HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Journal retracts genetica...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 12:33 AM

Journal retracts genetically modified corn study that found tumor risk in rats

Source: CBS news

A scientific journal has formally retracted a controversial study linking genetically modified corn to tumor growth and death risk in rats.

The study had appeared in the Sept. 19, 2012 issue of Food and Chemical Toxicology, and made headlines around the world with its stark images of rats who purportedly were more likely to develop large tumors and die early after eating Monsanto’s genetically modified maize, whether or not it was treated with a weed killer.

But now the journal’s publisher, Elsevier, says the study led by biologist Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini of Caen University in France is being retracted due to concerns with the research methodology.


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/journal-retracts-genetically-modified-corn-tumor-rats-study/



Once again, science and the peer process shows woo to be a load of crapola.

64 replies, 5214 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 64 replies Author Time Post
Reply Journal retracts genetically modified corn study that found tumor risk in rats (Original post)
Archae Nov 2013 OP
darkangel218 Nov 2013 #1
Archae Nov 2013 #2
SoLeftIAmRight Nov 2013 #10
7962 Nov 2013 #24
Peregrine Dec 2013 #51
proverbialwisdom Nov 2013 #4
bemildred Nov 2013 #15
proverbialwisdom Nov 2013 #21
bemildred Nov 2013 #23
PaulaFarrell Nov 2013 #13
darkangel218 Nov 2013 #14
bemildred Nov 2013 #17
darkangel218 Nov 2013 #31
bemildred Nov 2013 #32
darkangel218 Nov 2013 #34
bemildred Nov 2013 #35
darkangel218 Nov 2013 #39
bemildred Nov 2013 #16
Igel Nov 2013 #30
BronxBoy Dec 2013 #61
nolabels Dec 2013 #56
proverbialwisdom Nov 2013 #3
CSStrowbridge Nov 2013 #5
proverbialwisdom Nov 2013 #7
Deep13 Nov 2013 #6
cstanleytech Nov 2013 #8
SoLeftIAmRight Nov 2013 #9
CountAllVotes Nov 2013 #11
SoLeftIAmRight Nov 2013 #12
BadgerKid Nov 2013 #19
bemildred Nov 2013 #20
BrotherIvan Nov 2013 #37
KurtNYC Nov 2013 #22
BronxBoy Dec 2013 #63
idwiyo Nov 2013 #18
arikara Nov 2013 #25
Archae Nov 2013 #26
KoKo Nov 2013 #27
djean111 Nov 2013 #28
drynberg Nov 2013 #29
djean111 Nov 2013 #42
mike_c Nov 2013 #33
proverbialwisdom Nov 2013 #36
mike_c Nov 2013 #38
cstanleytech Nov 2013 #40
proverbialwisdom Nov 2013 #41
ronnie624 Dec 2013 #49
cstanleytech Dec 2013 #54
idwiyo Dec 2013 #46
proverbialwisdom Dec 2013 #47
idwiyo Dec 2013 #48
ronnie624 Dec 2013 #50
JackRiddler Nov 2013 #43
Rosa Luxemburg Nov 2013 #44
SpcMnky Nov 2013 #45
Ian David Dec 2013 #52
Phlem Dec 2013 #53
Archae Dec 2013 #55
DeSwiss Dec 2013 #57
OrwellwasRight Dec 2013 #58
Berlum Dec 2013 #59
BronxBoy Dec 2013 #62
HuckleB Feb 2014 #64
BronxBoy Dec 2013 #60

Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 12:37 AM

1. I remember asking my microbiology instructor if GMO crops are dangerous to humans

She said no way, because plant DNA can not combine with human DNA.

I still don't believe it completely though. Too many countries have banned GMOs, I would think they had done some research on the subject and concluded they're not all that safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 12:40 AM

2. Or a far simpler explanation.

Anti-GMO hysteria spread by people who either have no idea really what they are talking about, or have a vested interest in keeping *ALL* GMO crops out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 02:16 AM

10. DO YOU LIKE ROUNDUP READY GMO'S

Would you like to see labeling that identifies roundup ready GMO's?

If not, WHY?

Here comes the cricket serenade.

Chirp chirp...


chirp chirp...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoLeftIAmRight (Reply #10)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 09:15 AM

24. I think everything should be labeled with how its made and where its from and whats in it.

I dont buy any of this crap from people who say it raises costs. You're printing something on a label. "contains........" "grown in..." Etc.
I remember when Wal MArt said they would no longer sell milk that had growth hormones in it (i think thats what it was) and some milk companies wanted to BAN them from putting that fact on their labels! If theres nothing wrong with it, you shouldnt be worried about telling us about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoLeftIAmRight (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 12:03 PM

51. I assume that I already eat it

It is this hysterics that is keeping gmo labeling from happening. Right now, if I was an agri-business, I would fight labeling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 01:07 AM

4. FYI.

http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/news/150

No scientific consensus on GMO safety
Scientists release statement saying public is being misled

Press release, Earth Open Source, Monday 21 October 2013

There is no scientific consensus that genetically modified foods and crops are safe, according to a statement released today by an international group of over 85 scientists, academics and physicians.(1)

The statement comes in response to recent claims from the GM industry and some scientists and commentators that there is a “scientific consensus” that GM foods and crops are safe for human and animal health and the environment. The statement calls such claims “misleading” and states, “The claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist.”

