By donating to the Factor GMO study you are supporting independent science

Please Donate →

The Scientists

The scientists involved in Factor GMO come from a ‘neutral’ background, in that they have no connection to the biotech industry or the anti-GMO movement, a factor that will add credibility to the results.

The scientists on the study review board are internationally respected experts in their fields.

International Scientist Review Board:

Dr. Bruce Blumberg (USA)

University of California, Irvine

Professor, Developmental & Cell Biology, School of Biological Sciences
Professor, Pharmaceutical Sciences
Professor, Biomedical Engineering @ The Henry Samueli School of Engineering
PH.D., University of California, Los Angeles

Dr. Blumberg and his colleagues originated the obesogen hypothesis which holds that developmental exposure to EDCs can induce permanent physiological changes. EDC exposure elicits epigenetic alterations in gene expression that reprograms the fate of mesenchymal stem cells, predisposing them to become fat cells. Exposed animals develop more and larger fat cells, despite normal diet and exercise which is likely to lead to weight gain and obesity over time.

The Blumberg laboratory is broadly interested in the study of gene regulation and intercellular signaling during embryonic development and physiology. Current research focuses on the role of nuclear hormone receptors in development, physiology and disease. Particular interests include patterning of the vertebrate nervous system, the differential effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on laboratory model organisms compared with humans, interactions between xenobiotic metabolism, inflammation, and cancer, and the role of environmental endocrine disrupting chemicals on the development of obesity and diabetes.

Dr. Blumberg’s research interests include molecular embryology, molecular biology, developmental biology, functional genomics, endocrinology, pharmacology and high-throughput screening.

Dr. Oxana O. Sinitsyna (Russia)

Professor, Dr. Sc. in Medicine

Deputy Director for Science at the Federal State Organization “A. N. Sysin Research Institute of Human Ecology and Environmental Health” of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Moscow

Head of the Laboratory of Ecologo-Hygienic Assessment and Prediction of Chemicals’ Toxicity

Academician for the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

Dr. Sinitsyna’s expertise includes environmental health, preventive toxicology, safety of drinking water and water bodies and regulation of chemicals in water bodies and drinking water. She is the author and co-author of more than 160 scientific publications, among them more than 80 in leading scientific journals including 2 monographs.

Dr. Sinitsyna is also co-author of 16 “Sanitary Rules and Norms” and Methodological Guidelines which are used to regulate State Sanitary and Epidemiological Inspection activities.

Over a period of 7 years Dr. Sinitsyna was a WHO Temporary Expert for the International Program on Chemical Safety (International Chemical Safety Cards (ICSC) Project). She participated in the translation and distribution of International Chemical Safety Cards in Russia.

Dr. Sinitsyna’s main areas of research include:

  • Elaboration of regional regulation systems for chemicals in the environmental objects based on the tolerable daily intake (TDI), taking into account the effects of complex exposure and differences in toxicity in different ways and methods of intoxication;
  • Improvement of criteria and methods of studying the combined action of substances at levels lower than the maximum allowable concentration (MAC);
  • Elaboration of scientific foundations for fundamental and applied problems of environmental health, in particular, water hygiene and sanitary protection of water bodies
  • Elaboration of principles, criteria and methods of sanitary-epidemiological assessment of substances’ safety, water treatment and disinfection methods, including a new physicochemical technology of photodynamic water disinfection method.
  • Jan Lucht

    “International Scientist Review Board” sounds impressive – but apparently the three scientists presented here are not the people who will carry out the actual research. Who, in fact, will be the scientists really doing the experiments at “undisclosed locations”? What are their qualifications? Why are these crucial details kept secret? How is this “review board” involved – are they really looking at the study protocols, results etc. and take personal reponsibility for the integrity of the science? Or are they just faces on the outside of a black box?

    • Claire Bleakley

      I see this is an animal feeding study not a testing study. I am not sure
      actually if there are going to be any interventions or forced feeding
      protocols please clarify? This study is very important, as these animals are used in
      clinical stage 1 trials. If the foods they are being fed cause organ
      discrasias and tumours then it will obscure any effects of the substance
      being tested. So this is a feeding trial where observations on a
      balanced diet with GE foods is being observed.

