Seralini Redux: Roundup-Ready GMO Maize Causes Serious Health Damage

[appal_jack]

A highly controversial paper by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini and colleagues has been republished after a stringent peer review process.

The chronic toxicity study examines the health impacts on rats of eating a commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize, Monsanto’s NK603 glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup.

The original study, published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) in September 2012, found severe liver and kidney damage and hormonal disturbances in rats fed the GM maize and low levels of Roundup that are below those permitted in drinking water in the EU.

However it was retracted by the editor-in-chief of the Journal in November 2013 after asustained campaign of criticism and defamation by pro-GMO scientists.

The rest of the article goes on to say that a third round of peer review confirmed the Seralini conclusions that RoundUp and GMO corn did contribute to higher rates of tumors, above and beyond genetic predispositions in the rats and other factors.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/25/roundup-ready-gmo-maize-causes-serious-health-damage/#.U6rwMqHgziU.facebook

-app

[KT2000]

1. Defamation fail!

That sure does not happen very often. Kudos to Seralini and colleagues for fighting the good fight.

[ZombieHorde]

2. Interesting article. nt

[djean111]

3. I have not eaten corn or corn products since I first heard of this report, because I figured

the instant and rabid pushback against this report meant there might be something to it.
Turns out I do not need corn for anything at all, anyway.

[mike_c]

7. no-- the rapid push back was because it's a bogus study, (now) published in a fake journal....

It's garbage, top to bottom. Remember, science works when successful work is able to withstand significant challenges and scrutiny. Seralini's work fell apart after only cursory scrutiny, so now he has paid a "fake journal" $1,220 to publish it online. The fee for publication is pure profit for Springer, since Environmental Sciences Europe has no printing or materials cost, and authors are expected to format their manuscripts for web distribution themselves.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

16. For some reason, science is lost on some people...

The peer review process is there for a reason.

[Chiron]

25. ...and now the rapid full-bore corporate propaganda spewback is because...

...as all GMO propagandists are well aware, the original -- and still valid -- Seralini study did pass peer review with flying colors when it was first published in a mainstream highly rated journal: Elsevier journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology.

The editor who published the story in the first journal was subjected to intense pressure. He retracted the paper over a year after it was published. The decision came after a nontransparent, second review by a panel of unnamed persons of unknown professional competence and with undisclosed potential conflicts of interest.

According to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), of which FCT is a member, retraction of a paper is reserved for cases of misconduct, error, redundant publication or plagiarism, and unethical research.

None of these criteria apply to the Séralini paper,

Hordes of scientists and biosafety experts then signed a public statement condemning the editor's retraction as an apparent “act of scientific censorship” and demanding that the journal reinstate the study, which they say contains findings of potentially critical importance to public health.

SO THE FACT REMAINS TRUE, NO MATTER WHAT CORPORATE APOLOGISTS may SAY: GMO makes rats -- and people -- sick.

If you care about your health and the health of your family, avoid GMO. Heed the Precautionary Principle. Do not trust corporations which have a long track record of deception and manipulations.

[appal_jack]

51. Well-said, Chiron. nt.

-app

[WhiteTara]

57. Thanks Chiron and

welcome to DU

[Chiron]

70. ya'll are welcome

It is disconcerting to see so much intentional corporate disinformation being put forward about the Seralini study.

The so-called "retraction" of this important and valid study was the antithesis of real science, a perversion of honest inquiry.

[WhiteTara]

73. No one likes the thought that

they are eating death. We like to think that food sustains our lives and it produces cognitive dissonance.

[Crowquette]

71. Thank you for this crucial background information on the validity of the Seralini study

Otherwise a reader might be led astray by those on this thread who claim to be defending science, but who are in fact defending the deliberate distortion of science.

Dr. Seralini should be commended for having the courage and integrity to stand up to these bullies, and for letting the world know of the authentic dangers presented by GMOs.

