Of Course Monsanto Says It’s Safe
If you’ve been paying attention to the news about
food lately, you’ve probably read about the now infamous “Seralini
study,” in which University of Caen (France) molecular biologist Gilles-Eric
Seralini demonstrated major health issues associated with eating Monsanto’s
genetically engineered (GE) corn and the herbicide used in conjunction with it,
RoundUp.
Widely covered by the media, most reports have tried
to portray Seralini as a strident, ideologically
driven researcher who willfully designed a study to produce
a result showing that GE food is bad. Many science journalists criticized
Seralini for having an anti-GE bias, for taking research money from a foundation
that is anti-GE, and for not disclosing every piece of data to the public.
But this attack coverage seems grossly disproportionate given the realities
around funding and bias in agricultural research. Science journalists seldom, if
ever, cover the opposite angle: that industry has funded much of the scientific
literature we have about the safety of GE foods. These industry-funded studies
aren’t science as much as they are public relations, always concluding that GE
is safe and good. And in our broken regulatory system for these controversial
new foods, these industry studies are also what regulators use to approve new
genetically engineered crops for our food supply.
Indeed, the strain of corn that Seralini studied,
NK603, has been shown in the scientific literature to be safe—in studies done by
Monsanto. The company has produced at least seven studies about NK603 – all of
them positive – in four peer-reviewed journals. More shocking, at
least three of these peer-reviewed journals openly advertise their corporate
sponsors from the food industry, like Archer Daniel Midlands and
Pioneer.
One of these, the Journal of Animal Science is run by the
American Society of Animal Science, which counts biotech companies BASF
and Monsanto, as gold
and silver sponsors. Most of the Monsanto studies include
co-authors from public universities, whose names add credibility.
Does anyone honestly think that Monsanto is going to fund research about its
products that casts them in an unfavorable light, then publish these findings in
a journal over which it has financial influence for all to see?
Troublingly, industry is now paying hundreds
of millions of dollars to fund research at public universities. Food &
Water Watch explored the distorting and corrupting effect that corporate money,
finding that some departments take upwards of 40 percent of the research grant
money while some individual professors take 75 percent or more. This funding –
along with the promise of future funding or the threat of losing it – reliably
produces academic research that is favorable to
industry sponsors. It also produces a widespread perception that because the
scientific literature on GE is overwhelmingly positive, that the science is
comprehensive and the consensus on GE safety is clear.
The reality is, there is little funding for
independent research that challenges the industrial model of agriculture,
including issues like the safety of GE. This is why Seralini’s study is both
extremely rare and extremely important. Even government agencies, when they make
regulatory decisions about GE foods, do little more than rubber
stamp industry-funded science.
Seralini’s research funding came from the apt-named Committee for Independent
Research and Information on Genetic Engineering, which has been vilified as
anti-GE.
Whether this group is or isn’t anti-GE, the truth is
they are filling a vital gap in research funding around the safety of GE foods,
and we should take their results at least as seriously as Monsanto’s. Two groups
of scientists have come out in
defense of Seralini’s research, fighting off industry-lead criticism. And
the findings from Seralini’s study show that there is much more work to be done
to investigate all of the potential health effects of eating GE food.
The status quo of industry influence over agricultural science means that
NK603 remains a pervasive ingredient in our food system – apparently
unchallengeable by scientists, unexamined by journalists and unavoidable by
consumers because GE foods are unlabeled.
At the same time that Monsanto and friends are
trying desperately to discredit the small amount of research being done to see
if GE foods are safe to eat, they are also fighting to prevent U.S. consumers
from knowing if we are eating them. Learn
more about the fight to require labeling of GE foods across the country and
the heated battle raging in California over Prop
37, the ballot initiative to label GE foods.
© 2012 Food & Water Watch
No comments:
Post a Comment