Slashdot Mirror
Study Linking GM Maize To Rat Tumors Is Retracted
ananyo writes "Bowing to scientists' near-universal scorn, the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology has fulfilled its threat to retract a controversial paper which claimed that a genetically modified (GM) maize causes serious disease in rats after the authors refused to withdraw it. The paper, from a research group led by Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen, France, and published in 2012, showed 'no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data,' said a statement from Elsevier, which publishes the journal. But the small number and type of animals used in the study means that 'no definitive conclusions can be reached.' The known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat 'cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups,' it added. Today's move came as no surprise. Earlier this month, the journal's editor-in-chief, Wallace Hayes, threatened retraction if Séralini refused to withdraw the paper, which is exactly what he announced at a press conference in Brussels this morning. Séralini and his team remained unrepentant, and allege that the retraction derives from the journal's editorial appointment of biologist Richard Goodman, who previously worked for biotechnology giant Monsanto for seven years."
really?? I mean sure it is proper but who uses the term maize any longer??
(for those who are not up to date, maize is the native american term for corn)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Imo, withdrawing papers makes sense mainly if there is indeed, "evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data". Faked data doesn't help advance science, and should be purged from the record.
But merely questionable conclusions are another story. Science is a back-and-forth process: someone publishes a study purporting to show X, and then someone else criticizes their conclusions, re-analyzes their data, attempts to replicate it, etc. Then they publish their own conclusions, purporting to show not-X. Withdrawing the original study in this case doesn't make sense to me, if it was not fraudulent: we don't typically retroactively go into old journals and blank out the articles that have subsequently turned out to be wrong. We just write new articles with better analysis.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
When big pharma pays a publisher to publish a fake journalâ¦
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
So what was the p-value, using which test?
Funny how Monsanto isn't required to definitively prove their crap is safe, but everyone else is required to definitely prove that it isn't.
So basically we've got an evidentiary double-standard where Monsanto et al get to say "perfectly safe until proven otherwise", and we don't get to say "prove it". And then we all get to be the test subjects in the long-term studies.
And, more importantly, having worked at Monsanto should automatically exclude you from being considered from holding an editorial position like this. You mostly have to assume these guys are going to be paid shills who have already made up their mind that it's safe, and he's basically just demonstrated that Food and Chemical Toxicology isn't interested in objective science.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Corn is a major export crop of the United States.
Europe government wants to promote food that is grown within the Union. It really makes sense that a European scientist would feel pressured to find evidence against a primary US import.
As the US agriculture system is very efficient at making low cost food.
I know it is trendy to be Anti-American as it must be some conspiracy from big US companies to hide the truth, like with Big Tobacco.
But what if GM Food is actually perfectly safe like the science says it is.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
oh wait, they don't exist: "This new study is destined to raise more questions than it answers," he said. But at this point, a few things are clear. It is outrageous and shocking that this is the first long-term feeding study, even though genetically engineered foods have been on the market for nearly 20 years." source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-says-genetically-modified-corn-causes-tumors-but-other-scientists-skeptical-about-research/
Gan: Corn is defined as a small hard grain/seed
Wheat is corn
Rice is corn
Rye is Corn
Millet is Corn
Maize is also corn
The term Corn used in supermarkets is actually slang....
If you are going to be a vocab critic then at least get the vocab right!
Study Linking GM Maize To Rat Tumors Is Retracted
Thank heaven for that! Somebody pass the corn please.
This absolutly ludicrous. Peer reviewed research has to be anulled by other peer reviewed research. Not by decree of the publisher. This is an insult to both the authors and those who reviewed and accepted the paper.
What 's next? The GM Inquisition forcing researchers to denounce their work and eat GM foods or throwing them to the pyre?
Here http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ is another paper which did not, itself, contain sufficient evidence to form "definitive conclusions." But publishing it sure put other scientists on a path to do research that eventually did provide some definitive conclusions...
It's *really hard* to prove that something is safe, you pretty much need to test every possible interaction.
It's relatively simple to prove that something is not safe--you just need to find one thing demonstrating lack of safety and then you're done.
That said, I think there should be some level of due diligence required before bringing a GM food to market. That said, the current alternative to GMOs is irradiating DNA to force it to mutate, which causes way more changes in unrelated areas and offers all the dangers of GMOs, but currently has basically no labelling requirements.
We all know of Apple fanboys here. But Monsanto fanboys? That's definitely a new trend.
Séralini has for years been trying to find evidence to support his theory. He should have been fired years ago.
