Andrew Apel
Posted: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 1:30 pm

For years, Austria's scientifically untenable claims regarding GM foods and crops have repeatedly been rejected by European Commission officials, by scientists with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and by the judges of two European courts. Since official channels and the rigors of the scientific process have thwarted all of Austria's attempts to evade the requirements of European law, Austria has adopted a new procedure -- one invented by activists. As a result, the world press has become inundated by wild claims based on an Austrian research paper which has not been peer-reviewed, nor even made available.

Early in 2003, Austria said it had discovered information about GM crops and animals which prompted it to establish 'GMO-free' zones. The EFSA rejected Austria's claim, saying the country had not found any new evidence. The matter was then referred to the European Commission, which also rejected Austria's claims. "We have analysed the Austrian measures in great detail, and, legally speaking, this seems a clear-cut case", said Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström. "The Treaty requirements allowing for a derogation from EU legislation are not met".

The matter was then referred to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, and rejected once again. Austria appealed that decision, too. In 2007, the European Court of Justice added its rejection to the list.

Having exhausted all legal avenues, Austria has decided to take the same route as Erwina Ermakova: avoid the peer-review process, announce study results at a conference, hide the data from scientists, and let the activists run amok among the media.

In October 2005, Russian neuroscientist Irina Ermakova presented the results of a rat feeding study at a conference for the Russian National Association for Genetic Security (NAGS). The results were said to show that the mortality rate of the offspring of rats fed genetically modified soy flour was six times higher than that of rats raised with feed from conventional soy.

There was no peer-review, and Ermakova was reluctant to disclose her data. When she finally did, peer-review concluded that her experiment was poorly designed, and that the difference in the rats' mortality rates was likely the result of physical mistreatment, among other things.  

In the end, Ermakova's study was thoroughly discredited. During the interim, however, anti-biotech activists had almost complete control of press coverage of her rat study -- and many still believe her claims.

By adopting Ermakova's tactics, Austria is inviting the same result.

The Austrian mouse study was announced at a seminar in Vienna. According to Greenpeace, which appears to be writing at least half of the newspaper accounts on this event, the study was conducted using Reproductive Assessment by Continuous Breeding (RACB).

RACB involves a set of parent mice who give birth to a series of 'litters' of baby mice. The mice in each litter from these parents are counted, measured, and evaluated in other ways.

Dr. Jürgen Zentek, Professor for Veterinary Medicine at the University of Vienna and lead author of the study, summarized the findings: "Mice fed with GM maize had less offspring in the third and fourth generations, and these difference were statistically significant. Mice fed with non-GM maize reproduced more efficiently."

However, it is known that with RACB, the successive generations of mice born to one set of parents, are necessarily born to parents of increasing age. As a result, a decline in the number of mice born in later generations is expected as a matter of course.

And, as the US Environmental Protection Agency cautions about the use of RACD: "Because the parental and subsequent filial generations have different exposure histories, reproductive effects seen in any particular generation are not necessarily comparable with those of another generation. Also, successive litters from the same parents cannot be considered as replicates because of factors such as continuing exposure of the parents, increased parental age, sexual experience, and parity of the females."

Differences in the ages of the parent mice at the beginning of the experiment can have a significant impact. According to the University of North Carolina, "Delayed breeding was associated with smaller litter sizes, both at birth and at weaning, a higher bodyweight of pups at weaning, a higher percentage of litters with at least one newborn pup cannibalised, earlier cessation of female reproductive life and a higher mortality rate of dams during the breeding period."

The strain of mouse involved can also have a significant impact on the results. The AKR/J strain is prone to unspecified reproductive failures. The C57BL/6ByL strain tends to be jumpy, and are often poor breeders. Those of the C57BLKS/J are also poor breeders, and tend to small litter sizes. Other strains reach sexual maturity quickly, or mature quite late, or are prone to seizures after several litters, or to delivering large numbers of dead offspring--or to devouring them upon birth.

None of these important variables are known, or even mentioned in the project proposal, but that hasn't stopped the press from circulating wild claims: "Genetically modified maize lowers fertility in mice, study finds", The Earth Times; "Genetically-engineered food: potential threat to fertility", Ekolist; and "Scientists claim GM infertility link", Farmers Guardian, to name a few.

The following statement from the Eflux Media account of the study is emerging as a common journalistic theme: "It is now vital to keep animal feed in Austria free of genetically engineered maize, and an immediate ban on the use of genetically engineered maize MON810 in Austria is the order of the day," Global 2000 spokesman Jens Karp said.

Will activists and the media gain for Austria what European governments and courts have thus far refused?

Or will Austria come out of this with a reputation as completely tarnished as Ermakova's?

The report, "Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice", is now finally available here.

The report is far more inconclusive than Greenpeace has led gullible journalists around the world to believe.

As a result, Austria, Greenpeace and gullible journalists will share as much shame as they deserve.

[ed. note: new writethrough is pending.]