Commenting on the statement, one of the signatories, Professor Brian Wynne, associate director and co-principal investigator from 2002-2012 of the UK ESRC Centre for the Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, Cesagen, Lancaster University, said: “There is no consensus amongst scientific researchers over the health or environmental safety of GM crops and foods, and it is misleading and irresponsible for anyone to claim that there is. Many salient questions remain open, while more are being discovered and reported by independent scientists in the international scientific literature. Indeed some key public interest questions revealed by such research have been left neglected for years by the huge imbalance in research funding, against thorough biosafety research and in favour of the commercial-scientific promotion of this technology.”

Another signatory, Professor C. Vyvyan Howard, a medically qualified toxicopathologist based at the University of Ulster, said: “A substantial number of studies suggest that GM crops and foods can be toxic or allergenic, and that they can have adverse impacts on beneficial and non-target organisms. It is often claimed that millions of Americans eat GM foods with no ill effects. But as the US has no GMO labelling and no epidemiological studies have been carried out, there is no way of knowing whether the rising rates of chronic diseases seen in that country have anything to do with GM food consumption or not. Therefore this claim has no scientific basis.”

A third signatory to the statement, Andy Stirling, professor of science and technology policy at Sussex University and member of the UK government’s GM Science Review Panel, said: “The main reason some multinationals prefer GM technologies over the many alternatives is that GM offers more lucrative ways to control intellectual property and global supply chains. To sideline open discussion of these issues, related interests are now trying to deny the many uncertainties and suppress scientific diversity. This undermines democratic debate – and science itself.”

The scientists’ statement was released by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility in the week after the World Food Prize was awarded to employees of the GM seed giants Monsanto and Syngenta and UK environment secretary Owen Paterson branded opponents of GM foods as “wicked”.

Signatories of the statement include prominent and respected scientists, including Dr Hans Herren, a former winner of the World Food Prize and an Alternative Nobel Prize laureate, and Dr Pushpa Bhargava, known as the father of modern biotechnology in India.

<>

Notes

1. http://www.ensser.org/media/0513/

Summary of the statement, “No scientific consensus on GMO safety”:

1. There is no scientific consensus that GM crops and foods are safe for human and animal health.

2. A peer-reviewed review of safety studies on GM crops and foods found about an equal number of research groups raising concerns about GMO safety as groups concluding safety. However, most researchers concluding safety were affiliated with biotechnology companies that stood to profit from commercializing the GM crop concerned.

3. A review that is often cited to show GM crops and foods are safe in fact includes studies that raised concerns. Scientists disagree about the interpretation of these findings.

4. No epidemiological studies have been carried out to find out if GM crops are affecting human health, so claims that millions of Americans eat GM foods with no ill effects have no scientific basis.

5. There is no scientific consensus on the safety of GM crops for the environment. Studies have associated GM herbicide-tolerant crops with increased herbicide use and GM insecticidal crops with unexpected toxic impacts on non-target organisms.

6. A survey among scientists showed that those who received funding from biotech companies were more likely to believe GM crops were safe for the environment, whereas independent scientists were more likely to emphasize uncertainties.

7. Although some scientific bodies have made broadly supportive statements about GM over the years, these often contain significant caveats, call for better regulation, and draw attention to the risks as well as the potential benefits of GMOs. A statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) claiming GMO safety was challenged by 21 scientists, including long-standing members of the AAAS.

8. International agreements such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety exist because experts worldwide believe that a strongly precautionary attitude is justified in the case of GMOs. Concerns about risks are well-founded, as can be seen by the often complex, contradictory, and inconclusive findings of safety studies on GMOs.


More: http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/search?searchword=horizontal%20transfer&searchphrase=all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 07:03 AM

15. Yes, the very notion that there could be a "scientific consensus" that GMOs

as a class are "safe" is, well, scientific twaddle. That is not what science does, science does not prove things, if fails to disprove them. That is what empiricism is all about: investigation, experimentation, and analysis, not making your mind up or making ridiculous projections like GMOs will never cause harm.

But anyway, RoundUp is the real atrocity. Investigation of GMOs is important science, it is the premature commercial exploitation of it that is doing harm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 08:58 AM

21. Many studies of biotech food suggest problems more widespread than the role of glycophosphate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002803435

POST 4:

...In addition, many studies implicate Bt-toxin as an allergen. In its natural state derived from soil bacteria, Bt-toxin has triggered immune responses in farm workers and allergic- and flu-like symptoms in hundreds of exposed citizens.21 It also evoked immune responses 22 (and intestinal tissue damage) 23 in mice. Similarly, an Italian government study showed that mice fed Bt-corn had dramatic immune responses.24 And thousands of Indian farm workers who harvest Bt cotton are also experiencing allergic- and flu-like symptoms.25

Thus, Bt-toxin production within our intestines might simultaneously trigger immune responses, compromise our digestive tract, and expose the blood to undigested food (which may further trigger immune responses).

And now the bad news: a 2011 Canadian study conducted at Sherbrooke Hospital discovered that 93% of the pregnant women they tested had Bt-toxin from Monsanto’s corn in their blood. And so did 80% of their unborn fetuses.26

The toxin is likely to 'wash out' of our blood fairly quickly. If that is the case, how can we explain why more than 9 out of 10 women had it circulating? It must be that the intake of Bt-toxin must be very frequent. But Canadians don’t eat that many corn chips and tortillas. They do eat lots of corn derivatives like corn syrup, but these highly processed foods no longer have the Bt-toxin present.

The authors of the study speculate that the source of the Bt-toxin in the blood must have been the meat and dairy of animals fed Bt corn. This assumes that the Bt-toxin protein remains intact through the animals’ entire digestive process and then again through the humans’ digestive process after they eat the meat or dairy.

A more plausible explanation may be that Bt-toxin genes transfer from corn chips or tortillas into our gut bacteria. The active genes then produce the (substance) on a continuous basis inside the intestinal tract, which then gets into our blood. And for pregnant mothers, the toxin then travels through the placenta into their fetuses.

<...>

21. Green M et al. Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86, Amer J Public Health. 1990;80(7):848–852. Noble MA, Riben PD, and Cook GJ. Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray (Vancouver, BC: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992)

22. Vazquez et al. Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice. 1897–1912. Vazquez et al. Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research. 2000;33:147–155. Vazquez et al. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant. Scandanavian Journal of Immunology. 1999;49:578–584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al. 147 (2000b).

23. Fares NH, El-Sayed AK. Fine Structural Changes in the Ileum of Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes. Natural Toxins. 1998;6:219–233.

24. Finamore A et al. Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice. J Agric Food Chem. 2008;56:11533-11539.

25. Gupta A et al. Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh). Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005. Also, "Bt cotton causing allergic reaction in MP; cattle dead," Bhopal, Nov. 23, 2005.

26. Aris A, Leblanc S. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reprod Toxicol. 2011 May;31(4):528-33. Epub 2011 Feb 18.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12312207

SUMMARY: GMO corn/soy/canola/cottonseed crops -> manufactured into food additives -> inadequately tested as recently detailed in multiple peer-reviewed journal articles by multi-year PEW FOOD ADDITIVES PROJECT -> backed by last month's PRESS RELEASE from AMERICAN professional medical groups comprised of 57,000 ob-gyns + 7.000 reproductive medicine specialists.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B846909A-A5E3-4A27-A8DA-631FD66F9DED

http://www.pewhealth.org/other-resource/pew-examines-gaps-in-toxicity-data-for-chemicals-allowed-in-food-85899493633
http://www.pewhealth.org/projects/food-additives-project-85899367220
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890623813003298

LOOK FOR THE WORD "FOOD" (although the category encompasses more than gmos, obviously):
http://www.asrm.org/Environmental_Chemicals_Harm_Reproductive_Health/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/23/environmental-chemicals-pregnancy-risk/2857753/
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/09/24/environmental-chemicals-pregnancy-risk-report-claims/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #21)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 09:02 AM

23. We are meddling with stuff we still understand quite poorly in biology.

It is very complex, the most complex thing we know of. We have only just begun. The last thing we should be doing is aggressive commercial development.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 02:46 AM

13. If That's what she really said, she shouldn't be teaching microbiology

Plenty of things are dangerous to human beings, and they don't need to combine witrh human DNA to achievbe that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PaulaFarrell (Reply #13)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 03:28 AM

14. She was reffering to geneticaly modified crops

As far as their genes affecting and possibly creating mutations in our own DNA.

"Plenty of things are dangerous to human beings, and they don't need to combine witrh human DNA to achievbe that"

I didn't say anything about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 07:10 AM

17. Right, and that is not the question that needs to be addressed,

whether plant DNA combines with animal DNA; but her dissembling allows her to avoid facing the issue squarely and she stays safe in her own area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #17)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 12:17 PM

31. If the combination of mutation plant DNA with our DNA is not the cause of concern, than what it is?

For cancer to form, there has to be some sort of disruption in the cell mitosis. I personally believe that there are more causes than just a faulty DNA sequance. But anyway, going back to gmo plants, how else could they harm us aside from the ( disputed ) danger related to their DNA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #31)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 12:41 PM

32. It's not just about cancer either.

These are poisons. Poisons do not usually only have one effect, they commonly have many, and they commonly have synergistic/catalyzing interactions with other chemicals present, and there are many many chemicals circulating in your body all the time. That is why various drugs will have multiple uses, at different dosages, or in different combinations. And those effects can be subtle or take a long time to manifest, and then kill you. Until you understand all that as it affects everything it will interact with, you cannot really say it is "safe", and even then '"safe" means safe at safe dosage levels, so it circular, they will still kill you or make you sick if you get too much. And the same, of course, applies to carcinogens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #32)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 12:53 PM

34. I see. Thanks for the info.

I had no idea the gmos were chemically toxic as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #34)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 01:00 PM

35. My pleasure.

I don't know that they are all chemically toxic, although that does apply to bug resistance and weed killer types. It's not a subject I follow that much.