"The Séralini Paradox"
(as translated by Google)
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pseudo-sciences.org%2Fspip.php%3Farticle2072
Direct health effects of GMO foods are IMHO only the third most important potential concern with GMOs.
The first concern is that whatever you have engineered, it is self-reproducing and could potentially take over a niche in a whole ecosystem, displacing other species or naturually adapted varieties, and you in general could not stop this if it happened. So eco-systems then become fully the responsibility of human biology tweakers.
This seems generally unwise. The consequences of such ecosystem shifts is too complex to be predicted.
A second concern is that each genetic engineering modification needs to be fully assessed separately from all others, due to the complexity of the systems into which they are being inserted. Or at least, very narrow equivalence classes of modifications need each to be individually, and in combination, re-tested for long term effects, viability, viability and effects of likely mutations of the tweak etc, each time they are tweaked.
The cost of such repeated and long term safety testing is well beyond the capability of the companies producing the products, so we can be sure that such rigorous, long term, and repeated (when product is varied) testing is not being done.
Instead, smaller numbers of specific tests on a subset of engineered varieties are generalized in alleged applicability and conclusion, to save money.
So there is still a lot of know unknown and unknown unknown out there, and it is the kind of product that in general, self-reproduces and also expands in range.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
The scientific community begs to differ: http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/
You must live in some bizarro world where 600 can be rounded to zero.
Seriously, where do you guys get your talking points on GMOs? Because it just isn't true.
Science wins and political extremists lose today, and for that progress for humanity is made. Any time a political extremist tries to hijack science to push a political agenda they should be subject to the greatest of scrutiny. Science can and must rise above politics for the greater good of humanity and in this case it did. Here's hoping science can do so in other realms as well.
When does ambition or the will to believe begin to look more like fraud?
The biggest criticism from both reviews is that Seralini and his team used only ten rats of each sex in their treatment groups. That is a similar number of rats per group to that used in most previous toxicity tests of GM foods, including Missouri-based Monsanto's own tests of NK603 maize. Such regulatory tests monitor rats for 90 days, and guidelines from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) state that ten rats of each sex per group over that time span is sufficient because the rats are relatively young. But Seralini's study was over two years --- almost a rat's lifespan --- and for tests of this duration, the OECD recommends at least 20 rats of each sex per group for chemical-toxicity studies, and at least 50 for carcinogenicity studies.
Moreover, the study used Sprague-Dawley rats, which both reviews note are prone to developing spontaneous tumors. Data provided to Nature by Harlan Laboratories, which supplied the rats in the study, show that only one-third of males, and less than one-half of females, live to 104 weeks. By comparison, its Han Wistar rats have greater than 70% survival at 104 weeks, and fewer tumors. OECD guidelines state that for two-year experiments, rats should have a survival rate of at least 50% at 104 weeks. If they do not, each treatment group should include even more animals --- 65 or more of each sex.
''There is a high probability that the findings in relation to the tumor incidence are due to chance, given the low number of animals and the spontaneous occurrence of tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats,'' concludes the EFSA report. In response to the EFSA's assessment, the European Federation of Biotechnology --- an umbrella body in Barcelona, Spain, that represents biotech researchers, institutes and companies across Europe --- called for the study to be retracted, describing its publication as a ''dangerous case of failure of the peer-review system.."
Yet Seralini has promoted the cancer results as the study's major finding, through a tightly orchestrated media offensive that began last month and included the release of a book and a film about the work. Only a select group of journalists (not including Nature) was given access to the embargoed paper, and each writer was required to sign a highly unusual confidentiality agreement, seen by Nature, which prevented them from discussing the paper with other scientists before the embargo expired.
Hyped GM maize study faces growing scrutiny [Oct 2012]
Gilles-Eric Séralini has published a whole series of journal articles purporting to expose the dangers of GMOs, glyposate etc.
They are all lapped up and given great exposure by the mainstream media. They are all pointed at with great glee by the anti-GMO crowd as evidence that GMOs are really really bad for you.
They are all junk science that should have never been published.
The source of most of the funding for this work is Greenpeace.
No doubt there will be more crap like this in the future. Hopefully more people will be able to recognize the fact it's junk science and reject it.
It is amazing that Europe has fallen victim to these jerks. I thought their educational system was better than this. Apparently it's over-rated.
The point has been reached where EU scientists are recognizing the bans on GMOs in Europe are harmful.
http://www.euractiv.com/science-policymaking/chief-eu-scientist-backs-damning-news-530693
scientific progress never fails to amaize me.
take that karma!