[SidDithers]

72. ROFL...

Welcome to DU.



Sid

[Crowquette]

74. Thanks for the welcome

[mike_c]

76. this is the climate change denial and chem-trails FUD of the left....

No possibility of rational discourse because you simply will not listen to the arguments of experts who feel the technology is safe or who do not believe that it makes anyone "sick."

[mike_c]

4. LOL-- it's a self pay-to-publish online "junk journal" with an impact factor of zero....

It's a junk journal. The paper was NOT republished by any of the journals that have rejected it. It was published by an advocacy "journal"-- for a fee-- with pretty much zero scientific credibility. Seralini paid them handsomely to publish it, and he doesn't even get a printed copy, LOL!

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/06/25/examining-environmental-sciences-europe-journal-that-re-published-seralini-study/

Environmental Sciences Europe therefore levies an article-processing charge of £730/$1220/€880 for each article accepted for publication.

The journal, part of SpringerOpen, is too young to have an official Impact Factor (IF). Using the same calculation, however, the journal would have an IF of .55. That would place it about 190th out of the 210 journals in the “environmental sciences” category at Thomson Scientific. (For comparison, Food and Chemical Toxicology has an IF of just above 3, and a ranking of 27th.)

Seralini appears to have quite an ego to sustain, and the retraction from an okay journal must have hit pretty hard. It was almost certain that he’d attempt to republish the work— but it isn’t going to a decent journal.

ESEU is perceived by scientists as having an ideological slant against genetic modification. Folta describes ESEU as a “journal with a less-than-rigorous grasp on reality, a clear anti-biotech slant, and the journal that has published such duds as Benbrook’s famous paper on increasing pesticide use that used interpolated and extrapolated data (because actual numbers didn’t exist).” He elaborates:

It boils down to this—if these data were significant, if the experiments were good, and the interpretations sound, this would not be buried in the depths of a crappy journal. If there was hard evidence that our food supply truly caused tumors, it would be on the New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, or maybe Cell if he wanted to go slumming. But it’s not there. It is in a tiny, obscure journal that has quite a visible agenda, and that’s the only thing visible about it.

(emphasis is from the original link)

Interestingly, this is the route that many such anti-GMO papers take-- publish in junk journals ignored by most scientists, because the real audience is the scientifically illiterate woo FUDsters who get their information from advocacy web sites that pick this crap up like it was gold.

[appal_jack]

17. Questioning the messenger is fine, but tiny & obscure journals have their place.

Questioning the messenger (& message as well) is fine, but tiny & obscure journals have their place. You cannot possibly believe that the big biotech companies exert no influence over both the big journals, and the scientists who compose their peer review panels. Just look at the well-documented case of Tyrone Hayes, Atrazine, and Syngenta and then try to tell me that big science is not routinely sullied by crass corporate concerns.

-app

[blackspade]

22. Exactly.

[alp227]

28. "Big science"?

So what other science has been corrupted by corporations or other nefarious influences? Global warming? Evolution?

[appal_jack]

40. This thread is about GMO's.

This thread is about GMO's. If you want to examine corporate influence in climate science policy or creationism vs. evolution, I suggest that you start threads on those topics. But trying to muddy the waters because I used a convenient shorthand for the well-documented lobbying efforts that agrichemical companies employ to avoid scrutiny is not helping anyone.

-app

[Cha]

91. well said, appal jack.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

32. Tiny PAY TO PLAY journals

do NOT have their place.

[appal_jack]

65. Have you priced a subscription to any elsevier journals lately?

Journals are big business. Subscriptions to the prominent ones run into the thousands of dollars per year for each title.

You may find journals that request payment from authors distasteful (and the concern is worth examining) but there are no journals out there publishing for free. Someone pays - industry, government, subscribers, and/or authors.

-app

[mike_c]

75. this is a FAKE journal, not just a small press....

