comScore
Uncategorized Thursday, September 20th 2012 at 4:10 pm

GMO Corn Researcher Starts to Look Even Sketchier, Won’t Turn Over Data to Food Safety Agency

By ( ) Comments

Proving the principle that putting the words “Causes Cancer” in a headline behind literally any other string of words will guarantee you some news coverage, a French study showing a link between cancer in rats and genetically modified corn has been getting a lot of play over the last couple of days, with a truly heartening proportion of the coverage calling shenanigans on the study. Today, author Gilles-Eric Seralini is defending the study, even as he refuses to turn over his data to ESFA, the European Union’s food safety watchdog for a counter study.

Now, counter studies are, to be fair, pretty rare. Turning over your data for review, though, is pretty standard issue for any researcher — modern science is built on peer review. So when your research is being used by politicians to angle for an entire nation to ban the importation and sale of a product based on one study — an animal study, no less — man, you better be prepared to back that up to the food safety agency. That’s doubly true if you’ve been making the rounds of the media slamming that same food safety agency for lax study.

You should also be aware that when people ask to scrutinize your work and check your facts, saying things like ”It’s out of the question that those who authorised NK603carry out a counter-study of our findings as there’d be a conflict of interest,” is a pretty weak excuse for trying to keep those things to yourself. Especially on the heels of your research and methodology being roundly panned by a number of experts in the media, playing the “there’s a conspiracy against my brilliant work” card is pretty old.

Now, don’t take this to mean that we’re saying there aren’t any possibilities of problems with genetically modified food. There’s plenty unnerving about it, and whatever you think about his attitude, Seralini’s point that we need more reliable, longterm studies of the effects of GMO food are valid, as the alternative is using the general populace as a lab for finding any ill effects genetic tinkering may cause. That’s not only unconscionable — it’s also bad science.

Calling for more reliable studies while ducking calls to make your own research more transparent and your data available to critics, however, is talking out of both sides of your mouth, at best. Seralini isn’t helping his cause by taking this stance, nor is he improving anyone else’s health.

(via PhysOrg, Reuters)

Relevant to your interests

Filed Under | • • • • • • • •
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Edwards-Cummings/100000033274646 John Edwards Cummings

    refuses to turn over his data to ESFA == lying sack of shit

    The moment one refuses to turn over raw data is the moment one should be kicked the hell out of academia.

    It’s Schön scandal all over again…

  • Dude

    I’m more concerned over the legal ramifications of GM food. Not letting farmers keep seed from one GM harvest to use in the next is BS. They’re also playing shenanigans with the patents on the GM crops (this is putting aside the problems around patenting genes, but one thing at a time) making it very difficult for those who should be able to freely make “generic” versions of patent-expired crops to do so.

  • james

    no – just because I buy an album doesn’t mean I can turn around and make lots of copies of that album to give to others. The rule is stipulated at the time of the license agreement – if you don’t like it don’t sign the license agreement.

  • http://www.facebook.com/troyldailey Troy Dailey

    Fair view, but you should probably be aware that common practice in farming involves planting and then using a given percentage of that crop as “seed corn” which is why you de-tassle a given number of rows. That keeps the corn from total fruition and making it viable for planting. The reason I call this common practice, is due to it being done this way for over 5000 years. It is how you farm. SO…it would be a REASONABLE assumption to ALLOW seed corn usage. It is NOT the same as buying an album (which, by the way…if you bought an album 1) There is no agreement that you would not copy and share with your friends…since vinyl predates such mandates as do cassette-tapes, reel to reel, and 8-track. 2) I doubt that the farmer had to sign any such agreement. That isn’t the way things work in most of the agricultural world. 3) you had better hope things like do not change, because your food supply is going to drastically increase in price the more farmers have to repurchase supplies.)

  • Lu

    If you don’t know
    there is a big criticism and investigation within the body ESFA right now. Many
    experts that advise this Authority have been identified as having conflicts of
    interest. They have worked for companies that do research and promote products
    from Aspartame to GMO foods.
    Until they don’t get
    rid of these advisers and don’t change the rules, I fully understand the reason
    not to turn over the results from the study.
    ESFA has gone even
    further to try to limit the studies for GMO to a lot less than 90 days!!!

