The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

scientists suppressed 175“We were very surprised to find that there were only ten studies in the scientificliterature,” Pryme told me. “That’s really very few, considering what’sat stake.”“How do you explain it?”“First you should know that it is very hard to get hold of samples of transgenicmaterials because companies control access to them. The companiesrequire a detailed description of the research project and they are very reluctantto provide their GMOs to independent scientists for testing. Whenyou insist, they invoke ‘business confidential.’ It’s also very hard to get financingfor studies on the long-term effects of transgenic foods. Along withcolleagues from six European countries, we requested funds from the EuropeanUnion, which refused on the pretext that the companies themselveshad already conducted that kind of test.”“What can you say about Monsanto’s study on rats, chickens, catfish, anddairy cattle?” I asked.Pryme continued, “It’s very important, because it was used as the basis forthe principle of substantial equivalence and it explains in part the absenceof further studies. But I have to say that it is very disappointing from a scientificpoint of view. If I had been asked to review it before publication, Iwould have rejected it, because the data provided are insufficient. I wouldeven say that it is bad science.”“Did you try to get the raw data from the study?”“Yes,” Pryme answered, “but unfortunately, Monsanto refused to providethem on the grounds that they were business confidential. That was the firsttime I had heard that argument used about research data. Normally, as soonas a study is published, any researcher can ask to consult the raw data, torepeat the experiment and contribute to scientific progress. Monsanto’s refusalinevitably gives the impression that the company has something tohide: either that the results were not really convincing, or they were bad, orthat the methodology and protocol used were not good enough to stand upto rigorous scientific analysis. To conduct our study we had to be satisfiedwith the summary provided by the company to the regulatory agencies. Andthere are some very troubling things.“For example, about the rat study, the authors write: ‘Except for the browncolor, the livers appeared normal at necropsy . . . it was not considered to berelated to genetic modification.’ How could they claim that without taking