Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
feeding studies with i rst-generation GM
plants with agronomic traits (see Chapter
6); one study uses a plant line with an output
trait (see Chapter 7).
It should be noted that none of the i ve
papers published by Malatesta and colleagues
(including Vecchio
et al
., 2004) explicitly
states the exact identity of the soybean lines
used. h e control/non-GM plant materials
used in these studies are unlikely to come
from isogenic lines or grown in the same
location, as already discussed (Snell
et al
.,
2012). h erefore, the dif erences claimed in
these studies cannot be interpreted
meaningfully as resulting from the genetic
modii cation. Unfortunately, in 3 of the
remaining 11 long-term studies summarized
in Table 8.1 (using soybean), which show no
or little long-term ef ects, it is unclear
whether near-isogenic lines were used (most
of the time the transformation event was not
specii ed), making it possible to argue that
they did not comply with the required
standards to compare GM and non-GM
soybean soundly (Bakke-McKellep
et al
.,
2008; Daleprane
et al
., 2009a, 2010).
Accompanied by a high-proi le media
campaign, a publication by Séralini
et al
.
(2012) claimed that the glyphosate-tolerant
GM maize, NK603, treated or not by a
herbicide formulation, caused organ damage,
tumours and an earlier death among rats fed
this maize variety for 2 years. h is publication
is not included in Table 8.1, since it has been
refuted by nine food safety agencies from 11
countries (the German agencies, BVL and
BfR, the Food Standards Australia and New
Zealand, the Danish agency, DTU, the
Netherlands agency, NVWA, the National
Biosafety Technical Commission of Brazil,
Health Canada (Federal department) and the
Canadian food inspection agency, the Belgian
Biosafety Advisory Council, the French
agencies, ANSES and the High Council of
Biotechnologies), and by the European
authority, the EFSA, six national academies
of France, the European Society of
Toxicologic Pathology and the French
Society of Toxicologic Pathology, as well as
by many scientists.
What can be learned from long-term
studies?
In 2009, the BEETLE report on the long-
term ef ects of GM crops on health and the
environment, subtitled 'Prioritisation of
potential risk and delimitation of uncertain-
ties', analysed the scientii c literature and
collected via an online survey the con-
tributions of a wide range of experts. h e
literature review did not i nd evidence of
long-term health ef ects, and the expert
survey coni rmed this view while recom-
mending methodical improvements of the
risk assessment procedure, including a
higher number of replications and additional
control groups to demonstrate the biological
range of measured parameters (see also
Chapter 5 and Flachowsky
et al
., 2012).
h e general conclusion drawn from the
present compilation was that no biologically
signii cant dif erences or adverse health
ef ects were reported. No new safety con-
cerns were raised by the authors. h ese
studies are in line with the previously
demon strated nutritional equivalence
between the studied GM varieties (most of
them being commercial products subjected
to a pre-marketing safety assessment) and
their non-GM conventional counterparts
(see Chapter 6). It is important to draw
attention to the diversity of the animal
models used (rat, mouse, cattle, pig,
macaque, quail and salmon), as well as the
varying feeding durations. h ese long-term
feeding studies cover the whole lifespan or a
very long life period of some animals. Other
studies (e.g. in the case of laying hens or
dairy cows) cover a longer period of time
than normally used in classical nutritional
studies and are expected to be able to reveal
the presence of toxic compounds in feed
(and not only assess their nutritional
quality).
Multi-generational studies were performed
on animals that were fed GM-based diets
