NOTE: In the article below, Jean-Luc Bennahmias, the vice-president of France's MoDem (Democratic Movement) party, accuses EFSA of stifling the GM debate launched by Seralini's study.
–-
–-
GMOs: Who is EFSA fooling by stifling debate launched by Seralini?
By Jean-Luc Bennahmias
Vice-President of the MoDem
Le Nouvel Observateur
9 October 2012
Article in French: http://bit.ly/VLqncm
English translation by GMWatch
The European Food Safety Authority called Professor Seralini's shocking study on GMO food safety "inadequate". It's a judgment that is not innocent and is unworthy, according to MEP and Vice-President of the MoDem, Jean-Luc Bennahmias.
Issued on 4 October, EFSA's "pre-opinion" considers the study by Professor Seralini inadequate. Who is EFSA trying to fool? EFSA tries to reverse the burden of proof when it should be its responsibility – as our European authority charged with to ensuring food security – to prove once and for all the safety of GMOs. How can it be satisfied with judging studies done by others and kicking them into touch?
Without doubt, this "pre-opinion" is part of the undertaking to discredit the study, which, though not perfect, has nonetheless played a crucial part in re-igniting the debate”¦ If the study shows anything, it is that there are actually very few studies, particularly long-term ones, analysing the impact of GMOs.
Why have such studies never been done or requested by EFSA? Remember that the studies currently requested by EFSA are only 90 days long – and only 28-day studies are compulsory.
Why does EFSA not say: This study has scientific bias but raises questions and shows how little we know for certain in this area, and so as the authority publicly funded to assure food safety in Europe, I will ask for a major long-term study to be carried out by a panel of scientists with different viewpoints, scientifically irreproachable, with sample sizes sufficiently large for us to see more clearly, so that we can judge and act on the basis of knowledge?
EFSA and its contradictions
Besides, EFSA is positioning itself as judge: once again, who is it trying to fool? EFSA has recently been blamed for conflicts of interest, and experts who are now reviewing the study have also authorised GMOs in the past”¦ What interest would they have in contradicting themselves? Finally, EFSA is contradicting itself in requiring transparency from Mr Seralini while from its side it has never published the studies on which it bases GMO authorisations.
Finally, some "colleagues" of Seralini are apparently shocked by the PR operation around the publication of the study. But what about the massive lobbying done by Monsanto and the GM lobby across the world?
On the other hand, if all scientists intend to speak in this debate – which is also the goal – to create a contradictory debate – then what must one think of the strategy of certain scientists speaking in the media to discredit the study, so that Monsanto does not appear in the first line [of the story]? In this case, it seems everything is being done to stifle a debate, which, however, is much needed today.
The attacks on this study must only lead to one conclusion: carry out more studies! Let's carry out studies and have them assessed by scientists of different viewpoints. European citizens deserve an open debate and full transparency!