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
The study involved 200 rats, half female, split into 10 groups.
As I understand it, the greatest 'statistical significance' comes from the female rats.
Taking one part, and closely analysing it.
'Up to 14 months, no animals in the control groups showed any signs of tumors whilst 10–30% of treated females per group developed tumors, with the exception of one group (33% GMO + R). By the beginning of the 24th month, 50–80% of female animals had developed tumors in all treated groups, with up to 3 tumors per animal, whereas only 30% of controls were affected.'
Starting with the first statement. 'up to 14 months, 1-3 rats in some of the groups developed tumors, whereas no rats in the control group or the group fed GMO + roundup did' So, of 7 groups, 2 groups were cancer free.
Going onto the next part.
3 rats got cancer in the control group.
5-8 in the other 6 groups.
But, half of those 6 groups were also fed roundup.
So, a total of between 9 and 15 extra rats got cancer, apparantly, if you multiply up the control group.
But - the whole basis of this paper now rests on two rats.
If in the control group at the 24th month, 5 rats would normally have gotten cancer, and 2 happened to get lucky, the paper largely becomes non-statistically significant.
I am not a statistician.
If normally, half of rats get cancer at 24 months, then you would expect 5 rats, not 3 in the control group to have it.
How likely is it that only three rats would die?
Only if this chance is under 5% does the rest of the paper have any weight whatsoever.
But I'd guess there's no will to retract the corporation's study, is there.
Because it took a conclusion of safety based on an even less rigorous set of data.
Can we say arsenic in DNA?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1163
It was only a few years ago, but I guess it has already left the public memory. A group of scientists rush to a hasty conclusion because they want to make a big splash. Science publishes it because they like controversy. A large flurry of criticism from the scientific community, but ultimately a number of papers get published refuting the original findings. We can ask the question...should it have been published? A lot of people think no, but it is an illustration of the scientific process.
Sometimes bad science gets through peer review. Sometimes the science is not particularly bad, but the experimental design was missing something. Maybe they had an impurity in one of their reagents that they weren't looking for. Lots of incomplete or just outright wrong studies pass peer review and get published. But this is something the scientific community accepts as a part of the process. If you strongly disagree or suspect the conclusions of an article, do the experiments and publish a counter-study. Otherwise, you are free to make a lot of noise and be annoying, but then you might go the way of James Watson.
'nuff said.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Should a got some of Han's Wistar rats in there too.
They provide profits to the company patenting them.
You are totally wrong. It is easy to design an experiment to give you questionable results and this paper is an example of that. They choose small number rats that naturally get tumors all the time and then performed a lifetime study on them. The resulting data is exactly what you'd expect if you assumed the gmo food does not cause cancer. Nevertheless, the authors have presented a flawed statistical analysis to indicate the opposite. So even though they didn't fake the data, this is a good example of a paper that never should have been accepted for publication.
I've got lots of moderator points to use on SlashdoG, but why bother? /dog, even with my comments score set to 5, I get so much crap and repetition, repetition rep rep repitition that I wonder why I bother. Check my logs /dog. I'm spending less time on the site because it's not worth the time trawling through crap. Giving me Mod Points is not going to solve that. Surely we can devise a better system???
EVERY time I visit
work in progress
And that was larger than the size of the study that "proved" this GMO safe, that doesn't matter???
Really?
Wow, you SERIOUSLY need to support that case!
And, no, the SMALLEST group was 20, it wasn't 10 groups of 20. Yet that complete fabrication didn't even phase you, did it?
And what groups where there?
1) Control group. Your baseline. Without that, you have no basis to claim an effect or lack of one.
2) Taking GMO food. Without that, you have nothing to say whether there was an effect tested for.
3) Taking GMO food AND the product the GMO makes easy and cheap to use. This is what will happen with the product IN THE REAL WORLD. Without that, you're only proving that the lab rats did X, not that X will/will not happen.
4) Given the product the GMO makes easy and cheap to use. Tests whether the product or the GMO is doing the damage.
Then split by male and female, because the biology of both are very different. Female hormones in females is fine. In males, can cause some problems.
And, lastly, they tested a longer time. That means any effect will be noted in a smaller group.
So in effect negating your "Oh, it was tooo smaaaaaalllll" whine.
Having skimmed though all of the comments above I feel obliged to offer my own assessment: Yes indeed, GMO foods are dangerous and cancer causing and likely cause acne as well, but only when consumed while standing next to a cel phone antenna.
