As for the studies I have asked for to be released, I’m not certain that all of Monsanto’s safety studies have been released to date, along with the data. I know the Freedom of Information Act was used to release some of the studies. I believe the people deserve to know what facts the assumed safety of their food is based on.

I still would like to know if Monsanto is denying scientists access to gm lines and non-gm near isolines for study? We have lots of accounts of this. If so, why? Any study can be reproduced by Monsanto or reviewed for design etc. Why not support research,or at least give access to seed samples? I find that odd and suspicious. Is Monsanto discouraging information and the scientific method?

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/corporateMonopolyOfScience.php

What is less well known is that the agreements also prohibit you from using the seeds for research. That may not matter to most farmers, but it is important because it means that research into GM crops can be done only by the biotech companies or with their approval. If they don’t want a particular piece of research carried out, they can refuse permission to use their seeds. Even when they have given permission, if they don’t like the way the research is turning out they can stop it, or prevent the results from being published. Consequently, important decisions on GM crops and all GM organisms (GMOs) are increasingly based on evidence selected by the companies to put them and their products in the best possible light.

That’s why when the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited comments from the public in advance of two meetings on GM crops it was holding earlier this year, twenty six scientists submitted a statement protesting the “technology/stewardship agreements” they have to sign, which inhibit them from doing research for the public good. [2] As a result, “no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology”. The full statement is reproduced in the Box.

[see article link for statement]

The three companies Pollack contacted, Monsanto, Syngenta and Pioneer, told him that the restrictions were necessary to protect their relationship with government agencies. But when Pollack asked an EPA spokesman about this, he was told that the government only requires management of the crops’ insect resistance. Any other conditions were down to the companies; they have nothing to do with the government.

Not all the studies linked were livestock production studies – there was also rat gavage studies involved, aswell as non-health related environmental impact studies. I’ll admit that livestock production studies are not designed to assess human health risks, although I would argue that the neutral performance of GM products in these studies does add weight to the arguement that GM foods have no human health implications (equally should a livestock production study show that GM food harmed livestock in production it would be a pretty fair assumption that this could be applied to human health also)

In my opinion, all the animal safety studies can be taken as evidence towards the safety of GM foods to humans – I wouldnt go so far as to say any individual study offers definitive proof – but the evidence available shows no differences (and hence no followup with longer term safety studies – which possibly would be worthwhile undertaking for Monsanto as a purely PR exercise) – I think (John?) summed up the reasoning behind broiler hen studies etc rather well, so I’ll just refer you back to his posting (wherever it is) for the logic there.

April 13, 2009 at 12:55 pm

Animal feeding/toxicology studies apply to human health when the evidence points to zero difference from the unmodified crops (or indeed if there had been an indication of an effect)[but Animal Livestock Production Studies are intended for that purpose]

If the only evidence that you will accept for the safety of a given foodstuff is a long term human study [I have asked over and over for a discussion of the studies and the evidence of safety extrapolated from them] then you will never get this evidence for a number of reasons – firstly the ethical considerations of doing any long term experimentation on humans (controlled experimental conditions dont really meld well with basic human rights) [nor do uncontrolled experiments on the population at large] as well as the vast number of environmental variables on any such study which would make such studies a nightmare to draw any conclusions from, [how convenient--but pharmaceutical companies do their best with perexisting conditions thrown in for fun!] all we can then do is point to the 1 trillion meals served containing GM products, and the zero cases of human health issues caused by GM products [because there is no data or control groups to compare] – backed by all the shorter term safety studies which would lead us to expect zero issues.

——————-

My first reaction is that we are involved in a long term feeding study with no controls. How could doing feeding studies on willing humans have been any less ethical than what you are doing now and have been doing–feeding studies with no controls on mostly uninformed humans? The only difference is there is no consent and no data to compare. The experiment is on and has been for a decade. There is absolutely no proof of zero health issues because you do not have an experimental group to compare to controls. There is a lack of evidence. What is the life expectancy of a broiler hen? What is the life expectancy of a human?

But again, trying to Clarify, what I am requesting is that Monsanto set up a forum–each study getting its own thread. Then Monsanto could say what safety info is gathered from the study, what was not looked at, how they determined no further studies were needed by looking at the data, etc. Then the public, including scientists, could comment on what they would still like to know or if they feel the evidence is conclusive and scientifically rigorous.

I am asking for Monsanto to tell me how these studies preclude the need for further study. I don’t think that is too much to ask. Then I would like Monsanto to answer any follow-up questions the public has.

That is the part I have not seen done so far.

There is a presentation, but no follow up. The average citizen who is above average in his awareness of gmo’s in his or her diet may not realize what is NOT looked at unless someone else points it out. The average person may not know what questions to ask.

So I would like to see a discussion back and forth. The questions are out there; Monsanto must be aware of this. A direct answer to the questions about the studies would serve the public well.

I’d love to see such a thread also – my hope is that someone more intimately involved with the regulatory process might find the time to set one up.

My assumption that you dont believe these studies exist in the public forum rests mainly on comments like

“Okay, you have told us, now show us the safety studies. Hold them up for public scientific peer-review. We aren’t convinced by your word”

“all base the safety studies on the unchallenged word of the inventor and lack transparency of the entire methodology of the studies. The problem with that is that one cannot question information one is not privy to”

If I’ve misinterpreted you then I apologise.

Animal feeding/toxicology studies apply to human health when the evidence points to zero difference from the unmodified crops (or indeed if there had been an indication of an effect)

If the only evidence that you will accept for the safety of a given foodstuff is a long term human study then you will never get this evidence for a number of reasons – firstly the ethical considerations of doing any long term experimentation on humans (controlled experimental conditions dont really meld well with basic human rights) aswell as the vast number of environmental variables on any such study which would make such studies a nightmare to draw any conclusions from, all we can then do is point to the 1 trillion meals served containing GM products, and the zero cases of human health issues caused by GM products – backed by all the shorter term safety studies which would lead us to expect zero issues.

I would appreciate it if Monsanto would state whether or not they feel the study is applicable to long term human health or an animal production study.

Would Monsanto state what the parameters of the study and the findings are? For example, which animal systems were investigated and what conclusions were drawn; were abnormalities noted and followed up with further studies; how do the findings relate to human consumption of the GMO; does the study measure or examine gut function, liver function, kidney function, immune system response, endocrine system, blood composition, potential to cause cancer, impacts on gut bacteria; why the sample size and composition was chosen; is the sample size standard and useful in determining statistical significance; effects on the unborn; multigenerational impacts; was the protein used–if isolated–the same as the one produced in the gmo; if only the protein is used, how can we know that other compostional changes have not occured as a result of the gm process and been overlooked; how is the diet composition formulated and why; how are the controls relevant; are the detection methods used considered state of the art; how is the length of the study determined to be sufficient to predict long-term safety–especially in humans over a 75 year average lifetime; etc.

Then people, hopefully including scientists, could ask questions.

http://www.monsanto.com/products/techandsafety/safetysummaries.asp

has a pretty exhaustive list of peer reviewed safety studies for various Monsanto products aswell as safety summaries etc – I’m not sure why this hasnt been linked previously, but to my eyes at least it is a pretty good one stop shop for the evidence that apparently doesn’t exist/we wont release (some of the pdfs are dated 2005/2006 so there may be some more recent info available that I am not aware of)