The deceptions of anti-GM crops activists in Nigeria and abroad – Part 3

So, in Europe, despite the strong opposition of Anti GM groups EFSA still continues to authorize the import of Glyphosate tolerant GM Maize and other GM maize including the ones carrying Cry 1Ab genes, like MON810 and Bt11.

Cry 1Ab gene and Cr1Ab protein are safe and effective
In their crusade against PBR-Cowpea, anti GM activists cite articles written by Vendomes et al. 2009 (this al includesSeralini- Int. J. Biol. Sci 2009 5(7) 706-726; DOI:10.7150/ljbs.5.706 Source: PubMed) and an article published by (Finamore et al., 2008) about the health hazard of the Cry 1Ab protein. According to these articles Cry 1Ab causes cancer and damage kidneys, alters the immune response, etc.

In 2010, the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), have reviewed and deliberated on the article published by de Vendômois et al. (2009). EFSA found many basic shortcomings or deficiencies in the article. EFSA, therefore rejected the claims made by de Vendômois and coworkers regarding the mammalian toxicity of the GM maize. We reproduce here part of the declaration made EFSA (the minutes of the 55th EFSA GMO Panel plenary meeting of January 27-28, 2010 can’t be found at: https://www.europa.eu/en/events/event/gmo1000127.html).

“The EFSA GMO Panel has considered the paper by de Vendômois et al. (2009), A Comparison ofthe Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health, International Journal of Biological Sciences, 5: 706-726), a statistical reanalysis of data from three 90-day rat feeding studies already assessed by the GMO Panel.

The GMO Panel concludes that the authors’ claims, regarding new side effects indicating kidney and liver toxicity are not supported by the data provided in their paper. There is no new information that would lead it to reconsider its previous opinions on the three maize events MON810, MON863 and NK603 which concluded that there were no indications of adverse effects for human, animal health and the environment.”

Thus, according to EFSA GMO panel, de Vendômois et al failed to do a good statistical analysis of their data, more importantly they misinterpreted the data (that is the authors are saying what the data did not suggest). In plain English, this means that the paper has a very low scientific value.

The article by Finamore et al. (2008) was one of the articles exhibited by Greece to request the ban of MON810 from European Union. In this article, Finamore and coworkers reported that the GM maize MON810 causes alteration in the intestinal and peripherial immune response (that is it causes some allergenic response). EFSA had examined the Greece request and reported its conclusions in the European Journal 10 (9) of 2012: “As indicated by the investigators themselves, it was not possible to conclude on the study of with regard to relevance for food and feed safety (Finamore et al., 2008). Against the background of the potential confounding effects of the mycotoxins in the animal diet, missing information on natural variability in studied parameters in weaning and old mice given various types of diet, and the biological relevance of noted differences in immunological parameters, the EFSA GMO Panel awaits further scientific data.

Interestingly, two recent studies report the effects of feeding maize MON 810 to pigs: Bt-maize is well tolerated by the porcine intestinal microbiotia in pigs fed maize MON 810 for 31 days (Buzoianu et al., 2012), Walsh et al. (2012) did not find any indication of Th 2 type allergenic or Th 1 type inflammatory responses to MON 810 fed to pigs for 110 days”. So not only Finamore et al. (2008) could not clearly show that maize MON810 alters the intestinal and peripherial immune response, but other articles contradicting them has been thrown on their face.

EFSA rebuked the Greece request to ban maize MON810: “Having considered the overall information packages submitted by Greece as well as a broad range of relevant scientific literature, the EFSA GMO Panel concluded, in 2006 and 2008, that no specific scientific evidence had been provided by Greece that would justify the invocation of a safeguard clause (EFSA, 2006, 2008c.)”

In 2012, following a request by the EU, EFSA reviewed all the scientific articles on MON810 published between 2008-2012 in order to update the assessment of the risks with this bt-maize (EFSA Journal 2012 10(12): 3012). The ESFA concluded that MON810 is as safe as the conventional maize; it does not represent any environmental risks if the crop is managed according to the measures outlined by EFSA.

The food and feed safety and the environmental risks of maize MON810 and Bt11 that carry the Cry 1Ab gene have been evaluated many times by the EFSA. Each time the conclusion is the same, Cry 1Ab gene does not constitute any human, animal health risks, or environmental risk (EFSA Journal 2012 10(12): 3012).

But, this did not discourage the French Government to request, in 2014, the ban of MON810 in the European Union. After examining the evidences procured by France, EFSA rebuked the request. We reproduce here the abstract on the EFSA article on the French request (EFSA Journal 2014, 12 (8) 3809): Following a request from the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluated the documentation submitted by France under Article 34 of Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 in support of its request to prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 in the EU.

Neither the scientific publications cited in the documentation submitted by France with relevance to maize MON 810 nor the arguments put forward by France reveal any new information that would invalidate the previous risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations made by the EFSA GMO Panel.EFSA considers that the previous GMO Panel risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations on maize MON 810 remain valid and applicable. Therefore, EFSA concludes that, based on the documentation submitted by France, there is no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment, that would support the adoption of an emergency measure on the cultivation of maize MON 810 under Article 34 of Regulation (EC) 1829/2003.

Here also the conclusions of the EFSA is very clear; these articles do not provide a single point of evidence supporting that Cry 1Ab causes cancer or any other damage to humans or animals; the articles are just examples of what is called “me too science”; that is they are scientifically worthless.

The list of European Union countries that had requested the ban of MON810 from the EU, using the pretext that Cry 1Ab protein causes damages to human and animal health, or represents an environmental risks, include Austria (EFSA Journal 20091152,1-18), Hungary (EFSA Journal(2008) 756, 1-18),Greece (EFSA Journal 201210(9)2877), Luxemburg (EFSA Journal 2013;11(9);3372), Italy (EFSA Journal 2013 11(9):3371) and France (EFSA Journal (2008) 850,1-45). But EFSA has been uncompromising in keeping its scientific standard and integrity. As a result, GM maize carrying the Cry 1Ab gene (MON810 and Bt11) are still authorized by EFSA and grown in the few European countries that have not banned the cultivation of GM crops, Spain, Portugal and Czech Republic, among others.

Despite the total lack of any evidence that Cry 1Ab gene is harmful, the Italian Government banned GM Maize MON810. But, an Italian farmer by the name Giorgio Fidenato, in total defiance of his government decided to plant the same GM maize, MON 810.

After the destruction of his field, MrFidenatotook the Italian Government to the European Court in Brussel. On 30th September, 2017 the Court ruled in his favor because there is no shred of credible evidence that the Bt- maize MON810 is toxic.The powerful Italian Government lost the case.

To be continued tomorrow