Imaginary threats of GMOs

Let me remind you that in September 2012, an article by Seralini and co -authors with the results of a two -year transgenic corn with transgenic corn NK603 was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology . According to their conclusions, corn demonstrates a pronounced pathogenic effect. The release of the article was accompanied by aggressive media campaign and advertising of Seralini's books.

This is not the first article by Seralini, indicating the danger of a GMO. But before, special resonance was not observed - the results were not very convincing and obscure. This time the consumer was demonstrated by tumors, and the consumer, of course, was pretty scared.

Now that the story goes to the finish line, very informatively trace the fate of this news at all levels. It is only at first glance that we observe the message to consumers by scientists. In fact, communication is observed here within the scientific community, and scientists with journalists, journalists among themselves, as well as scientists with politicians, a scientific bureaucracy and representatives of the manufacturers of GMOs. It is very important that this communication took place before our eyes, it was very productive and as a result of discussion, we all approached the common denominator.

When the first shock from the media presentation was the first thing to appear, the press release of Monsanto appeared, as if interested, not provoking trust. At the same time, the press appeared in the press by scientists, regarding statistical processing of the results. Then, the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), the main European bureaucratic body responsible for the tolerances of GMOs [1] reacted [1]. This time, comments on the design of the experiment and conclusions were specified by EFSA experts; A request was made regarding some methods used in the study. From that moment, the discussion passed into a new brawl between EFSA and Seralini, who found out who has more statistically reliable and open results for the public. This topic leads us away from the main question: is the NK603 corn for health dangerous?

Immediately after the EFSA, the German Institute for Risk Assessment [2] and the Federal Consumer Protection Bureau and Food Safety [3], as well as the Australian food agency for food standards [4], formulated their comments [4].

At about the same time, the discussion takes place in a completely new place. The details of the media campaign surfaced: journalists who gained access to the article before the embargo at the time of publication signed the obligation not to demonstrate the article by another scientist. Literally immediately, the European [5] and the French [6] associations of scientific journalists voiced their indignation regarding the violations of journalistic ethics.

However, there was still no intelligible reaction from the scientific community itself. However, according to several notes in Nature [7], the main question of the scientific community itself could be guessed: how could such an unconvincing publication even have a review?

The Food and Chemical Toxicology magazine fell under the flurry of critics. The first hints appeared on the possible review of the article. The editor of the magazine announced the publication of opinions and reviews for the article. Further scientific discussion on this topic will continue on the pages of scientific periodicals and it is very important that it be reinforced with new results.

The French government submitted a request for an expert assessment of Seralini's results to the High Biotechnology Council and the health agency. On the eve of the announcement of the results of the examination of the Academy of Sciences of France (science, agriculture, medicine, pharmaceuticals, technologies and veterinary medicine), a joint statement was issued [8], in which the design of the experiment and features of the coverage of the results in the press were also criticized. As expected, the opinion of the biotechnological council [9] and the health agency was not much different from other criticisms. Moreover, the biotechnological council brought a murderous argument that demonstrates the failure of the work. Experts made a request to the supplier of laboratory rats regarding the statistics of mortality of this line. As a result, an interesting fact was revealed: in the control experience of Seralini, the female lived even longer than on average in the population, and mortality in the experimental group lay within the framework of the usual distribution for this line.

Applications of organizations of journalists, responsible regulatory bodies, academies and tips, a lively discussion in the press and the Internet are very important precedents for the whole society. In the context of this discussion, a great surprise caused a ban on the Russian chief sanitary doctor for the import and turnover of transgenic corn. It seems like a request was sent to the FSBI “Nutrition” of the RAMS, but instead of a press conference of representatives of this organization in RIA Novosti, the GMO: Real and Mnimal Threats was held at the Sorrowly known domestic critic of GMOs Irina Ermakova [11], which at international conferences represents the Russian Academy of Sciences, judging by the abstracts in theses [11]. You need to understand, is this the official position of the RAS? Why is there no intelligible reaction of responsible bureaucratic bodies, scientists, journalists?

Ruslan Radchuk