    So, what do you think will happen with the study when it goes to ESFA?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Edwards-Cummings/100000033274646 John Edwards Cummings

    “what do you think will happen with the study when it goes to ESFA?”

    Nothing bad will happen, since ESFA doesn’t have a time machine to travel backwards in time and sabotage the acquisition of study’s raw data.

    ….unless are they also in cahoots with the Daleks, of course :-)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Edwards-Cummings/100000033274646 John Edwards Cummings

    The obvious solution is having many competing GM crop producers with different crop properties and usage conditions.

    Works out well enough for IT.

  • http://profiles.google.com/edgeben Benjamin Edge

    No one detassles part of their corn crop unless they are in the business of producing hybrid seed corn. Subsistence farmers grow open pollinated varieties and save seed from any plants they choose. No one forces them to buy hybrid GM crops. The agreement is usually on a label on the seed bag, just like the EULA on software. You open the bag, you agree to the conditions.

  • http://twitter.com/electronicoffee Rick Lopez

    THANK YOU! Finally someone speaking sense. I’m liberal to the core but the ANTI SCIENCE GMO Haters are just fucking nuts. They have NO peer-reviewed trials on their side and they are just a bunch of paranoid twats. There’s NEVER been a peer-reviewed study showing GMO foods to be harmful and even if there was ONE study on ONE kind of food, that could NEVER discredit GMO foods as a whole because different foods clearly would have different effects, nutrients, proteins, allergens, etc.

  • http://twitter.com/electronicoffee Rick Lopez

    WRONG DUMBFUCK. Peer review is ALL About turning over 100% data and allowing other scientists to recreate the same conditions to the T, how fucking ignorant are you of the FUCKING BASICS OF SCIENCE you dumbfuck!

  • http://twitter.com/electronicoffee Rick Lopez

    Peer review is ALL About turning over 100% data and allowing other scientists to recreate the same conditions to the T, how fucking ignorant . Jesus some people. Hiding data SHOWS bias.

  • Glenn

    “It’s out of the question that those who authorised NK603carry out a counter-study of our findings as there’d be a conflict of interest” I actually find that to be a valid point. If ESFA approved this product for Europe, it brings into question the validity at the food regulatory watchdog. If they find someone who they see as unbiased and does not have a stake in the products usage, then I say let them review the data. But as a researcher, I would not trust the ESFA either.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Edwards-Cummings/100000033274646 John Edwards Cummings

    Hello Rick!

    I said:
    “refuses to turn over his data to ESFA == lying sack of shit”

    Meanwhile, you responded:
    “Peer review is ALL About turning over 100% data and allowing other scientists to recreate the same conditions to the T”

    FYI ‘==’ means ‘equal to’, thus, unless someone turns over all the data (so that peer reviewers can recreate the same conditions to the T) one is lying sack of shit.

    I do not see how what you say contradicts what I say. It seems that our disagreement stems solely from you misinterpreting the ‘==’ :-)

  • http://www.facebook.com/jcgreene ‘J’ Canaan Greene

    Apparently, when Monsanto carries out their own industry financed “studies” in the exact same way these people did, Monsanto’s studies prove that GMO’s are safe, but when the study using the same scientific methods and standards as Monsanto’s studies proves that there IS a danger to GMO’s, then the same scientific methodology that Monsanto used to prove GMO’s are safe no longer is valid science.. but just for the independent, NON industry scientists proving the dangers.. Monsanto’s study should still remain valid even though it arrived at its alleged results in the exact same way and refuse to release their data in the exact same way.. WAKE UP SHEEPLE. Monsanto is lying to you and the author of this article is either naive, or worse, they’re intentionally part of the effort to deceive you.

    Bottom line, this article is a Monsanto whitewash. The fact is that the scientist who carried out this PEER REVIEWED study have offered to turn over the data that’s been requested relating to their study as soon as Monsanto turns over THE EXACT SAME DATA.. Why should they have to turn over their data to be scrutinized if Monsanto is not held to the same standard?? Like I said.. WAKE UP.