alliance for science
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">11/21 ggl search like 1/2 news results were afs?!</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font><div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><a href="https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/06/european-studies-disprove-seralinis-gmo-maize-tumor-claims/"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/06/european-studies-disprove-seralinis-gmo-maize-tumor-claims/</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>june 2018</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 30px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Three European studies have disproved Gilles-Éric<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"> Séralini’</span>s widely circulated claims that genetically modified maize (corn) induces tumors in rats.</b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 30px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Séralini, a professor at the University of Caen, published his sensational claims in Food and Chemical Toxicology in September 2012, and used them to call for long-term GMO feeding studies. Though the publication later retracted his study, anti-GMO groups have continued to circulate Séralini’s conclusions in a bid to stoke fears about the safety of GM foods.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 30px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Now three studies — GRACE and G-TwYST, funded by the European Union, and GMO90+ in France — have refuted Séralini’s main conclusions about the toxicity of herbicide-tolerant (Roundup Ready) maize.</span>The research — conducted to address concerns raised by the Seralini study and provide the EU with guidance on the need for long-term studies — identified no potential risk from the product.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 30px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“European consumers must be informed of the results of these studies, [which] should reassure them on the quality for their health of genetically modified plants authorized for commercialization and on the European evaluation procedure, already the most rigorous in the world,” the<b> French Association of Plant Biotechnology (AFBV)</b> stated. “In addition, these new studies contradict Seralini’s proposal on the need to carry out long-term studies.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 30px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The EU requires applicants to conduct a 90-day feeding assessment study on whole GMO food/feed before it can be placed on the market. The original assessment conducted for herbicide-tolerant maize identified no potential risk to humans.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 30px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“The G-TwYST (GM Plant Two Year Safety Testing) data from 90-day and long-term rodent feeding studies did not identify potential risks as well, and therefore support the results from the initial analyses,” according to the study’s <a href="https://www.g-twyst.eu/files/Conclusions-Recommendations/GTwYSTConclusionsandrecommendations-final.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 30px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold; position: relative; text-decoration-line: none;">conclusions and recommendation’s document</a>, which was presented at an[UNNAMED?] April 29, 2018 conference in Bratislava, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Slovaki.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 30px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“It was concluded that there were no adverse effects related to the administration of the GM maize NK603 cultivated with or without Roundup,” the report stated.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 30px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The research included a combined chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study, and “no toxicologically relevant effects related to the GM maize NK603 or the GM maize NK603 treated with Roundup were observed,” the report stated.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 30px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The GRACE (GMO Risk Assessment and Communication of Evidence) study conducted two 90-day feeding trials on rats using two different varieties of maize genetically modified to resist insect pests and tolerate glyphosate. “The results showed that the two GM maize varieties tested did not trigger any negative effects in the trial animals,” according to <a href="http://www.grace-fp7.eu/content/eu-research-project-grace-publishes-first-study-findings" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 30px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold; position: relative; text-decoration-line: none;">a report on the findings.</a></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 30px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Additionally, data showed the GM maize did not affect the immune functions tested in both of the 90-day studies.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 30px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The GRACE study was published in <a href="http://www.grace-fp7.eu/sites/default/files/GRACE-FeedingTrials_AB_ArchToxicol_2014.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 30px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold; position: relative; text-decoration-line: none;">Archives of Toxicology</a>.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 30px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The <a href="http://www.recherche-riskogm.fr/sites/default/files/projets/2015_02_13_gmo90plus_en_ligne.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 30px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold; position: relative; text-decoration-line: none;">GMO90+ study</a> also assessed the Bt maize, using a 180-day feeding trial, and found no negative effects on the rodents.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 30px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In addition to addressing concerns raised by the Séralini study, the research was intended to provide the EU with guidance whether it’s necessary to conduct a two-year carcinogenicity feeding trial on rats with whole food/feed. “The necessity to perform a feeding trial with whole food/feed should be carefully evaluated given the high number of animals needed,” the G-TwYST report concluded.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 30px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Due to the controversial nature of the research, “substantial efforts were made to ensure stakeholder engagement, transparency and data accessibility,” the G-TwYST report stated. “These included stakeholder engagement in both project plans and results; making available draft research plans and preliminary research results (all data produced) for stakeholder scrutiny; a procedure for discussing, systematically considering and responding to all stakeholder comments as well as tracking how the comments were considered in the project; detailed documentation and transparency of all steps; open access publications, and an open access repository for raw data to be available following academic publication of the results. The approach received high praising from the majority of stakeholder participants.