In addition to numerous examples of Dr. Mehmet Oz promoting questionable food and health product claims, author Michael Spector highlighted a recent (October 17, 2012) broadcast titled, “GMO Foods: Are they Dangerous to your Health?” Noting Oz “was not sublet,” stating, “You’re probably eating them right now and don’t even know…” and then introduced his guest Jeffrey Smith, whom Oz identified on the show as a scientist.  Specter accurately pointed out that “Smith has no experience in genetics or agriculture, and has no scientific degree from any institution.”

Specter cited Academics Review co-founder Professor Bruce Chassy noting, “As a public-sector scientist, researcher, and academic administrator with more than forty years’ experience, I am appalled that any medical professional would give a platform to the likes of Mr. Jeffrey Smith to impart health information to the public.”

Click here to read the full New Yorker article by Michael Specter on Dr. Mehmet Oz.

Click here to read the full article on Tyrone Hayes.

Dr. Mehmet Oz has repeatedly allowed Jeffrey Smith, an activist with no scientific or medical background or other relevant credentials, to appear on his program and make claims that GMOs are somehow associated with human health and safety risks.   As Dr. Oz  and his producers have been repeatedly informed: 

• The safety of biotech-derived foods has been thoroughly addressed by the international scientific community through decades of peer reviewed, published research.
   
• U.S.  and international regulatory, science and health agencies including the Food & Drug Administration, European Food Safety Authority and the World Health Organization confirm these foods are safe.
   
• Highly respected, independent academic, science and health organizations such as the American Medical Association, the National Academies of Science and the American Dietetics Association have all confirmed these foods are safe.
   
• The health and safety claims made by Jeffrey Smith, repeatedly promoted on the Dr. Oz Show, his affiliated radio programs and websites, are without basis and refuted by extensive peer reviewed scientific and medical research.

Yet, after being clearly informed of these facts, the Dr. Oz Show aired graphic images of tumor-riddled laboratory rats and charts implying associations with the use of biotechnology crops and alleged increases in human health issues ranging from ulcerative colitis to gastrointestinal disorders.  Academic health experts, invited to appear on the program by Dr. Oz, informed the host and program producers that the graphics provided by Jeffrey Smith had no medical relevance or accuracy whatsoever and urged that they not be used. 

Viewers of this and similar Dr. Oz productions with Jeffrey Smith are being presented with highly inaccurate and irresponsible health-related advice.  That Dr. Oz Show program co-producer Lisa Oz, a collaborator and narrator for Mr. Smith’s latest video which uses these same graphics and which is being used to promote a California ballot initiative about GMOs, presents a further impression of a conflict-of-interest in the program’s promotion of Smith and these baseless safety allegations so close to the November election date.

We urge Dr. Oz to make an immediate public statement disavowing these misleading health claims promoted by his show, and we urge his program promoters, sponsors and distributors (including: Oprah Winfrey’s Harpo Studios and Sony Pictures Television Distribution) to reevaluate their continued involvement with this or any programs which promote such baseless and irresponsible health claims.

(Scroll to bottom of page to sign and view additional names and comments.)

Nina V. Fedoroff, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Evan Pugh Professor, Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Penn State University, United States
Comment: “I am particularly outraged because Dr. Oz’s producer assured me repeatedly that this show would not be structured to support the “GMOs are dangerous” scenario, but would present a scientifically defensible perspective. What a joke! My only regret is that I actually helped engage two very respected scientists, Dr. Martina Newell-McGloughlin and Dr.Alison L. Van Eenennaam in this farce. My apologies to them.” 

Wayne Parrott, PhD
College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, University of Georgia, United States

Martina Newell-McGloughlin, D.Sc.
Director, UC Systemwide Biotechnology Research and Education Program (UCBREP), Co-Director, NIH Training Program in Biomolecular Technology, Adjunct Associate Professor,  University of California Davis, United States

 Prof. Chris J Leaver, PhD, CBE, FRS, FRS
Emeritus Professor Plant Science University of Oxford, England

Peggy G. Lemaux, PhD
University of California Berkeley, United States
Comment: “This is irresponsible journalism and a disservice to the American people, raising a health specter that simply is not true.“

Bruce Chassy, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Food Science, Nutritional Sciences FSHN, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States

Ingo Potrykus, PhD
Professor emeritus, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zuerich, Switzerland

 Kent J. Bradford, PhD
Director, Seed Biotechnology Center, University of California Davis, United States

Prof. Dr. Hans-Jörg Jacobsen, PhD
Leibniz-Universität Hannover, Germany

 Prof. Atanas Atanassov, PhD
Joint Genomic Center, Sofia University, Bulgaria

Prof. Robert Wager, BSc, MA 
Microbiology, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Vancouver Island University, Canada

Henry I. Miller, MD
Robert Wesson Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, United States
Comment: “Regrettably, Dr. Oz has demonstrated yet again his inclination to embrace and promulgate New Age nescience.  He is a fraud and a huckster, a Jeffrey Smith with a stethoscope.”

