세라리니 박사팀의 유전자조작 옥수와 및 라운드업 제초제의 장기 독성 연구결과에 대한 9가지 비판에 대해 연구에 참여한 공동저자 조엘 스피루(Joel Spiroux) 박사의 답변(반박)입니다. 스피루 박사는 독립연구와 유전공학을 위한 위원회(Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering) 위원장을 맡고 있습니다.
스피루 박사는 쥐 200마리로만 실험한 것은 샘플이 너무 적은 것이 아니냐는 비판에 대해서는 “안전성 심사를 위해 몬산토에서 수행한 실험도 마찬가지로 200마리로 실험했을 뿐이다. 우리 연구에서는 쥐의 일생에 해당하는 2년 동안 장기 실험을 했다. 몬산토는 겨우 90일 실험을 했을 뿐이다. 독성학적으로도 몬산토 실험보다 더 많은 항목들을 연구했다. 더 많은 실험을 하기 위해서는 돈이 더 많이 든다. 이번 실험에 들어간 돈이 3200만 유로(약 460억원)나 들었다”고 밝혔습니다.
실험에 사용한 쥐(Sprague-Dawley)가 종양에 잘 걸리는 타입이다는 비판에 대해서는 “그렇다. 하지만 전 세계적으로 이 쥐(Sprague-Dawley)를 독성학 연구에 많이 사용하고 있다. 이 쥐는 생물학적으로 신체적으로 안정된 수준을 유지할 수 있는 장점이 있다. 게다가 이 쥐는 몬산토를 포함한 산업계가 GM 제품의 안전성을 평가하기 위해 처음 도입한 것이다. 중요한 것은 라운드업 제초제를 사용했건 사용하지 않았건 GM 옥수수를 급여한 쥐들이 질병에 더 빨리 걸렸다는 것이다.”고 답변했습니다.
그리고 “당신들은 암을 연구하는 종양학자가 아니다. 도대체 너네들이 종양에 대해서 아는게 뭐냐?”는 비판에 대해서는 “그렇다. 우리는 종양학자가 아니다. 언제 우리가 종양학자라고 했냐? 우리 연구는 독성 연구이지, 발암성 연구가 아니다. 발암성 연구라면 우리와 다른 실험방법으로 했을 것이다. 더군다나 우리의 연구논문의 그 어디에도 종양이 악성(암)이라고 말하지도 않았다. 우리 연구에서 쥐들은 섬유선종(fibro-adenomas; 선 조직에서 발생하는 양성 종양)과 각질가시세포종(또는 각질유두종=kerato-acanthomas;일반적으로 전이가 되지 않은 양성종양으로 분류되나 적절하게 치료를 받지 않을 경우 6% 정도는 편평상피암(squamous cell carcinoma)이라는 악성종양이 된다.)이었다. 이 종양은 나이든 쥐에서 암으로 바뀔 수 있다.”고 답변하기도 했습니다.
자세한 내용은 아래 원문을 읽어보시기 바랍니다.
GMOs: Nine criticisms and nine answers on the Seralini study
Dr Joel Spiroux interviewed by Morgane Bertrand
Le Nouvel Observateur
20 Sept 2012
Article in French: http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/ogm-le-scandale/20120920.OBS3130/ogm-9-critiques-et-9-reponses-sur-l-etude-de-seralini.html
English translation by GMWatch
The publication of the study of Gilles-Eric Seralini confirming toxicity of NK603 maize in rats has attracted much criticism. Dr Joel Spiroux, co-author of the study, responds.
After the publication of the study by Gilles-Eric Seralini, the first study carried out on rats fed NK603 maize over their whole lifespan, which shows that the toxicity of these GMOs on rats, many criticisms and questions have arisen about the conditions in which the study was carried out and its credibility. Dr Joel Spiroux, co-author and assistant director of the study, and president of Criigen (Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering) responds.
First criticism: 200 rats is too small a sample for a solid study …
- The sample of 200 rats, 20 rats per group, is the same number of rats used [GMW note: analysed] by Monsanto in its 3-month study. In contrast, we studied many more toxicological endpoints. An experiment with more rats would have cost more money. The study already cost 3.2 million Euro.
The type of rats used, Sprague-Dawley, is known to easily develop tumours …
- Yes, but this type of rat is used the world over for toxicological research. These rats have the advantage of being stable in biological and physical levels. They all pretty much the same profile, the same weight … These are the rats used from the beginning in the research on GMOs by the firms that produce them, including by Monsanto. And the facts are there: those that were fed GM corn, with or without Roundup, develop more diseases. And much faster.
Looking closely, male rats fed GM corn does not generally develop more tumours than the controls …
- One must look at the speed which which tumours are triggered. In all three treatment groups of rats, tumours or diseases of the kidneys and liver begin in the 4th month and explode in the 11th and 12th months. Which corresponds to the age of 35 to 40 years in a human. In the control group, tumours occurred mostly at the end of life, in the 23rd and 24th months, which seems to be normal in these rats.
Scientists point to the lack of information on the exact composition of the diet on which rats were fed …
- These are standard biscuits/chow, the same again as those used by the producers of GMOs in their studies. The only difference is that we have precisely measured the concentration of GM maize: 11% for the first group, 22% for the second and 33% for the third.
The amount of GMO consumed by the rats is more than is consumed by humans…
- Think again. The doses of NK603 maize are comparable to what humans eat over a lifetime in America, where GMOs are sold freely, unlabelled, untraceable. This prevents them being identified as a cause of disease and opens the door to denial. This is why we hear for example that Americans have been eating GMOs for 15 years and are not sick.
The magazine chosen to publish the study, “Food and Chemical Toxicology,” is not the most prestigious in the United States.
- It is far from being secondary: it is an internationally known scientific journal. Publications are subject to peer review, and the peer reviewers express contradictory opinions. And it’s the same journal in which Monsanto and other manufacturers publish their counter-studies.
We also hear that Gilles-Eric Seralini is committedly anti-GM, that he got the results he wanted.
- Absolutely not. Gilles-Eric Seralini the Criigen (Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering) and researchers in his lab at the University of Caen are also working on genetically modified organisms, because it gives them access to the knowledge of life. They have nothing against GMOs for the manufacture of drugs. Insulin, for example, is produced from GMOs. This does not prevent me from prescribing it to my patients with diabetes. One can recognize these medicines by the presence on the label of the term “recombinant protein”. So yes to GMOs in the pharmaceutical laboratory. However, Gilles-Eric Seralini and we are against agricultural GMOs, because they are inadequately labelled and their long-term toxicity is poorly studied.
You are not oncologists, what do you know about tumours?
- No, we are not oncologists and have never said otherwise. This is a toxicity study, not a carcinogenicity study, which follows other protocols. Moreover, we have nowhere stated that tumours were cancerous. These are fibro-adenomas and kerato-acanthomas [?chirato-acantomes], which can turn into cancer in older rats.
A counter-study is needed.
- We agree. We also want a counter-study, but it must be carried out by independent researchers. Not by those who produce studies for manufacturers of GMOs. That is not the position of the EFSA at the moment (European Food Safety Agency).