GMO Myths and Truths

also use a range of public relations strategies
to discredit and silence scientists who publish
research that is critical of GM crops. 65
In 2009, 26 scientists took the unusual
step of making a formal complaint to the US
Environmental Protection Agency. They wrote,
“No truly independent research can be legally
conducted on many critical questions involving
these crops.” 66 An editorial in Scientific American
reported, “Only studies that the seed companies
have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed
journal. In a number of cases, experiments that
had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company
were later blocked from publication because the
results were not flattering.” 62
In response, a new licensing agreement for
researchers on GM crops was reached between US
Department of Agriculture (USDA) scientists and
Monsanto in 2010. 67 However, this agreement is
still restrictive, which is not surprising given that
the US Department of Agriculture has a policy
of supporting GM crops and the companies that
produce them (see 2.1.3). Whether this new policy
will make a real difference remains to be seen.
The limited amount of independent research
that is conducted on GM foods and crops is often
ignored or dismissed by regulatory agencies.
In addition, findings of harm, whether in
independent or industry studies, are explained
away as not “biologically relevant” (see 3.1.2).
2.1.10. Researchers who publish
studies that find harm from GM crops
are attacked
There is a well-documented history of orchestrated
attacks by GM proponents on researchers whose
findings show problems with GM crops and foods.
The GM proponents adopt a variety of tactics,
including criticizing the research as “bad science”,
finding any small flaw or limitation (which almost
all studies have) and claiming that this invalidates
the findings, and using personal (ad hominem)
attacks against the researcher.
Scientific debate is nothing new and is to be
welcomed: it is the way that science progresses. A
researcher publishes a study; another researcher
thinks that certain aspects could have been
done better and repeats it with the desired
modifications; these findings in turn are added to
the database of knowledge for future researchers
to build on. But the trend of attempting to silence
or discredit research that finds problems with
GMOs is unprecedented and has grown in parallel
with the commercialization of GM crops.
Unlike in traditional scientific debate, too often
the criticism does not consist of conducting and
publishing further research that could confirm
or refute the study in question. Instead, the
critics try to “shout down” the study on the basis
of claims that are spurious or not scientifically
validated.
There are numerous cases of this pattern, of
which the following are just a few examples.
Gilles-Eric Séralini
In 2007 Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, researcher
in molecular biology at the University of Caen and
president of the independent research institute
CRIIGEN, and his research team published a reanalysis
of a Monsanto 90-day rat feeding study
that the company had submitted in support of
application for the approval of its GM maize
MON863. Approval was granted for food and
feed in the EU in 2005. Monsanto tried to keep
the feeding trial data secret, claiming commercial
confidentiality, but it was forced into the open by a
court ruling in Germany.
Séralini’s re-analysis of the Monsanto data
showed that the rats fed GM maize had reduced
growth and signs of liver and kidney toxicity.
Seralini concluded that it could not be assumed
that the maize was safe and asked for such studies
performed for regulatory purposes to be extended
beyond 90 days so that the consequences of the
initial signs of toxicity could be investigated. 38
After Séralini and his team published this and
other papers showing harmful effects from GM
crops and the glyphosate herbicide used with
GM Roundup Ready crops, he was subjected to
a vicious smear campaign. The smears appeared
to come from the French Association of Plant
Biotechnologies [Association Française des
Biotechnologies Végétale] (AFBV), chaired by Marc
Fellous.
Séralini believed the researchers Claude
Allegre, Axel Kahn, and Marc Fellous were behind
GMO Myths and Truths 30