A flawed study published in the journal Scientific Reports in December 2016 states that GMO NK603 maize is not nutritionally equivalent to a conventional variety.
This study, led by Robin Mesnage, analyses the same maize samples used in a 2012 study that was determined to not be scientifically sound by regulatory authorities (European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR)). This was due to significant flaws in the study design and interpretation of the data, and it was formally retracted by the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. Even though it was subsequently republished in 2014, it was done so without peer review (Casassus, B. 2014).
Respected public-sector animal geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam, based at the Department of Animal Science at the University of California, US, published a detailed blog post citing several concerns following her analysis of this same December 2016 study. She also references another comprehensive analysis of the study performed by recognised experts in this area of science.
After 30 years of research and assessments, the science and safety behind GM crops has been well established and strongly supported by the scientific community. Organisations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, European Commission and US National Academy of Sciences, agree on the long-term safety of GM crops. Seventy of the world’s countries allow farmers to grow and/or import GM crops.
For further information please see below: