc Agrochemicals. *Alain Godard, founding member of the AFBV and one of its directors, former CEO of Rhone-Poulenc Agrochemicals and Aventis CropScience, which was acquired by Bayer. Robin also mentions the corporate connections of a long list of other leading figures in the AFBV including Georges Pelletier - the man now identified as having helped to shape the unsigned statement of the six science academies. This is because of Pelletier's role as Chairman of the Executive Committee of Genoplante. Genoplante is a public private plant genomics research partnership. Its principal corporate partners are the aggressively pro-GM French seed giant Limagrain Group, via its biotech research arm Biogemma, and Bayer. Established in 1999, one of the driving forces behind Genoplante was Limagrain Group Chairman Pierre Pagesse who became Vice-President of Genoplante. It was under Pagesse's leadership that the Limagrain Group heavily committed itself to developing GM crops. The strength of Pagesse's own commitment, as well as his firm's frustration at the opposition it met, is reflected in the fact that at one point Pagesse even lead a group of pro-GM vigilantes who came to blows with anti-GM protesters. http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Pierre_Pagesse Georges Pelletier's current deputy at Genoplante is Georges Freyssinet, Limagrain's Scientific Affairs Manager. A Limagrain publication called "Embracing Our Vision" gives the views of different leading figures within the Limagrain Group. For Georges Freyssinet it says, "Limagrain's future goes hand in hand with the development of GMOs... Georges Freyssinet, Limagrain's Scientific Affairs Manager, is behind the Group's new research on this subject. He takes a look at how this technology has become so vital for the Group..." http://www.limagrain.com/publications/embracing/embracing-our-vision-georges-freyssinet/article-271/gb.html Given that the French seed giant has bet its shirt on GM, it is easy to imagine the sense of corporate frustration - not to say desperation - triggered by the publication of Seralini's paper. Vilmorin - a holding of Limagrain Group - was planning to conduct GM field trials in France next spring but was forced to suspend those plans by the furore that followed the publication of Seralini's paper. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14298 Nothing could better illustrate why discrediting that paper might be seen as critical to the future prospects of GM crops in France, and to maintaining investments in GM related research. Finally, there is one other reason for extreme caution about the academies' statement on Seralini's paper. And that is that even science academies that might seem far removed from agricultural biotechnology or wider commercial interests may not have as disinterested a perspective as one might imagine. In her article on the AFBV, Marie Monique Robin notes how its President, Marc Fellous, in his attacks on those raising concerns about GM foods, claims the support of the Academy of Medicine. Robin points out that the Academy in a report that was published in 1996, and which was adopted unanimously, stubbornly supported the safety of asbestos. At that point asbestos had been classified as a human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an extension of the World Health Organization, for nearly a decade. And within a year of the Academy's report, the French government moved to ban it permanently. Robin also points the finger at the Academy over other health scandals that have rocked France in the last twenty years In relation to GM, Robin notes that the Academy at a meeting in late 2002 on the issue of GM labelling concluded: "The total requirement of labelling and traceability may well result in disastrous commercial consequences." Robin finds it revealing that the focus of the Academy of Medicine was not on health issues but on "trade implications," suggesting they are more concerned with the private interests of industry than the health of consumers. On the evidence available, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that a similar concern over "commercial consequences" may have also played a critical part in shaping the academies' response to Seralini. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14362 Fellous libel case http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice19Jan2011.htm ANSES and long term Despite the rush to dismiss Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini's GM maize paper, there's a growing recognition of the need for long-term studies of the sort he conducted on Monsanto's GM maize NK603. Even the attack on Seralini at the end of last week issued in the name of France's six science academies had the following sentence tucked away in its conclusions and recommendations: "The issues raised need to be studied by reputable researchers, not suspected of conflict of interest, and funded under public control." (p3 of this translation) http://www.slideshare.net/Revkin/translation-of-french-science-academies-critique-of-controversial-gm-corn-study Today, Seralini's paper has again been denigrated. This time by France's High Council on Biotechnology, as reported below. But even though the High Council has drawn criticism for its alleged lack of independence, it appears not to have gone as far as completely dismissing the need for studies like Seralini's: "...the study is not conclusive. However, in order to answer the public's questions, the committee recommends that a long-term, independent, transparent study, with adversarial views, be undertaken under government auspices." And there seems to be growing recognition that whether Seralini's research is accepted or not, it does point to important gaps in scientific knowledge. The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES), which has also issued a report today dismissing Seralini's paper, notes that Seralini's study does tackle a subject that has been little studied till now: that of  the long-term effects of GMOs associated with pesticides. And it calls for the mobilization of national and European public funding dedicated to studies and extensive research into improving the knowledge about such health risks, which have till now been inadequately documented. http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/ogm-le-scandale/20121022.OBS6490/ogm-deux-concusions-sur-l-etude-seralini-lundi.html (article in French) http://fr.reuters.com/article/frEuroRpt/idFRL5E8LM7OY20121022?sp=true (article in French) This recognition of the need for long term studies is also, therefore, an indirect criticism of the failure of the dossiers used to approve GM foods to provide adequate supporting evidence for their safety. And Seralini's supporters point out that by the standards being used to dismiss Seralini's study, the studies that have been used as the basis for GM food approvals would fail even more decisively. In other words, those rushing to declare Seralini's study unsatisfactory are helping to undermine the entire basis of GM food approvals. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14339-need-for-long-term-gm-safety-studies-acknowledged Andrew Chesson from EFSA's GMO panel was one of only two people appointed by EFSA to oversee that review. Chesson, Lepage notes, was not only on the EFSA panel that originally approved the GM maize NK603 for consumption in 2003, but helped prepare the draft document recommending its approval, so Chesson was being asked to oversee a review of a study that suggested he personally might have made a terrible mistake that has put the health of millions of European consumers at risk. The French newspaper Le Nouvel Observateur has also taken up this point. The paper's Guillaume Malaurie is not impressed, "And the same expert who prepares the arguments of the opinion that gave the green light to the marketing of NK603 is precisely one of the scientific experts, a peer reviewer, who must judge the study which highlights its toxicity! After the conflicts of interest that have considerably weakened the authority of EFSA, this is the time of the false nose, of hide-and-seek, and lies by omission. So much for an organization that is responsible for the health of 300 million Europeans, whose conduct and procedures should be above suspicion." http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14286 As a result, Corinne Lepage, who heads up the board of Seralini's institute, has accused EFSA of "absurdity and an ethical conflict. This makes him [Chesson], at the same time, judge and jury on this opinion." This, she says, constitutes a major conflict of interest. She also says that Chesson's co-reviewer from the pesticides panel also had a conflict of interest, and so she is now calling for the executive director of EFSA, Catherine Geslain-Laneelle, to resign. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14286 The European Parliament has, of course, already refused to approve EFSA's budget because of all the problems with conflicts of interest at the agency. http://gmwatch.org/component/content/article/13914 EFSA and its GMO Panel has been riven with such conflicts. In May of this year the Chair of EFSA's Management Board, which should be taking the lead in tackling the problem, was even forced to quit because of her own flagrant industry links. But such concerns didn't stop the European Commission earlier this year from nominating a food industry lobbyist and former employee of Monsanto to become a member of EFSA's Management Board. http://gmwatch.org/component/content/article/13914 For Lepage, what adds to the sense that something is seriously amiss with EFSA's treatment of Seralini, is the fact that the criticisms contained in the review Chesson oversaw, do not read like carefully considered opinions but more like a rapidly assembled copy/paste job of points already circulated (by the Science Media Centre, etc.) that fail to stand up to serious scrutiny. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14286 http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14288 But there is yet another disturbing aspect to Chesson's key role in EFSA's review that hasn't been picked up on by the French media. This is the fact that Andrew Chesson has previous when it come to discrediting high profile research that raises serious questions about GM food safety and regulation. Chesson played a leading role in discrediting the research of his former colleague Dr Arpad Pusztai. It was Chesson who chaired the audit committee which found fault with Pusztai, and which later rejected Pusztai's detailed response to its audit. He is identified as the person in charge of the audit here: http://www.rowett.ac.uk/gmo/gmaudit7.htm By rejecting Dr Pusztai's conclusions, Chesson's audit report not only rubbished the research but effectively justified Pusztai having been forced to retire after expressing concerns about GM. However, when an independent panel of scientists from 13 different countries, led by Prof E. Van Driessche of the Laboratory of Protein Chemistry, Vrije University, Brussels, subsequently reviewed Chesson's audit report, they found serious fault with it, even suggesting its selection of data had been made with a view to disproving Dr Pusztai's conclusions. http://naturalscience.com/ns/cover/cover8.html And part of Pusztai's research showing harm from GM potatoes, i.e. the same research which Chesson's Audit Committee claimed hadn't provided a basis for Pusztai's expressions of concern about GM, was subsequently successfully peer reviewed (with double the number of normal peer reviewers) and published in The Lancet. http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Arpad_Pusztai So, could anyone have been less suited to overseeing the review of Seralini's study than Andrew Chesson – judge, jury, and a known executioner? http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14296-pusztai-hitman-oversaw-efsas-demolition-of-seralini The UK's Science Media Centre are past masters of this. As the journalist Joanna Blythman has noted, "the SMC is a well-oiled PR machine, funded in part by chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotech companies with a vested interest in seeing potentially profitable new technologies and products commercialised. Recently, the SMC tried to stifle concerns arising from a study by molecular biologists at the University of Caen, which showed that rats fed long-term on a combination of GM corn, and its partner pesticide Roundup, developed higher levels of cancer than normal Within minutes of the results being published in a peer-reviewed journal, the SMC swung into action, spoon-feeding journalists ready-made quotes from eight hand-picked scientists, rubbishing the research and its authors. The SMC introduced these experts to the media solely by listing the universities and public institutions that employ them, failing to give the full flavour of their interests: seven out of eight are either evangelical advocates of GM food, or have received funding from, or worked with, prominent biotech corporations." The director of the SMC claims credit for shaping coverage of the paper in the UK. An article in Times Higher Education titled Shock troops check 'poor' GM study says Fiona Fox "took pride in the fact that [SMC] scientists' emphatic thumbs down had largely been acknowledged throughout UK newsrooms... She had also heard that several television news programmes had also rejected the story after reading the [SMC's] quotes." And that impact was achieved with the non-pre-publication-disclosure policy in place. How much of a hearing would the research have got without it? The reality is, as another article in the journal Nature notes, that papers suggesting that GM crops might cause harm attract a hail of abuse and find it immensely difficult to get a fair hearing. Prof Maurice Moloney, Chief Executive of Rothamsted Research. What the SMC fails to tell journalists is that Moloney doesn't just drive a Porsche with a GMO number plate, but has a c.v. to match. It is in fact Moloney's GM research that lies behind Monsanto's GM canola (oilseed rape). He also launched his own GM company in which Dow Agro Science were investors. In other words, Prof Moloney's career and business activities have long been centered around