Piero Morandini, PhD
Assistant professor in Plant Physiology, Lecturer in Plant Biotecnology Dept. of BioScience, University of Milan, Italy
Comment: “The graphics are of the ‘Stork type.’  In the late ’50s the stork population was declining in Germany and the same was true for the human population. The conclusion for some people was then that grandma was right, storks bring babies! Even if there is any time coincidence between two phenomena, this does not mean that one causes the other.  The graphs are also highly misleading since the vast majority of genetically engineered plants are used as feed and not for food. Claiming that they cause an increase in all the mentioned illnesses in some indirect way is nonsense.”

Jonathon Harrington, BSc, Chartered Biologist & Farmer
Wales, United Kingdom

Maria Mercedes Roca, PhD
Plant Pathologist, Biosafety Program, Department of Environmental and Development Studies, Zamorano University,  Honduras

Drew L. Kershen, J.D., LL.M
Earl Sneed Centennial Professor of Law (Emeritus), University of Oklahoma, College of Law, United States

Luis Destefano Beltrán, Ph.D
Professor, Genomics Research Unit, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Perú

Professor Malcolm Elliott, BSc, PhD, DSc, CBiol, FSB
Norman Borlaug Institute for Global Food Security, United Kingdom

Steven H. Strauss, PhD
Distinguished Professor, Oregon State University, United States 
Comment:  ”Dr. Oz needs to distance himself from outrageous charlatans such as Smith. It will undermine his credibility, and thus the value and trust in other information he presents. This would be a piety as he often presents good, highly valued health information.”

Gilbert L. Ross, MD
American Council on Science & Health, United States
Comment “As medical and executive director of the American Council on Science and Health, a consumer education nonprofit devoted to sound-science based public health policy, I would like to sign the petition for myself and for ACSH as well. acsh.org“

Prof. Jonathan Gressel
Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
Comment: “The rats shown on the Oz show are a strain that has a very high incidence of cancer, and would have developed the same proportion of cancers no matter what fed – including organic food and herbal teas, or whatever.  If Dr Oz is a competent medical practitioner, he surely should have known that. “

Professor Alan McHughen, D.Phil.
University of California Riverside, United States

Tony Shelton, PhD
Professor Department of Entomology, International Professor; Associate Director International Programs, Cornell University, United States

 C.S. Prakash, PhD
Professor, Tuskegee University, United States

Rakha Hari Sarker, PhD
Professor, Department of Botany, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh

L Val Giddings PhD.
Senior Fellow Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Washington, DC.  United States

 Dr. William J. Price
Statistician, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, United States

Steven  N. Blair, Professor
Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, United States
Comment: “I am very concerned with the growing amount of ‘false science’ promoted via the popular media. We need higher standards.”

Elizabeth Hodson de J. Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Colombia

Professor Anthony Trewavas Ph.D. FRS.
University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Comment: “Unfortunately the world is full of opinionated people who do not have either the qualifications or understanding to make any sensible comment on food or food technology. To ask Jeffrey Smith about food is as about as useful as asking the meat counter employee in the supermarket how to conduct a detailed heart operation.”

David Tribe, Ph.D.
Senior Lecturer in Food Microbiology and Safety, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Comment: “Healthy food decisions very important to us all. It is unfair to ordinary Americans to have a TV program that mentions misleading, badly designed and wrongly interpreted experiments on rats as if they were good health advice. Film directors are not qualified health advisers either. The American public deserve much better than Dr Oz gives them on this program. “

Camille (Cami) D. Ryan, B.Comm., Ph.D.
College of Agriculture and Bioresources, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

Kevin M. Folta, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Asst. Director, Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program, University of Florida, United States
Comment: “There’s an oath somewhere that says, “Do no harm”. Perpetuation of misinformation from profiteering, scare-mongering, non-scientific authors harms the advancement of applied science and ultimately harms the people that need science the most.“

L. Curtis Hannah, PhD,
Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology Program, University of Florida, United States
Comment: “Foods, like people, should be judged by their intrinsic merits and not their genetic origin.”

Meghan Wulster-Radcliffe, PhD
CEO, American Society of Animal Science, United States

Robert Stone, BSA UofS Saskatoon SK
Stone Farms, Davidson Sk., Canada

Neal Carter, P.Eng
Comment: “I have worked around the globe for ~30 years as a bioresource engineer, which has given me a first-hand look at the value of biotechnology and the challenges it can help to overcome. As president and founder of an agriculture biotechnology company, I am painfully aware of the lack of public understanding of biotech foods. One of the main reasons for this lack of knowledge is the misinformation propagated by influential individuals that consumers trust, like Dr. Oz. It is extremely unfortunate when consumers turn to “health experts” for advice and instead are given misleading information based on pseudoscience that has been refuted by nearly all reputable scientific bodies. If Dr. Oz truly is concerned with providing his followers with reputable health advice, he will focus on the scientific evidence and, like the AMA, WHO, UN FAO and many more, will acknowledge that approved biotech foods are just as healthy and safe as their conventional counterparts.“