Three Squirrels
ENSSER (European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility)
Comments on the Retraction of the Séralini et al. 2012 Study
Journal's retraction of rat feeding paper is a travesty of science and looks like a bow to industry
Elsevier's journal Food and Chemical Toxicology has retracted the paper by Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini's group which found severe toxic effects (including liver congestions and necrosis and kidney nephropathies), increased tumor rates and higher mortality in rats fed Monsanto's genetically modified NK603 maize and/or the associated herbicide Roundup[1]. The arguments of
the journal's editor for the retraction, however, violate not only the criteria for retraction to which the journal itself subscribes, but any standards of good science. Worse, the names of the reviewers who came to the conclusion that the paper should be retracted, have not been published. Since the retraction is a wish of many people with links to the GM industry, the suspicion arises that it is a bow of science to industry. ENSSER points out, therefore, that this retraction is a severe blow to the credibility and independence of science, indeed a travesty of science.
Inconclusive results claimed as reason for withdrawal
Elsevier, the publisher of Food and Chemical Toxicology, has published a statement[2] saying that the journal's editor-in-chief, Dr. A. Wallace Hayes, "found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data". The statement mentions only a single reason for the retraction, namely that "the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive". According to Hayes, the low number of rats and the tumour susceptibility of the rat strain used do not allow definitive conclusions. Now there are guidelines for retractions in scientific publishing, set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)[3]. Inconclusiveness of research results is not one of the grounds for retraction contained in these guidelines. The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology is a member of COPE[4]. 'Conclusive' results are rare in science, and certainly not to be decided by one editor and a secret team of persons using undisclosed criteria and methods. Independent science would cease to
exist if this were to be an accepted mode of procedure.
Séralini paper a chronic toxicity study, not a full-scale carcinogenicity study
Most notably, Séralini and his co-authors did not draw any definitive conclusions in the paper in the first place; they simply reported their observations and phrased their conclusions carefully, cognizant of their uncertainties. This is because the paper is a chronic toxicity study and not a full-scale carcinogenicity study, which would require a higher number of rats. The authors did not intend to look specifically for tumours, but still found increased tumour rates. Secondly, both of Hayes's arguments (the number of rats and their tumour susceptibility) were considered by the peer reviewers of the journal, who decided they formed no objection to publication. Thirdly, these two arguments have been discussed at length in the journal following the publication of the paper and have been refuted by the authors of the paper and other experts. Higher numbers of animals are only required in this type of safety studies to avoid missing toxic effects (a 'false negative' result), but the study found pronounced toxic effects and a first indication of possible carcinogenic effects. The Sprague-Dawley strain of rat which was used, is the commonly used standard for this type of research. For these reasons, the statistical significance of the biochemical data was endorsed by statistics experts. The biochemical data confirm the toxic effects such as those on liver and kidney, which are serious enough by themselves. The tumours and mortality rates are observations which need to be confirmed by a specific carcinogenicity study with higher numbers of rats; in view of public food safety, it is not wise to simply ignore them. Unpleasant result
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15189
A member of the Academy of Sciences plans to publish a demolition of Séralini's critics, while Corinne Lepage MEP warns that issues about GMO safety will not go away.
Séralini and GMOs: A truly disturbing study
Sophie Fabrégat
actu-environnement.com, 28 Nov 2013
GMWatch translation of French original at
http://bit.ly/1987Rxq
The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology could retract the article Gilles Eric Séralini on NK603 maize and the Roundup, published in September 2012. This reopens the debate on the assessment of long-term risks of GMO plants.
During an emergency press conference in the European Parliament this Thursday, November 27 [GMW: should be 28], Gilles Eric Séralini, the author of the controversial study on the long-term risks of maize NK 603 and its associated herbicide, denounced the withdrawal by the journal of his article revealing the results of this study. Originally released in September 2012, this article was pointing to the toxicity to rats of transgenic maize NK603 and its associated herbicide, Roundup, both produced by Monsanto.
On Tuesday, November 26, the scientist received a letter signed by the chief editor of the magazine, asking him to withdraw his article. The reason? "No fraud or manipulation of data" were detected by the reviewers, but "the results presented are inconclusive and therefore do not reach the threshold of the publication".
Yet, says Professor Séralini, many exchanges took place before publication of his article, over several months. The editor recognizes that "the problem of the low number of animals had been identified during the initial peer-review process" but the article "still had merit despite its limitations". It was published, sparking intense controversy and heated debate between advocates and detractors. The scientific quality was the focus of discussions.
The journal gave in to pressure?
