Abstract
Abstract The ongoing controversies over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Europe remain intense. Assessing the risks associated with new technologies is crucial, and becomes particularly important for self-replicating GMOs used in open ecosystems. In general, scientific disagreement and debate is at the core of knowledge generation. However, in the GMO debate, it seems that pre-conceived conclusions can in some cases overshadow real data and factual results of investigations. In this article, we describe how the German ban on the cultivation of MON810 Bt-transgenic maize plant has been criticized for not having a sound scientific justification and provide arguments for why we disagree with this perspective. We do this by demonstrating in detail how arguments put forward by Agnes Ricroch and colleagues in an article from Transgenic Research are based on i) serious scientific flaws, such as omitting core results and misrepresenting others; ii) inconsistency in how laboratory studies that show negative effects of GM plant exposure should be followed up; and iii) a systematic selection of particular results and/or studies that match their own arguments. We conclude that Ricroch et al. misrepresent and selectively scrutinize certain data only. The effect of this double standard is that those only reading or referring to Ricroch et al. will be seriously misinformed about our study as well as in the discussion on the 2009 German ban of the MON810 GM maize. However, we do not claim that the ban was finally and irreversibly justified by the science referred to, including our own studies within the field. The German ban on MON810 was, and must be, a political decision, guided by valid scientific evidence.
Highlights
Modified organisms (GMOs) have triggered controversies at a number of levels, from technical scientific details in risk assessment and regulation, to trade and other large-scale political decision-making processes
The protein product of this gene is a so-called Bt-toxin named Cry1Ab. This protein is toxic to some lepidopteran insect species, among which we find the so-called “target pest species” for Bttransgenic crop plants
For the total number of eggs produced in the two treatments, there was a 20% higher production of eggs in the UM-fed group; again, this was not mentioned by Ricroch et al [1]. For both survival and fecundity, Ricroch et al seem to pick and choose information that supports their preconceived conclusion: that there was no scientific justification of the German ban on MON810 maize
Summary
Modified organisms (GMOs) have triggered controversies at a number of levels, from technical scientific details in risk assessment and regulation, to trade and other large-scale political decision-making processes. Ricroch et al [1] emphasize their critical assessment of two key publications, namely a study on water fleas (Daphnia magna) by Bøhn et al.from 2008 [2], i.e. our study, and a study on ladybirds by Schmidt et al from 2009 [4] These studies provided new evidence of harm to non-target organisms, appearing after the 2007 German re-authorization of MON810, falling within the GSO category “new or additional information”, which the 2009 ban was justified by. For the total number of eggs produced in the two treatments, there was a 20% higher production of eggs in the UM-fed group; again, this was not mentioned by Ricroch et al [1] For both survival and fecundity, Ricroch et al seem to pick and choose information that supports their preconceived conclusion: that there was no scientific justification of the German ban on MON810 maize. It is not a standard that Ricroch et al [1] live up to!
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
