GMO Myths and Truths

the defamation and intimidation campaign in
France. He sued Fellous for libel, arguing that the
campaign had damaged his reputation, reducing
his opportunities for work and his chances of
getting funding for his research.
During the trial, it was revealed that Fellous,
who presented himself as a “neutral” scientist
without personal interests, and who accused
those who criticise GMOs as “ideological” and
“militant”, owned patents through a company
based in Israel. This company sells patents to GM
corporations such as Aventis. Séralini’s lawyer
showed that other AFBV members also have links
with agribusiness companies.
The court found in Séralini’s favour. The
judge sentenced the AFBV to a fine on probation
of 1,000 Euros, 1 Euro for compensation (as
requested by Séralini) and 4,000 Euros in court
fees. 68
Emma Rosi-Marshall
In 2007 Emma Rosi-Marshall’s team published
research showing that Bt maize material got into
streams in the American Midwest and that when
fed to non-target insects, it had harmful effects.
In a laboratory feeding study, the researchers fed
Bt maize material to the larvae of the caddis fly, an
insect that lives near streams. The larvae that fed
on the Bt maize debris grew half as fast as those
that ate debris from non-GM maize. And caddis
flies fed high concentrations of Bt maize pollen
died at more than twice the rate of caddis flies fed
non-Bt pollen. 69
Rosi-Marshall was subjected to vociferous
criticism from GM proponents, who said that her
paper was “bad science”. They complained that
the study did not follow the type of protocol usual
for toxicological studies performed for regulatory
purposes, using known doses – even though
such protocols are extremely limited and are
increasingly coming under fire from independent
scientists for being unable to reliably detect risks
(see “Jorg Schmidt…” below). Rosi-Marshall
replied that her study allowed the caddis flies to
eat as much as they wanted, as they would in the
wild. 65
The critics also objected that laboratory
findings did not give accurate information about
real field conditions. Rosi-Marshall responded
that only in the laboratory is it possible to
control conditions tightly enough to allow firm
conclusions.
Henry I. Miller of the pro-free-market think
tank, the Hoover Institution, co-authored and
published an opinion piece in which he called the
publication of Rosi-Marshall’s study an example
of the “anti-science bias” of scientific journals and
accused the authors of scientific “misconduct”.
According to Miller, the authors’ main crime was
failing to mention in their paper another study
that concluded that Bt maize pollen did not affect
the growth or mortality of filter-feeding caddis
flies. 70 Rosi-Marshall responded that she had not
cited these findings because they had not been
peer-reviewed and published at the time and
because they focused on a different type of caddis
fly, with different feeding mechanisms from the
insects in her study. 65
Rosi-Marshall and her co-authors stand by their
study. In a statement, they said, “The repeated,
and apparently orchestrated, ad hominem
and unfounded attacks by a group of genetic
engineering proponents has done little to advance
our understanding of the potential ecological
impacts of transgenic corn.” 65
Jorg Schmidt, Angelika Hilbeck and
colleagues
A laboratory study (Schmidt, 2009) showed
that GM Bt toxins increased the mortality of
ladybird larvae that fed on it, even at the lowest
concentrations tested. The study showed that
claims that Bt toxins are only harmful to a limited
number of insect pests and their close relatives
are false. Bt toxins were found to harm non-target
organisms – ladybirds – that are highly beneficial
to farmers. 71 Ladybirds devour pests such as
aphids and disease-causing fungi.
Based on this study and over 30 others, in 2009
Germany banned the cultivation of Monsanto’s
Bt maize MON810, which contains one of the Bt
toxins that Schmidt’s team found to be harmful. 71
This triggered two opinion pieces that questioned
the scientific basis of the German ban 72,73 and one
experimental study (Alvarez-Alfageme et al, 2011)
that claimed to disprove the adverse effects of the
GMO Myths and Truths 31