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 30px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The report further noted: “These challenges and the considerable resources and efforts needed do not suggest this approach to be used on a routine basis. Yet, in case of highly contested scientific-technical issues and polarized views, the approach remains an interesting option to improve the quality and social robustness of research.”</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; line-height: 30px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The results from the experiments are now published on <a href="https://www.enviscope.com/" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 30px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold; position: relative; text-decoration-line: none;">envision.com</a>.</font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18310-eu-funded-rat-feeding-studies-do-not-refute-seralini-study"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18310-eu-funded-rat-feeding-studies-do-not-refute-seralini-study</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">9/18</font></div><div><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pro-GMO lobby groups have been caught misrepresenting EU studies to claim they "disprove" the findings of harm in the Séralini study</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Two pro-GMO lobby groups, the <a href="https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/06/european-studies-disprove-seralinis-gmo-maize-tumor-claims/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">Alliance for Science</a> and the AFBV (<a href="http://www.biotechnologies-vegetales.com/3-expertises-invalident-letude-seralini-sur-les-mais-ogm" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">l’Association Française des Biotechnologies Végétales</a>) in France, are frantically busy trying to spin the results of EU-funded rat feeding studies with GM crops. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">These groups claim that the EU studies' findings disprove the findings of the Séralini </span><a href="http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14/abstract" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">study</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> that the GM maize NK603 and the glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide it is engineered to tolerate caused adverse health impacts in rats. The Alliance's headline was "European studies disprove Séralini’s GMO maize tumor claims", while the AFBV's was "Three studies disprove the results of the Séralini study on GM maize".</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The AFBV declared that the EU studies "refute the main conclusions drawn from the Séralini studies [sic.] on the toxicity of the analyzed GMO maize: no potential risk has been identified. In addition, these new studies contradict Séralini's proposal on the need to carry out long-term studies."</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The lobbying efforts concern the EU-funded feeding study programmes known as GRACE and G-TwYST, as well as the <a href="http://www.recherche-riskogm.fr/sites/default/files/projets/2015_02_13_gmo90plus_en_ligne.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">GMO90+ study</a> arranged by the French government.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">However, both lobby groups are making false statements and misleading claims, with the apparent aim of pulling the wool over the eyes of the public and regulators.</font></p><h3 style="margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.5em; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The studies</font></h3><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The three EU research programmes mentioned in the AFBV press release are known as G-TwYST, GRACE, and GMO90+. These inter-related programmes <a href="https://www.g-twyst.eu/files/Archives-of-Toxicology-letter-014-1375-7.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">include</a> the following rat feeding studies:<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />* G-TwYST – 90-day subchronic and 2-year combined chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies on Roundup-tolerant GM maize NK603<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />* GRACE – <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25270621" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">90-day</a> and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27439414" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">1-year</a> studies on Bt maize MON810<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />* GMO90+ – 6-month (180 days) studies on MON810 and NK603 maize, looking at biomarkers of health effects.</font></p><h3 style="margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The holes in the GMO lobby's arguments</font></h3><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Below is a rundown of the gaping holes in the pro-GMO lobbyists' arguments. To the shame of science, the lobbyists are being supported in their misrepresentations and falsehoods by the researchers themselves.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1. Lobbyists are passing judgement on a study before it's published</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The AFBV and the Alliance for Science are passing judgement on the findings of the G-TwYST 2-year carcinogenicity experiment on GM NK603 maize before they have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. We don't yet know if this study uncovered any real or potential risks that are being downplayed by the lobbyists and potentially even the researchers themselves.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">All that is publicly known about the results of G-TwYST 2-year experiment is what was said at a <a href="https://www.g-twyst.eu/files/Conclusions-Recommendations/G-TwYSTConclusionsandrecommendations-final.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">press conference</a>. Without supplying any detail, the researchers claimed that the results of this experiment and the shorter 90-day one on the same GMO "did not identify potential risks" from NK603 maize.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The public would be well advised to take this claim with a pinch of salt until the full results are published. Several EU-funded studies on GMO health effects have been misrepresented and lied about in order to pretend that GMOs are safe. The truth about the findings of these studies is not to be found in press conferences or summaries but deep within the detail of the published study.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As an example, we need look no further than the 90-day GRACE study invoked by the AFBV as proof of GMO safety. In this instance, the researchers themselves appeared to be chiefly responsible for the deception. They <a href="http://www.grace-fp7.eu/en/content/final-results-and-recommendations-eu-research-project-grace" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">claimed</a> that no adverse effects were seen in the GM-fed animals. But closer <a href="https://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/Testbiotech_Doubts%20EU_Research_Project_GRACE_2.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">examination</a> of the published study revealed that the rats fed MON810 maize showed a decrease in total serum protein concentration and pancreas weight and an increase in blood glucose levels, even at the lowest dose.