      • Rosalind Dalefield

        ‘Clinical stage 1’ is a type of human study.

    • El3737

      If these are not the scientists who’ll do the actual research, why were they chosen for an English press conference? Why not chose English speakers — or at least provide a translator for the online audience? Very difficult to follow when it kept changing into Russian.

      • Ivan Lambert

        Dear Sir/Madam,

        The scientists involved in the Press Conference will exercise neutral scientific control over the whole study. Factor GMO apologizes for the technical hitch with translation at the Press Conference for the online audience.

        Best Regards
        Ivan Lambert
        Factor GMO

    • Ivan Lambert

      Dear Jan,

      The Scientific review board is indeed “looking at the study protocols, results etc. and take personal reponsibility for the integrity of the science”.

      The scientists involved in the experiment and locations of the study are being kept secret due to the obvious possible inteference from both the industry that produces the products tested and the anti-GMO movement.

      Best Regards,
      Ivan Lambert
      Factor GMO

      • Professor CVGarcia

        Good science is clear and trasparent.

        • eko-logisk

          The Monsanto studies and their “friends” among paid scientists is not clear and transparent you mean.
          You have to go to the court to mybee be able to look at the Monsanto studie…..

          I understand that you find Monsanto studies to be bad science?

          • Professor CVGarcia

            There are many other GMO companies but people only focus on this one. Their sceince is trasperent just check their website and the peer reviewed papers. Scientist are getting funding for research not becoming millionairs. Anybody in the profession understands this.

      • Abe

        These days after 20 years of extreme collusion, coercion, and corruption, people expressing concerns and being ignored, politicians saying one thing, and dance to another tune after the elections. The courts are a joke. People see this in there face every day now. Every ones interests come first except for the 7 + billion of us.

        Professor CVGarcia brings up an excellent point on why the regular people are so doubtful. To be honest, I couldn’t tell you when anything from those in power have been clear and transparent? For me I’d have to say Nov. 21, 1963 was the last time I believed anything from the government, law enforcement, or the courts.

        I know the whole world hates America, and I don’t blame them one iota. Were the face of the globalist, we stick our nose where it doesn’t belong, and were being controlled by a cabal of global banks. Were attacking countries that didn’t have anything to do with 9/11. Were using DU weapons where ever we go. Frankly I hate us too! I seen this story in GMWatch, and actually smiled and thought to myself good! But I didn’t see anything that made me want to stand up and wave the flag. But I will reserve the right to be pessimistically optimistic.

        With that out of the way, I’m seeing something in America I haven’t seen since I was a kid. Despite what the powers that be say, we are now starting to reunite. Just don’t give up on the “We the American People”. Sir Winston Churchill said it best “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else”. There’s a good reason why the globalist are trying to disarm us. You can tell by all these mass killing, false flag attacks.

        Peace and love to all.
        A Yank

  • Rightbiotech

    I think it highly unlikely that these three scientists would put their names to a project that they did not believe that they could supervise. This doesn’t sound to me like the pharmaceutical industry ghost writing. https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/01/ghostwriting-rampant-medical-journal-art/

  • Walrus Alt

    They neglect to mention the breed of rats they’ll be using, and they’re using the unscientific acronym “GMO”, rather than GE/GM or biotech. I’m also suspicious of a scientist who says “The science on these GMOs is not settled by a long shot”. Is 2000+ studies not enough for you?

  • Rosalind Dalefield

    It is extremely concerning that that Ramazzini Institute is involved in light of the study on aspartame done by Morando Soffritti of that Institute. His work has been very widely condemned as unscientific.

  • Ripshed

    What breed of rats will the experiment use? Will they use the same tumor-prone rat breed that Seralini used, i.e. the sprague dawley?

    • eko-logisk

      Tumor-prone like humans, so Sprague-Dawley was a very good choice in the Seralini study, but there was some pseudo-scientific woices. A rat that not get tumors, that would be a stranger choice.
      (Even Monsanto use Sprague-Dawley, that is a rat that has been used a lot, there is a good knowledge about this rat and its cancer rates)

      Those critics who said that you cannot use S-D for statistical analyses – how odd to say so. There is not any statistical fault in that; when you look at cancer or not you can regard it as Bionamial and with a number of 60 GMO-eater (triple than expected) you have a high sighnificance that GMO cause cancer, at least after 20 months.

      But never mind this – with more than 6000 rats there will be no problem.

      But there is Monsantoists and their trolls and sceintists with Monsamoney in their pockets – they can already today tell us thar the factorgmo result not will be accepted.

      Monsanto have always said that glyphosate and GMO are very safe. Now WHO have said – after looking at studies – that glyfosat probably give us cancer. Soon we have clear evidence that GMO damage our bodies. How about fertility problems? The austrian study was downforced. In two three years we will know. (Well not those with economic interests in GMO, they will automatically with PR-backup from the chemical industry attack any result that show sometning else than that GMO is safe.

      The industry has almost not changed their arguments after the genome project – the one gene – one protein – one effect is better for Monsanto

      • Interesting. Please tell us how you got access to the study protocol, and how can the rest of the scientific community see it.

  • Camarelli

    So, you will not accept funding from the GM industry, but will accept from all other sources? Is the Organic industry funding you? Is Greenpeace and other well known anti-GM NGOs funding you? You should be more transparent, please tell us who are funding you and who are the actual scientists that are going to do the job.

    • Ivan Lambert

      Full funding transparency will be given at the start of the experimental phase of Factor GMO in 2015. This is of course an improvement on the lack of funding transparency generally involving the safety testing of GM crops and their associated pesticides.

      Best Regards,
      Ivan Lambert
      Factor GMO

  • Camarelli

    The National Association for Genetic Safety, who runs this initiative, has echoed all the bad science against GMOs made until now, gave credit to all anti-GMOs wild claims never recognizing the studies that support the actual scientific consensus that GMOs pose no higher health risks then the other foods. How come do you want the public to believe this initiative is “independent”? Why do you refuse contributions from the industry, not only funding but also scientists, but accept all other contributions? Why can’t this be a collaborative work with people from all sides? Where did you got this freaking huge amount of funding? I smell a rat in here. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to do better than this.

  • bitcop

    I donated to the research this morning from a FaceBook post and the PayPal account goes to zemlya2010@gmail.com, This does not seem like an official donation email address. Please confirm or deny this is a valid address. I suspect I may have been scammed.

    • Ivan Lambert

      Dear Sir/Madam,

      Thank you for your kind donation. We can also confirm that the Paypal account mentioned is linked directly to the organizer of the study – the NGO NAGS: http://www.oagb.ru/about.php?txt_id=724 . The official study paypal account is currently being set up and will be active very soon.

      Best Regards,
      Ivan Lambert
      Factor GMO

    • Sirios

      I believe by now it is a scam. the study never started and the claim of it being unbiased is hard to believe considering Pascal Najadi the CEO of what use to be called the Swiss Merchant Bank, has as one of his partner/clients Novartis of Switzerland. Novartis owns NK seeds a swiss company that makes GMO seeds. I,would think that they would have a very keen interest in the outcome of the study if it ever starts.

  • Matt Cameron

    Why don’t I like GMO in Canada?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Here is another piece of information for all these new followers that I seem to gather like flotsam that get stuck at the mangrove roots in shifting tides.

    The whole world, when discussing GMO, wants to see if it if safe or not. I believe it is unsafe, especially the chemicals and pesticides associated with it. However, that is not the main point from where I stand.

    I am on a completely different platform. To me, this is an attack on Canadian democracy and independence, whereby all living creatures that are important, may one day cease to be Canadian product, or Gods creation, and instead belong to a patent holding foreign corporation.

    This – damn the science -is unacceptable to me. I want Canadian flora and fauna to remain Canadian and Gods creation and not stolen by any biotech thief from abroad.

    And the mechanism being used to infiltrate into Canada, is not through scientists, but through our corrupt politicians.

    Therefore, to me, this is a political issue. This cannot be solved by scientists, but by politicians. And corrupt politicians are not going to solve it for us. Hence, in a democratic system, it comes down to people. The buck stops at your and my feet to change the politician system, from the bottom up, in banning GMO at the Municipal level.

    Why bottom up and why Municipal level ? because that, far as I can see, is the only level of Govt that is still within reach of ordinary people and where corporate funding has not yet become pervasive.

    So, this is a politician problem, and needs a political solution. This will not happen by writing petitions to bogus politicians in Ottawa, but this can happen, and is happening in BC, at the ground level.

    Think of it another way. In your own home, do you need to prove that Roundup is had for health in order to decide not to use it? No, you do not need
    to prove any such thing. Why not? Because you are living in a free country and it is your right to decide if you will or will not use GM food or pesticide, without any need to prove anything to anybody.

    Likewise, a Municipality is an extension of your home, and includes your community. If the community does not like GMO and does not trust RoundUP, it can ban it without any need to prove anything to anybody. That is the meaning, and essence, of democracy.

    They cannot be sued for banning it, per trade agreements, because Municipalities did not sign those agreements. Higher Govts did, and it is higher Govts to face the music for agreeing to trade deals that attempt to subvert citizen rights.

    Now, why did I bother writing all this here ? To inform all of you pro-GMO nitwits that asking me to enter the “peer-reviewed” science of GMO safety is a complete waste of time far as I am concerned. My freedom and that of my country is under attack. I don’t care too hoots about your peer-reviewed shit.

    By the way, I do consider you pro-GMO guys nitwits, which is far better than considering you as collaborators to an occupying force of foreign corporations, or agents of fascism – I trust you’ll agree to that.

    So, all you GM nitwits – find another place to go and jump up and down. I am totally uninterested in your opinion or behaviour.

    Comprende ?

    • Dianne Tea

      And you will change your mind if this study proves that they are safe?

  • Just Ice

    Perhaps this study will initiate international standards for independent testing of new technology for the countries involved (in the study) to be safely introduced. It’s vital to protect health of mankind and of the environment, and that can never be achieved by self-regulation, history has taught us that. I truly love the idea of these countries working together, good to see.

  • MikeEchoSierra

    I smell a Seralini rat here. I can’t wait to find out who’s really behind this. The very name of the study begs the question. And why is this study necessary when we already have many thousands on the safety of GMO’s and modern synthesized pesticides? Why study something when there’s been decades of research and scientific consensus? Why perform this study when every credible study thus far has proven GMO safety and there’s yet to be a single study that proves otherwise? This should be interesting to follow.

    And by the way, real scientists don’t beg the public for research money. So who are some of the people you can’t mention? Jeffrey Smith? John W. Roulac? Dr. Mercola?

    • Eio EverythinisOk

      You seem to be uncomfortable with the idea that, in any field, a producer of a product should have no involvement in the testing of its safety.

    • Liquid

      “And by the way, real scientists don’t beg the public for research money. ”

      Not all experiments can be funded by multi-billion dollar biotech companies, with help from Bill and Melinda Gates. You have no clue how truly independent research even works. Moron.

    • eko-logisk

      Hallo Monsanto, interesting see you here as “Guest”
      You use your strange arguments, but do so.
      If you smell a Seralini rat, thats good. The Sprague is a good one with tumor-prone like us.
      So, you try to use the “1700” och “2000” lie but with the words “many thousands” – is it then not strange that you not can mention a single one that study the whole part of the life, just those regarding 1/8 of the lifespan.
      And some of the 90-days show damage – but of course more GMO dagames efter a halv, one, teo years og GMO-eating.

      There is not one real study – just corrupted scientists. But not even they have made a long term study.

      Nice talking to you, Monsanto. It has been a bad week, hasnt it. WHO telling us that glyphosate probably cancer. Not a kind way, was it. And they buy less GMO and the result down, well the world can be hard. But dont worry, you have your paid guys in thew GMO panel in Europe, you have Obama and soon Hillary. But you dont have the people. You dont have the real scientists.

