Safety assessment of MON810

22.10.2013

Question for written answer E-012049-13
to the Commission
Rule 117
Sandrine Bélier (Verts/ALE)

A study on the assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the European Union has been conducted by the French association Inf’OGM[1], with a particular focus on the application for renewal of the authorisation of Monsanto’s MON810 genetically modified maize. The study casts serious doubt on the reliability of some of the results published by Monsanto and of some of the methods used to assess the safety of MON810 and other genetically modified plants.

In the case of MON810 Inf’OGM asserts that during the composition analysis, comparisons of the averages obtained for MON810 with the literature range and the reported range are only cited for cases where the results support Monsanto’s desired conclusion and are ignored when those averages fall outside the literature range and/or reported range.

1. Can the Commission confirm that this is indeed the case?

2. If yes, can the Commission confirm or refute that using selected data in this way is scientifically valid?

Inf’OGM questions the validity of these reported and literature references, which were derived from crops produced in conditions very different from those of the comparison experiment.

3. Can the Commission confirm that these comparators (literature and reported) are relevant?

On this same issue of comparators, Inf’OGM cites the disturbing case of the average histidine rate, which was above the literature range and below the reported range; both of these are used as references for normal values. According to the comparators used by Monsanto, the histidine rate would therefore be both above and below normal.

4. Can the Commission give a biological explanation of this result?

• [1] ‘GMO expertise: assessment turns its back on science’, http://infogm.org.

OJ C 221, 11/07/2014