Why this reversal today? Due to pressure from industry, denounced in turn Joël Spiroux, President of Criigen (Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering); Corinne Lepage MEP; Paul Deheuvels, statistician member of the Academy of Sciences; and François Veillerette, President of Future Generations, who all came in support of the researcher. For Gilles-Eric Séralini, the demand addressed to him was related to "the arrival on FCT's editorial board of Richard Goodman, a biologist who worked for several years at Monsanto," between 1997 and 2004.
The scientist scans the arguments of the publisher. The strain and the number of rats used in the two-year study are insufficient? Yet these are the same rats used by Monsanto to prove the safety of its products, Séralini replies. He goes even further, stating that an article presenting the results of a study demonstrating the safety of Monsanto NK603 were published in 2004 by the magazine, while the data of the study are "fraudulent", since the reference groups [ie control groups] are fed with seeds contaminated by GMOs and pesticides," he says.
The statistician Paul Deheuvels says that he is surprised "that on the one hand this study is rejected, while the criticisms that are made could be made to the original study of Monsanto since Séralini copied the structure of this experiment". This member of the Academy of Sciences [Deheuvels] announced the publication, by the end of the year, of an article demolishing point by point the criticisms leveled at the team of Professor Séralini. For him, this study is "truly innovative. The data are very significant. This is a pilot study which must be confirmed or refuted. But given the significance of the data, I doubt it will be overturned."
For an assessment of long-term risks of GMOs
Finally, François Veillerette recalled that there are no studies on the chronic effe
Here's the Seralini team response to FCT. Basically, Seralini is challenging them to also retract the Monsanto study (e.g., Hammond et al. 2004):
http://gmoseralini.org/professor-seralini-replies-to-fct-journal-over-study-retraction/
Professor Seralini replies to FCT journal over study retraction
Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team have responded to the letter from A. Wallace Hayes, editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), telling Prof Séralini that he intended to retract his study on NK603 maize and Roundup.
Here’s the retraction notice from Elsevier, the publisher of FCT: http://prn.to/1euTk2W
Response by Prof GE Seralini and colleagues to A. Wallace Hayes, editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology
28 Nov 2013
We, authors of the paper published in FCT more than one year ago on the effects of Roundup and a Roundup-tolerant GMO (Séralini et al., 2012), and having answered to critics in the same journal (Séralini et al., 2013), do not accept as scientifically sound the debate on the fact that these papers are inconclusive because of the rat strain or the number of rats used. We maintain our conclusions. We already published some answers to the same critics in your Journal, which have not been answered (Séralini et al., 2013).
Rat strain
The same strain is used by the US national toxicology program to study the carcinogenicity and the chronic toxicity of chemicals (King-Herbert et al., 2010). Sprague Dawley rats are used routinely in such studies for toxicological and tumour-inducing effects, including those 90-day studies by Monsanto as basis for the approval of NK603 maize and other GM crops (Sprague Dawley rats did not came from Harlan but from Charles-River) (Hammond et al., 2004; Hammond et al., 2006a; Hammond et al., 2006b).
A brief, quick and still preliminary literature search of peer-reviewed journals revealed that Sprague Dawley rats were used in 36-month studies by (Voss et al., 2005) or in 24-month studies by (Hack et al., 1995), (Minardi et al., 2002), (Klimisch et al., 1997), (Gamez et al., 2007).Some of these studies have been published in Food and Chemical Toxicology.
Number of rats, OECD guidelines
OECD guidelines (408 for 90 day study, 452 chronic toxicity and 453 combined carcinogenicity/chronic toxicity study) always asked for 20 animals per group (both in 1981 and 2009 guidelines) although the measurement of biochemical parameters can be performed on 10 rats, as indicated. We did not perform a carcinogenesis study, which would not have been adopted at first, but a long-term chronic full study, 10 rats are sufficient for that at a biochemical level according to norms and we have measured such a number of parameters! The disturbance of sexual hormones or other parameters are sufficient in themselves in our case to interpret a serious effect after one year. The OPLS-DA statistical method we published is one of the best adapted. For tumours and deaths, the chronology and number of tumours per animal have to be taken into account. Any sign should be regarded as important for a real risk study. Monsanto itself measured only 10 rats of the same strain per group on 20 to conclude that the same GM maize was safe after 3 months (Hammond et al., 2004).