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Surprisingly, the authors did not discuss these changes in conjunction, in spite of the well-known role of the pancreas in the regulation of blood glucose levels. Instead the discussion remained silent on the statistically significant and dose-dependent decrease of the relative pancreas weight and dismissed the significant increase in blood glucose because it was seen only in males of Trial A, conducted with one line of MON810 maize. However, the pancreas weight was not only decreased in males of Trial A, but also in males of Trial B, conducted with a second line of GM maize, although this change was not statistically significant. In the experiment as a whole, no "safe" level for this GM maize was found. Nonetheless the researchers dismissed all these findings as not toxicologically relevant, without a valid scientific justification.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>In another historical example,</b> a previous series of EU-funded 90-day rat feeding studies on GM rice was <a href="http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/sample-page/3-health-hazards-gm-foods/3-4-myth-eu-research-shows-gm-foods-safe/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">claimed</a> by an EU Commissioner and various pro-GMO lobbyists to provide evidence of GMO food safety. But a close reading of the published studies revealed that all found changes in the GM-fed animals, which in some cases were statistically significant. The changes, including differences in organ weights and immune responses, were almost certainly adverse. None of the studies was able to conclude on the safety of the GM food tested, let alone of GM foods in general.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It seems that the pro-GMO lobbyists were banking on the assumption that people wouldn't actually read the studies but would just believe the soundbites they supplied in press releases, summaries, and quotes to the press.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">False claims of "no effect" in a GMO feeding study are easier to get away with if they are made before the study appears in print, as no one can check if the claims are true.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">This brings us to a revealing double standard in operation regarding GMO safety studies. It appears that it is a cardinal scientific sin to go public with such claims prior to peer-reviewed publication – but only if the message is that the GMO causes harm. If the message is that the GMO is safe, there's no problem with jumping the gun and going public with claims before the study has been published.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For example, in the <b>1990s, Dr Arpad Pusztai</b> was <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/346651.stm" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">condemned</a> by the pro-GMO scientific establishment for going public with his study findings of adverse health effects in rats fed GMO potatoes before the data were peer-reviewed and published. But the same standard does not seem to apply to the G-TwYST researchers. They have not been challenged for announcing their non-peer-reviewed conclusions that the GMOs they tested were safe. Instead they claimed the moral high ground by suggesting that their approach <a href="https://www.g-twyst.eu/files/Conclusions-Recommendations/G-TwYSTConclusionsandrecommendations-final.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">exemplified</a> "stakeholder engagement" and "transparency".</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Why would the G-TwYST researchers agree to go public before their results are properly published and universally available, if it were not to collude in the attempt to spin them to the advantage of the pro-GMO lobby? Such a motivation would explain why they <a href="https://www.g-twyst.eu/files/Conclusions-Recommendations/G-TwYSTConclusionsandrecommendations-final.pdf" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">interpreted</a> their study findings at their press conference to challenge the EU requirement for animal feeding studies on GMOs to be carried out prior to commercialisation. This theme has been enthusiastically taken up by pro-GMO lobbyists: the AFBV claimed that the results of the EU studies contradict Séralini's demand for long-term studies on GMOs; and the Julius Kühn-Institut, a federal research institution of the German Ministry of Agriculture, <a href="https://idw-online.de/en/news?print=1&id=697228" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">recommended</a>that in light of the study results, the EU animal feeding trial requirement should be discontinued.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Indeed, people involved in the GRACE and G-TwYST studies have conflicts of interest with the agricultural GMO industry. The GRACE project coordinator is<b> Joachim Schiemann,</b> who is also the <a href="https://www.testbiotech.org/en/press-release/genetic-engineering-risk-assessment-leash-industry" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">director</a> of the biotechnology department at the Julius Kühn-Institut. According to a Testbiotech <a href="https://www.testbiotech.org/en/press-release/genetic-engineering-risk-assessment-leash-industry" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">report</a>, Schiemann is at the centre of a network of industry agencies and international organisations with strong ties to the GMO industry, which systematically influence research and federal agencies.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2. Lobbyists are comparing apples to oranges</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The EU-funded studies are very different from the Séralini study in design and methodology and are therefore not comparable.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The Séralini study was a two-year general toxicology study investigating the effects of Roundup-tolerant GM maize and its associated herbicide, Roundup, tested together and alone. The effects of Roundup were not tested in any of the EU studies (see also point 3 below).</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>The main finding of the Séralini experiment was that a very low dose of Roundup herbicide, lower than that allowed in drinking water in the EU, caused liver and kidney damage.</b> The liver damage finding was later <a href="http://www.ehjournal.net/content/14/1/70/abstract" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">confirmed</a> by separate <a href="http://www.nature.com/srep/2017/170104/srep39328/full/srep39328.html" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">experiments</a> at a different institution, using "omics" molecular profiling techniques. The results <a href="http://www.nature.com/srep/2017/170104/srep39328/full/srep39328.html" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">showed</a> that the rats dosed with this so-called "safe" level of Roundup suffered from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The two <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25270621" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">GRACE</a> studies <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27439414" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">tested</a> a different type of GM maize than Séralini – MON810 Bt insecticidal maize, as against NK603 Roundup-tolerant maize in the Séralini study. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">At 90 days and 1 year in duration, the GRACE studies were<b> shorter </b>and thus not able to detect long-term effects of the type found in the Séralini study.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The 2-year G-TwYST study was as long as the Séralini study but had a narrowly focused and different aim: to assess carcinogenicity. However, unlike the Séralini study, it did not measure the chronological development of tumours into cancer. In addition, its study of general toxicology (with urine and regular blood tests) did not exceed one year, as compared with 2 years in the Séralini study.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As for the GMO90+ study, despite the implementation of "omics" techniques, it was limited to 6 months and addressed a different question.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Crucially, the GRACE studies and the G-TwYST studies used a different strain of rat than Séralini – the Wistar as opposed to the Sprague-Dawley. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Their sensitivity is different, especially with regard to mammary tumours such as fibroadenomas, which were observed to increase in some treatment groups in the Séralini study.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Sprague-Dawley strain is recommended by the <a href="https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/testing/types/cartox/index.html" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">US Toxicology Program</a> for carcinogenicity studies and is a standard strain used in industry carcinogenicity studies performed for regulatory purposes. Monsanto used it in many of its carcinogenicity <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10408444.2016.1214679" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">studies</a> on glyphosate (the active ingredient of Roundup), as well as in its <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691504000547" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">90-day study</a> on NK603 maize.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Therefore in their published study, the EU researchers should justify why they chose to use a potentially less sensitive strain.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Due to all these factors, the EU studies are in no way comparable to the Séralini study and thus are not able to "disprove" his findings.<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700;">3. The GMO maize tested in the EU studies is not representative of what's being grown and eaten</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">According to an </span><a href="https://www.testbiotech.org/node/2182" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">analysis</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> by Testbiotech, the maize cultivated in Canada and used for the G-TwYST carcinogenicity study is not representative of NK603 that has been grown under real farming conditions. The maize was only sprayed once with glyphosate with a dosage of 1.35 kg/hectare about one month after sowing. As the feed analysis shows, the residues from spraying with glyphosate were present at a very low level, below 0.5 mg/kg.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Under real farming conditions, glyphosate-tolerant maize is often sprayed with Roundup more than once and with higher dosages per hectare</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. The application of Roundup can influence the level of residues and the composition of biologically active substances in the plants. Therefore this particular maize cultivation is not relevant for assessing the potential adverse health effects triggered by consumption of NK603 maize as it is usually grown.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4. Long-term effects of Roundup were not examined in the EU studies</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The important shortcoming of the EU studies on GMOs is that the pesticide component of the Séralini study – measuring the long-term effects of Roundup herbicide – was not included in any of these studies. Séralini's experiment remains the only feeding study to have evaluated the effects of long-term consumption of low, realistic doses of a pesticide in its commercial formulation. These results remain in the scientific literature and have never been refuted.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Once again, in the wake of the EU studies, pro-GMO lobbyists are trying to divert the debate about the serious public health risks of a product that regularly contaminates our food supply and environment – and our <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2658306" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">bodies</a>.</font></p><h3 style="margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Séralini's attackers not credible sources</font></h3><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> AFBV's latest desperate attacks on the Séralini study are not surprising, given its record. The AFBV and its then president Marc Fellous previously resorted to personal attacks on Séralini after failing to argue the case against his study on a scientific basis. They were subsequently found <b><a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0ahUKEwj27M2j0c3bAhVmGsAKHegwCKAQFghIMAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.infogm.org%2Fspip.php%3Fpage%3Dspipdf%26spipdf%3Dspipdf_article%26id_article%3D4688%26nom_fichier%3Darticle_4688&usg=AOvVaw3VTZAughRP22AsyVmNKVKT" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">guilty of libel</a> in a lawsuit brought by Séralini </b>a</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">nd his research group at the University of Caen together with CRIIGEN, the French research institute with which Séralini is affiliated.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Fellous presents himself as an independent scientist but in the court case it was <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/news/ralini-vs-fellous-gmo-libel-case" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">revealed</a> that he owns patents through a company based in Israel. This company in turn sells patents to corporations such as Aventis.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to a press release from Séralini and the University of Caen, several members of the AFBV participated in the French commission for the evaluation of agricultural GMOs and thus would have approved GM crops as safe. So in effect, in attacking the Séralini study, they are defending their own previous opinions on GMOs.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>As for the Alliance for Science</b>, it purports to be a science-based organisation but presents only one side of the GMO debate – the pro-GMO side. It made an unsubstantiated claim to the BBC that an experimental GM plant, Bt brinjal (eggplant) had been a 90% success in Bangladesh. When challenged, it could not produce any <a href="https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/16537" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">evidence</a> for the <a href="https://theecologist.org/2015/jul/30/gmo-propaganda-over-facts-bbc-panorama-and-bt-brinjal" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">claim</a>.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Stacy Malkan of the transparency group US Right to Know has <a href="https://theecologist.org/2016/jan/22/why-cornell-university-hosting-gmo-propaganda-campaign" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">accused</a> the Alliance of abandoning scientific objectivity and instead operating as a "a global hub for the promotion of GM crops and food" and a "public relations arm for the agrichemical industry".