GMO COMPASS - Information on genetically modified organisms
  Mar 30, 2017 | 10:53 am
Site Search

Searches all of GMO-Compass in an instant

Stakeholder input wanted: survey on research needs for assessing GMO impacts 

Shaping the Future of GMO Research

Stakeholder with interests in the risk and/or benefit assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) are invited to take part in an online survey.

The aim of this survey is to identify which research needs should be prioritised, thereby contributing to the commissioning of research on the health, environment and economic impacts of GMOs.

The survey will close on 15th July 2015.

More information and access to the online survey

The setting-up of this website was financially supported by the European Union within the European Commission’s Sixth Framework Programme from 1 January 2005 until 28 February 2007.

The European Commission and other EU agencies are not responsible for the content.
See what’s what.
The GMO Food Database
The GMO Food Database.
You want to know for which food products or plants gene technology plays a role?

Then enter here the name of a plant, foodstuff, ingredient or additive:

Database search
All database entries in overview:
Ingredients and additives
Additives according to E numbers

Please note that the GMO Compass Database currently is being expanded and updated. Please check back for new entries.

Sign up to receive regular updates on GM food quality and safety.
To change or cancel your subscription, please enter your email above.
Comments, suggestions or questions?
Please contact us at
Change font size
1 2 3


Study: GM Soy Dangerous for Newborns?

Dr. Irina Ermakova of the Russian Academy of Sciences recently released a study reporting higher mortality rates and lower body weight among young rats whose mothers were fed a diet of herbicide resistant, genetically modified soybeans. According to experts at the British Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, a serious review of the study is not possible until more experimental data is made available. In addition, the study’s findings go against reviewed scientific studies that have refuted negative health effects.

At a conference for the Russian National Association for Genetic Security (NAGS) in October 2005, a Russian research team shared preliminary results on the effect of genetically modified soybeans on rats and their offspring. The team led by Dr. Irina Ermakova at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences found that the mortality rate of the offspring of rats fed genetically modified soy flour was six times higher than that of rats raised with feed from conventional soy. In addition, the surviving offspring of rats fed GM soy had significantly lower bodyweight compared to control groups. Dr. Ermakova claims her findings raise serious concerns regarding possible health risks to humans.

Bild vergrößern

According to Dr. Ermakova, the smaller rat's mother was fed GM soy. The larger rat was purportedly born at the same time, except its mother was fed conventional soy. As of now, no details on the study have been made available.

The media propagated Ermakova’s claims. The Russian newspaper Pravda predicted sinking life expectancy for consumers because of genetically modified soy. The Daily Mail in Great Britain warned of dangers for unborn babies.

There is no question that such findings merit close attention. Dr. Ermakova’s research looked at a genetically modified soybean cultivar from Monsanto that has been grown commercially in the United States since 1996 and is now also grown in Brazil and Argentina. It is used to produce ingredients and additives found in many processed food products. Approximately 60 percent of the world’s soybean production is genetically modified.

Inadequate information

An adequate assessment of the study and its implicated negative effects on consumers is only possible if details on methodology and results are made available. For this reason, a comprehensive review of Dr. Ermakova’s findings has not yet been possible.

The study has not yet been published in a recognised scientific journal and has therefore not been subjected to review from other scientists. The peer-reviewing process is considered essential for ensuring that published scientific findings are based on sound methodology and reliable experimental design.

The Australian scientist Dr. Christopher Preston (University of Adelaide) addressed Dr. Ermakova’s research in an article in AgBioWorld (October 2005). According to Dr. Preston, the data released on the experiment could not withstand a scientific review. He also criticised Ermakova’s approach to communicating her findings. She presented her research at an anti-GMO conference with a strong media presence. By doing this, she publicised her results and avoided subjecting her findings to assessment by the scientific community.

The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP), which is responsible for GMO safety evaluation in Great Britain, also questioned Dr. Ermakova’s findings. They considered the results sketchy and inadequately supported. For example, there is no information about the composition of the rats' diets. Therefore, the possibility of faulty methodology cannot be refuted. The ACNFP issued a statement mentioning a number of possible explanations for Ermakova’s findings having nothing to do with genetically modified soy. One of the possible reasons could be that the test group was given feed containing higher levels of mycotoxins. Mycotoxins are toxic by-products of fungal diseases that sometimes affect soybeans. The ACNFP will consider further details if they can be obtained.

The European Commission asked the European Food Safety Administration (EFSA) to comment on Dr. Ermakova's findings. Like the ACNFP, EFSA's GMO Panel searched for all available information on the study, but could not conclude on the research due to a lack of experimental details.

Contradictory to previous findings

According to the ACNFP, Dr. Ermakova's findings are inconsistent with a recognised, published research report. At South Dakota State University in the United States, Denise Brake and Dr. Donald Evenson conducted similar feeding studies on mice with GM soybean and published their results in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in 2004. Test animals were fed a diet containing 21% GM soy over the course of four generations. Along with number of offspring, mortality, and bodyweight, test animals were checked for changes in testicle morphology, which is a sensitive indicator of food toxicity. Brake and Evenson’s studies found no negative effects.



An EU Research Project

What are the risks of growing GM crops?

What are the benefits?

Numerous studies have addressed the potential impacts of genetically modified (GM) plants. Yet the existing evidence on the effects of GM plants is often contradictory and the quality of scientific research varies widely.

Therefore, the GRACE project will establish new tools for assessing the quality of existing studies and will conduct comprehensive reviews to identify health, environmental and socio-economic impacts of GM plants.

More information


GMO Soybeans & Sustainability

Less soil erosion and fuel consumption: herbicide tolerant soybeans are promoting sustainable cultivation methods.


Glyphosate in European agriculture

Interview with a farmer

Glyphosate containing herbicides are not only used in fields with GM crops. They also allow conventional farmers to sow directly into stubble fields without ploughing. Glyphosate has replaced mechanical weed control in many crops and has had an important impact on agricultural practices and crop yields in Europe over the past few decades.

European Glyphosate Task Force

The issue of contradictory results of biosafety studies
Opposition decreasing or acceptance increasing?
An overview of European consumer polls on attitudes to GMOs
German ban on MON810 maize: will the courts now decide?
China plans to invest in GM crops R&D and consumer education
"Find the wisdom to allow GM technology to flourish"
Results of the GMO Compass snapshot poll
Genetic engineering of cut flowers
Preliminary studies raise hopes: Golden Rice works well!
GMO labelling of foodstuffs produced from animals – the discussion continues
GM Crops in Australia – will the moratoria end?
International study: consumers would buy GM products
GM plants no problem for the honey industry
Are GMOs Fuelling the Brazilian Future?
Latest Eurobarometer: Yes to Biotech – No to GM Food
Barley, Beer and Biotechnology
Farm Fresh Pharmaceuticals
Study: GM Soy Dangerous for Newborns?
Safety evaluation: GM peas in Australia with unexpected side-effects
The western corn rootworm: A pest coming to a maize field near you
Plants for the Future
Crops and Cereals
GM Plants: The Big Four
Rape Seed
Global GM Crop Production in 2013
January 24, 2006 [nach oben springen]

© 2017 by GMO Compass. All rights reserved. | Imprint | website created by webmotive