Alerte sur les organismes génétiquement modifiés : beaucoup de bruit pour rien ou presque rien ?

By comparing the effects of long-term diets enriched with two strains of maize (a Roundup-tolerant genetically strain vs. a non-transgenic type) French researchers have recently reported that Sprague-Dawley rats were at increased risk for deaths and tumors when submitted to feeding with the genetically modified plant. A more accurate analysis of the results seems to indicate that these adverse events were mainly observed in females. In males, the results are somewhat surprising since death rates were lower in the animals that had received the transgenic maize than in those that had been fed with the non-transgenic type. Such results sound to be profoundly discordant and controversial when compared with those previously published in the literature. Several remarks can be made. First it must be noted that the results were widely broadcasted by the medias before any reliable analysis by scientific experts of national or international Food Safety Authorities. Secondly there arises the question as to know why and how this study was really conducted. For instance the methodology (small sample size and controversial statistical analysis) is rather poor for a study that has the pretentiousness to provide a global position statement against the use of genetically modified plants. As a consequence these results should be submitted to the careful peer view of independent experts who do not disclose any conflict ofinterest. Further trials might be required but the highly likely inability to reproduce such observations would strongly contribute to affect their credibility. At the present time, the reliability of the unsubstantiated alert alleged by this article is pending, and it is suggested to the authors that they meditate the famous Charles Darwin's aphorism: “To kill an error is as good a service, and sometimes even better, than the establishing of a new truth or fact”.