Igel below mentions the "precautionary principle", which is where I come from, I think the risks should be first understood fairly well through testing (which IS expensive) and then the risks and rewards debated in public before proceeding. Thats what we do with medical treatments, and that's what we should do with GMOs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #35)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 02:00 PM

39. I agree 100%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PaulaFarrell (Reply #13)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 07:04 AM

16. Indeed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 11:49 AM

30. Anti-GMO folk have a few different rationales.

Some small farmers want to protect their crops and lands. Think "small business trying to stop the competition." This can be billed as a David-and-Goliath kind of struggle if you like, but the GMOs don't make the neighbors' farms any bigger or smaller. There's the risk of contamination, but those heritage farmers' fields are next to fields growing various hybrids anyway, so "heritage farmers'" stock gradually shifts. But since they're sort of all-natural and anti-GMO branded, some genetic shifts are far worse than others.

Some are people who just plain fear science and change. They don't like microwaves, they don't trust cell-phones, they hate plastics and really, really are terrified of ornamental kale. They're really into fear and what they don't understand. Since they don't understand large portions of life, they have no fear of a hell in the afterlife because it just can't get worse.

Another group worship at the altar of the Precautionary Principle. If it's not proven safe, it's dangerous. Note: Salt has not been proven safe. For grandfathered-in substances, traditional ones, they're tolerant. For innovations it must be proven not just safe beyond a reasonable doubt, but safe beyond all doubt. They like strict standards for approval, so most things that are currently in use would fail the test. When something they don't like passes all the tests, they doubt the methodology of the tests and call for research to improve the stringency of the tests.

Some anti-GMO folk are just anti-corporatist or anti-large-company. They're not opposed to people having large amounts of power; it's a trust issue, they want people like themselves (and only like themselves) to have power. These are the ones that have the strongest urge to appeal to authority.

Politicians can be in any group. Often they're in the fourth group--they have power and like to wield it. If they one out of things to control, then all the power's with the bureaucrats because all the "good" laws are written. They play off the economic fears or desire for empowerment of the first, the incompetence of the second, find the precautionary principle to be fertile grounds for breeding and developing new laws and entire new genera of laws, and delight when they are the people that others find to be like "themselves" and want to give power to.

It's had a hard go in America, where we tended to be individualistic, had a traditionally large group that looked to science and engineering for progress and found the precautionary principle to be a hindrance to a lot of things, and esp. dislike giving away too much of what they (apparently foolishly) deemed their own power to others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 07:52 PM

61. I just love it when....

People gloss over the disastrous effects that the enforcement of so-called intellectual property rights play in this discussion.

A farmer who raises heirloom and open pollinated crops may have genetic purity as one of his goals but that is not the issue. With the overwhelming majority of hybrids on the market, you are pretty safe that you aren't going to have some assholes tramp onto your farm looking to see if your crops have been cross pollinated. GMO companies have done that and it has been financially devastating to farmers who don't have the resources to mount a defense against the deep pockets of the "patent" owners.

One of the big mistakes I think we in the sustainable and local food movements are making is that we focus too much on the much debated health risks and not near enough on the competition and business crushing practices of a lot of big seed companies.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 07:35 PM

56. All creatures of biology use the easiest and quickest routes to acquire building blocks for growth

That being said no doubt the biological soup in our guts we use to digest our food will obviously not take kind words as well as our brains accept them, well meaning as they might be. Thinking it's taken millions of years for us mammals and then humans to evolve to were we are, would really think we would be able to adjust to something called 'Round-up-ready" just so easily?


Famous last words, 'it worked in the lab'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 12:48 AM

3. GM WATCH Press Release: Journal retraction of Séralini study is illicit, unscientific, and unethical

Last edited Sat Nov 30, 2013, 01:24 PM - Edit history (2)

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15184-journal-retraction-of-seralini-study-is-illicit-unscientific-and-unethical

Journal retraction of Séralini study is illicit, unscientific, and unethical

Statement by GMWatch on 27 November 2013.

Contact: Claire Robinson
Embargoed until 9:30 hrs GMT, Thursday 28 November 2013



Editor's decision violates scientific publication ethics.

The editor of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), Dr A. Wallace Hayes, has decided to retract the study by the team of Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini, which found that rats fed a Monsanto genetically modified (GM) maize NK603 and tiny amounts of the Roundup herbicide it is grown with suffered severe toxic effects, including kidney and liver damage and increased rates of tumours and mortality.(1)

GMWatch believes FCT’s retraction of Prof Séralini’s paper to be illicit, unscientific, and unethical. It violates the guidelines for retractions in scientific publishing set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE),(2) of which FCT is a member.(3)

COPE guidelines state that the only grounds for a journal to retract a paper are:

* Clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct (eg data fabrication) or honest error
* Plagiarism or redundant publication
* Unethical research.

Prof Séralini’s paper does not meet any of these criteria and Hayes admits as much. In his letter informing Prof Séralini of his decision (LINK), Hayes concedes that an examination of Prof Séralini’s raw data showed “no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data” and nothing “incorrect” about the data.

Hayes states that the retraction is solely based on the “inconclusive” nature of the findings on tumours and mortality, given the relatively low number of rats used and the choice of rat strain, which Hayes says naturally has a “high incidence of tumours”.

Crucially, however, inconclusiveness of findings is not a valid ground for retraction. Numerous published scientific papers contain inconclusive findings, which are often mixed in with findings that can be presented with more certainty. It is for future researchers to build on the findings and refine scientific understanding of any uncertainties.

