Malgré l ‘avalanche de critiques qu ‘elle a subies l’étude Seralini suscite des prises de position des autorités sanitaires comme celle-ci :
« Bioveiligheidsraad – Conseil de Biosécurité
Advice of the Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council on the article by Séralini et al., 2012 on toxicity of GM maize NK603.
- It seems reasonable to assume that the publication of Prof. Séraline, without providing définitive conclusion as to carcinogenicity in rats and even less about the underlying mechanisms, provides a reasonable and sufficient doubt to promote research on the impact of GMOs and pesticides associated with this type of culture, on the fauna and flora as well as mammals exposed. Rather than rejecting these results, should we not, according to the scientific approach, encourage new experiments to verify the reproducibility of the results by correcting any shortcomings of the current publication. All this calls for extreme caution and to discuss these issues with great care.
- Results of the Séralini study can not be regarded as results to take decisions. They must be accompanied by other studies that confirm (or not) the results of this exploratory study.
- This study is not really convincing and a lot of question marks remain.
- The results are rather suggestive than scientifically well-backed and additional/new experiments are needed in order to invalidate former tests performed on GMO and that did not reveal an increased toxicity / risk.
- Challenging existing knowledge and paradigms is of course the basis of scientific progress, and revisiting those current views could be appropriate and welcome. It would need, however, to apply solid scientific standards; the paper by Séralini et al. fails largely in this respect. The work is scientifically very weak, with flaws in the experimental design, in the interpretation of the results as well as their (over)interpretation and reporting. It should never have been accepted for publication in a scientific journal. The process of peer review which is usual before acceptance for publication in scientific journals has clearly failed here.
Conclusion of the Biosafety Advisory Council
1 : Given the shortcomings identified by the experts regarding the experimental design, the statistical analysis, the interpretation of the results, the redaction of the article and the presentation of the results, the Biosafety Advisory Council concludes that this study does not contain new scientifically relevant elements that may lead to reconsider immediately the current authorisation for food and feed use of GM maize NK603.
2 : Considering the issues raised by the study (i.e. long term assessment), the Biosafety Advisory Council propose EFSA urgently to study in depth the relevance of the actual guidelines and procedures. It can find inspiration in the GRACE project to find useful inormation and new concerted ideads.