</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In contrast to the unscientific approach of these two lobby groups, GMWatch will await the full publication of the G-TwYST results before giving its opinion on what they say about the risks of the GM foods tested. </font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><i> </i><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Report: Claire Robinson</span></font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2x no links</font></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cornell gets $5.6 million to "depolarize" GMO debate</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Details</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Published: 30 August 2014</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Created: 30 August 2014</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Last Updated: 30 August 2014</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">GMO industry and its supporters are behind the campaign</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cornell University is embarking on a campaign to “depolarize the charged debate” around GMO – supported by a $5.6 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and with the GMO industry as its partners.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pro-GM campaigner Mark Lynas is a fellow of Cornell.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.marklynas.org/about/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cornell has given him a platform to promote his pro-GMO views.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/bills-test/14961</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1. Is Cornell the go-to university for industry science?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2. New Cornell Alliance for Science gets $5.6 million grant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1. Is Cornell the go-to university for industry science?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Tim Schwab</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Food & Water Watch, 28 Aug 2014</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/is-cornell-the-go-to-university-for-industry-science/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cornell University announced last week that it is embarking on a multi-million dollar campaign to “depolarize the charged debate” around GMOs. Can you guess who’s behind this effort? The biotech industry and its supporters.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The website for this project, the Cornell Alliance for Science, is pretty sparse, but it does note its pro-GMO partners, including the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), which is funded by Monsanto, CropLife, and Bayer.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This use of surrogates is par for the course with the biotech industry. Sometimes called the soft lobby, corporations routinely engage neutral-appearing scientists and impartial-sounding front groups to help advance their political and economic agendas. Food & Water Watch detailed the enormous amount of industry research coming out of our public land-grant universities in our 2012 report, Public Research, Private Gain.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cornell is no stranger to this science-for-sale approach. Earlier this year, Cornell economist William Lesser took money from a biotech front group to produce a questionable analysis showing that GMO labeling will be very costly for consumers. While he noted that the study reflected his personal opinions, not those of Cornell, GMO supporters began publicizing the findings of “the Cornell study” in their campaign to defeat state-labeling initiatives around the country. Independent studies, meanwhile, show that GMO labeling will not increase costs significantly — and perhaps not at all.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cornell’s newest foray into the GMO debate, the “Alliance for Science,” will add to the confusion and distortion in the public discourse around GMOs. Rather than trying to promote a civil, honest, impartial dialogue about GMOs — as you would expect from a university like Cornell — the school has chosen to partner with some of the biotechnology industry’s most prominent supporters and defenders.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Incredibly, the Cornell Alliance strenuously asserts its impartiality, calling it a “radical collaboration” of proponents and opponents of GMOs dedicated to “promot[ing] equitable access to safe, nutritious, and sustainably produced food.” Though that quote sounds an awful lot like Food & Water Watch’s mission statement, it isn’t, and we won’t be joining the alliance’s “radical collaboration.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The role of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in this effort should also be mentioned. Gates has awarded $5.6 million toward the Cornell Alliance, a mere drop in the ocean of the group’s pro-GMO “philanthropy”. The Foundation has tapped big names from the biotechnology industry to run its multi-billion-dollar agricultural development program, and, as Food & Water Watch showed in our report Biotech Ambassadors, Gates partners with biotech companies to develop GMOs for Africa — that African countries clearly do not want or need. The Gates Foundation has also invested tens of millions of dollars of its money into corporate agribusiness and biotech companies like Monsanto and Cargill.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At a time when the United States is clearly ready for a frank conversation about GMOs, evident in the state-level labeling ballot initiatives underway across the country, it is unfortunate that our most prominent philanthropists and universities would partner with industry to distort the public discourse. There is a vibrant scientific and public debate about the safety and necessity of GMOs in our food system that deserves a bigger public platform — sort of like what Gates and Cornell are trying to do, but without the obvious bias.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2. New Cornell Alliance for Science gets $5.6 million grant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Stacey Shackford</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cornell Chronicle, 21 Aug 2014</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/08/new-cornell-alliance-science-gets-56-million-grant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A new international effort led by Cornell will seek to add a stronger voice for science and depolarize the charged debate around agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Supported by a $5.6 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Cornell Alliance for Science will help inform decision-makers and consumers through an online information portal and training programs to help researchers and stakeholders effectively communicate the potential impacts of agricultural technology and how such technology works.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The project will involve developing multimedia resources, including videos of farmers from around the world documenting their struggles to deal with pests, diseases, crop failure and the limited resources available in the face of poverty and climate change.