|
|
| Austrian mouse study raises questions (update 1) |
Posted: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 1:30 pm
|
 Email  Print
|
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Austrian research paper which has not been peer-reviewed, nor even made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.]
|
|
|
|
| |
Member Opinions:
By: Russttu on 11/13/08
If at first you don't succeed, try try again. It will be funny when this obviously slanted piece of "science" blows up in Austria's face and they are marginalized even further from the debate on GM crops. Greenpeace will be the death of this movement and I will applaud them when the time comes.
|
|
|
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Technorati
Newsvine