GM. http://www.spinwatch.org.uk/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/46-gm-industry/5505-science-one-whining-greenies-nil Another expert quoted by the SMC is Dr Wendy Harwood. Dr Harwood is a GM scientist at the UK's John Innes Centre, which has had tens of millions of pounds invested in it by GM giants like Syngenta. In fact, a previous director of the JIC told his local paper that any major slow down or halt in the development of GM crops "would be very, very serious for us." http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/John_Innes_Centre Prof Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh is another of the experts that the SMC quotes. They don't mention that Prof Trewavas is also a GM crop scientist, as well as a fervent opponent of organic farming, or that he is notorious for his attacks on scientists who publish research critical of GM. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14211-gm-lobby-wades-in-on-new-study Prof Mark Tester is yet another GM scientist quoted by the SMC. He is described by the SMC as Research Professor, Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, University of Adelaide. His University of Adelaide profile tells us: "His commercial acumen is clear from his establishment of private companies and successful interactions with multinational companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and Pioneer-DuPont." http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/mark.tester The SMC describes Prof Ottoline Leyser as Associate Director of the Sainsbury Laboratory, University of Cambridge. They don't mention that the Laboratory is funded by the Gatsby Foundation of Lord Sainsbury, the well known GM enthusiast and biotech entrepreneur, who also set up and funds the GM-related work of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the John Innes Centre. http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/David_Sainsbury Prof Alan Boobis is described by the SMC as Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology, Imperial College London. They don't mention that he is a long-time member of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), i.e the very body that approved the GM corn in question, or that he has also long been on the board of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) - a biotech and food industry lobby group whose backers include the GM giants BASF, Bayer and Monsanto. http://bit.ly/Q9tZSw http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/International_Life_Sciences_Institute Prof Tom Sanders is described by the SMC as Head of the Nutritional Sciences Research Division, King’s College London. Like Prof Trewavas, Prof Sanders was involved in attacking the Pusztai study that suggested concerns about GM. His criticisms do not appear to have been well founded. http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Tom_Sanders This was back in the late 1990s. According to an article in The Independent in 1996, Prof Sanders was at that time "Nutrasweet's professional consultant". Up until 2000, Nutrasweet was owned by Monsanto. http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Tom_Sanders Tribe statement: http://gmopundit.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/laffaire-seralini-les-dangers-de-la.html Yannick Andréol, Dominique Anxolabehere, Francine Casse, Gérard Corthier, Yvette Dattée, ***Alain Deshayes***, Michel Dron, Dusco Ehrlich, ***Marc Fellous***, Christian Ferault, Claude Gaillardin, Patrick Gaudray, Pascal Genschik, Rosine Haguenauer-Tsapis, Danièle Hernandez-Verdun, Dominique Job, ***Philippe Joudrier***, Claudine Junien, David Klatzmann, Hubert Laude, Olivier Lemaire, Pierro Marandini, Bernard Mauchamp, Claude Mawas, Jean-François Morot-Gaudry, Wayne Parrott, Gérard Pascal, Alain Pavé, ***Georges Pelletier***, Georges Periquet, Jean-Claude Pernollet, Dominique Planchenault, Francis Quetier, Catherine Rameau, Hubert de Rochambeau, Pascal Simonet, ***Lucia de Souza***, Maxime Schwartz, David Tribe, Daniel Vaiman, Marc Van Montagu, Robert Wager. *Chris Bowler, founding member of the AFBV, with the GM firm Plant Genetic Systems Inc, now part of Bayer. *Alain Boudet, founding member of the AFBV, with Biogemma - see above, ICI and Zeneca (now part of AstraZeneca). *Michel Caboche, founding member of the AFBV and Member of the Academy of Sciences, with Genoplante - see below. *Jean-Pierre Decor, founding member of the AFBV, with Rhone-Poulenc Agrochemicals. ***Alain Deshayes, founding member of the AFBV and one of its directors, with Nestle. *Roland Douce, founding member of the AFBV and on its Scientific Committee, with Rhone-Poulenc Agrochemicals, now part of Bayer. *Claude Fauquet, founding member of the AFBV, with the Donald Danforth Center, co-founded