Last week, the Facebook Machine and the Twitterverse were abuzz with headlines about a recent study, published in Food and Chemical Toxicology, that purported to conclusively link genetically modified (GM) corn and tumors in rats. Not unexpectedly, there was a great social media hue and cry, but some researchers find only a kernel of truth, as it were, in this study. First of all, let’s get our terminology clear. All crops and all farm animals are genetically modified in some fashion. Have been since the dawn of agriculture. Once you start cross-breeding and hybridizing and otherwise selecting certain plants or animals for various characteristics, you are modifying its genome. Take corn. Big ears, with plump juicy even rows of kernels are as much as product of genetic engineering as the “GM” variety. (“Original” corn, as found in situ by our ancestors more closely resembled the baby corn you find in Chinese restaurants.) Now, we refer to animals and crops as “genetically modified” when bits of other species’ DNA is inserted into their genome. It’s not a million miles removed from the “normal” way of doing things, but it has taken on a certain stigma (and quite rightly in some ways, as I’ll point out), and the unfortunate and woefully inaccurate term “Frankenfoods” has been coined, even though, near as I can tell, no one has reanimated dead crops or animals, which would certainly be something. Anyway, these genetic modifications were made in order to make these crops resilient to pests or other things that impede their growth, especially in parts of the world where it can be difficult to grow staple crops. One of the great advantages of GM crops is that they can help alleviate famine; GM rice, for example, can be grown in places not conducive to conventional rice-growing, helping feed hungry local populations. Now, the issues I have with GM crops are twofold. The first is economic. Patenting seeds or organisms is a dubious idea, but some of Monsanto’s (and it’s really Monsanto we are talking about when we talk about GMOs) practices—like suing farmers who end up inadvertently growing GM crops that, through wind or other means, ended up on their property, mingling with the local crops—are downright creepy. But this is a complaint about the business entity, not the technology. The second is that it doesn’t take an evolutionary biologist to realize that if you create a crop that is resistant to pests, you’re going to end up with pests that are resistant to the pest-resistance. This is the battle farmers have long fought with the critters that attack their crops. So these issues I have with GMOs (genetically modified organisms) has nothing really to do with food safety issues. And thus far no studies have found any links between GMOs and health and safety concerns. Until now. About that study. The headlines—“Monsanto corn causes tumors in rats, new study finds”—made it halfway around the world before the critics could get their boots on. And other independent scientists have found that the study was deeply flawed on a variety of levels. First of all, they used a species of rat that is highly prone to tumors regardless of what they eat; these rats are also used in cancer research for that very reason. Secondly, the rats used were old, the rodent equivalent of senior citizens, which increases the likelihood of their developing tumors even further. Thirdly, the size of the control group—rats that did not eat the GM corn—was much smaller than the experimental group, as much as nine times smaller. Fourthly, the statistical analysis they used was described by one scientists a “fantasy statistics.”

“The statistical analysis made by the authors of the paper did not take into account certain important statistical considerations,” the [European Food Safety Authority] wrote. “The assumptions underlying the statistical methodology employed by the authors led to misleading results.” Many tens of millions of people and animals have consumed substantial quantities of genetically modified soybeans, maize and other crops around the world over the last 15 years, Newell-McGloughiln said. Yet, there has been no evidence of a rise in related health outcomes. Nor have many other scientific studies turned up any concerns about the health effects of GM crops

Perhaps most damning, perhaps, was that the researchers—which has a strong anti-GM history—conducted the experiments looking deliberately for a specific outcome, which is a no-no in scientific research. I have no specific love (or hate) for GMOs, or affinity for big agribusinesses, and by all means, let’s keep testing them. (Unfortunately, most of the research that has been conducted has been conducted by someone with an agenda—for or against GMOs—out to prove something, rather than to objectively obtain data.) And, ideally, GMOs can be used to help feed the starving people of the world. But let’s not let flawed research get in the way of a true understanding of these foods. Also, from the New York Times, seems the researchers used a weird embargo policy to get journalists to run with the ominous headlines without being able to do their due diligence in crosschecking and analysis. Much more here, too. And even noted food researcher and writer Marion Nestle was skeptical of the study. But then: “popcorn lung.”