Leah McGrath – RD, LDN
Comment: “Thank you. This only confirms my fears about Dr. Oz. It’s unfortunate that he has become so widely watched when he promotes no or bad science. This type of tabloid TV attracts and alarms many needlessly.“

Gary B. Anderson, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, United States

Josephine Trott, PhD
Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, United States
Comment: “GMO foods have decades of sound scientific research behind them to prove they are perfectly safe. Scare mongering based on shoddy science is not a public service and any medical professional should be smart enough to know that.”

Juan F. Medrano, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, United States

Alex Murdoch, B.Sc., CPHI(C)
Certified Public Health Inspector, Canada

Ralph A. Ernst, PHD
Retired Extension Poultry Specialist, University of California, Davis, United States

James D. Murray, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Animal Science, Department of Population Health and Reproduction, Chair, Animal Biology Graduate Group, University of California, Davis CA, United States

Gary B. Anderson, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, United States

Alan B. Bennett, Ph.D.
Professor, University of California, Davis, United States

Dr. Shanthu Shantharam
Professor of Seed Technology and Biosafety Institute for the Genetically Modified Agricultural Products, Iowa State University, United States
Comment: “Formerly, Branch Chief of the Biotechnology Regulatory Services, USDA-APHIS, Riverdale, MD, USA. Taught Agbiotech Policy Development and Analysis at Princeton University and Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok.“

Prof. em. Klaus Ammann
Steering Committee Public Research and Regulation Initiative, University of Bern, Switzerland
Comment: “It is time to stop this kind of misinformation ignoring science, it’s a new kind of analphabetism by just following hearsay information.”

Mark Cantley, BA (Cantab, mathematics), MSc, Dip Operational Research (London School of Economics), CDipAF (Accounting and Finance), United Kingdom
Comment: “Currently retired. Previously head of the Concertation Unit for Biotechnology in Europe (CUBE) in the Directorate-General for Research, European Commission, 1978-1992, and 1999-2005; and of the Operational Research group in the Management and Technology Unit at OECD, Paris, 1993-1998).Our Unit in the EC fought against regulatory follies on biotechnology, from 1979 to 1992; losing the battle with the envirocrats at European and national levels. Our unit was closed. Sunt lacrimae rerum – it would make you weep.“

Prof. Dr. Klaus-Dieter Jany
Professor for Biochemistry and Biology, Germany
Former director of the Centre for Molecular Biology at the Federal Research Centre for Nutrition and Food, Karlsruhe (Germany)

Allen Van Deynze, Ph.D.
University of California, Davis, United States
Comment: “It is concerning that someone who claims to be a trained medical practicioner does not have the scientific scrutiny to question the facts before publicizing them. A disservice to his audience making one question the rest of his claims.“

Raman Meenakshi Sundaram, PhD, Sr. Scientist (Crop Improvement)
Directorate of Rice Research, Hyderabad, India

Professor Selim Cetiner, Ph. D.
Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey

Professor Vivian Moses
Emeritus Professor of Microbiology, Queen Mary College, University of London, United Kingdom

Thomas R. DeGregori, Ph.D
Professor of Economics, University of Houston, United States

Alan Conley, BVSc, MS, PhD
Professor, Department of Population Health & Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis CA United States

Alan B. Bennett, Ph.D.
Professor, University of California, Davis, United States

Robert Wager B.Sc., M.Sc.
Vancouver Island University, Nanaimo BC Canada

Alan Conley, BVSc, MS, PhD
Professor, Department of Population Health & Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis CA United States

Joe Kamalay, PhD
University of Missouri, St. Louis, United States

Dr. S.M. Balachandran
Principal Scientist (Biotechnology), Directorate of Rice Research, Hyderabad, India
Comment: “It is unfortunate that this sort of malicious reports are being tolerated by genuine scientifc community. As socially responsible scientists, we must join together to thwart any attempt to subvert the scientific truth about GM foods which can help feed millions of people.”

Felix M’mboyi, Ph.D.
Environmental Resources Management Centre for Sustainable Development, Nairobi, Kenya [Deputy Director],  St Paul’s University [Adjunct Senior Lecturer], Consortium for Economic Research and Development Studies, CERDS Consult [CEO], Consortium for Commercialization of GM Crops in Kenya [Member/Advisor], Kenya
Comment: “I am a Deputy Director at the Environmental Resources Management Centre for Sustainable Development and also a Chief Coordinating member of the Consortium for Commercialization of GM Crops in Kenya. Here in Africa, we have viewed Dr Oz programme as an insult to the intelligence of the scientific community. In our recent meeting in Nairobi Kenya, stakeholders from East Africa felt aggrieved by Dr Oz Programme given that biotechnology and especially GM crops give the best promise for reducing incidences of food insecurity and low productivity on our continent. In fact stakeholders from across the divide including relevant government agencies that regulate GM crops activities were of the view that Dr Oz programme would not have any significant impact on the resolve of governments in the region to embrace biotechnology for food production, income generation and reduction of poverty amongst Africans.”

Elizabeth Maga, PhD
Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, United States

Professor Eduardo Blumwald
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, United States

Jason Schneiderman Ph.D.
Fellow, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, United States
Comment: “This, like many of Dr. Oz’s reports, is a case of false balance.”

K. K. Narayanan, PhD
Metahelix Life Sciences, Bangalore, India
Comment: “Misleading the lay public about a technology which can potentially address the problems of the poor is totally irresponsible. The half-truths and patently false assertions made in the television program has to be exposed.”

J. Scott Vernon, Ph.D.
Professor of Agricultural Communication, California Polytechnic State University
Comment: “Dr. Oz should reevaluate his code of ethics.“

Joseph G Dickenson BSc (Agr)
Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Ontario, Canada

James Moller
UC Davis Animal Science

Kellie Bauman BSc, MSc, Animal Sciences
Quality Assurance, Food Safety

Mark Walton, Ph.D.
CMO, Recombinetics

Professor Vivian Moses
Emeritus Professor of Microbiology, Queen Mary, University of London

To add you name please use comment form below and include your credentials (e.g., PhD, MD, BSc, etc…) and include any appropriate affiliation you would like listed along with any comments you would like to share.

Greg Tufaro, producer
Brook Jacobsen, producer
Dr. Oz Show
Zoco Productions, LLC/ Harpo Studios
110 N. Carpenter Street
Chicago, IL 60607

Dear Greg and Brook:

I am following up on my conversations and previous correspondence with you regarding the plans by the Dr. Oz Show to air health and safety claims by Jeffrey Smith about agricultural biotechnology (GMOs) and food issues. As discussed, I was unable to participate in your program due to a family conflict. After consulting with other colleagues who were similarly approached by you and those who did participate, however, I am compelled to again voice my concerns regarding the potential violation by Dr. Oz of medical ethics and high risk of misrepresentation of human health information by Dr. Oz, Zoco Productions and Oprah Winfrey’s Harpo Studios on this issue.

As a public sector scientist, researcher and academic administrator with more than 40 years experience, I am appalled that any medical professional would give a platform to the likes of Mr. Jeffrey Smith to impart health information to the public. Mr. Smith has no accredited or formal education in any health, nutrition, or other related science fields. Research into Mr. Smith’s credentials reveals that his only professional experience prior to taking up his crusade against biotechnology is as a ballroom dance teacher, yogic flying instructor and political candidate for the Maharishi cult’s natural law party. The fact that Mr. Smith was even allowed to appear on stage on a nationally broadcast television health-oriented program is hard to believe; hearing from my colleagues who did participate that Dr. Oz referred to Smith as a “scientist” during the program taping is an egregious misrepresentation.

Simply put, Mr. Smith’s health, environmental and safety claims about biotechnology have no basis whatsoever in medicine or science. Thousands of published and peer reviewed studies conducted over the past thirty-plus years contradict his claims and bizarre hypotheses associating health dangers linked to foods derived using biotechnology production methods. This is corroborated by such respected scientific and medical authorities as the American Medical Association, World Health Organization with the Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Institute for Food Technologists and the American Dietetic Association. Regulatory bodies including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and Food Safety Commission of Japan (FSCJ) all confirm this safety.

Further, our correspondence and conversations, as well as those you had with other academic colleagues who were invited to participate, suggests you engaged in questionable and misleading tactics to secure our participation on your show. When we raised concerns about past treatment of academic participants discussing biotechnology on the Dr. Oz show, you stated “I understand the suspicion and the reservations any scientist would have after the last go-round. My best assurance can only come from the fact that producing a show in that vein isn’t something I agree with at all. That producer is no longer with us. I’m not into producing surprises or blindsiding anybody…” Yet, neither you nor Ms. Jacobsen disclosed that Lisa Oz, the show’s co-producer and wife of Dr. Oz, was the narrator for Mr. Smith’s video attacking biotechnology and an active campaigner for the Proposition 37 efforts in California.

As to you assurances that there would be no surprises or “bait-and-switch” tactics involved, I was informed that “deals were cut” between Dr. Oz and other participants like Organic Valley CEO Gary Hirshberg to prevent the scientists from fully participating in the program. These back-room deals caused changes to the described format for the interviews as laid out by you in advance of the program. Yet, apparently Mr. Hirshberg objected to appearing side-by-side with actual scientists as he made his claims but was allowed to remain on stage while they made their rebuttals. Further, Dr. Oz allowed Mr. Smith to re-tape his segment after the scientists spoke in response to his segment’s initial taping and after they had left the program.