The publisher is SpringerOpen-- Springer is one of the largest scientific publishers, but they've caught a lot of flack in recent years for their willingness to do just about anything to make a buck, including proliferating fringe "fake journals" that publish damned nearly anything for a fee. For $1,220 I could likely publish this thread in one of those fake journals and call it definitive evidence that astrology is real, or any other made-up crap I want to call it.

That's not the role of a "small journal" that is respectable. It's the role of what used to be called a "vanity press."

[SidDithers]

67. Yup, junk science being defended by woo peddlers...

I particularly liked this part from your linked article:

ESEU is perceived by scientists as having an ideological slant against genetic modification. Folta describes ESEU as a “journal with a less-than-rigorous grasp on reality, a clear anti-biotech slant, and the journal that has published such duds as Benbrook’s famous paper on increasing pesticide use that used interpolated and extrapolated data (because actual numbers didn’t exist).” He elaborates:

It boils down to this—if these data were significant, if the experiments were good, and the interpretations sound, this would not be buried in the depths of a crappy journal. If there was hard evidence that our food supply truly caused tumors, it would be on the New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, or maybe Cell if he wanted to go slumming. But it’s not there. It is in a tiny, obscure journal that has quite a visible agenda, and that’s the only thing visible about it.

Sid

[lark]

5. Suck it - Monsanto!!

[alp227]

6. Sorry. Republishing an already-retracted study doesn't make it valid.

There's no new data here. And this "journal" is more like a vanity press instead of a legit scientific journal. Sorry, Seralini is the Andrew Wakefield of biology.

[Chiron]

35. And having the original study 'retracted' by a mystery panel of corporate shills does not

...invalidate the truth of the findings.

Eat GMO corporately mutant "product" at your own risk, and at the risk of the health of your own children.

As for me and my own children, I don't trust an industry that fucks around with "science" and scientific publishing the way these GMO jokers do.

With their anonymous, mysterious, corrupted "retraction" of the original Seralini study, they have given every citizen ample cause to mistrust them.

[blackspade]

8. Cue up the Monsanto shills

Yet another confirmation of common sense.

[djean111]

9. Yep. Already happened. And I still won't buy anything with corn in it for my family.

No wheat either. Do not need it, feel better without it.

[blackspade]

14. +1

[GliderGuider]

19. Same here. No corn, no wheat.

No grains at all, for that matter. But especially no corn or wheat.

[arikara]

11. I don't buy anything with corn in it either

its impossible to avoid GE corn, soy, canola and now sugar beets unless you pretty much avoid processed foods altogether. A lot of label reading is involved.

And the vile assholes keep coming up with more atrocities, soon to be GE salmon, apples and more.

[blackspade]

13. I buy GM free as much as I am able.

We are poisoned enough by the foods we eat.
There is no need to make it worse by splicing in genes from other organisms into plants.

[Crowquette]

89. Corporate infestation of the food chain

...just like corporate infestation of the electoral chain...

[Dr Hobbitstein]

15. Yes, learning how to be objective

and avoiding confirmation bias, and realizing that self publication is NOT the peer review process makes one a shill for Monsanto...

ALL corn is GMO.

[blackspade]

18. All corn is not GM.

That is utter bullshit.

Prior to the Monsanto food 'revolution' corn was the result of 5000+ years of selective breeding which is not the same as genetically modified foods. To claim otherwise is to depart from objective scientific sense.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

26. Actually, it IS the same.

The plants where genetically modified when they were selectively bread and selectively MUTATED. It was the mutations that they wanted to create the modern strains. It's a genetic modification, no matter which way you look at it...

But sticking to the modern definition:

Monsanto was not the first to make a GMO. That was GE.

Then there was Humulin insulin, which was GMO.

Followed by the first GMO produce on the market: Flavr Savr tomatoes, made by California-based Calgene. That was 1994.

