| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Letter to Stuttgarter Zeitung about Seralini study “To all studies the same measure has to applied”
(Unpublished) Letter to Stuttgarter Zeitung “To all studies the same measure has to applied” Tanja Volz, 02-07-2013
Dear Sir or Madam
first my fundamental praise for this reporting. Among all known excitement of the supporters and gene opponents of plant biotechnology the report is quite informative. Especially for readers who are only educated generally in this filed but have been interested. And this although according to the report only opponents met here predominantly.
That the researcher Séralini does not disclose the complete data of his feeding study shows firstly, he is neither interested that the scientific community check the validity of his results nor that an independent laboratory can repeat the study also using other methods. With this secrecy he prevents any independent check of his results. In this respect his statement, that the data are deposited with a notary, is provocation and a sound note that he is not interested in a scientific discussion but to prevent these. This should be pointed clearly in your report.
Moreover, more than 700 scientists and experts have invited him to make the complete data available (internet petition). There is really a great interest in complete information.
In your press release it is not reported that a weed killer was also fed to the rats. It is very difficult to judge the reported findings due to the very low number of animals and the combination of several influencing factors.
Séralini has said himself according to your report that its statistical evaluation method is not suitable for such a low animal number; with other words, that the results are valueless. He has pointed out instead that the large set of biochemical data which he has imposed could be evaluated. with this statistical method. However, Séralini keeps these data secret and thus prevents a judgement of its assertions. The scientific criticism is not aimed to the data evaluation but mainly due to the insufficient study design and to too low numbers laboratory animals. Séralini is proud to have carried out a long-time feeding study; but one has to expect that all animals finally die and the used rat strain is known to develop spontaneously tumours. As this strain was cultivated to develop tumours one can expect that these rats die on cancer deceases.
Unfortunately, you do not report basic points of criticism of Seralini´s study by Prof. Jany. Also you should be explained to the interested reader from what the criticism is deduced by the majority of scientists and the responsible national and international authorities. Also, BfR has judged the study devastatingly (in your article not mentioned).
Unfortunately, you do not work out either clearly that the demands of Prof. Hilbeck and her organisation ENSSER are simply nonscientific because the studies demanded as imperative are not feasible: How shall the lifelong consumption of genetically modified maize can be examined at a sufficiently large number of volunteers if this maize is not is available in Europe? Or long must be the time period to check the influence of a genetically modified plant or food on evolutionary steps? Who puts forward unrealizable demands only proves, that he is not interested in the clarification of the real question. That a scientist fall into the thinking of the well known method of activists being against everything , should be dubious. If one had the same doubts against the railway Nuernberg-Fuerth at that time and demanded lifelong tests over several generations of travelling volunteers, there still would be no a efficient transport system for persons today.
And, if Séralini has really performed a pilot study only as reported. If one should regarded it as a first pilot experiment, why the complete data are kept secret?
As for the rest and this is missing in your report, the main object of the conference at the University of Stutgart-Hohenheim was probably not to prove a negative influence of genetically modified plants or food on human health or the impact on environment but independently from gene engineering impact of big plant breeders and chemical companies on the entire economy. The Stuttgart newspaper “Stuttgarter Zeitung” has reported to this several times. Seed suppliers refuse farmers to use seeds reaped for the next seed period; farmers have exclusively to use the pesticides from their seed supplier; if by pollen loading contaminates the harvest of a conventional neighbor farmer, he gets a process because of patent injury. The increasing industrialization of the agricultural area leads to the loss for acreages for the conventional and ecological farming. In areas (primarily Latin America) the expansion of the cultivation of corn, soya leads to a dramatic decrease in the rain forests, to an export of such fundamental foodstuffs at lowest prices in less developed countries. These developments lead to a dying out of conventional farming, food production and trade there; as this already applies to the subsidized export surpluses from the EU, too.
So I hope that the “Stuttgarter Zeitung” will step by step treat and explain all these aspects.
Yours sincerely Dieter EHLERMANN
Dieter A.E. Ehlermann
Dipl.-Phys.; Direktor und Professor (retired)
Consultant for radiation technology and food irradiation
formerly: Federal Research Centre for Nutrition, Karlsruhe
Hochstetter Str. 52, D-76351 Linkenheim-Hochstetten, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
2013-02-16 05:53:04
Source: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2013/02/letter-to-stuttgarter-zeitung-about.html
Source:
