The National Biosafety Authority, which is charged with advising the
government on the safety of genetically modified organisms has warned
against ignoring the study that led to the ban in the first place. A
group of Kenyan scientists drawn from research institutions and
universities have called for reversal of the ban to forestall a looming
food shortage. PHOTO/FILE
The National Biosafety Authority, which
is charged with advising the government on the safety of genetically
modified organisms has warned against ignoring the study that led to the
ban in the first place.
“Though (the) Seralini paper
has been withdrawn, the importance of his results should not be denied
or ignored,” the authority’s chief executive officer, Dr Willy Tonui
said in a statement amid mounting pressure on the government to lift the
ban on importation of GMO foods, following the retraction of a study
that had linked the technology to cancer.
A group of
Kenyan scientists drawn from research institutions and universities
Monday called for reversal of the decision to forestall a looming food
shortage
.
.
“GMOs are not a threat to human health since
they are consumed in major countries and are scientifically proven to
be safe,” said Dr Joel Ochieng of the University of Nairobi.
Fresh
demands to legalise GMOs follow last week’s withdrawal of a study on
which the government based its decision to ban the technology through
the then minister for Public Health Ms Beth Mugo.
The
study by French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini claimed that rats fed on a
diet containing NK603 — a seed variety made tolerant to the spraying of
Roundup — died of cancer earlier than those on a standard diet
.
.
However, the journal of Food Chemical Toxicology that had published it discredited the study saying it was inconclusive.
“Only Kenya banned GMO on the basis of the study,” Dr Florence Wambugu of Africa Harvest said.
Illicit, unscientific
Meanwhile,
GMWatch has taken the journal’s editor, Dr A. Wallace Hayes to task
over the manner in which it retracted the Séralini paper, stating, it
was “illicit, unscientific, and unethical”.
“It
violates the guidelines for retractions in scientific publishing set out
by the Committee on Publication Ethics,” GMWatch said.
The
guidelines state that the only grounds for a journal to retract a paper
are that there should be clear evidence that the findings are
unreliable due to misconduct (eg data fabrication) or honest error;
plagiarism or redundant publication.
None of the above criteria were applied before the retraction, the Nation has learned.
No comments:
Post a Comment