and backed by Monsanto. http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Roger_Beachy *Alain Godard, founding member of the AFBV and one of its directors, former CEO of Rhone-Poulenc Agrochemicals and Aventis CropScience, which was acquired by Bayer. ****Philippe Joudrier, founding member of the AFBV and on its Scientific Committee, with Biogemma, the GM research arm of Limagrain. *Lise Jouanin, a member of AFBV's Scientific Committee, with the chemical giant ICI and Genoplante - see below. *Axel Kahn, sponsor of the AFBV, with Rhone-Poulenc. From 1988 to 1997 Kahn chaired the French regulatory body the Biomolecular Engineering Commission (CGB), before becoming Chief Scientist at Rhone-Poulenc, the agrochemical giant with GM interests. His first patent with Rhone-Poulenc was apparently filed in 1994, i.e. while still a regulator. *Marcel Kuntz, founding member of the AFBV and one of its directors, with Syngenta, the GM and agrochemicals giant. ***Marc Van Montagu, identified by the AFBV as a key supporter, with Plant Genetic Systems Inc. which he founded. *Alain Toppan, founding member of the AFBV and one of its directors, with a number of companies including Biogemma, the biotech research arm of French seed giant Limagrain. The SMC introduced these experts to the media solely by listing the universities and public institutions that employ them, failing to give the full flavour of their interests: seven out of eight are either evangelical advocates of GM food, or have received funding from, or worked with, prominent biotech corporations." Alexander Y. Panchin Toxicity of roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize is not supported by statistical tests Food and Chemical Toxicology, Available online 7 November 2012, PDF (177 K)      Universally Available Referred to by Erio Barale-Thomas Letter to the editor Food and Chemical Toxicology, Available online 16 November 2012, PDF (239 K)      Universally Available Referred to by David Tribe Letter to the editor Food and Chemical Toxicology, Available online 6 November 2012, PDF (233 K)      Universally Available Referred to by Frederic Schorsch Serious inadequacies regarding the pathology data presented in the paper by Séralini et al. (2012) Food and Chemical Toxicology, Available online 7 November 2012, PDF (159 K)      Universally Available Referred to by Bruce Hammond, Daniel A. Goldstein, David Saltmiras Letter to the editor Food and Chemical Toxicology, Available online 7 November 2012, PDF (475 K)      Universally Available Referred to by Louis Ollivier A Comment on “Séralini, G.-E., et al., Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol. (2012),” http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005 Food and Chemical Toxicology, Available online 7 November 2012, PDF (184 K)      Universally Available Referred to by Mark Tester Letter to the Editor Food and Chemical Toxicology, Available online 7 November 2012, PDF (174 K)      Universally Available Referred to by Letter to the editor Food and Chemical Toxicology, Available online 7 November 2012, PDF (150 K)      Universally Available Referred to by Bella Williams Letter to the editor Food and Chemical Toxicology, Available online 6 November 2012, PDF (339 K)      Universally Available Referred to by Anthony Trewavas Letter to the editor Food and Chemical Toxicology, Available online 6 November 2012, PDF (180 K)      Universally Available Referred to by Wim Grunewald, Jo Bury Comment on “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize” by Séralini et al. Food and Chemical Toxicology, Available online 7 November 2012, PDF (239 K)      Universally Available Referred to by Colin Berry Letter to the editor Food and Chemical Toxicology, Available online 7 November 2012, PDF (144 K)      Universally Available Referred to by Dung Le Tien, Ham Le Huy Comments on “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize” Food and Chemical Toxicology, Available online 7 November 2012, PDF (158 K)      Universally Available Referred to by Jack A. Heinemann Food and chemical toxicology Food and Chemical Toxicology, Available online 6 November 2012, PDF (136 K)      Universally Available Referred to by Peter Langridge Letter to the editor Food and Chemical Toxicology, Available online 6 November 2012, PDF (131 K)      Universally Available Referred to by Lúcia de Souza, Leila Macedo Oda Letter to the editor Food and Chemical Toxicology, Available online 7 November 2012, PDF (140 K)      Universally Available AGBIOWORLD letter Robert Wager Vancouver Island University Canada Alda Lerayer, Ph.D. Senior Researcher Institute of Food Technology Campinas, São Paulo Brasil Dr. Nina Fedoroff Distinguished Professor, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) Former Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State & Evan Pugh Professor, Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Penn State University L. Val Giddings, Ph.D., President & CEO PrometheusAB, Inc. Silver Spring, MD Steven H. Strauss, Ph.D. Distinguished Professor of Biotechnology Oregon State University Prof. Chris Leaver CBE,FRS,FRSE Emeritus Professor of Plant Science University of Oxford Prof. Sivramiah Shantharam, Ph.D. Professor, Seed Science Center and BIGMAP Iowa State University Prof. Em. Dr. Ingo Potrykus, Chairman Humanitarian Golden Rice Board & Network ETH Zürich Pr Marc FELLOUS, Genetique Humaine Emerit Université Denis Diderot INSERM U 1016 - CNRS UMR 8104 - Université Paris Descartes Génomique, Epigénétique et Physiopathologie de la Reproduction Paris Moisés Burachik, PhD Director, Regulatory Affairs INDEAR (Agrobiotechnology Institute, Rosario) Rosario, Argentina Prof. Dr. Klaus-Dieter Jany former Head of the Centre for Molecular Biology at the Federal Research Centre for Nutrition and Food Professor Anthony Trewavas FRS. FRSE. Acad Europ. Institute of Molecular Plant Science Edinburgh Professor C. Kameswara Rao, Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education Bangalore, India Prof. C.S. Prakash Tuskegee University Henry I. Miller, M.D. Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy & Public Policy Hoover Institution, tanford University Kent Bradford Professor and Director, Seed Biotechnology Center University of California, Davis Prof. Dr. Selim Cetiner Sabanci University Istanbul, Turkey Prof. Alan McHughen, D. Phil. University of California, Riverside, California & Former Senior Policy Analyst Executive Office of the President Washington, DC Prof. Luis De Stefano-Beltrán, Ph.D. Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia Lima, Perú Bruce M. Chassy, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Food Safety Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Sciences FSHN, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Sabah AlMomin Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research Kuwait Prof. Martina Newell-McGloughlin Director International Biotechnology Program, Co-Director NIH Program in Biomolecular Technology, Co-Director NSF CREATE IGERT Adjunct Professor, Plant Pathology, University of California, Davis Prof. em. Klaus Ammann, University of Bern Neuchatel, Switzerland Prof. Ronald J. Herring, Ph.D. Fellow, Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future Cornell University Lúcia de Souza, Ph.D. Vice-president ANBio - Brazilian Biosafety Association Cc: Elizabeth Perill (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) has waged war on Seralini for years. In a press release in 2009, for instance, the AFBV claimed Seralini's GM research had been discredited by the scientific community. The AFBV also wrote to various media organisations challenging their coverage of Seralini's research and denouncing him as a "merchant of fear" and a researcher who was "first and foremost an anti-GMO activist, purporting to be independent whereas his studies are financed by Greenpeace." It was attacks like these that lead Seralini to successfully sue the AFBV's President for defamation. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12815 What makes Pelletier's role in shaping the science academies' statement even more scandalous is that whoever selected Pelletier to evaluate Seralini's recent paper could not fail to know that he would be bound to condemn it. This was because the AFBV had already publicly attacked the paper. As head of the AFBV's Scientific Committee, such an attack would almost certainly have required Pelletier's approval. And in any case, Pelletier had also personally signed onto a public statement that dismissed Seralini's study as principally "a publicity gambit." http://gmopundit.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/laffaire-seralini-les-dangers-de-la.html What makes Pelletier's role in judging Seralini's paper even more dubious is the corporate connections of the AFBV. These first emerged in the evidence presented in court by Seralini's lawyer during the libel case, as the film maker and writer Marie Monique Robin notes in an article written at the time that takes a detailed look at the AFBV's multiple  conflicts of interest. http://robin.blog.arte.tv/2010/12/06/le-proces-seralini-fellous-et-les-conflits-dinteret-de-lafbv Robin notes that the AFBV denied Seralini was independent on the basis that his institute had accepted funding from Greenpeace, even though it only amounted to a tiny fraction - under 4% - of CRIIGEN's income. On the other hand, the AFBV declared itself to be strictly independent of industry when the evidence shows that many of the AFBV's leading lights are anything but.