Monsanto didn't enter the GMO marketplace until the advent and wide-spread use of Round-Up, when the need for a glyphosate-resistant strain of foods arose. BTW - Round-Up (glyphosate) is water soluble, and will dissipate from the area it is sprayed on within a day or two, leaving NOTHING behind. I use it in my garden at the beginning of every season. Spray the area down, let everything else whiter and die, till the soil, replant. I don't generally use pesticides when I garden, as I spend enough time out there to take care of pests and weeds. But the Round-Up really helps clear out a large space in a quick time.

[blackspade]

39. You obviously know little about the origin of corn then.

Selective breeding is not the same as injecting corn/canola/soy beans/sugar beets DNA with bacterium DNA to make it resistant to Roundup. Not even close.

Merging two organisms without a clear idea what the result is, is the issue.

And as for spraying roundup, perhaps you should read this thread from just the other day:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/114212789

[Dr Hobbitstein]

42. Hahaha...

I'd read that report if I were you... From the article:

"The report, like others, has shortcomings, Fadipe said. It doesn't provide an accurate sense of whether the exposure actually occurred and whether the exposure resulted in autism.

Researchers said the study has limitations that were unavoidable, including not knowing all of the potential sources of exposure to pesticides from non-agricultural sources, such as on food sources and from residential indoor use of chemicals and outdoor use for pest control."

Also, that refers to PESTICIDES. Round-Up (glyphosate) is an HERBICIDE.

Look, when it comes down to this stuff, I'm gonna side with peer-reviewed scientific studies (and the opinions of a geneticist friend and a cancer-research science friend). Not retracted studies that have been republished in an obscure PAY-TO-PLAY journal. Or a random person on a message board promoting woo.

[blackspade]

48. woo, that childish term again.....

The point of the article was that spraying/use of these chemicals is having terrible impacts on children and that we as a society need to be more conscious and concerned about their use.

[arikara]

86. As soon as I see that stupid woo term

I don't read their posts anymore.

[HuckleB]

96. This is funny.

You actually defended a worse than worthless "study" with this kind of emotional claptrap, and you say you want discussion?

[arikara]

85. Do you really use round up in your yard?

Roundup affects amphibians, earthworms and other beneficial insects. It affects the fungi in the soil that help to feed the plants. It drifts while you are spraying and harms other plants and insects. It persists in the soil for up to a year, and in water for longer despite monsanto's claims.

The reason for much of the genetic engineering done on plants like corn and soy is to make them able to withstand insanely large amounts of roundup. So even IF (big if) the gene splicing is benign, all that extra chemical laced into the plant makes it undesirable to eat.

[appal_jack]

21. Willful obfuscation much?

Your meme-type of graphic is a straight-up lie there, 'Dr.' The teosinte on the left is a wild plant. Up until 1994 or so all corn, even lush bicolored sweetcorn like the ears on the right, were developed by controlled breeding between corn plants only. GMO technology was and is something substantially different. Instead of just pollen and eggs from corn being crossed strategically, Genetic Modification requires gene guns, retroviruses, bacterial antibiotic resistance genes, and a host of new and poorly-understood tools and techniques. You are free to believe it is safe, and eat as many GMO's as you'd like. But when you claim that GMO technology stretches back to the dawn of agriculture, you are lying. The fact that your pants are smoldering does not give you the right to blow smoke in my direction...

-app

[djean111]

23. They just ignore being called on their bullshit about selective breeding.

Just keep pointing it out. Thanks!!!!!!

[djean111]

36. Oh my - jackass? Hit a nerve, did we?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

38. No, just calling it like I see it.

[djean111]

41. You know, eventually we will get GMO labeling. Why waste your precious time.

All the snide remarks on message boards will not change anything. And you know that.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

45. YAY! And we can be like the ignorant courts in Europe

that pass bullshit legislation based on junk science!

[wisechoice]

62. only monsato science is the real science

So we now know there is a scientific debate regarding safety of gmo.

