Two-year toxicological study on genetically modified organisms
23.12.2013
Question for written answer E-014438-13
to the Commission
Rule 117
José Bové (Verts/ALE) , Martin Häusling (Verts/ALE) , Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) , Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE)
The only long-term feeding study to be published to date in a peer-reviewed scientific journal was recently retracted, more than one year after its publication. The reasons given for this retraction by the journal (Food and Chemical Toxicology) did not involve fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data, but rather it was felt that the results of the study were inconclusive, although not incorrect. This, along with the award of the newly created position of editor for biotechnology at the journal in question to a former Monsanto employee just a few months after the publication of the study, has given rise to much suspicion regarding the influence of the biotechnology industry in the retraction.
At the same time, a new study has been published by the journal, a fact that is indicative of double standards in the assessment by scientific publications of whether or not genetically modified organisms (GMOs) bear a negative impact on the environment and health. The conclusion to be drawn from this appalling affair is that if Professor Séralini’s study was retracted, then all other studies which maintain that GMOs bear no negative effects should also be retracted[1].
We are also concerned over claims from the EU’s chief scientist that scientific consensus exists regarding the safety of GMOs when almost 300 independent scientists maintain that there is as yet no such consensus[2].
We would like to be sure that the two-year toxicological study that the Commission has decided to fund will not be exposed to any industry bias or premature judgments ahead of it being carried out.
Following on from Written QuestionE-007727/2013 of 27 June 2013 and the answer provided by the Commission on 7 August 2013, could the Commission answer the following:
- 1.Is the retraction of Professor Séralini’s study going to have any effect on the planned two-year toxicological study?
- 2.Have answers been provided regarding the proposals launched in June 2013 under the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (FP7)? Who will conduct the 2 years toxicological study and what is the exact timing?
- 3.Will information be provided on the independent experts appointed by the Commission for the evaluation of the proposals, given all of the recurring problems with conflict of interests by experts and the critical importance of the issue?
- [1] ‘Rat feeding studies with genetically modified maize — a comparative evaluation of applied methods and risk assessment standards’, by Hartmut Meyer and Angelika Hilbeck, available at: http://www.enveurope.com/content/25/1/33
- [2] Statement: ‘No scientific consensus on GMO safety’, available at: http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/
OJ C 275, 21/08/2014