New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity

Citation

Evidence Type: Research (Generic)
Gilles-Eric Seralini, Dominique Cellier, Jol Spiroux de Vendomois, Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 52, 596–602 (2007) - http://www.gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/seralini.new_.an_.2007.pdf Score: 0.0/0.0

Discussion

A response by Gilles-Eric Séralini to a Monsanto funded study showing no detriment from feeding rats GM feed.

The original study is Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn rootworm-protected corn

A response to this response is Report of an Expert Panel on the reanalysis by of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863)., in which a panel of experts reviewed the original Monsanto study and the response by Gilles-Eric Séralini and concluded that:
"The Expert Panel concludes that the Séralini et al. reanalysis provided no evidence to indicate that MON 863 was associated with adverse effects in the 90-day rat study. In each case, statistical findings reported by both Monsanto and Séralini et al. were considered to be unrelated to treatment or of no biological or clinical importance because they failed to demonstrate a dose-response relationship, reproducibility over time, association with other relevant changes (e.g., histopathology), occurrence in both sexes, difference outside the normal range of variation, or biological plausibility with respect to cause-and-effect. The Séralini et al. reanalysis does not advance any new scientific data to indicate that MON 863 caused adverse effects in the 90-day rat study."

This paper misuses P values to attempt to show correlations that are likely not present. If you test for enough things you're bound to get some low P values. Read more on P values in the introductory note

Strengths/Weaknesses

Conclusions

Strength/Weakness 1

Strong weakness: Industry Independence

Gilles-Eric Séralini is a known, paid, and frequent antiGMO advocate


Strength/Weakness 2

Strong weakness: Well Designed Research

This research is a good example of why it's not a good idea to look only at individual P values while ignoring the broader context. There is no dose response shown, and no commonalities between male/female groups, for any of the differences observed. Yet these differences are shown as evidence of harm.


Conclusion 1

This study claims to provide evidence showing eating GMO food will cause various health concerns, but does not provide any compelling evidence.


Bad text to replace:
Correct text:
Close This is a proper word Ignore word on this page Apply
Close Popup
Follow Reasoned Discussions on Facebook
Share this page on Facebook
Follow Reasoned Discussion on Google+
+1 this page on Google+
Close
Terms of Use | Site Map | Privacy