You assured me and the other invited participants that the show was interested in a fair hearing of views from all sides with no pre-judged conclusions. Yet, I also learned that Dr. Oz practiced a pre-scripted conclusion to the program warning viewers to avoid the risks of GMOs by purchasing only organic foods prior to interviewing the scientists and hearing both sides. Similarly, during the taping of the Dr. Oz Show you incorporated graphics provided by Jeffrey Smith implying correlated health risks with the use of biotechnology crops that are simply not based in any medical science or study. These graphics are crude and inaccurate representation which will mislead people to believe biotechnology crops are associated with these diseases – the very same representation could be done showing, for example, that as viewership for the Dr. Oz show rose so did incidents of these diseases, suggesting watching your show is a health risk. Neither is of course true. Biotechnology crops are as safe, if not safer, than their conventional and organic counterparts.

All of this would lead any reasonable person to believe your representations were disingenuous and that this show was orchestrated theater on behalf of Mr. Smith and the Proposition 37 campaign. Since Mr. Smith and his collaborator, Dr. Oz show co-producer Lisa Oz, are active proponents behind the Proposition 37 California Ballot Initiative, the program you intend to air on the Fox network prior to the November 6, 2012 election appears by all manners to be an orchestrated and essentially in-kind donation of a free campaign commercial for this initiative. Worse, Dr. Oz will be amplifying thoroughly debunked and potentially dangerous nutrition and health-related advice to his viewing audience.

Your assurances and the tactics of the Dr. Oz show fall short of even the lowest standards of media and medical ethics.

Sincerely,

Bruce Chassy, PhD
Professor Emeritus, Department of Food Science & Nutrition
University of Illinois

CC:

Bill Becker, General Counsel
Harpo Studios
110 N. Carpenter St.
Chicago, IL 60607

Michael Angus, Executive Vice President & General Counsel
Fox Broadcasting
2121 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Zackery P. Morazzini, General Counsel
California Fair Political Practices Commission
428 J Street, Suite 620
Sacramento, CA 95814

Gary Schwitzer, Publisher Health News Review
The California Endowment Health Journalism Fellowships
USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
The Alhambra, 1000 South Fremont Avenue, Unit 83, Building A-0, Office 0204
Alhambra, CA 91803Bruce M. Chassy, PhD

“With this post we depart from our usual practice of restricting the scope of this site to peer review of unreviewed science claims and critical analysis of poorly peer-reviewed scientific papers to publish this editorial.  The Editors of AcademicsReview.org (Tribe & Chassy) have taken this step in response to the gross violation not only of scientific standards (i.e., proper experimental design and analysis) but of scientific ethics, animal welfare standards, and journalistic ethics of which Seralini, his co-authors, the journal editors, and publisher are objectively guilty.  The code of scientific ethics clearly states that scientists who do not report misconduct are guilty of misconduct.  A peer reviewed analysis of the paper itself will be forthcoming.”

Scientists smell a rat in fraudulent study

by Henry I. Miller and Bruce Chassy (as published by Forbes Magazine)

Last week French microbiologist Gilles-Eric Séralini and his colleagues released the results of a long-term study in which rats were fed genetically engineered (AKA genetically modified, “GM”) corn that contains enhanced resistance to insects and/or the herbicide glyphosate. They took the unprecedented step of pre-releasing the paper to selected media outlets under an embargo on the condition that they sign a non-disclosure agreement. (That prevented the journalists from seeking expert opinions on the article.) At a carefully orchestrated media event they then announced that their long-term studies found that the rats in experimental groups developed tumors at an alarming rate. Within hours news of their “discovery” echoed around the world. As we say today, the story went “viral.”

But there is both more and less to this story than meets the eye.

Who is Professor Séralini and how did he make this shocking discovery which conflicts with decades of research and extensive worldwide use of genetically engineered crops? Whom should non-experts believe? Is there now evidence that suggests that genetically engineered crops are dangerous?

To answer those questions we need to roll the clock back a few months. In a Forbes.com article earlier this year, we speculated that Séralini was a scientist less guilty of actually fudging data to get the desired answer than of performing poorly designed experiments and grossly misrepresenting the results. Séralini has made a specialty of methodologically flawed, irrelevant, uninterpretable — but over-interpreted — experiments intended to demonstrate harm from genetically engineered plants and the herbicide glyphosate in various highly contrived scenarios.

The experiment we wrote about purported to show toxicity in vitro to a line of cultured embryonic kidney cells exposed to two proteins commonly incorporated into many varieties of corn, soybean and cotton to enhance insect-resistance. As we discussed, because the experiment was so poorly conceived, any result would have been meaningless.

We were mistaken about Séralini. The experiments reported last week show that he has crossed the line by committing gross scientific misconduct and attempted fraud.