[Aerows]

58. You know

when people give me the hard sell, like the folks you responded to, I tend to believe otherwise. I detest Monsanto as a corporation, but really didn't have much of an opinion on the GMO debate. The more the pro-GMO crowd talks, though, the more I am inclined to believe there is some fire to go along with the smoke that something isn't right with these "foods".

Congratulations GMO defenders - your hard sell tactics and ridicule of transparency in the debate makes me dubious about GMOs now.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

27. Is the DNA of the resultant corn the same as the original corn?

No. That means it has been genetically modified. Just because it didn't happen in a lab, doesn't make it so.

Take your anti-science woo somewhere else. The grown-ups are talking here.

[blackspade]

43. Your lack of understanding about agricultural science is on glowing display.

But by all means proceed governor....

[appal_jack]

50. Must suck for you if all the 'grown-ups' nearby are this clueless.

So first you try to equate conventional breeding with GMO's (and you fail).

Now, you want to equate random mutation with GMO's. You fail again. When a mutation occurs in nature, it happens in an ecological context. Possible mutations are relatively constrained, being determined by what genes are there to begin with. The genome of the mutating organism must continue to function as a whole after the mutation, or the organism's existence will be short. Human genetic engineering is loosed from these ecological constraints. Instead of the logic of the ecosystem, the logic of industry is in play. All genes from any Kingdom, any ecology, and any location are treated as commodified inputs. No concern is 'wasted' on what other genes might be disrupted as inputs are sliced into random locations along the chromosome.

Again, quit it with the false equivalence, 'Dr.'

It must suck for you if all the 'grown-ups' nearby are this clueless. But I'll reserve my serious compassion for those 'grown-ups' who have to listen to your simplistic drivel and snarky tripe in-person.

-app

[Dr Hobbitstein]

53. So, to you, genetic modification can ONLY happen in a lab?

Regardless, I'm done with this argument.

You clearly subscribe to junk science... Like the creationists, and the anti-vaxxers, and the anti-climate change crowd. Wonderful company you keep.

Have fun, and enjoy your ignorance!

[MohRokTah]

55. That is the very definition of "Genetically modified"

It's what separates GMO from mutation.

[BrotherIvan]

56. You are my hero of today

Thank you for your clear and concise explanations for all to read. The pro GMO faction here spreads pro corporate talking points and shouting everyone down in every thread. But for those who may not know about the actual science, your posts give valuable information.

[appal_jack]

64. Cheers, Brother.

I appreciate the kind words. I know that credentials on a semi-anonymous Internetz forum are basically meaningless, but I have two degrees in the biological and environmental sciences, and have been active in the local foods and small farms organic agriculture movements since the mid-1990's. So these issues are near and dear to my heart, and important to think-over. I'm glad to share what knowledge and experience I can, and always trying to learn more.



-app

[MohRokTah]

54. Bullshit propaganda with no relation to the truth. eom

[alp227]

31. You say Monsanto shills, I say followers of legitimate science.

Sorry, GMOphobia is just as bad as creationism or global warming denialism. You can't just pick and choose whichever established scientific facts feel comfortable to you.

[blackspade]

49. Fail.

But keep on spinning!

[Crowquette]

95. !

[wisechoice]

63. you have phobia

Of someone verifying the safety of gmo food. Science is not about accepting everything Monsanto says. Science will constantly validate claims. That is the nature of science. That is how scientific process works.

[alp227]

69. No I don't. I care about science.

[Cha]

90. Really. It's like they have a personal stake in the proliferation of Roundup.

[Orrex]

10. Intriguing. I wasn't aware that anyone endorsed consumption of Roundup.

The study certainly suggests that further research is justified. It would be interesting to learn if GMO crops carry these damaging effects independent of the presence of ingested Roundup.

k/r

[appal_jack]

94. Welcome down the rabbit-hole, Orrex.

Even as someone who tries to stay on top of these issues, I was pretty shocked to learn that RoundUp consumption is being encouraged not only on GMO Corn and Soy, but also via spraying non-GMO Spring Wheat and possibly other grains at the end of their maturity:

http://www.smallgrains.org/springwh/Apr05/classroom/classroom.htm

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice8May2012.htm

Just think about that for a minute: shortly before harvest, we spray grains with a poison, simply because it may accelerate the drying of the crop.