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Proponents and opponents alike speculate whether biotech crops are of benefit to farmers, but rarely are those farmers engaged in the biotech discourse or their voices heard,” said Sarah Evanega, senior associate director of International Programs in Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS), who will lead the project.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Our goal is to depolarize the GMO debate and engage with potential partners who may share common values around poverty reduction and sustainable agriculture, but may not be well informed about the potential biotechnology has for solving major agricultural challenges,” Evanega said. “For instance, pro-biotech activists share a lot of the same anti-pesticide, low-input, sustainable-agriculture vision as the organic movement.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Evanega and her team hope to help engage such potential partners and foster more constructive policies about biotechnology as a useful tool to address major agricultural challenges.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The grant will allow the Cornell Alliance for Science to host annual conferences, short courses and semester-long CALS certificate programs in biotechnology leadership, among other activities.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Evanega said the initial concept was informed by a February 2014 gathering at Cornell of 34 representatives from public sector and not-for-profit organizations in 12 countries that discussed a new vision for biotechnology communications.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Like elsewhere in the world, African scientists still find it challenging to effectively inform the public about their work and its relevance to society,” said Barbara M. Zawedde, coordinator of the Uganda Biosciences Information Center at the National Agricultural Research Organization. “Our effective communication will enable African farmers and citizens to exercise their sovereign right of informed decisions on whether to adopt certain crops and technologies depending on their needs and priorities.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In part because of its land-grant heritage, CALS regularly hosts forums and media events about various agricultural technologies and the role they could play in providing sustainable solutions to major global challenges.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Biotechnology is a potential game-changer for farmers in less developed countries and an important tool in the toolbox for addressing global challenges, such as persistent poverty, a changing and erratic climate, and the challenge of feeding 9 billion people by 2050,” said Kathryn J. Boor, the Ronald P. Lynch Dean of CALS. “Improving agricultural biotechnology communications is a challenge that must be met if innovations developed in public sector institutions like Cornell are ever to reach farmers in their fields.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stacey Shackford</font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font><div><div itemprop="articleBody" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Food & Water Watch, 28 Aug 2014<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><a href="http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/is-cornell-the-go-to-university-for-industry-science/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: underline;">http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/is-cornell-the-go-to-university-for-industry-science/</span></a></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cornell University announced last week that it is embarking on a multi-million dollar campaign to “depolarize the charged debate” around GMOs. Can you guess who’s behind this effort? The biotech industry and its supporters.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The website for this project, the Cornell Alliance for Science, is pretty sparse, but it does note its pro-GMO partners, including the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), which is funded by Monsanto, CropLife, and Bayer.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This use of surrogates is par for the course with the biotech industry. Sometimes called the soft lobby, corporations routinely engage neutral-appearing scientists and impartial-sounding front groups to help advance their political and economic agendas. Food & Water Watch detailed the enormous amount of industry research coming out of our public land-grant universities in our 2012 report, Public Research, Private Gain.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cornell is no stranger to this science-for-sale approach. Earlier this year, <b>Cornell economist William Lesser took money from a biotech front group to produce a questionable analysis showing that GMO labeling will be very costly for consumers</b>. While he noted that the study reflected his personal opinions, not those of Cornell, GMO supporters began publicizing the findings of “the Cornell study” in their campaign to defeat state-labeling initiatives around the country. Independent studies, meanwhile, show that GMO labeling will not increase costs significantly — and perhaps not at all.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Cornell’s newest foray into the GMO debate, the “Alliance for Science,” will add to the confusion and distortion in the public discourse around GMO</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">s. Rather than trying to promote a civil, honest, impartial dialogue about GMOs — as you would expect from a university like Cornell — the school has chosen to partner with some of the biotechnology industry’s most prominent supporters and defenders.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Incredibly, the Cornell Alliance strenuously asserts its impartiality, calling it a “radical collaboration” of proponents and opponents of GMOs dedicated to “promot[ing] equitable access to safe, nutritious, and sustainably produced food.” Though that quote sounds an awful lot like Food & Water Watch’s mission statement, it isn’t, and we won’t be joining the alliance’s “radical collaboration.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The role of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in this effort should also be mentioned. Gates has awarded $5.6 million toward the Cornell Alliance, a mere drop in the ocean of the group’s pro-GMO “philanthropy”. The Foundation has tapped big names from the biotechnology industry to run its multi-billion-dollar agricultural development program, and, as Food & Water Watch showed in our report Biotech Ambassadors, Gates partners with biotech companies to develop GMOs for Africa — that African countries clearly do not want or need. The Gates Foundation has also invested tens of millions of dollars of its money into corporate agribusiness and biotech companies like Monsanto and Cargill.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At a time when the United States is clearly ready for a frank conversation about GMOs, evident in the state-level labeling ballot initiatives underway across the country, it is unfortunate that our most prominent philanthropists and universities would partner with industry to distort the public discourse. There is a vibrant scientific and public debate about the safety and necessity of GMOs in our food system that deserves a bigger public platform — sort of like what Gates and Cornell are trying to do, but without the obvious bias.