Séralini claimed that his experiments found harmful effects, including a high incidence of tumors, in laboratory rats fed genetically modified corn and/or water spiked with the commonly used herbicide, glyphosate. The treatments lasted for two years.

There is so much wrong with the experimental design that the conclusion is inescapable that the investigators intended to get a spurious, preordained result. Here are a few of the criticisms that have been raised by the scientific community:

– the investigators used a strain of rats that were bred to develop tumors as they aged (a detail they failed to disclose). Significantly, mortality rates and tumor incidence in all experimental groups fall within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats. Therefore, the claim that the genetically engineered corn component of the diet or herbicide caused the tumors is insupportable.

– Séralini et al. argue that the exceedingly long time-frame of their study was necessary to reveal the experimental effects, but animal researchers long ago established that such lengthy studies add no additional meaningful or valid information beyond that which can be collected in shorter times.

– there is no documentation of the rats’ food intake, which strongly affects the incidence of tumors in this strain;

– the experiment included 180 rats (9 groups of 20) fed the genetically engineered or herbicide-containing diets (the “treated rats”), while only 20 rats were fed a standard (control) diet. Both common sense and a rudimentary understanding of statistics tell you that even if there were no actual differences between the groups, the greater numbers of animals in the pooled treated groups increases the odds that one of the treated rats would die first (one of the parameters reported in the paper);

– the statistical methods employed were unconventional and appeared to be selected specifically in order to give a certain result. Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King’s College London, called the treatment of data “a statistical fishing trip”;

– absence of statistical analysis for mortality or tumor incidence. Statistical analysis is basic, and given that the claims of the study allege tumor and mortality effects, omission of statistical analysis is telling;

– the investigators have refused to release all the data from the experiment, which is scientific misconduct;

– insufficient information about the source and quality of corn varieties used in the rats’ diet (contamination with molds could be a critical factor);

– absence of data concerning liver or kidney histopathology and liver function tests;

– insufficient explanation of the absence of a dose-response relationship between the experimental variables and supposed effects;

– inappropriate, unnecessary suffering of the rats, which should have been euthanized long before the tumors became so huge – an especially egregious ethics violation given that the study is, in any case, worthless.

– the reported results conflict with innumerable experiments conducted by innumerable labs around the world on both genetically engineered corn and glyphosate, and also with vast real-world experience.

Finally, the authors wrongly claim that they have no conflicts of interest. Séralini is president of the scientific board of a self-described anti-genetic engineering NGO which apparently is hosted by his laboratory; he has a long and sordid history of anti-genetic engineering and anti-agricultural chemicals activism; and his research is funded by two large, “GM-free” French supermarket chains, purveyors of organic and homeopathic products, and perhaps other undisclosed parties who stand to profit from the smear campaign against genetically engineered foods.

It also deserves mention that the publication of this article represents an abject failure of peer-review and editorial competence at Food and Chemical Toxicology, the journal in which it appeared. The honorable course of action for the journal would be to retract the paper immediately – a point on which the editors have thus far been silent.

An obvious question is why Séralini would publish such obviously shoddy studies. The answer may be that negative headline stories laden with color pictures of rats with grotesque tumors are not easily forgotten even if the studies are fraudulent. Also, it may be hard for the non-expert to ignore the reported differences between control and experimental groups, and many non-experts will probably believe that where there is smoke, there is fire even if there are flaws in the experiment. But scientists understand that if the design, execution, or analysis of a study is fundamentally flawed, any conclusions are disqualified.

There is no question that the publication of Seralini’s latest attack on genetically engineered foods was a well-planned and cleverly orchestrated media event. The study was designed to produce exactly the false result that was observed and was deliberately allowed to continue until large, grotesque tumors developed. The conduct of the study, including the treatment of the animals, raises serious ethical concerns and questions of scientific misconduct.

In the past Seralini and other anti-genetic engineering activists have played the media like a fiddle, but this time even journalists usually willing to trade accuracy and integrity for an “if it bleeds, it leads” story, were skeptical of Seralini’s claims. Maybe we have reached a turning point where the media will finally realize that they have been played for years by expert professional con-men.

Not only was there never any plausible scientific reason to believe that genetically engineered crops posed risks any different from other crops, but hundreds of risk-assessment experiments and vast cultivation and consumption of them provides a high level of confidence about their safety and usefulness.

Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the Office of Biotechnology at the FDA. Bruce M. Chassy, a biochemist and molecular biologist, is former head of the Department of Food Science and Nutrition at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is now Professor Emeritus of Food Science.

These short videos feature biotechnology experts from a variety of disciplines speaking about the economic, environmental, and human sustainability of genetically engineered foods and crops. These videos were produced with the assistance of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and include commentary from:

• University of Illinois professor and Academics Review co-founder Bruce Chassy
• University of California at Davis professor Martina Newell McGloughlin
• Iowa State University professor and Agricultural Research Service entomologist Richard Hellmich
• University of Georgia professor Wayne Parrott

View these videos at our multimedia gallery, or visit our Youtube Channel.

Contacts:
Prof. Bruce Chassy
University of Illinois
chassy.ar@gmail.com
217-766-2750

Dr. David Tribe
University of Melbourne (Australia)
dtribe.ar@gmail.com

CHAMPAIGN, Illinois, and MELBOURNE, Australia – Two food science and biology academics are launching a new Web site, Academics Review, to examine claims against GM foods by Jeffrey Smith.

Founders Bruce Chassy, Ph.D, professor of food microbiology and nutritional sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Dr. David Tribe, Ph. D., senior lecturer in food science, food safety, biotechnology and microbiology at the University of Melbourne, Australia, authored a point-by-point scientific analysis of Smith’s claims, which is posted on the site.

“Reliable information is extremely important to enable people to make healthy choices,” said Tribe. “We hope Academics Review will be a resource for anyone who respects the open-minded search for truth that is the basis for scientific thinking.”

Chassy and Tribe point out anyone searching the Internet for information to help them decide on the safety of GM foods would likely find a lot by Jeffrey Smith, who, like many people pushing advice online, isn’t an expert on the issue.

“Much of the ‘evidence’ Smith cites for his theories about GM foods has never been peer-reviewed or examined by the international community of scientists for verification,” said Chassy.

Chassy and Tribe applied the same scientific method they teach their students to Smith’s claims, posting the blistering results of their review of Genetic Roulette in clear, understandable language. The site can be accessed for free by anyone seeking to base their decisions on the best information available.

“When Wendell Phillips in 1852 said ‘Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,’ he may as well have been referring to Jeffrey Smith,” said Chassy. “We all have to be vigilant about what to believe, especially when it comes to our health.”

Researchers, teachers, and other credentialed professionals in a range of scientific fields are welcome to apply to join Academics Review as participating members, and are invited to visit the Web site for more information. “Over time, additional content will be added to the site to help people access sound science about a variety of issues that affect their lives,” Chassy and Tribe said

About Academics Review

Academics Review is an association of academic professors, researchers, teachers and credentialed authors who are committed to the unsurpassed value of the peer review in establishing sound science. They stand against falsehoods, half-baked assertions and theories or claims not subjected to this kind of rigorous review. Researchers, teachers, and other credentialed professionals in a range of scientific fields are welcome to apply to join Academics Review as participating members. More information available at:

academicsreview.org/
www.facebook.com/pages/Academics-Review/315320749443
twitter.com/academicsreview
www.flickr.com/photos/academicsreview/

By Professors Bruce Chassy, Ph.D.,  and David Tribe, Ph.D.

The safety of food components obtained from genetically modified crops is part of a much bigger issue of food safety. Food safety is a complex but fascinating topic to discuss, because food is itself is both chemically very complicated and absolutely essential for human survival. Food’s wonderful flavors, colors and aromas all come from an extraordinarily large chemical palette that we all delight in savoring when taking a delicious mouthful.

Any particular food component such as a fruit, vegetable or spice may contain hundreds of different chemical compounds. The food we eat can be contaminated by many different natural toxic chemicals, artificial chemicals, and disease-causing organisms. These are the sources of most of the risks we face when we eat food.

It is important to keep a sense of proportion when thinking about the safety of genetically modified food, because wasting our attention on risks that are minuscule will distract us from the important job of keeping our communities free from the most likely sources of food-based harm globally, such as these:

• Disease-causing microbes
• Dietary shortages of vitamins and minerals such as iron
• A lack of access to food, leading to starvation and malnutrition

Scientists are using genetic manipulation of crops in an attempt to prevent much of this harm.

Food scientists have given, and continue to give on a daily basis, lots of attention to managing food hazards.  There is a considerable body of expert knowledge about food risks (e.g, Adams and Moss 2008, Kotsonis and Burdock 2008, Murano 2003, Omaye 2004 ). A top priority is to make sure the public is protected from infectious agents such as food-borne viruses and bacteria that, taken together, are the No. 1 source of food-borne illness.  Experts believe that food-borne illness may make more than one billion people ill every year, and causes the deaths of millions.

Because large numbers of people can be affected by illness – such as diarrhea, which can spread widely in the commercial food chain – attention to ensuring the absence of pathogenic bacteria such as E. coli 0157 and Salmonella in commercially produced produce is one of the more important food-safety priorities. Unfortunately, there have been large outbreaks of food-borne disease caused by hamburger patties, spinach, peanuts and tomatoes contaminated with disease-causing bacteria in recent years, and tragically, too many deaths caused by inattention to food microbe-related safety.

Contamination of fish and meat with parasites, or grains with mold toxins, are also significant food health hazards. A large portion of the liver, kidney and esophageal cancer in the world, as well as many birth defects and organ failures, can be traced directly to natural toxicants in our foods.  These are produced by molds that grow naturally on our food if we do not prevent them from doing so. It has been concluded that the impact of naturally occurring mycotoxins (mold toxins) has been greatly underestimated and that these compounds may be adversely affecting large numbers of people each year (Wild and Gong 2010).