It is important that scientists do not overstate their findings or draw conclusions that are not justified by the data, but Prof Séralini’s paper does not do this. Because Prof Séralini’s study was a chronic toxicity study and not a full-scale carcinogenicity study, which normally requires larger numbers of rats, he conservatively did not do a statistical analysis of the tumours and mortality findings. Instead he simply reported them, without drawing definitive conclusions. This is in line with the OECD chronic toxicity protocol, which requires that any “lesions” (including tumours) observed are recorded.(4)

The criticisms of the low number of rats and choice of rat strain have been addressed by Prof Séralini’s team in a comprehensive response to critics that was published in FCT,(5) as well as by independent scientists writing in support of the study.(6)

Experts in statistics writing in support of the study have pointed out that large numbers of animals are only required in safety studies to avoid false negative error, where a toxic effect exists but is missed because too few animals are used. In the case of Séralini’s study, this was not an issue. The toxic effects of the test substances were so pronounced (there was a “large effect size”) that smaller numbers of animals were sufficient for statistical significance.(7,8,9)

Regarding the Sprague-Dawley strain of rat that was used, all strains of rodents develop spontaneous tumours with age, as do humans. The fact that there is a low level of spontaneous tumour occurrence in the control group in Séralini’s study mimics the human condition. For this and other reasons, most toxicology studies use this strain of rat.

Hayes fails to address these responses and arguments in support of the study, raising questions about the expertise, balance, and objectivity of his anonymous review panel. In addition, the legitimate peer reviewers had previously considered these aspects of Séralini’s study and nevertheless decided that “the work still had merit” and should be published.

In a highly irregular process, Hayes now contradicts the outcome of the peer review and editorial process and decides to retract the paper over a year after it was published. His decision is not made on the basis of new data, but on a secret and non-transparent review by unnamed persons, who evidently do not feel able to stand behind their decision publicly or disclose any conflicts of interest they may have.

Hayes’ decision will tarnish the reputation of FCT and will increase public mistrust of science in general and genetically modified foods in particular.

The Goodman factor

Hayes’ decision to retract the paper follows FCT’s appointment of Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto scientist and an affiliate of the GMO industry-funded group, the International Life Sciences Institute, to the specially created post of associate editor for biotechnology at the journal, early this year.(10)

Goodman’s appointment in turn followed an orchestrated campaign by GMO supporters to persuade FCT to retract the study. Some critics even accused Prof Séralini of fraud, without presenting any evidence. Many of the critics had undeclared conflicts of interest with the GMO industry.(11)

After Goodman was installed, FCT withdrew a separate study by Brazilian researchers that also raised questions about GM crop safety. The study showed that Bt insecticidal toxins similar to those engineered into GM Bt crops were not broken down in digestion, as is claimed by the industry and regulators, but had toxic effects on the blood of mice. The Brazilian paper, like Prof Séralini’s, had been peer-reviewed and published by FCT prior to Goodman’s arrival. After Goodman’s arrival, the paper was withdrawn without explanation from FCT(12) – only to be immediately published in another journal.(13)

There is no proof that Goodman was responsible for the retraction of Prof Séralini’s study. But his appointment, coming so soon after the “Séralini affair”, along with FCT’s failure to list the interests of its editors, raises questions about corporate influence on the editorial board at the journal.

Notes

1. Séralini GE et al (2012) Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50(11): 4221-4231.
2. http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf
3. http://publicationethics.org/members/food-and-chemical-toxicology
4. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2009). OECD guideline no. 452 for the testing of chemicals: Chronic toxicity studies: Adopted 7 September 2009. http://bit.ly/LxJT1Z
5. Séralini GE et al (2013). Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide. Food and Chemical Toxicology 53: 461-468. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23146697
6. http://gmoseralini.org/faq-items/what-was-the-reaction-to-the-study-2/
7. Deheuvels P. Étude de Séralini sur les OGM: Pourquoi sa méthodologie est statistiquement bonne . Le Nouvel Observateur. 9 October 2012. http://bit.ly/RtPivG
8. Saunders P. Excess cancers and deaths with GM feed: The stats stand up. Science in Society. 16 October 2012. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Excess_cancers_and_deaths_from_GM_feed_stats_stand_up.php
9. Deheuvels P. L’étude de Séralini sur les OGM, pomme de discorde à l’Académie des sciences . Le Nouvel Observateur. 19 October 2012. http://leplus.nouvelobs.com/contribution/661194-l-etude-de-seralini-sur-les-ogm-pomme-de-discorde-a-l-academie-des-sciences.html
10. http://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science/
11. http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/science/item/164-smelling-a-corporate-rat
12. Mezzomo BP et al (2012). WITHDRAWN: Effects of oral administration of Bacillus thuringiensis as spore-crystal strains Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2Aa on hematologic and genotoxic endpoints of Swiss albino mice. Food Chem Toxicol. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23146696
13. Mezzomo BP et al. (2013). Hematotoxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis as spore-crystal strains Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2Aa in Swiss albino mice. J Hematol Thromb Dis 1(1).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 01:13 AM

5. Those rats...

Those rats are breed specifically to spontaneously develop tumors. If you are doing drug tests for anti-cancer medicine, you need test subjects that have cancer, which is why these guys are useful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CSStrowbridge (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 01:27 AM

7. Don't miss this documenting the tremendous support garnered by the study among many scientists.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15184-journal-retraction-of-seralini-study-is-illicit-unscientific-and-unethical

The criticisms of the low number of rats and choice of rat strain have been addressed by Prof Séralini’s team in a comprehensive response to critics that was published in FCT,(5) as well as by independent scientists writing in support of the study.(6) )

<>

5. Séralini GE et al (2013). Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide. Food and Chemical Toxicology 53: 461-468. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23146697

6. http://gmoseralini.org/faq-items/what-was-the-reaction-to-the-study-2/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 01:17 AM

6. Well, flawed methodology is generally not "woo."

I'd like to see further studies with better methodology. I do not think it necessarily unreasonable to think that corn that produces its own bug spray might be bad for us. Frankly, Monsanto should have to demonstrate safety and long term efficacy before introducing it to the environment. Selective breeding has been around for millennia, it is true, but the kind of specific gene mamipulation they are doing--without knowing how genetics work overall--is brand new.

My general concern with the whole skeptical movement is that it is developing a pro-corporate, pro-commercial bias. While this may be justified in the skeptical response to the anti-vaccine movement, for example, it can blind us to real environmental concerns in other areas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 01:30 AM

8. Could it be bad for us? Sure but we eat alot of foods that are toxic.

You can get sick for example if you eat green potato skins also kidney beans are toxic unless prepared properly as well as fugu.
Mind you I cant say I like the thought of eating modified corn but that more of an emotional response more than anything on my part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 02:07 AM

9. Watch out for the strawman

The roundup ready GMO's (the most widely used) are causing very real and very serious problems because of the heavy use of roundup inherent in the system. My grandfather's farm is next to a GMO farm. The eastern boundary of our farm, like the roundup farm is fucked up.

Everything is different on the western side of our farm. The soil looks different, smells different, feels different. Roundup is fucked up. No need for GMO's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoLeftIAmRight (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 02:24 AM

11. Study: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Linked to Cancer, Autism, Parkinson's

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, may be "the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment," - Andrea Germanos, staff writer

The active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide may be "the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment," being responsible for a litany of health disorders and diseases including Parkinson’s, cancer and autism, according to a new study.

Looking at the impacts of glyphosate on gut bacteria, Samsel and Seneff found that the herbicide "enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins," and is a “textbook example” of "the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins."

The researchers point to a potential long list of disorders that glyphosate, in combination with other environmental toxins, could contribute to, including inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, depression, ADHD, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, multiple sclerosis, cancer, cachexia, infertility, and developmental malformations.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/04/26-3


After reading this, I have no doubt that the Roundup Ready farm is indeed messed up!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CountAllVotes (Reply #11)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 02:30 AM

12. YES! the stories of miracle GMO's just hide the damage done by roundup

The GMO story is ROUNDUP.

ROUNDUP IS FUCKED UP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CountAllVotes (Reply #11)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 08:32 AM

19. "In combination with"

Hence, the underlying cause of the "problem" can already be there without the glyphosate.

Still, I'm not particularly a fan of Big Ag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BadgerKid (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 08:38 AM

20. It says there are synergistic effects, things don't in general have single causes.

Last edited Sat Nov 30, 2013, 01:53 PM - Edit history (1)

So they are saying the other stuff is already there, and this stuff makes it worse.

Otherwise, OK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CountAllVotes (Reply #11)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 01:43 PM

37. ^^This!^^

The condescending tone of the Monsato cheerleading squad on here is just laughable. Of course, speaking down one's nose and labeling everything "woo" is a fast way to win an argument. But it in no way erases the very really and substantiated concerns that GMO farming is the absolute dumbest path forward. It virtually locks in a way of farming that we KNOW poisons and depletes the soil. It creates super weeds and super pests. And its aggressive nature kills off traditional lines just as animals introduced by conquerers totally changed some native landscapes. Not to mention the total unknowns when it comes to human and animal consumption.

But hey, it's only science if it's making a profit, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoLeftIAmRight (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 09:00 AM

22. Hopefully they can explore no till farming. Many farrmers are seeing

good results with less spent on inputs.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KurtNYC (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 08:17 PM

63. There is a significant effort being undertaken.

By the sustainable AG arm of the USDA and other organizations to introduce and strengthen the use of crop rotations, cover cropping and practices like no-till. There is some good stuff being done but there is still a lot of work to be done in terms of research and farmer training and adoption

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 08:20 AM

18. Finally. Can't believe it was published to start with. Junk 'science' at it worst

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 10:48 AM

25. Monsanto got to them

like they get to anyone that crosses them.

If you believe the lies and junk science they put out then I have a great big bridge to sell you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arikara (Reply #25)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 10:53 AM

26. Right. Sure. "It's a conspiracy! They got to them!" Yibble yibble yibble...

Above someone posted a dubious link all sorts of problems, including autism.

They forgot hangnails and pattern baldness...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 10:57 AM

27. Recommend for the Replies on thread with other studies and discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 11:05 AM

28. Shrug. I just skip corn, and any foods that have corn products in them.

As a low-carber, this comes inherently in the diet, so no hard task.
I was surprised at how much hfcs has slithered its way into processed food.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #28)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 11:46 AM

29. Shrugging ain't enough, as GMOs are in at least 8 classes of food and now the "creators" of GMO fish

Which is Salmon is now oked in Canada and pushing for FDA approval in the USA. Of course, these always hunger always eating salmon that grow about 4 times larger than non-GMO salmon are in pens and of course they'll get out and of course they'll breed with native salmon and of course in a short time we'll have only GMO salmon...I ain't shrugging. This is very very serious and all this FrankenFood is a real threat to our lives. And that ain't an exaggeration. Monsatan's greed will kill us all if they get their way. Gotta ban this poison now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drynberg (Reply #29)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 06:01 PM

42. I am shrugging at the attempt to make light of doubts and fears about GMOs.

The only way to deal with GMOs is, I believe, is by getting enough people refusing to buy them.
This is totally about the money; the government is not going to help. IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 12:51 PM

33. the faithful woo believers will continue to cite it forever, though....

Now they'll add assurances that Monsanto coerced its retraction. Woo never rests.

On that note, one of our young dinner guests yesterday expounded at length about the dangers of eating "dark colored food" with "negative energy." Seems that makes it toxic. Somehow. He wasn't certain about the mechanism, but he did cite speakers at some seminar he'd attended. Dark colored food with negative energy. Who knew?

Magical thinking never stops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #33)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 01:37 PM

36. MUST READ. Bottom, retraction letter; top, gmwatch press release (irrefutably measured/reasonable).

http://www.gmwatch.org/files/Letter_AWHayes_GES.pdf

That's where the action is.


http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15184-journal-retraction-of-seralini-study-is-illicit-unscientific-and-unethical

<>

The Goodman factor

Hayes’ decision to retract the paper follows FCT’s appointment of Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto scientist and an affiliate of the GMO industry-funded group, the International Life Sciences Institute, to the specially created post of associate editor for biotechnology at the journal, early this year.(10)

Goodman’s appointment in turn followed an orchestrated campaign by GMO supporters to persuade FCT to retract the study. Some critics even accused Prof Séralini of fraud, without presenting any evidence. Many of the critics had undeclared conflicts of interest with the GMO industry.(11)

After Goodman was installed, FCT withdrew a separate study by Brazilian researchers that also raised questions about GM crop safety. The study showed that Bt insecticidal toxins similar to those engineered into GM Bt crops were not broken down in digestion, as is claimed by the industry and regulators, but had toxic effects on the blood of mice. The Brazilian paper, like Prof Séralini’s, had been peer-reviewed and published by FCT prior to Goodman’s arrival. After Goodman’s arrival, the paper was withdrawn without explanation from FCT(12) – only to be immediately published in another journal.(13)

There is no proof that Goodman was responsible for the retraction of Prof Séralini’s study. But his appointment, coming so soon after the “Séralini affair”, along with FCT’s failure to list the interests of its editors, raises questions about corporate influence on the editorial board at the journal.

Notes

10. http://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science/
11. http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/science/item/164-smelling-a-corporate-rat
12. Mezzomo BP et al (2012). WITHDRAWN: Effects of oral administration of Bacillus thuringiensis as spore-crystal strains Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2Aa on hematologic and genotoxic endpoints of Swiss albino mice. Food Chem Toxicol. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23146696
13. Mezzomo BP et al. (2013). Hematotoxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis as spore-crystal strains Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2Aa in Swiss albino mice. J Hematol Thromb Dis 1(1).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #36)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 01:47 PM

38. LOL....



That didn't take long!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #36)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 02:58 PM

40. To be honest I am more interested in what the science says but hey if it floats your boat

Last edited Sat Nov 30, 2013, 03:37 PM - Edit history (1)

to go after the person and not the science then it floats your boat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #40)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 05:09 PM

41. Projecting much? Or maybe you forgot the sarcasm smilie.



It's likely GMWATCH would be interested in your feedback, if you dispute the context their press release provides in rebuttal to the decision announced in the OP. Visit their website, please. Scientists welcome!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #40)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 11:53 AM

49. There is a glaring conflict of interest

in the appointment of a former Monsanto scientist as an associate editor for biotechnology at FTC. A reasonable person should be suspicious and skeptical.

Conflict of Interest


A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in another.

The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs. A widely used definition is: "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public office. Secondary interest includes not only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement and the wish to do favours for family and friends, but conflict of interest rules usually focus on financial relationships because they are relatively more objective, fungible, and quantifiable. The secondary interests are not treated as wrong in themselves, but become objectionable when they are believed to have greater weight than the primary interests. The conflict in a conflict of interest exists whether or not a particular individual is actually influenced by the secondary interest. It exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (on the basis of past experience and objective evidence) to create a risk that decisions may be unduly influenced by secondary interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest#Media

Calling attention to this conflict isn't really attacking the person, but instead, simply noting the existence of the potential for the corruption of the process. I would have a lot more confidence in FTC's review process, if the potential for corruption was eliminated, which shouldn't exist in the first place. There is really no logical reason for appointing a biotech industry insider to a position in which he decides which studies on public safety are published, if the goal is to instill confidence in the credibility of the publication.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnie624 (Reply #49)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 02:37 PM

54. Oh its always good to question something like that dont get me wrong

but like I said the real issue in the end here is what the science says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #36)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 07:43 AM

46. CT group is that way ----->

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idwiyo (Reply #46)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 10:30 AM

47. Transparency is bad? If that's what you really think, it's s a glaring blindspot in judgement.

http://www.icmje.org/ethical_4conflicts.html



Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals:
Ethical Considerations in the Conduct and Reporting of Research: Conflicts of Interest

Public trust in the peer-review process and the credibility of published articles depends in part on how well conflict of interest is handled during writing, peer review, and editorial decision making. Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties). These relationships vary from being negligible to having great potential for influencing judgment. Not all relationships represent true conflict of interest. On the other hand, the potential for conflict of interest can exist regardless of whether an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, and paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.

All participants in the peer-review and publication process must disclose all relationships that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest. Disclosure of such relationships is also important in connection with editorials and review articles, because it can be more difficult to detect bias in these types of publications than in reports of original research. Editors may use information disclosed in conflict-of-interest and financial-interest statements as a basis for editorial decisions. Editors should publish this information if they believe it is important in judging the manuscript.

<>

SEE: Potential Conflicts of Interest Related to Commitments of Editors, Journal Staff, or Reviewers

<>

A tremendous number of articles have been written on the subject of COI (which may or may not influence objectivity) and disclosure. Check it out.

GOOGLE: COI conflicts of interest definition
eg. http://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/50-state-table-conflict-of-interest-definitions.aspx

GOOGLE: COI science journals
eg. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11349360
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19934424

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #47)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 11:39 AM

48. As I said, CT group is that way ----->

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to idwiyo (Reply #48)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 11:56 AM

50. Your skill at employing the "CT" meme needs lots of honing. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 07:04 PM

43. Once again what?!

Monsanto money comes down heavy on an inconvenient finding that was peer-reviewed and forces a "revision," and your conclusion is that this is not capitalism but "science" at work? Hilarious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 07:44 PM

44. GM = big fat corporations

I often also wonder about the vaccine problems

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 08:20 PM

45. Those with the deepest pockets censor science

 

again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 01:00 PM

52. The experiment failed to take into account the feng shui of the laboratory.

Obviously, the rats had their chakras disrupted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 02:10 PM

53. Sorry for my ignnorance

just trying to follow along here.

Who or what is "woo"?

-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #53)

Sun Dec 1, 2013, 02:52 PM

55. Generic term, used most often for describing quackery.

Stuff like homeopathy, waving crystals around, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 11:43 PM

57. They're full of SHIT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 01:17 AM

58. You really don't get it, do you?

The question isn't whether GMOs cause cancer. The question is whether GMO are safe in the environment. GMOs don't have to give me cancer to be bad for me (and the planet).

Maybe they increase the use of toxic weedkillers, and the toxic weedkiller is bad for me, other animals, or plants. This maybe is in fact true.
Maybe they cross fertilize with other plants to create "killer weeds." This maybe is in fact true.
Maybe they are toxic to some insect that is a vital part of the ecosystem, and the fall of this insect causes the collapse of whole portions of the ecosystem.
Nobody has done this study yet, so we have no idea.

The point is the same: claiming that a GMO is "safe for human consumption" is a straw man that proves nothing. I want my food labeled so I can avoid it because it is bad for the environment, not for some stupid personal health concern. And if I cannot make that choice because Monsanto shields that information from me, that is a violations of the principles of the free market, upon which our economy is "supposed" to be founded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 09:56 AM

59. Bwaaa ha ha ha - this is So Bogus

The freaking journal that retracted the article caved to Big Mutant, Inc. (R) pressure, and fired the honest, competent editor who initially published the research. Then they got their own Corporate Stooge into the editor's chair to "retract" the study. Smell the massive RAT in the room, as corporate apologists fling far & wide.

What Massive Perverse Bogosity, Inc. (R). There's only one word for it: Poo


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #59)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 08:04 PM

62. Funny how that shouldn't be considered..:

Isn't it?

Woo, indeed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #59)

Wed Feb 19, 2014, 08:01 PM

64. IOW, you go with BS faith, and ignore evidence.

That's not cool. Your fellow humans deserve better than you're giving them.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2013/06/the-seralini-rule-gmo-bogus-study.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 07:25 PM

60. An interesting take on this......

Who Smells a Rat?

What do you do when your scientific journal publishes a study that Monsanto doesn’t like? And the industry bombards you with complaints?You hire a new editor. And retract the study.

In September 2012, the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) published the findings of the first long-term study of rats fed genetically modified corn. The study’s authors, led by Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, France, concluded that the GM corn caused cancerous tumors in the test rats.
The biotech industry wasted no time attacking the study, which was released about a month before Californians were set to vote “yes” or “no” on an initiative to require labels on foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The attacks were predictable. But who would have predicted what followed next?

Not long after the study came out, FCT created a new editorial position—Associate Editor for Biotechnology—and appointed none other than a former Monsanto employee, Richard E. Goodman, to the post. Fast-forward to November 28, 2013, when the publisher of FCT announced it was retracting the study. Not because of fraud or misrepresentation of data. But because, upon further review, the journal’s editors had decided the study was “inconclusive.” The biotech industry is puffing out its chest and throwing around a lot of “I told you so’s.” But the scientists who don’t have a vested interest in GMO technology are calling the retraction “unscientific and unethical.”

http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/ob405.html

Scratch long and deep enough and a Monsanto rat can usually be found

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread