Conflicts of interest at the European Food Safety Authority erode public confidence

Robinson, Claire; Holland, Nina; Leloup, David; Muilerman, Hans

doi:10.1136/jech-2012-202185

Cited by 36 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Séralini study elicited an immediate public debate showing a wide range of opinions (which also precipitated in scientific journals, e.g. [4][5][6]). As a reaction to this debate, the European Commission decided to provide funding for an own 2-year study on NK603 maize [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rat feeding studies with genetically modified maize - a comparative evaluation of applied methods and risk assessment standards

Meyer¹,

Hilbeck²

2013

Environ Sci Eur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A 2-year rat feeding study with genetically modified NK603 maize sparked an international scientific and public debate as well as policy responses by the European Commission. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluated the study as defective based on conceptual and methodological shortcomings by retroactive application of the recommendations of its recent guidance on 90-day feeding studies. Our comparative analysis of the three relevant NK603 publications, including a 90-day feeding study of Monsanto, showed that all of them satisfy or fail to satisfy the EFSA evaluation criteria to a comparable extent; the rejection of only one of the papers is, thus, not scientifically justified. We also show that EFSA's criteria are not standard practice in 21 other rat feeding studies lasting at a minimum of 12 months. The review reveals critical double standards in the evaluation of feeding studies submitted as proof of safety for regulatory approval to EFSA. We specifically argue that the current approach to declare statistically significant differences between genetically modified organisms and its parents as 'biologically irrelevant' based on additional reference controls lacks scientific rigor and legal justification in the European Union (EU) system. Only recently, the EU authorities started building up an implementing system based on its own legislation and supportive of the EU approach to risk assessment in the context of technology assessment. Until these issues are resolved, we do not expect that neither the public nor the scientific debate will subside.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rat feeding studies with genetically modified maize - a comparative evaluation of applied methods and risk assessment standards

Meyer¹,

Hilbeck²

2013

Environ Sci Eur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The findings are a strong argument for mandatory inclusion of pesticide analysis data in regulatory assessment of GM crop, notably in assessments of herbicide-tolerant crops. Two of the animal feeding studies performed by independent researchers [86,87] used GM crop material as well as unmodified comparators supplied by industry. No analysis was performed to control the compositional quality of this material.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a standing controversy over GMO safety, the EU approval process as conducted by EFSA has been claimed to be unsupportive of independent research findings [19,20,86].…”

Section: Industry Provides Most Data For Risk Assessment Of Gm Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, in recent years such established assumptions on safety have come under revision, as glyphosate is found to have more subtle and complex effects than what has previously been acknowledged [11,86]. Furthermore, although recent pesticide screenings of fruits, vegetables and other food in the EU have shown that a majority of the samples (55 %) do not contain traceable quantities of pesticide residues, still glyphosate stands out as a commonly detected pesticide in European food, present in approximately 8 % of the samples [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review of GMO safety assessment studies: glyphosate residues in Roundup Ready crops is an ignored issue

Cuhra

2015

Environ Sci Eur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant cultivar varieties have been a commercial success widely known as Roundup Ready plants. As new glyphosate-tolerant varieties are introduced to satisfy agriculture demand, it is relevant to review the scientific evidence that documents the quality and safety of such biotechnology. Assessments of genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant plants are partly based on the reports from laboratory comparisons with non-modified plants (near-isogenic relatives). Such comparative testing is typically performed as analysis of plant material composition and in animal feeding studies. The material for testing is typically produced in test-fields set up as model environments. Most of this research is planned, performed and reported by researchers employed by biotech industry companies.Perspective: The present paper aims to: (1) review 15 reports on compositional analyses of glyphosate-tolerant cultivars and 15 reports from animal feeding studies, (2) discuss recent data indicating glyphosate residue in Roundup Ready soybean, (3) outline recent developments of cultivars with increased tolerance to glyphosate. Findings:The reviewed industry studies show methodological flaws: glyphosate-tolerant GM crops are designed for use with glyphosate herbicide. However, glyphosate herbicides are often not applied in test-study cultivation. In the studies where glyphosate herbicides were applied to growing plants, the produced plant material was not analyzed for glyphosate residues. This review has failed to identify industry studies that mention glyphosate residues in glyphosate-tolerant plants. This indicates that questions and evidence of importance for regulatory assessment have been systematically ignored. Independent research has investigated this issue and found that glyphosate-tolerant plants accumulate glyphosate residues at unexpected high levels. Glyphosate residues are found to have potential to affect plant material composition. Furthermore, these residues are passed on to consumers. Conclusions:Industry studies are not sufficient for regulation. Despite decades of risk assessments and research in this field, specific unanswered questions relating to safety and quality aspects of food and feed from GM crops need to be addressed by regulators. Independent research gives important supplementary insight.

show abstract

“…8 An egregious contemporary example is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) [10], which was reprimanded by the European Court of Auditors in 2012. An example from several decades ago in the USA has only recently come to light [11][12][13].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Foreword

J.J¹

2017

JBPC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conflicts of interest at the European Food Safety Authority erode public confidence

Cited by 36 publications

References 21 publications

Rat feeding studies with genetically modified maize - a comparative evaluation of applied methods and risk assessment standards

Rat feeding studies with genetically modified maize - a comparative evaluation of applied methods and risk assessment standards

Review of GMO safety assessment studies: glyphosate residues in Roundup Ready crops is an ignored issue

Foreword

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About