The safety of chemicals present naturally in foods or applied as additives is also a complicated and challenging issue. This is because the average diet contains literally hundreds of thousands of different types of chemical substances. Some of these natural plant chemicals are toxic because they are natural pesticides that are produced by plants themselves to protect them against insects and other animals that want to eat them.

Millions of years ago, plants began to compensate for their inability to flee from predators (in this case, herbivores) by adapting to contain compounds that would discourage them from being eaten.  This is probably why many vegetables and fruits such as cassava, bitter almonds, cherry and apple contain the deadly poison cyanide. Many members of the pea family of plants contain other toxic chemicals. One of them, grass pea (Lathrus sativus) is an important food source in India and Ethiopia, but consumption of this food for long periods gives rise to the dreadful nerve and muscle disease known as lathyrism.  Interestingly, human’s aversion to bitter tastes also probably evolved as a defense mechanism since the bitter components of food are very often toxic.

Because of these basic realities of food complexity and the natural presence of potential hazards, assurance of food safety is not a black-and-white issue. It is complicated still further by the fact that one organisms’ poison (like theobromine to dogs) can be another’s delight (put another way, chocolate).  It is not possible to give absolute assurance of safe food and to guarantee absence of any chemicals that are potentially able to cause harm. It is important to remember that any chemical can cause harm if it is present in excessive quantities; even relatively harmless chemicals such as water, table salt, or baking soda, if taken excessively, can cause death.

As the ancient poison expert (and the father of the science of poisons, toxicology), Paracelsus (1493 to 1541) said: “What is there that is not a poison? All things are poison and nothing without poison. Solely the dose determines that a thing is not a poison.” This applies directly to the chemicals found in foods. The dose makes the poison, and our daily diet contains many poisons naturally present in doses that are usually below the level that causes harm.

This background level of chemical exposure is unavoidable.  For example, 99 percent of all the pesticides in our diets are natural chemicals produced by plants, and 99 percent of the carcinogens in our diets are also chemicals found  naturally in foods.

Microbiologists know that foods can harbor food pathogens.  The harvesting of food from soil or from the sea is subject to the uncertainties of natural events that make attaining absolute safety impossible—put another way, when it comes to food, there is no such thing as zero risk.

Regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) provide systems and laws that are able to keep these infectious-disease problems under control if food-safety systems are properly followed by food companies, food retail outlets, and families. Food safety depends upon implementing a proactive risk-management plan, using good manufacturing practices and standards, and in many cases, working out that the food is safe by balancing a lot of different sources of evidence.

If food safety required elimination of every compound that might, under some circumstances, cause harm, virtually no food would be declared fit for consumption. In practice then, food safety is a balancing act of making sure that new foods are at least as safe as what we eat already—without requiring guarantees of absolute safety in all circumstances. This is the approach scientists use when determining the safety of our food supply. It is also the approach food scientists and safety specialists use when determining the safety of genetically modified foods: Are they at least as safe as what we already eat?

Applying these standards, the record shows that crops and foods produced through biotechnology have been scrutinized for safety – in advance, in depth and in detail – more than any other foods in human history.  Their remarkable record of safety reflects the conclusion of expert bodies around the world that have considered this issue and found, as the European Commission did, that:

Indeed, the use of more precise technology and greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods; and if there are unforeseen environmental effects – none have appeared as yet – these should be rapidly detected by our monitoring requirements. On the other hand, the benefits of these plants and products for human health and the environment become increasingly clear.

–European Commission, Press Release of Oct. 8, 2001, announcing the release of a 15-year study

References

Adams MR and Moss MO (2008) Food Microbiology 3rd Ed. RSC Publishing UK. An excellent overview of food microbes and food borne infectious diseases.

Kotsonis FN and Burdock GA  (2008) Food toxicology, Chapter 30 in Casarett & Doull’s Toxicology. Ed. CD Klaassen, McGraw Hill Medical, USA. An advanced, authoritative and concise review of current knowledge on food toxicity. This chapter provides good access to the scientific research literature.

Murano PS (2003) Understanding Food Science and Technology, Thomson. A college level general course on food technology with chapters devoted to food safety issues.

Omaye ST (2004) Food and Nutritional Toxicology CRC Press. A readable but comprehensive coverage at advanced college level of the diverse chemicals present in food that may cause harm. Omaye’s book explains the major concepts needed to understand food borne intoxification, safety management, and government regulation.

Wild CP Gong YY (2010) Mycotoxins and human disease: a largely ignored global health issue.  Carcinogenesis vol.31 no.1 pp.71–82, 2010; doi:10.1093/carcin/bgp264; Advance Access publication October 29, 2009.