</font></p><h3 style="margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2. New Cornell Alliance for Science gets $5.6 million grant</font></h3><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Stacey Shackford</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cornell Chronicle, 21 Aug 2014<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><a href="http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/08/new-cornell-alliance-science-gets-56-million-grant" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: underline;">http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/08/new-cornell-alliance-science-gets-56-million-grant</span></a></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A new international effort led by Cornell will seek to add a stronger voice for science and depolarize the charged debate around agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Supported by a $5.6 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Cornell Alliance for Science will help inform decision-makers and consumers through an online information portal and training programs to help researchers and stakeholders effectively communicate the potential impacts of agricultural technology and how such technology works.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The project will involve developing multimedia resources, including videos of farmers from around the world documenting their struggles to deal with pests, diseases, crop failure and the limited resources available in the face of poverty and climate change.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Proponents and opponents alike speculate whether biotech crops are of benefit to farmers, but rarely are those farmers engaged in the biotech discourse or their voices heard,” said Sarah Evanega, senior associate director of International Programs in Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS), who will lead the project.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Our goal is to depolarize the GMO debate and engage with potential partners who may share common values around poverty reduction and sustainable agriculture, but may not be well informed about the potential biotechnology has for solving major agricultural challenges,” Evanega said. “For instance, pro-biotech activists share a lot of the same anti-pesticide, low-input, sustainable-agriculture vision as the organic movement.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Evanega and her team hope to help engage such potential partners and foster more constructive policies about biotechnology as a useful tool to address major agricultural challenges.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The grant will allow the Cornell Alliance for Science to host annual conferences, short courses and semester-long CALS certificate programs in biotechnology leadership, among other activities.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Evanega said the initial concept was informed by a February 2014 gathering at Cornell of 34 representatives from public sector and not-for-profit organizations in 12 countries that discussed a new vision for biotechnology communications.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Like elsewhere in the world, African scientists still find it challenging to effectively inform the public about their work and its relevance to society,” said Barbara M. Zawedde, coordinator of the <b>Uganda Biosciences Information Center</b> at the National Agricultural Research Organization. “Our effective communication will enable African farmers and citizens to exercise their sovereign right of informed decisions on whether to adopt certain crops and technologies depending on their needs and priorities.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In part because of its land-grant heritage, CALS regularly hosts forums and media events about various agricultural technologies and the role they could play in providing sustainable solutions to major global challenges.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Biotechnology is a potential game-changer for farmers in less developed countries and an important tool in the toolbox for addressing global challenges, such as persistent poverty, a changing and erratic climate, and the challenge of feeding 9 billion people by 2050,” said Kathryn J. Boor, the Ronald P. Lynch Dean of CALS. “Improving agricultural biotechnology communications is a challenge that must be met if innovations developed in public sector institutions like Cornell are ever to reach farmers in their fields.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />Stacey Shackford is a writer for the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.</font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><div><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Amy Harmon</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Amy Harmon is a reporter for the New York Times</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. She was part of a Times team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2001, and in 2008 she won a Pulitzer for explanatory reporting.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On September 23, 2013 at 7:44pm, Jon Entine emailed Renee Kester, “FYI, I think I’ve talked Amy Harmon into doing a Hawaii Hawaii [sic.] story... and I gave her your and Kirby’s email information, so she may call at some point if she indeed pursues this.” Kirby Kester is president of the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, an agrichemical industry front group.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On January 4, 2014, the New York Times published a front-page article by Amy Harmon, titled “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops.” The story is datelined from Kona, Hawaii.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In 2014, Harmon won second place for the </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Society of Environmental Journalists</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> “Kevin Carmody Award for Outstanding In-depth Reporting, Large Market” for “The Facts About GMOs,” a series that included the article “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops.”</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">On September 30th, Harmon is scheduled to speak to the</span><b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Cornell Alliance for Science,</span></b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> a group funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to promote GMOs<b>. The group is running a petition against U.S. Right to Know’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.</b></span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Keith Kloor</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Keith Kloor is a freelance journalist who has written for Nature, Science Insider, Discover, Slate, and other outlets. Kloor has written many pro-GMO articles that have been featured by Jon Entine’s Genetic Literacy Project.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kloor is mentioned in two places in the FOIA documents.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In one email, Jon Entine refers to Keith Kloor as a “very good friend of mine”.