Not statistically happy with Seralini's use of 20 control rats* in a 200 rat chronic toxicity study over 2 years?
How statistically happy do you feel about FSANZ approving the three Dow GM crops resistant to the pesticide "2,4-D" without any feeding studies; i.e. zero rats?
DAS-68416-4 (soy) approved 2011
DAS-40278-9 (corn) approved 2011
DAS-44406-6 (soy) approved 2013
I ask because the USDA has released this draft environmental impact statement http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/APHIS-2013-0042-0050_0.pdf effectively 'greenlighting' the planting of these crops. When the crops are planted their residues will be in your food, courtesy of global food trading lines.
How do you feel about the dioxin contamination of the pesticide 2,4-D discussed in this ABC Four Corners program, and its effect on human health and agriculture? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-22/four-corners-dangerous-dioxins/4833848
In respect of the 2011 crops the 14 day acute toxicity studies (two feedings, an hour apart, on day 1) of surrogate GM proteins (not the in-crop proteins) were on 10 mice, 5 male, 5 female. Find these numbers statistically satisfying? More detail about the results: http://www.madge.org.au/Docs/MR-110317-serious-alert-about-FSANZ.pdf
For the GM soy crop approved in 2013, (tolerant to three herbicide groups: 2,4-D+, glyphosate, glufosinate), Dow submitted the acute toxicity studies for earlier surrogate proteins and FSANZ decided it didn't need to detail this is in its report.
"Acute oral toxicity studies in mice using bacterially-produced 2m EPSPS and AAD-12
proteins were submitted by the Applicant but are not included in this safety assessment
since no safety concerns were identified in any of the other studies.6"
Did Dow forget to submit a study for the third surrogate GM protein (PAT)?
I'm pretty confident that the Australian and New Zealand publics would consider that FSANZ is not doing what we pay it to do.
*Oops! Correction - 'rats' was previously and erroneously written as 'mice'. Thanks to @regnans