19 Years of Feeding Animals GMO Shows No Harm

[Nye Bevan]

11. Comprehensively debunked, and the journal it was published in retracted it:

The conclusions that Séralini drew from the experiments were widely criticized, as was the design of the experiments.[2][3] Scientists claimed that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the experimental design – the small sample size together with the length of the study together with the known high incidence of tumors in the species of rats used, namely Sprague-Dawley rats. The paper was also refuted by food standards agencies.[4] Other long term studies, which were publicly funded, have uncovered no health issues.[3][4] The release of the book and movie in conjunction with the scientific paper, and the requirement that journalists sign a confidentiality agreement, were also criticized and negatively peer reviewed.[2]

In November 2013, Food and Chemical Toxicology, the journal that published the 2012 paper, announced that it was retracting the paper, after the authors refused to withdraw it.[5] The article was republished in June 2014 in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, without further peer-review.

.....

Many national food safety and regulatory agencies reviewed the paper and condemned it. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment VP Reiner Wittkowski said in a statement, ""The study shows both shortcomings in study design and in the presentation of the collected data. This means that the conclusions drawn by the authors are not supported by the available data."[45] A joint report by three Canadian regulatory agencies also "identified significant shortcomings in the study design, implementation and reporting."[46] Similar conclusions were reached by the French HCB[30] and the National Agency for Food Safety,[47] the Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie,[48] the Technical University of Denmark,[49] Food Standards Australia New Zealand,[50] the Brazilian National Technical Commission on Biosafety,[51] and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).[40] The conclusions of the EFSA evaluation were:

The study as reported by Séralini et al. was found to be inadequately designed, analysed and reported...The study as described by Séralini et al. does not allow giving weight to their results and conclusions as published. Conclusions cannot be drawn on the difference in tumour incidence between treatment groups on the basis of the design, the analysis and the results as reported. Taking into consideration Member States’ assessments and the authors’ answer to critics, EFSA finds that the study as reported by Séralini et al. is of insufficient scientific quality for safety assessments.[40]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair