A scientific study that identified serious health impacts on rats fed on a commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize, Monsanto's NK603 glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, has been republished following three rounds of rigorous peer review.
First the paper was peer reviewed for its initial publication in Food and Chemical Toxicology, and according to the authors it passed with only minor revisions. The second review involved a non-transparent examination of Prof Séralini's raw data by a secret panel of unnamed persons organized by the editor-in-chief of FCT, A. Wallace Hayes, in response to criticisms of the study by pro-GMO scientists. In a letter to Prof Séralini, Hayes admitted that the anonymous reviewers found nothing incorrect about the results, but argued that the tumour and mortality observations in the paper were "inconclusive", and this justified his decision to retract the study. Now the study has passed a third peer review arranged by the journal that is republishing the study, Environmental Sciences Europe.
What is of serious concern is the interference in the scientific process of establishing risk assessment by vested interests. The authors of this original research into the safety of Monsanto’s GM maize writes of a coordinated corporate strategy to discredit its findings, with many “independent” scientists failing to disclose their pro- GM involvement and connections with Monsanto. The study’s authors describe the intense industry-backed lobbying in parliaments, how recent reviews of the GM food safety literature have found that research concluding that GM products were safe tended to come from industry and that research conducted by those with either financial or professional conflicts of interest was associated with outcomes favorable to the GM sector. In the regulatory assessment of GMOs, chemicals, and medicines, confidential tests are conducted by the applicant companies themselves, often in their own laboratories or in those of subcontractors.
It goes on to explain that while their own paper is published in an open access way, together with its raw data allowing debate about our results, this is not possible for the data used as a proof of safety for commercial authorizations. The Monsanto toxicological data on NK603 maize recently made public by EFSA is not in a statistically usable format and an agreement with Monsanto is requested before use. Moreover, the data examined for Roundup authorizations are clearly inadequate. The authors emphasize that data with implications for public health are not related to manufacturing patents and should not be kept confidential. Removal of confidentiality claims on biosafety data is necessary to adhere to standard scientific procedures of quality assurance, to increase transparency, to minimize impacts of conflicts of interests, and ultimately to improve public confidence in GMOs.
Their article concludes “Censorship on research into the risks of a technology so critically entwined with global food safety undermines the value and the credibility of science.”
Taken from here
First the paper was peer reviewed for its initial publication in Food and Chemical Toxicology, and according to the authors it passed with only minor revisions. The second review involved a non-transparent examination of Prof Séralini's raw data by a secret panel of unnamed persons organized by the editor-in-chief of FCT, A. Wallace Hayes, in response to criticisms of the study by pro-GMO scientists. In a letter to Prof Séralini, Hayes admitted that the anonymous reviewers found nothing incorrect about the results, but argued that the tumour and mortality observations in the paper were "inconclusive", and this justified his decision to retract the study. Now the study has passed a third peer review arranged by the journal that is republishing the study, Environmental Sciences Europe.
What is of serious concern is the interference in the scientific process of establishing risk assessment by vested interests. The authors of this original research into the safety of Monsanto’s GM maize writes of a coordinated corporate strategy to discredit its findings, with many “independent” scientists failing to disclose their pro- GM involvement and connections with Monsanto. The study’s authors describe the intense industry-backed lobbying in parliaments, how recent reviews of the GM food safety literature have found that research concluding that GM products were safe tended to come from industry and that research conducted by those with either financial or professional conflicts of interest was associated with outcomes favorable to the GM sector. In the regulatory assessment of GMOs, chemicals, and medicines, confidential tests are conducted by the applicant companies themselves, often in their own laboratories or in those of subcontractors.
It goes on to explain that while their own paper is published in an open access way, together with its raw data allowing debate about our results, this is not possible for the data used as a proof of safety for commercial authorizations. The Monsanto toxicological data on NK603 maize recently made public by EFSA is not in a statistically usable format and an agreement with Monsanto is requested before use. Moreover, the data examined for Roundup authorizations are clearly inadequate. The authors emphasize that data with implications for public health are not related to manufacturing patents and should not be kept confidential. Removal of confidentiality claims on biosafety data is necessary to adhere to standard scientific procedures of quality assurance, to increase transparency, to minimize impacts of conflicts of interests, and ultimately to improve public confidence in GMOs.
Their article concludes “Censorship on research into the risks of a technology so critically entwined with global food safety undermines the value and the credibility of science.”
Taken from here
His research may indeed be found mistaken but the point of the article was the commercial and political interference in the process of establishing scientific evidence.
ReplyDeleteYou surely are not claiming that Monsanto is at the height of scientific integrity and has not let its business interests stifle impartial investigation?