-app

[Dr Hobbitstein]

12. So, self publishing a retracted bullshit study that was peer-reviewed and deemed to be bogus

makes it factual?

No, it does not.

But, I'm a Monsanto apologist because I know how to read a scientific publications and can extrapolate bullshit from facts.
I'm also in the pocket of big vaccine and the big bad climate change scientists... You know, because the MAJORITY of scientists are part of a vast conspiracy...

This study was bullshit then, and is STILL bullshit now.

[blackspade]

20. Lumping the Anti-GM movement with

Anti-vaxers and climate change deniers is disingenuous at best.

You know, I'm fine with GM products as long as they're labeled as such. Let the 'market' decide.
For my family, I'd just as soon not roll loaded dice with our health.

[djean111]

24. Oh, they would lump us in with birthers , and still might, since the usual shite is being dismissed.

Deflection, obfuscation, piss-poor conflation.

I pretty much do not buy much processed food any more.
And before someone jumps in to say all food is processed in some way - I don't buy boxed stuff with long lists of chemicals, nothing with corn or corn products, starting to avoid soy. At first because i am/was poor as a churchmouse, now i just hate the salty or sickly sweet taste of processed food.I know I don't have, or can't afford, to eat only organic food, but I am giving it my best shot.

I don't see why anyone would get all riled up at what others eat, or don't eat - could it be profit-driven? :-O

[Dr Hobbitstein]

37. Why is it the largest organic producers and retailers are AGAINST GMO labelling?

Here's a hint: it's purely profit driven to sell an equal product for 4-10x the price.

[alp227]

33. And how does the "free market" know what "genetically modified" even means?

Sorry, this whole "label GMO's" movement is a sham, because it relies on shitty science and a vast misconception of what "genetically modified" MEANS.

[blackspade]

47. A sham how?

When you are cross breeding species in a lab, that would otherwise not be able to interbreed in nature, for food consumption, That is what GM means.
Clear definitions are easy. Getting these definitions past corporate shills and bought politicians, not so much.
The bottleneck is not in the understanding of what "genetically modified" means, it's within the political system.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

34. No, your arguments are the same.

You all cite discredited studies.
You claim that all the other science behind it is a conspiracy.
You call anyone who argues contrary a shill of said industry.

Seems to me, you're all the same.

[blackspade]

46. Then you have no clear understanding of the issue.

[SidDithers]

78. It's completely valid. They use many of the same techniques...

Bad science about GMOs: It reminds me of the antivaccine movement

Bad science about GMOs: It reminds me of the antivaccine movement (revisited)

Bad science about GMOs: It reminds me of the antivaccine movement (Thanksgiving edition)

Sid

[blackspade]

80. Your entitled to your opinion.

But I have little sympathy for positions that link one group to another as if there is a causal link between the two.

The author of the links makes an error of conflating the concerns of Anti-vaxers and Anti-GMO folks because some are both.
My issue with GMOs is that they have not been proven to be safe. There is a huge difference in selective breeding of crops and modifying the genetic code of a plant with the genes from a bacteria or a salamander or whatever other Frankenstein combination that they can think of.
There is very little research showing its safety and the continuing mantra that there is 'no difference' between GM corn/soy beans/ canola/sugar beets is an obvious lie that undermines the credibility of the pro-GMO crowd.
That, coupled with the environmental damage from monoculture farming, the destruction of traditional farming by eliminating the harvesting of seeds/contamination of fields, puts me firmly in the Anti-gmo crowd.
All I ask is that foods be labelled so I can make my own informed decision for my family.

