Faulty comparisons hide problems

To make only the impact of the item being analyzed to stand out, researchers in animal feeding studies attempt to minimize differences between the test animals and the control groups. This is the gist of the 1,139 research paper of Monsanto’s "Mon 863" variety on a 90-day rat study on June 20, 2005. The tests rats ate Mon 863 and the control groups were fed non-GM corn from the same parent line. That is, corn whose genetics are the same except for the insertion of the genetic materials (Basillus thunringiensis or Bt) and its impact.

The results of these appropriate groups, when compared, the health impacts were unambiguous and occurred at a rate that scientific community accept as not due to cance. But Monsanto and their suspporters in the European Safety Authority (EFSA) appear to throw away the accepted methods of science that have been used in order to rationalize the findings.

Six additional control groups were added by the researchers; which were fed with commercial corn varieties with entirely different.corn genetics. While such comparisons are appropriate for commercial studies, it is entirely inappropriate for a safety assessmennt according to Pusztai. Monsanto claimed that when the changes in the test rats were comparedto this much larger, irrelevant control groups, many changes were no longer significant.

Many results were still statistically significant when compared to these six other control groups and were reported as such by the laboratory that Monsanto used to conduct the study. This inspite of the strained logic.

Monsanto, therefore, ignored the study’s figures and claimed that since the changes among the rats were still within a wide range of reactions that are normal for the animals, they should be considered irrelevant biologically. Using this argument for example, they declared that a 52 percent decrease in reticulocytes (immature blood cells). According to Pusztai, an allowance of 5 percent variability is the norm in food experiments. Similarly, he says that the increase in blood sugar levels by 10 percent cannot be written off as biologically insignificant given the epidemic of diabetes."

Several results could still not be dismissed since they were well beyond the range Monsanto had defined as normal. So the company claimed that the potentially dangerous health hazards were considered significant because the reaction among the rats were not consistent between males and females. "This is really ridiculous", says French Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, a molecular endocrinologist at the University of Caen, "because everyone studying cancer and endocrinology, knows there are differences between genders.

When even the gender defense could not be applied to a particular finding, Monsanto dismissed it since the reactions were not dose specific. The results fed a diet that was 11 percent Mon 863 were sometiems more pronounced than rats fed a 33 percent diet. Seralini notes that in endocrimonology and toxicology research, differences are not always proportional to effects noted. A small dose of hormone can cause a woman to ovulate while a larger dose can make her infertile.