GMOs: Global Health Warning!

    A few articles have already demonstrated that some doubts could be raised regarding the effects of genetically modified plants on human health.1 Today, the outcome of the research conducted by CRIIGEN under the direction of Gilles-Eric Séralini has just provided proof that NK603 corn is harmful to human health.2 Rats fed with NK603 corn were found to have a mortality rate six times higher than rats fed with conventional corn and developed numerous tumors as a consequence of the transgenic diet. An article about this peer-reviewed research has just been published by the scientific journal Food and chemical toxicology.3 The study also demonstrated the harmfulness of Roundup, the herbicide associated with GMO crops. NK603 corn had nonetheless been authorized by US and European authorities for use in human food.

So how did this come to happen? What are the implications of these research results?

The research was not requested by a national or European authority in charge of evaluating the impact of GMO technology. It was done on the initiative of a civil-society institution, CRIIGEN, with the backing of private foundations.4,5 No public authority accepted to finance the study. CRIIGEN has been trying to understand the potential effects of this technology for many years. It has come up against transnational corporations such as Monsanto using all available means to limit impact studies on health and the environment and access to the few existing studies. This was brilliantly demonstrated by Corinne Lepage in her book La vérité sur les OGM, c'est notre affaire (the truth about GMOs is our business), where she explains why CRIIGEN was founded, and tells of her discovery as French Minister of the Environment of the reality of pro-GMO lobbying and of the problems she encountered in trying to at least have the precautionary principle applied when she was in a position of responsibility.6

How is it that US, European, and national authorities have been incapable of bringing to light the type problem revealed by this study? Deciphering this situation requires understanding the mad logic behind the corporations producing GMOs with the complicit support of a number of scientists and policy makers. The 2001 European Directive on food safety places responsibility of a food product on its producer. There is an exception, explains Corinne Lepage: “When the state of scientific knowledge does not show the existence of a risk, the directive allows governments to exclude producer liability. This was done in France and in most European countries.” These companies were thus allowed, in view of the current knowledge, to disclaim responsibility for the potential effects of GMO plants on the environment and on human health. As soon as they were able to secure this non-liability authorization, they put all their efforts into limiting studies on the effects of GMOs. How did they do this? First, they prohibited any research or studies on the GMOs they were producing. Then they promoted the “substantial equivalence” principle. What is this principle about? GMO corn contains more or less the same protein, carbohydrate, and fat content as non-GMO corn. So why should GMO plants be submitted to toxicity studies? This is how the companies secured the possibility of not having to carry out impact tests on the health of rats being fed with GMO plants. The studies became optional, based on the companies’ willingness to do so. Consequently, only a few studies were commissioned by these GMO-producing companies, but for a period limited to at most three months, with no requirement to differentiate the possible effects of Roundup, the herbicide associated with GMO corn. These studies never examined all the parameters: blood, urine, and hormonal. The studies then remained confidential. Only the members of the assessment commissions have access to the research protocols and results. Despite the fact that human health was at stake, it took epic legal battles to get studies published on the Internet, for instance the one on MON863 corn.

Not to mention the composition of the assessment commissions, criticized by numerous European civil-society organizations, as well as by Members of the European Parliament including José Bové, a Green Party representative. It happens that many members of these commissions are in a situation of conflict of interest.

In addition, as underscored by Gilles-Eric Séralini in the film GMOs: A Global Warning?, this is considerable work. It means reading thousands of pages in just a few days, and doing it for free… Companies therefore help decision making by providing abstracts. Moreover, in most cases the commissions’ decisions do not show conflicting opinions. The commission issues favorable opinions without specifying any responsibility. As for the policy makers responsible for risk management, they follow the decisions of the scientists in these commissions.
This helps to understand how, under the circumstances, we have reached this outrageous situation that puts democracy to shame.

We can therefore commend the effort and tenacity of the research team working under the direction of Gilles-Eric Séralini and his colleagues, which conducted a contradictory study that had to be kept secret because Monsanto refused to authorize CRIIGEN to undertake it. The study was conducted with seeds produced in Canada and in a research institution in Europe. It is the first of its kind and a global event.
Gilles-Eric Séralini’s book, Tous cobayes !, as well as several films present the conditions of this research and its outcome. François Le Bayon and Clément Fonquerne’s films, produced by Lieurac Production, are not accusatory; they provide indispensable keys to understanding the situation.8 GMOs: A Global Warning? will be broadcast on October 16 on the French TV channel FR5. Another 13-minute documentary, GMOs, the Moment of Truth, by the same producer, is being circulated on the Internet and in social networks in different languages. A 90-minute film, GMOs and Us, will be available for downloading off the Internet. When you see the tumors induced by GMO food and the pesticide Roundup, you get shivers running down your back and are appalled. Tous cobayes ! (all of us are guinea pigs) by Jean-Paul Jaud, dealing with the nuclear issue, will be shown in movie theaters starting on September 26. It is a brilliant testimony and brilliant demonstration on the effects of these two technologies, which cannot be controlled when they are developed on a large scale.


What can be done about this situation?

CRIIGEN has asked NK603 and Roundup to be banned. This seems necessary as a consequence of the proven results of this first study.
This highly outrageous situation of blocking research, secrecy, and irresponsibility also exposes policy makers and scientists to liability. We can wonder if the companies do not, in fact, know of these particular effects.
As underscored in the Lieurac Productions film by Joel Spiroux, one of the researchers at CRIIGEN, the effects on human health have been demonstrated for this GMO. This begs the need to replicate the same type of research on other GMO plants, whether they have been authorized or not. This will require time and resources that companies and public agencies will have to provide. And it has become imperative to do so. There also has to be an in-depth reform of national and European risk-assessment procedures. EFSA will be celebrating its first anniversary in a few weeks.7 This will be an opportunity to reform it.
The “substantial equivalence” principle clearly needs to be abandoned. Other principles used to reject the significant results of certain studies also need to be thrown into the irresponsibility bin: non-differentiation of results from females and males, and the doses/effects proportion principle.
Studies on the potential effects on the health of rats will need to be undertaken for a two-year period (the approximate life span of a rat) and not for three months as currently. It should be noted that in this study, effects begin to appear only after four months… These legitimate constraints may remove economic incentive from GMO-producing companies.
    Scientists, policy makers, and citizens can no longer shirk their responsibilities. Scientists or policy makers not wishing to commission new studies on GMOs that have already been licensed or wishing to continue to authorize GMOs under the current procedures would have to face the courts. This would be the case whenever the harmful effects on health of some of these GMOs were to be demonstrated. But we’re not there yet.



This study is bound to have international repercussions. Eight per cent of farmland is currently growing GMOs. In Europe, 80% of animals are bred with transgenic plants, transgenic soy in particular. In France and in Europe the worst has been avoided thanks to the mobilization of citizens, including the “faucheurs volontaires” (volunteer reapers), which has stopped the full dissemination of GMOs in food as is the case in the USA and in Canada. Such dissemination has also been considerable in Argentina and in Brazil. In Europe, GMO labeling is mandatory. In France, products that are GMO-free, notably in animal food, can now be distinguished with a “GMO-free” label.9 This is new.

But what will consumers do in the different countries? What will government authorities do about imported GMOs or those produced on their territory? We may have to manage a situation of transitioning to a generalized GMO-free situation worldwide. The farmers, consumers, and policy makers of the different countries, of the European Union, and of multilateral organizations such as the FAO will have to prepare and be prepared in order to avoid difficult food situations throughout the planet and stand up to the irresponsibility of the multinational corporations involved, in particular.
    
Pierre Vuarin
Co-founder, Sustainable Earth Alliance

Responsable de Programmes. Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation

--
   
1. See the biostatic expert opinion delivered by CRIIGEN in 2005 on MON863 corn, available on their Web site. See, too, their 2009 summary of three studies on MON810, MON863, and NK603 www.criigen.org, as well as the Responsible Technology Web site, which points to a number of studies and concerns: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers#.UFDf98cHV90.email
2. See the study as a PowerPoint presentation at www.criigen.org
3. See the article on the website www.globalmagazine
4.  www.criigen.org
5. The Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation www.fph.ch and CERES, an association of industrial leaders and citizens under the leadership of Gérard Mulliez, former CEO of the French supermarket chain Auchan, wishing to learn of the effects of this technology. http://lexpansion.lexpress.fr/economie/gerard-mulliez-dans-l-etat-actuel-des-connaissances-il-faut-interdire-les-ogm_152209.html
6. La vérité sur les OGM, c’est notre affaire ! Corinne Lepage. Sept. 2012. Éditions ECLM. www.eclm.fr
7. EFSA: European Food Safety Authority.
8. Tous cobayes ! by Gilles-Eric Séralini. Flamarion. Sept. 2012.
9. “Avec ou sans OGM : l’étiquetage décrypté” by Christophe NOISETTE, September 2012 http://www.infogm.org/spip.php?article5166