Three studies including GRACE and G-TwYST at European level and GMO90+ in France launched by European and French authorities disprove the controversial study on genetically modified (GM) maize by Gilles-Éric Séralini.
In September 2012, Gilles-Eric Séralini, a professor at the University of Caen, published a sensational article in Food and Chemical Toxicology, which later retracted the study, claiming that GM maize NK603 induces tumors in rats. The results of the European Union funded G-TwYST were reported on April 29, 2018 at a conference in Bratislava, Slovakia which confirms the lack of health effects of maize MON810 and NK603 in the 90-day rat feeding studies. These studies conclude that:
- No potential risk for humans and animals was identified in the original assessment of the GM maize NK603. The G-TwYST data from 90-day and long-term rodent feeding studies did not identify potential risks as well, and therefore support the results from the initial analyses.
- The G-TwYST data from the long-term feeding rat study with NK603 did not identify potential risks as well, and therefore support the results from the initial analyses and 90-day rat feeding studies.
- Three immune function assays performed in the course of the two 90-day rat feeding trials with the GM maize NK603, did not affect the immune functions tested in both studies.
According to the French Association of Plant Biotechnology (AFBV) the results of these experiments are now published by enviscope.com. While referring to G-TwYST one-year and two-year long-term studies, AFBV states that “the results do not show any toxic effects of the corn analyzed and provide nothing more than 90-day studies as predicted by toxicologists”. The AFBV declares that these studies “refute the main conclusions drawn from the GE Seralini studies on the toxicity of the analyzed GMO maize as no potential risk has been identified. In addition, these new studies contradict Seralini’s proposal on the need to carry out long-term studies.”
The AFBV asserts that “European consumers must be informed of the results of these studies, who should reassure them on the quality for their health of genetically modified plants authorized for commercialization and on the European evaluation procedure, already the most rigorous in the world.”
Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA)
