The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has concluded that a controversial paper by French scientists linking genetically modified (GMO) corn to an increase risk in cancer in rats is of “insufficient scientific quality to be considered as valid for risk assessment."
EFSA’s initial review, published Oct. 4, found the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate. The agency also invited authors Séralini et al to share key additional information to enable the fullest understanding of the study.
Such shortcomings mean EFSA is presently unable to regard the authors’ conclusions as scientifically sound. The numerous issues relating to the design and methodology of the study as described in the paper mean that no conclusions can be made about the occurrence of tumors in the rats tested.
“Therefore, based on the information published by the authors, EFSA does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize NK603 or to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate. EFSA assessed the paper against recognized good scientific practices, such as internationally agreed study and reporting guidelines," the agency said in a statement.
Per Bergman, who led EFSA’s work, said: “Some may be surprised that EFSA’s statement focuses on the methodology of this study rather than its outcomes; however, this goes to the very heart of the matter. When conducting a study it is crucial to ensure a proper framework is in place. Having clear objectives and the correct design and methodology create a solid base from which accurate data and valid conclusions can follow. Without these elements a study is unlikely to be reliable and valid."
EFSA’s preliminary review is the first step in a two-stage process. A second analysis will be completed by the end of October 2012, and will take into account any additional information from the study authors, who will be given an opportunity to supply study documentation and procedures to the agency to ensure the broadest possible understanding of their work. It will also include an overview of Member State assessments of the paper and an analysis from the German authorities responsible for the assessment of glyphosate.
EFSA’s initial review, published Oct. 4, found the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate. The agency also invited authors Séralini et al to share key additional information to enable the fullest understanding of the study.
Such shortcomings mean EFSA is presently unable to regard the authors’ conclusions as scientifically sound. The numerous issues relating to the design and methodology of the study as described in the paper mean that no conclusions can be made about the occurrence of tumors in the rats tested.
“Therefore, based on the information published by the authors, EFSA does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize NK603 or to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate. EFSA assessed the paper against recognized good scientific practices, such as internationally agreed study and reporting guidelines," the agency said in a statement.
Per Bergman, who led EFSA’s work, said: “Some may be surprised that EFSA’s statement focuses on the methodology of this study rather than its outcomes; however, this goes to the very heart of the matter. When conducting a study it is crucial to ensure a proper framework is in place. Having clear objectives and the correct design and methodology create a solid base from which accurate data and valid conclusions can follow. Without these elements a study is unlikely to be reliable and valid."
EFSA’s preliminary review is the first step in a two-stage process. A second analysis will be completed by the end of October 2012, and will take into account any additional information from the study authors, who will be given an opportunity to supply study documentation and procedures to the agency to ensure the broadest possible understanding of their work. It will also include an overview of Member State assessments of the paper and an analysis from the German authorities responsible for the assessment of glyphosate.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment