Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.

  • We were in Hyderabad at the

    We were in Hyderabad at the Meeting of Parties (MOP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) when this paper was presented by Dr Masange. As a very concerned person, I found that one pointer which was clear from this study is that the present protocol for toxicological studies and feeding studies to approve GM crops were totally inadequate.

    While the rage of controversies and debates can continue, it will be good to not loose sight of the indicator. That the 90 day study period is simply not enough and a long term study is clearly necessary. Moreover, from a layman point of view, is it not common sense that if this is available commercially ( god forbid ), then will we all not be eating this for life time and not for 90 days or extending the rats age to human age argument , even for a few years. We will be eating this for the rest of our lives...So long term studies and conditions as near as our consumption patters need to be the the logic for testing all GM crops.

    But this also brought to the fore one more issue - that Monsanto and their likes continue to lie to the public regarding their studies and safety assessments, and that Govts all over the world eat this lie, obviously with lots of money thrust into their mouths. We in India know this best, because of the nearly two years of fight by a few concerned people in the courts just to get the data of safety assessments of Bt Brinjal out in the public domain. And when it did finally come out, it was cleary discovered ( thanks to independent scientists ) that they had fudged their interpretations. And then it is history. Bt Brinjal was placed under moratorium.

    So Seralini's rats (hapless creatures, though they are ), I hope, will ensure that man, the luckier species, is saved from this dangerous food crop and its serious health impacts.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 6 years ago | Reply
  • When this article was put for

    When this article was put for discussion on The New York Times/Science/Environment - Dot Earth blog, the blogger added that Russian government stopped this maize seed entry to Russia. Today I saw a report in saying that in tribal areas two GM maize companies are secretively - illegally growing seed. In fact this is way the seed companies are contaminating biodiversity rich zones. The groups associated with this clandestine activities are groups proclaimed as farmers friends. They are flourishing in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat. They also entered in to Agriculture ministry at the centre and state level. Unless we put such people behind bars, there is no way stop such illegal activities by multinational GM companies. Also, such companies must be blacklisted.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    Posted by: Anonymous | 6 years ago | Reply
  • India must conduct long term

    India must conduct long term trials on its own.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 6 years ago | Reply
  • I am shocked that this

    I am shocked that this article calls Seralini a "highly regarded scientist." All five of his studies on feeding GM food to rats, including this one, have widely and soundly criticized by food safety and regulatory authorities around the world, including those in Europe and Australia/New Zealand, each of which is rigorous and very concerned the safety of GM food. This "report" says nothing of that. Shamefully bad journalism.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 6 years ago | Reply
  • This comment triggers me to

    This comment triggers me to write again. If you think this article is a shock, so is the study and findings. If nothing else, this study simply demonstartes that we need long term - as near life long as possible - studies to be conducted for feeding, as well as other toxicological impacts. Every scientist worth the name knows that cancers, endocrine disruptions, teratogenic effects, mutational impacts do not happen overnight nor can it be found in 90 days. So, when such possibly dangerous products, produced from unnatural processes are to be given to public, its better to go for such detailed investigations.

    Now are you saying that this study was bad, because some one decided to do a long term study and found some adverse impacts.

    And by the way who are you to say that ? Anonymous writer ?

    Posted by: Anonymous | 6 years ago | Reply
  • I am not surprised that this

    I am not surprised that this comment is anonymous. It’s not easy to attack a scientist who has published over 100 peer-reviewed scientific articles and has been a member of two French government commissions that oversaw risk assessment of GMOs. Most of the scientists who have been critical of Prof Gilles-Eric Seralini have been unable to hide their commercial interest in championing short-term industry studies. If Seralini is a bad scientist then so must be the many others, all scientists with impeccable credentials, who have found merit in his study and called for further research to validate his findings. Is Paul Deheuvels, member of the Academy of Sciences who confirmed that Seralini’s methodology is statistically sound, also to be trashed? He has said clearly that Seralini’s research methodology is statistically sound. No one is claiming the study conducted at the University of Caen is the last word on GM food toxicity but in terms of the length of study and the parameters examined it goes far beyond what industry has carried out for regulatory approval of the crops. As for dismissal of Seralini’s studies by regulators, is it really necessary to regurgitate the innumerable instances and reports that have shown regulators (US FDA, European EFSA) are shockingly compromised by their ties to industry? In the related interview with Michael Antoniou which is part of the story, I have pointedly referred to EFSA’s rejection of the Seralini study. Do read it. Unlike scientists who appear to have abjured objectivity in favour of ideology and their narrow interests journalists can only report and do not take sides. And that is what the Down To Earth story is: a report of what Seralini’s study reveals, what Monsanto, the company whose product he has studied, says and what scientists on both sides of the divide have to state. If we do have a vested interest to protect it is the wellbeing of people, animals and the environment.

    Posted by: Latha Jishnu | 2 years ago | Reply
  • I thought I would leave a

    I thought I would leave a comment about the issue of financial interests. Seralini is quoted saying that the scientists criticizing him must be acting out of their own financial interests. Commenters here are also throwing out the financial interest card, however, the article and discussion makes a glaring omission. What are Seralini's financial interests? Who funded the study?
    It turns out that the study was funded by grocery stores and food manufacturers (about 50 of them) who have a financial interest in selling competing products - non GMO foods. In the book that he published at the same time as this study, Seralini bragged about how he hid this funding by channeling it through a non-profit organization, however numerous stories and quotes now exist that attest to the funding sources for this study. Where is the consistency?

    Posted by: Anonymous | 6 years ago | Reply
  • Monsanto, Dupont, Pepsico,

    Monsanto, Dupont, Pepsico, Coca Cola, Kellogg, Mars,
    BASF, and Bayer have been pouring millions of dollars into campaigning against Proposition 37, an initiative that will be on the California ballot on election day and would make it mandatory to label genetically modified food.

    If GM food is indeed safe, corporates should go ahead on their own and mention this on the packaging.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 6 years ago | Reply
  • I wish to repeat here - there

    I wish to repeat here - there are scientists and even agencies that are rejecting this study. What part of the study are they rejecting. Whatever you reject, the main concern that has been raised - the need to conduct long term studies for toxicological impacts, and feeding studies - cannot ans should not be contended.

    Seralini's study, if read with an unbiased mind clearly demonstrates that there are enough reason to review the present protocols for biosafey studies and also present assumptions such as "substantial equivalence". Its ironical and very biased to say that this study is 'inadequate" and hence we dont need such studies and review. That position is more anti-science than the contention that Dr Seralini may not have used the right methodology.

    The science of the methodology used etc can continue to be debated, but that does not give us the reason for avoiding a review of the protocols and have more stringent studies and long term studies,

    Posted by: Anonymous | 6 years ago | Reply
  • long term studies by

    long term studies by independent scientists, not influenced by selfish financial commitments is the best way to assess the safety of GM Foods.-Dr Rajamohan

    Posted by: Anonymous | 6 years ago | Reply
  • "Rats that fed on NK603 or

    "Rats that fed on NK603 or given water containing Roundup died much earlier than the rats in the control group and developed hormonal and sex-related effects"

    Fig 1. of the paper shows higher mortality in the non-GM control group for male rats than in all but one of the GM and Roundup test groups. Therefore the above statement is just not true.

    Having said that there is no statistical significance to any of the results at all so I guess it's immaterial.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 6 years ago | Reply
  • I agree completely. But till

    I agree completely. But till then we do need to freeze commercial cultivation and open field trials...

    Posted by: Anonymous | 6 years ago | Reply
  • i do not understand the need

    i do not understand the need to accelerate a research outcome for market consumption. We should ask the important question if there is really a pressing demand for the commodity that it cannot be handled by existing technology. The problem with technological innovation in the food and health sector is that it is so cheap, easy(read unaccountability of risk) to introduce into the market. If there is no political will to check this, it can create catastrophic, irreparable damages, for example the thalidomide crisis.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 6 years ago | Reply
  • hi everyone and mr.

    hi everyone and mr. sridhar,

    please notice that the anonymous pro-monsanto/gmo posters are either from monsanto or pseudo-experts paid by monsato (unortunatley most of them are sitting within the indian and other national governments).

    Posted by: Anonymous | 6 years ago | Reply
  • similar studies were once

    similar studies were once published by the french and the austrian governments (on MONSANTO GM MAIZE). soon after the release of the research papers the french had withdrawn it. the austrian paper was around for a while on the public domain, and too disappeared.

    the tricky question is, who intervened to pull back the research papers by the authorities?

    Posted by: Anonymous | 6 years ago | Reply
  • I support Mr. Gilles-Eric

    I support Mr. Gilles-Eric Seralini completely. First of all we need to ban all GM Crops till then confirmation of study on it by the scientist that these are safe or not.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 5 years ago | Reply
Scroll To Top