[HuckleB]

97. Hello? Do you really believe this parroted anti-GMO propaganda?

WOW!

[villager]

29. "Peer review" doesn't matter when your corporate handlers are instructing you to make "woo" posts...

...in frantic attempts to make sure citizenry never questions the products and poisons being shoveled at them...

[Chiron]

44. People need to study the history of how the original Seralini study was anonymously undermined

The corporate corruption around the so-called 'retraction' of his study stinks to high heavens.

There are lots of people on this thread spewing clouds of misinformation. Get the facts. Seralini's study is indeed valid -- and that is why it scares the loathsome, reeking shit out of the GMO corporations and their army of propagandists.

When people get the facts -- and the Seralini study is just hinting at the vast soup of GMO problems -- they will want to tar and feather every corporate GMO shill on the planet.

[SidDithers]

66. ...

Sid

[factsarenotfair]

52. Well, I was very happy to see some Non-GMO Jolly Time popcorn in the grocery store!

https://www.jollytime.com/popcorn-products/kernels/select-gourmet-yellow-kernels

The Jolly Time people take the GMO issue seriously.

[djean111]

59. And -------did it cost four times as much? n/t

[factsarenotfair]

60. Well, honestly, I didn't even compare prices because I was so happy to see it.

It might be cheaper than the microwave bags.

[MohRokTah]

61. Although I do refuse to eat GMO food, there are aspects to this study which I question.

I'd like to see some additional work at independently verifying the results. I'd further like to see studies where the glyphosate is completely absent in the study and just effects of consuming the genetically modified organism are studied, especially long term studies.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

77. Do you live somewhere that requires labeling?

I'd like to be able to refuse to eat it, but where I am, there are no labeling requirements for foods that contain GMO components. And from what I understand, virtually any product in the US that contains corn or soy is likely to be GMO.

[SidDithers]

68. Seralini's study was junk science that was properly retracted by Food and Chemical Toxicology...

The fact that he's now resorting to paying to publish in some obscure, no-impact-factor open access "journal" should clue you in that his reasearch is shit.

Sid

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

79. 'Junk science' seems a bit harsh. From the retraction statement -

Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. However, there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected. The low number of animals had been identified as a cause for concern during the initial review process, but the peer review decision ultimately weighed that the work still had merit despite this limitation. A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups.

Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology. - See more at: http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology#sthash.OkmK4S0d.dpuf

No evidence of fraud, no intentional misrepresentation. The retraction seems to be based solely on the decision by the journal that the study size was insufficiently large as to rule out other confounding factors.

If anything, that suggests that the study should be repeated with a larger group of test subjects. Not simply blown off as 'junk science'.

[SidDithers]

81. I think the editors were being kind...

They specifically point out that Seralini was using rats that were predisposed to tumors.

PZ Meyers had a good article about the Seralini study last year:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/11/29/belated-retraction-of-seralinis-bad-anti-gmo-paper/

In it he references an article from Biology Fortified, which can be found here:
http://www.biofortified.org/2012/09/gm-corn-and-cancer/

From that article:

The study focuses on cancers in rats. For this they use the Harlan Sprague-Dawley strain of rat, which is known to be predisposed to getting cancer. Lots of them. Over 70% of males and 87% of females from this strain reportedly get cancer during their lifetime, whether they have been fed GM corn or not. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that so many of Seralini’s rats were found with cancer.

Sid

[wisechoice]

83. we have to use an article

To say that it is junk science, which has been peer reviewed? So we can all use articles and opinion pieces to prove gmo is junk food?

[SidDithers]

84. You can use whatever article you want ...

but I'll be happy to point out if your sources are shit.



Sid

[wisechoice]

87. And your sources are shit

So what is the point?
We don't agree. So give us the choice, label the GMO. You can have your GMO food happily. But don't preach that going against GMO is anti science.

[SidDithers]

88. Sure they are...

Sid

[HuckleB]

98. It's actually far too kind.

It's not just junk science, it's ugly propaganda "science."

[Crowquette]

82. The original retraction reeks of corporate corruption

..as has been pointed out above. Seralini's results were trashed by a prejudiced, anonymous secret panel. That is indefensible.

No way any one who respects science can respect the blatant screw job his study was subjected to by anonymous Truth Assassins.

[Crowquette]

93. The corrupt critics of the Seralini study and their Pervert Science

...found this (below) on DU - a post by TrueDelphi on May 16, 2014.

It makes plain how the Seralini study is accurate and a dire warning to anyone foolish enough to be consuming GMO foods and the circus of chemicals used to produce them. It also makes plain the concerted corporate attack on the Seralini study -- and what a perversion of science those attacks are.

You can be sure by now that anyone attacking the validity of the Seralini study on GMO is not a supporter of science as they like to claim, but rather a "Science Pervert."

----------
Finally a defense of Seralini's Gm Food study to set the record straight.

As many people concerned about GM seeds, crops and foods are aware, Seralini, a French scientist at the Univ of Cannes, was able to do a lengthy study that did several things no prior study on Gm foods had done - it involved feeding rats Gm food, and then waiting to determine the results of the Gm food on the animals' health. A much longer time frame was used than the ones employed by Monsanto to let us know that Gm foods are safe. Rather than just feeding the rats and waiting a few weeks to see how many rats lived vs died, died, this study actually allowed the animals to stay alive for months of study. At the end of the research period, it was found that the organs inside the rats were disintegrating or else filled with tumors.

Of course the implications of this were profound.

Now remember that Seralini himself did not say that this was the study to end all studies He knew this was a preliminary study but he also realized that his findings might offer encouragement to other scientists who are doubting that Gm foods ar e safe. Those scientists could design studies to examine similar situations.

http://www.gmoseralini.org/the-dirty-details-behind-the-attacks-on-seralinis-notorious-gmo-rat-study/

From the article:
(regarding the 24/7 Main$ream Media coverage of the "failure of Seralini's study) This publicized display was the air and sea attack to soften the defense of the anti-GMO ideology island. Then the actual landing attack against that island’s science was embarked by setting up former Monsanto scientist Richard E. Goodman in a newly created biotech editorial position at the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT).

That’s the journal where Seralini’s study “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize” had been originally peer reviewed and posted. With Goodman steering the landing craft, the editor-in-chief of FCT, Wallace Hayes, removed Seralini’s paper from the journal.

Hayes admitted the study was not fraudulent or inaccurate, but explained that it was inconclusive. Honest defending scientists jumped on that one, explaining that peer reviewed published studies are often inconclusive, recommending “further studies”.

Debunking GMO Scientists’ Criticisms as Liberally Reported by the MSM

** Wrong rats used: They were the same rats Monsanto had used in a 90 day trial. The Sprague-Dawley (SD) strain has a life expectancy of 24 to 36 months. Just right for a two year study that’s intended to replicate the life span of a human.

** SD Rats Tend to Have Spontaneous Tumors: True, around 30% of SD rats get cancer symptoms without test induced provocations. Again, this mimics human statistics on cancer. More SD rats fed well under maximum regulatory amounts of Roundup along with the Roundup Ready corn developed tumors than the control rats within four to seven months of the study. The exposed rats also died earlier than the non-exposed control rats.

** Too few Rats: The short Monsanto study used 20 rats for each group. But, they only checked urine and serum samples of 10 in each group. The Seralini study used 10 for each grouping, but they tested urine and serum samples from all 10.

** Insufficient Amount of Rats for Proving Carcinogenicity: The title of the study tells us that proving carcinogenicity was not Seralini’s intent, it was a long term toxicity study. Tumors were incidental, but are required to be reported without drawing conclusions in toxicity studies. Seralini reported without conclusions about cancer. The rats who were exposed showed signs of liver, kidney, and pancreatic damage.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024963027