Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Oct;15(10):1227-1234.
doi: 10.1111/pbi.12798. Epub 2017 Aug 16.

Characterization of scientific studies usually cited as evidence of adverse effects of GM food/feed

Miguel A Sánchez  1 , Wayne A Parrott  2
Affiliations
Review

Characterization of scientific studies usually cited as evidence of adverse effects of GM food/feed

Miguel A Sánchez et al. Plant Biotechnol J. 2017 Oct.

Abstract

GM crops are the most studied crops in history. Approximately 5% of the safety studies on them show adverse effects that are a cause for concern and tend to be featured in media reports. Although these reports are based on just a handful of GM events, they are used to cast doubt on all GM crops. Furthermore, they tend to come from just a few laboratories and are published in less important journals. Importantly, a close examination of these reports invariably shows methodological flaws that invalidate any conclusions of adverse effects. Twenty years after commercial cultivation of GM crops began, a bona fide report of an adverse health effect due to a commercialized modification in a crop has yet to be reported.

Keywords: GM food/feed safety; GMO; evidence; scientific studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All 35 studies declared no competing interests. Financial COIs arise when research is fully or partially funded by a party with a stake in the development of GM crops or in activities anti‐GMO, whereas professional COIs arise when at least one author is affiliated with a company developing GM crops or anti‐GMO institutions, even if the research is supported through public funding. Upon our examination, fewer than half—14 of 35 (40%)—show no financial or professional COIs. It is worth noting that in the most of the cases, conflicts cannot be discerned unless an author mentions if he or she is affiliated with declared anti‐GMO institutions. The proportion of these 35 studies truly without a COI is somewhat lower than that for the vast majority of scientific studies supporting the safety of GM crops food/feed, where at least 406 of 698 reports (58.3%) have no financial or professional COIs (Sanchez 2015).

Overall, research for which the authors did not provide funding information represents 49% of the total reports (17 articles). Four of 35 articles (11%) had COIs either in terms of the author affiliation or funding source. The three studies from Seralini's group were supported by the Committee of Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), which is financed by the Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation for the Progress of Humankind (FPH). This foundation has publicly supported anti‐GMOs initiatives like Inf'OGM, Foundation Sciences Citoyennes; the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), Combat Monsanto and Stop OGM, among others (http://alerte-environnement.fr/2012/11/12/etude-anti-ogm-de-saralini-les-petits-soldats-de-la-fondation-pour-le-progres-de-lhomme/). Likewise, Greenpeace partially funded the two studies (Séralini et al., ; de Vendomois et al., 2009) that found hepatorenal effects.

Although not considered in the analysis, it is worth noting that conflict of interest may have been involved in the review process of the retracted and criticized Séralini et al. (2012) study. J.L. Domingo, author of another review here assessed (Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011), was an editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology when the Seralini study was accepted.

Carman et al. (2013) also present COIs. George Kailis, an organic food entrepreneur having a cautionary approach to GMO (http://www.farmweekly.com.au/news/agriculture/agribusiness/general-news/technology-must-benefit-the-consumer-kailis/10451.aspx), partially funded the study. Furthermore, Verity Farms, another funder, has a non‐GMO grain‐marketing venture in the USA, and it is catalogued in the Non‐GMO Sourcebook, which is a directory of non‐GM food and agricultural products (http://www.nongmosourcebook.com/non-gmosourcebook/non-gmo-company.php?company=Verity+Farms). Plus, assistance is acknowledged from John Fagan, Arpad Puzstai and Jeffrey Smith, among others, three recognized opponents of GMO.

MAS is employed by ChileBio (www.chilebio.cl), which is funded by companies that develop GM crops. WAP performed public‐sector‐funded research with GM crops and has performed public outreach under the auspices of the ILSI International Food Biotechnology Committee and CropLife International.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Geographical distribution of origin of papers cited frequently as evidence of adverse effects of GE or specific GM crops on health.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Arjó, G. , Portero, M. , Piñol, C. , Viñas, J. , Matias‐Guiu, X. , Capell, T. , Bartholomaeus, A. et al. (2013) Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudoscience: an in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. study claiming that Roundup™ Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup™ cause cancer in rats. Transgenic Res. 22, 255–267. - PubMed
    1. Ayyadurai, V.A.S. and Deonikar, P. (2015) Do GMOs Accumulate Formaldehyde and Disrupt Molecular Systems Equilibria? Systems Biology May Provide Answers. Agricultural Sciences 6(7), 630–662.
    1. Bartholomaeus, A. , Parrott, W. , Bondy, G. , Walker, K. and ILSI International Food Biotechnology Committee Task Force on Use of Mammalian Toxicology Studies in Safety Assessment of GM Foods . (2013) The use of whole food animal studies in the safety assessment of genetically modified crops: limitations and recommendations. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 43(Suppl. 2), 1–24. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brasil, F.B. , Soares, L.L. , Faria, T.S. , Boaventura, G.T. , Sampaio, F.J. and Ramos, C.F. (2009) The impact of dietary organic and transgenic soy on the reproductive system of female adult rat. Anat. Rec. (Hoboken) 292(4), 587–594. - PubMed
    1. Brown, N.M. and Setchell, K.D.R. (2001) Animal models impacted by phytoestrogens in commercial chow: implications for pathways influenced by hormones. Lab. Invest. 81, 735–747. - PubMed

MeSH terms