In short a triple ban to be lazy or negligentBut to focus solely on them causes two risksThis is the first vegetable consumed in the worldsaid Vincent Baudelet. For the time being They are stuck summarizes a European expertBut it is very likely that once the vote is passed the Center bubble deflatesHowever this is only a part of the projectAnd it is already declining in many developed countriesStrike hardFixed ambition is high Nicolas Sarkozy wants to strike hardThe result of the discussion is expected backThe debate on GMOs is relaunched in France with the recent publication of a notice of the French Agency of safety of food (Afssa) on maize MON810 and the imminent establishment of the High Council for biotechnology. First remember that maize MON810 has been banned in France notice issued in January 2008 by the Committee of forerunner to a high authority (CPHA) on GMOs, which pointed out that many questions remained in concerning environmental and health risks associated with maize. The argument major that highlights the European (EASA) food safety authority for the proposition that there is no good reason for maintaining the safeguard clause is the fact that the CPHA has provided no "new fact" which jeopardise safety environmental and health of maize MON810. It is true indeed that this was not "new facts" tending to show the existence of risk, but rather of "new facts" tending to show that the absence of risk was not established.
The conclusions of the last of the Afssa concern the risks of the MON810 on human health. It should be noted that these findings are the result of toxicity studies on groups of 10 or 20 rats. The little information that can be drawn from these studies does not conclude that the GMO corn is dangerous, but it does not allow to conclude firmly to its safety. Indeed, if no injury or serious morphological change did was highlight the Protocol and the statistical methodology used make it impossible to the detection of more minor alterations. It is not to say that these abnormalities exist, but to require that their absence is demonstrated more rigorous and more convincing.
We are here in an uncertain environment in which health and environmental risks must be assessed and a political decision must be taken: allow or non-GM maize. The question is the same for other plants genetically modified. In this environment, it cannot say anything with certainty, and it is very surprising to read in a newspaper that the more sophisticated our scientists argue that genetically modified organisms are "beneficial to human health". One wonders what it means "good health", on the one hand, and which are the most knowledgeable scientists, on the other hand. Because in concluding to the danger or the safety of the MON810, any scientist warned knows that he can be wrong.
What to do in this uncertain environment Statistics is a tool for the decision to allow to assess the probability to err in finding one way or the other (safety or danger). Its role is therefore essential in this debate and statistical practices implemented to assess the risk of error must be irreproachable. Statistical studies presented by Monsanto in the technical dossier of the MON810 have many methodological weaknesses and inaccuracies, which make impossible the strict calculation of the risk of error. In particular, the risk of wrong in concluding that the safety of maize GMO is never evaluated: missing crucial information to make a decision and the policy is then entitled to advance the precautionary principle as long as safety is not demonstrated more rigorously.
Some studies showing adverse effects of GMOs are not flawless and the media must not dismiss the methodological shortcomings of studies on their submitted at the risk of disinforming the public. It was able to read that, according to an Austrian study, "mice fed corn MON810 and NK603 breed less than others." However this study presents a faulty methodology. Calculation errors are at the origin of this disturbing result... When a newspaper title "GMO corn is safe for human", it is a shortcut which gives a distorted view of the current scientific knowledge on the subject. The presentation of the findings of the CPHA has been the same beam. While the notice prepared and issued to the press in January 2008 spoke of "questions", only "serious doubts" ranged dans newspapers, at the expense of the real debate on the merits.
This debate about GMOs raises passions and concerns in the opinion. Beyond the purely scientific questions raised by GMOs, there is a problem of society and the citizen is entitled to expect a coherent speech, even planted questions, on the part of the scientific community. Today, it is essential that these studies are made in the greater transparency, that the whole of the scientific community may access and especially to be able to validate the results. It is our role and our duty to citizen scientist of the same look critical on all of the studies on GMOs, without to be treated of landmark by some, without be accused of being in the pay of Monsanto by others. A well conducted statistical analysis will be never be challenged!
