"The only way to dot the i's on the safety of GMOs for the health of living organisms is to conduct large-scale independent multi-generational and toxicological studies."
The struggle between supporters of GMOs and their opponents reached its height on the eve of the second reading of the bill banning the import and sowing of genetically modified seeds in Russia. Recently, many media outlets reported that Russian scientists have denied data on the negative effects of GMOs on the health of living organisms. In response to this, a number of academics prepared an open letter. What are the arguments against GMOs they give there.
It all started with an article by Russian scientists from the Institute for Information Transmission Problems (IITP RAS) Alexander Panchin and Alexander Tuzhikov in the journal Critical reviews in biotechnology. The headline speaks for itself: "Multiple comparisons of published studies found no evidence of harm to GMOs."
“GMO is harmless, it will save us in times of crisis and sanctions,” “You cannot give up scientific achievements because of unjustified fears,” Russians began to write in the comments.
“The article by the IITP scientists is by no means a confirmation of the safety of GMOs,” says Konstantin Kramarenko, representative of the National Association for Genetic Safety, head of the Biologically Safe Certification System. - Our opponents just carried out a statistical analysis. It was a pure mathematical miscalculation - how many studies exist showing the harm of GMOs, and how many that did not reveal it. But these studies cannot even be compared - they are all completely different in duration, in nature, etc., etc. And it is incorrect to draw conclusions based on such a comparison.
Scientists give an example - in Russia recently there were only three works proving the harm of GMOs. But they were serious, they took more than two years. One, by the way, took place on the basis of the Association for Genetic Safety, and during it the hamsters who were given GMO soy did not have a third generation (in other words, no grandchildren were born).
It is curious that during a study conducted by the French professor Séralini, rats fed on GMO foods developed malignant tumors. Nobody repeated all these studies, although the scientists insisted: "Do the same as we do, and try to refute!" Instead, they were criticized, citing that too few hamsters and rats were tested in total.
“Using statistical methods to ignore significant changes in indicators can lead to serious negative consequences,” the academicians write in their open address. - This is confirmed by the tragic episode that occurred in January this year in France, when one of 90 volunteers who tested a new drug died. In this case, the scientists did not wait for statistically significant mortality results to be achieved, and the study was immediately terminated. Following the logic of the authors of the analysis about the comparison of GMO safety studies, the study of a potentially dangerous drug had to be continued until 10, 20, 30 or more people died to obtain a statistically significant sample. The only way to dot the i's in matters of GMO safety for the health of living organisms is to conduct large-scale independent multigenerational and toxicological studies."
Promotional video:
The letter was signed by such meters as Viktor Dragavtsev, Academician of the Russian Agricultural Academy, Chief Researcher of the Agrophysical Research Institute, Secretary of the CIS Alliance for Biosafety, Viktoria Kopeikina, Head of the Lipid Metabolism Laboratory of the FSBSI Institute of Plant Physiology. K. A. Timiryazev Vladimir Tsydendambaev, etc.
Eva Merkacheva