GM Watch on Entine's new nonsense
Jon Entine, PR man for pesticides and GMOs, has come out with another GMO promotional in Forbes, called “The debate about GMO safety is over, thanks to a new trillion-meal study”.
Entine is referring to a new study on the impacts of GMOs on livestock by a former Monsanto employee, Alison Van Eenennaam (Van Eenennaam and Young, 2014). The study, Entine writes, “reviewed 29 years of livestock productivity and health data from both before and after the introduction” of GMOs. These data, Entine adds, represent “more than 100 billion animals covering a period before 1996 when animal feed was 100% non-GMO, and after its introduction when it jumped to 90% and more.”
The findings, according to Entine, show that GM feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed, on the grounds that “There was no indication of any unusual trends in the health of animals since 1996 when GMO crops were first harvested. Considering the size of the dataset, it can reasonably be said that the debate over the impact of GE feed on animal health is closed: there is zero extraordinary impact.”
The truth is, however, that the new study tells us almost nothing about GMO safety. Entine’s claim that it shows GMOs are safe is false. The new study should be treated with the same sceptical scrutiny that we should apply to all “big lists of studies” claimed to show GMO safety: the Snell review, the Nicolia review, and the GENERA database.
Generalized claims about what these lists and reviews of studies show are not accompanied by analysis of the individual studies that make up the “big lists”. Such claims rely on readers not examining the studies and seeing for themselves what they contain. If they did, they would see that the studies, taken as a whole, do not support a “one size fits all” conclusion that GMOs are safe.
GO TO http://gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15669-why-jon-