      Real scientists? But dear you. Real scientists are critical to you. I guess you mean Deal scientists – you give them money and they talk nice about you.

    • Laurie Avenell Olson

      I am happy that there are scientists with a backbone like Seralini. What he and his team did was heroic. In the USA and Canada we are 20 years into a massive feeding study and all you have to do is look at the health of the people in North America and see that we are hurting as a population. I wish someone would look at what happens to these poor rats when they are treated like our children and given vaccinations on top of GMO food. Autism and allergies are on the rise in scary numbers in the USA and we need to find out why asap.

  • Guest

    News organizations have been made aware of this bogus project. It’s being run by the vehemently anti-GMO group National Association for Genetic Safety in Russia. Dirt has already been dug up on two of your “researchers” that indicate they are biased. Do NOT donate money to this organization! They are not a legitimate 501(c). They want your money to fabricate another study on the level of Seralini’s.

    There will be publicity in the coming weeks.

    • eko-logisk

      But dear Monsanto in your Guest suit, more words?
      So your anti-scientific departement continue create “dirt”. Same “dirt” uoy used about Jane Goodall as she opened the “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth” by Steven Druker. He was not kind, showing how yoy manage FDA and so on.

      The Monsantoistic definition of bad science is science that shows that GMO and glyphosate are bad, isn´t it. So WHO, tThe World Health Organisation only use the bad science – and so wrong; The tell the world that glyphosate probably cause tumors/cancer.. That was not nice, was it. How can they use such a bad science. And all theese scientists showing that glyphosate give us cancer and WHO use that science. Dont they know that it is you, Monsanto, that decide that there only is studies that show the safety og GMO and glyphosate. Thousands og studies. Thousands and thousands and thousands.

      ——————————————————————————
      The level of Seralini is higher than the level of Monsanto
      You placed your Monsantoman Richard Goodman at the paper (FCT) and then the Seralinis study was retracted. Nice.
      But today not so nice for you, Monsanto. Your man, Goodman is “retracted” from FCT. The new editor-in-chief mean that THERE IS NO CONCENSUS ABOUT THE SAFETY IN GMO. What a bad manner, isnt it.

    • eko-logisk

      ….and where is the “dirt”. You wrote this two months ago, and nothing. ….

      Everybody – if you believe in the truth and in the propriety donate money to the study

      May 23 the young people meet, they dont want Monsanto to destroy the wolrd as Monsanto has done with hormons, PCB, DDT and so on.
      And nog GMO that has increased the illness in USA, that has the highest cancer rate in the industrialized world, and so with allegies and so on. The american children are sicker than their parents where. And in South America where GMO corn and soy are cultivated the children have more than doubled rates of cancer and birth defects.

      Well, Monsanto, I have not the time chat with you
      But, I look further to see the “dirt” your desinformation departement produce

  • Farm Wars

    If animal testing is done, what will the base food consist of for the comparison? Organic?

  • As we learnt from Watergate — ‘Follow the money.’ In this ‘research’ the money is channelled through NAGS, a virulently anti-GM political pressure group! You say (below) ‘NAGS is not involved in the scientific process in any way’ — nor is Monsanto involved in the vast majority of scientific studies done by scientists and published in peer-reviewed journals.

    You can hardly have good-quality research when you deliberately exclude EVERY scientist who has already worked on GMOs! By definition, anyone who hasn’t done such research is not in the correct scientific field or has absolutely no interest in the correct scientific field!

  • Jan

    What happened to Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi, Director and Chief of Pathology of the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Centre of the Ramazzini Institute, Bentivoglio, Italy, who was on the “International Scientist Review Board” for the Factor GMO study from the beginning? She as suddenly disappeared from the “Scientists” list and has been purged from most documents on this website, although one can stil see her on the photographs of the public launch of the study in 2014 (how long until that pictures will be edited, too?).

    Does not look like there is strong scientific support for this project any more… but donations are still happily accepted!

Share This