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In another email, on October 18,</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> 2014, Dr. Channapatna Prakash, a GMO advocate and dean at Tuskegee University, emails Adrianne Massey of the<b> Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)</b>, along with several others, to forward an alert from Lorraine Thelian, vice chairman of the PR firm Ketchum that “the hacker community<b>Anonymous</b> is planning a series of attacks on biotechnology and food industry websites</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">… Trade association and corporate websites of CBI [Council for Biotechnology Information] members are being targeted in this planned attack.”</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Dr. Prakash writes, “Adrianne I have copied Kevin Folta, Karl von Mogel, David Tribe, and Keith Kloor</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">here as well.”</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Dr. Prakash</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> cc’d the email to <b>Jay Byrne</b> (former director of corporate communications for Monsanto), <b>Jon Entine, Bruce Chassy (agrichemical industry advocate) Val Giddings (former VP of BIO), Henry Miller (agrichemical industry advocate), Drew Kershen (agrichemical industry advocate), Klaus Ammann</b>, Piet van der Meer, Martina Newell-McGloughlin (agrichemical industry advocate),<b> Karl Haro von Mogel (member of the board of directors of Biology Fortified, a pro-GMO website), Kevin Folta (agrichemical industry advocate), Keith Kloor, and David Tribe (agrichemical industry advocate).</b></span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Keith Kloor was the only journalist who received this email.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The email implies that Kloor works closely with the agrichemical industry’s prominent advocates.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Kloor has written three articles that were critical of U.S. Right to Know’s FOIA requests, in Science Insider, Discover and Nature.</b></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On March 23rd, 2015, Kloor gave a talk for the<b> Cornell Alliance for Science</b>, which is hosting a petition against U.S. Right to Know’s FOIA requests.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tamar Haspel</font></span></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Tamar Haspel is a columnist at the Washington Post.</b> She has written many columns for the Post defending or praising GMOs that have later been featured by Jon Entine’s Genetic Literacy Project.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2015, Haspel won the James Beard Foundation Award for her Post columns.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In June 2014, Haspel spoke to a pro-industry conference about “How can scientists best engage the GMO debate with a skeptical public?” The conference was coordinated by Jon Entine and Cami Ryan, who is currently social sciences lead for Monsanto.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> The conference was led by two agrichemical industry front groups,<b> the Genetic Literacy Project and Academics Review, </b>along with the<b> University of Florida</b>, which receives major funding from agrichemical companies, as noted in a September 6 article in the New York Times.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Haspel also moderated a panel organized by the North Carolina Biotechnology Center, which “provides long-term economic and societal benefits to North Carolina through support of biotechnology research, business, education and strategic policy statewide.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In a September 23 chat hosted by the Washington Post, answering a question about whether she receives money from industry sources, Ms. Haspel wrote that, “I speak and moderate panels and debates often, and it’s work I’m paid for.” Later that day, I asked Ms. Haspel on Twitter how much money she had received from the agrichemical industry and its front groups. She replied, </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">“Since any group believing biotech has something to offer is a ‘front group', plenty!”</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Is it appropriate for a Washington Post columnist to write glowing columns about GMOs while appearing at such pro-industry conferences? Is it a conflict of interest for Haspel to accept money from agrichemical company interests that she covers as part of her beat as a Post food columnist? How much money has Haspel received from agrichemical industry interests?</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Some journalists have criticized journalists for “buckraking” on speakers’ circuits. For example, former Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee said, “I wish it would go away. I don’t like it. I think it’s corrupting. If the Insurance Institute of America, if there is such a thing, pays you $10,000 to make a speech, don’t tell me you haven’t been corrupted. You can say you haven’t and you can say you will attack insurance issues in the same way, but you won’t. You can’t.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Haspel wrote in the Washington Post that she will only speak at events where “if for-profit companies are involved in the event (which they often are), they can’t be the only voice. So, I will speak at a conference co-sponsored by, say, Monsanto and the USDA and NC State University, but not an event sponsored by Monsanto alone.” However, at the June 2014, conference at which Haspel spoke, no consumer advocates were slated to speak, only pro-industry advocates.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">On October 16, Haspel is scheduled to speak to the </span><b style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Cornell Alliance for Science,</b><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> a pro-GMO group that is hosting a petition against U.S. Right to Know’s FOIA requests.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Haspel has been critical of the U.S. Right to Know FOIA requests. </b>On August 17, on Twitter, she wrote: “The money/time/brainpower wasted on @garyruskin’s mean-spirited, self-interested attack on @kevinfolta! Can we move on to something useful?” Others did not agree with her news judgment. On September 6th, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Eric Lipton wrote an article largely based on our FOIA requests – especially of University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta – which ran on the front page of the Sunday New York Times. The article revealed how Folta, who repeatedly denied ties to Monsanto, in fact had received an undisclosed $25,000 grant, as well as writing assignments from the company, and worked closely with it and its PR firm Ketchum, which ghostwrote text for him and organized media and lobbying meetings for him.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.5em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; line-height: 21.28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">U.S. Right to Know is a consumer advocacy group. We try to expose what the food industry doesn’t want us to know. We believe it is useful for the public to see how the food and agrichemical companies do their public relations work. That is one way we can help consumers to assess the claims and information they receive from the companies involved in our food production, their PR firms and operatives, and the journalists who work with them.</font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div></div></div></div></div>