The statistical analysis should not be done with historical data first, the comparison is falsified, thus 50 rats per group is useless
The use of historical data falsifies health risk assessments because the diet is contaminated by dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (Schecter et al., 1996), mercury (Weiss et al., 2005), cadmium and chromium among other heavy metals in a range of doses that altered mouse liver and lung gene expression and confounds genomic analyses (Kozul et al., 2008). They also contained pesticides or plasticizers released by cages or from water sources (Howdeshell et al., 2003). Historical
The editor retracting a scientific paper is no usual business. What is the next step? Seralini being charged for rape in Sweden?
Looks like global anthropogenic human heating is taking a heavy shot to the mid-ships!
QED
In case that wasn't a very droll joke...
Brits? British? You mean the English? Why ever would they wish to put their own slant on the English language? For that matter I wonder where English came from? Certainly not the English. Could it have been? Maybe? Possibly? Or was English originally from Anglo-Saxon (read German) origins modified by the French language spoken by the Normans who successfully invaded of all places, England (home of the English)?
And why on earth would the French language used by the Normans cause Latin based words to be infused into the English language along with other changes in spelling and grammar? I know! Of course, because it was posh in the 11th century!
Oh those crazy Brits 1000 years ago, messing with Old English to create Middle English just to mess up those pesky Americans. The who? Oh, they won't be around for another 600 years? Ah well, carry on then. Keep working on the development of Middle and Modern English. Hmmmm... modern English. I get it, the language of which American English is a dialect, a 'sub form', not really the original 'proper' form of the language. Wait, what were you saying about who murdering whose language?
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
And males don't get ovarian cancer.
Therefore if your product harms the reproductive organs, putting both sexes together means you've dropped the signal below the noise.
Apparently, doing so is not statistically questionable, but anyone pointing this out is.
A European network of scientists (ENSSER) has also published a scathing condemnation of FCT's behavior, warning that this level of corruption is "a flagrant abuse of science" that will "decrease public trust in science." No doubt.
Going further, ENSSER condemned the FCT for violating "not only the criteria for retraction to which the journal itself subscribes, but any standards of good science."
A recent article calling this matter 'The Goodman Affair,' noted that:
Richard E. Goodman is professor at the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska. But he is also a former Monsanto employee, who worked for the company between 1997 and 2004. While at Monsanto he assessed the allergenicity of the company's GM crops and published papers on its behalf on allergenicity and safety issues relating to GM food (Goodman and Leach 2004)."Beyond all this, Seralini wasn't even looking for cancer, which would require a larger number of animals, but merely prepared a chronic toxicity study under the same conditions that Monsanto used to assert the GM corn's safety.
ENSSER explains that the short term study found not only "pronounced toxic effects" but also "increased tumour rates." Further, the Sprague-Dawley strain of rat is the "commonly used standard for this type of research" and was the same one Monsanto used.
Most importantly, "Unpleasant results should be checked, not ignored. And the toxic effects other than tumours and mortality are well-founded."
ENSSER concluded that, "Prof. Séralini's findings stand today more than before, as even this secret review found that there is nothing wrong with either technicalities, conduct or transparency of the data - the foundations on which independent science rests. The conclusiveness of their data will be decided by future independent science, not by a secret circle of people."
http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/gmo-rat-study-retracted-by-new-journal-editor-from-surprise-monsanto-11302013
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
So does the journal now retract the other studies done with the same and in some cases more severe flaws that he points out?
http://gmoseralini.org/professor-seralini-replies-to-fct-journal-over-study-retraction/
"FCT should retract the Hammond et al. paper on Roundup tolerant maize for all these reasons, published for Monsanto’s authorization, or consider that each of these papers is part of the scientific debate."
And on the subject of GMO foods .... The vast majority of them are sprayed with glyphosate (Roundup) and if you eat the GMO food you eat glyphosate. This paper (which nobody has criticized yet) clearly shows the pathway that glyphosate can destroy human health. In short the shikimate pathway is interfered with causing plants to die. That pathway exists in the bacteria in your gut where three quarters of your immune system is regulated. So are auto-immune and inflammation based diseases increasing?
http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/Entropy/entropy-15-01416.pdf
Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, "Glyphosate's Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases" Entropy 2013, 15(4), 1416-1463; doi:10.3390/e15041416
You posted a massive argument outlining why your original whinging post about British (everyone really does call you that) spellings was just that.
How does it come that nobody seems to be aware that 99% of commercially available GMs are designed to work with herbicides which are made by the same companies, and that the main health concerns might be the consequences of these 'cides', rather than GMs themselves?
By the way, if this study was not good, why not making a better study rather than retract the article?
Is Seralini a new Árpád Pusztai?