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."
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
It's very easy to prove that something is unsafe; you simply show meaningful and reproducible examples of harm caused
You can't prove that something is safe because you can't say beyond a doubt that something will never ever cause harm in the future. What you *can* do is show multiple studies that were looking for harm and could not meaningfully find any.
What we know about GMOs is that there are no known examples of harm caused by them that can be reproduced by scientific peers.
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.
It's not that way for either party and shouldn't be ("definitively prove" is a ludicrously high threshold). This was apparently half-assed research which didn't "prove" anything.
Like it or not, even big companies are innocent until proven guilty. Pending FDA approval, anyway.
In this case it looks like the researchers were out for blood and let their dislike for Monsanto get in the way of doing the science properly—not only did they use cancer-prone rats like it says in the summary, but they didn't do enough replicates to determine if the results were actually statistically significant: the control group definitely got fewer tumours, but given the unreliability of the rat breed's tumour-forming rate it's hard to say that it wasn't just a coincidence. (And using a cancer-prone rat isn't exactly realistic to begin with; tumours grow faster whenever they get cheap and easy nutrients.)
The paper was under close scrutiny immediately when it was published, and not just from Elsevier or Monsanto.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
That's because it is reasonable to assume that it is safe based on what we know about biology. Furthermore, there are no real-world indications that it is not. At this point, if you want to claim it's unsafe, you better have some strong data to back it up.
According to objective science, every widely used organism produced by genetic manipulation is safe to consume.
Fortunately, in this case, it's ok to be annoyed by both sides: Elsevier and the guys who did the study. Both are bad.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Hardly no one looks for examples of harm from non-GMO corn either. All corn, really all agricultural products, are heavily genetically engineered, the difference is some is engineered with selective breeding and hybridization, and the other by resequencing. The only reason we pay attention to the latter is there's a contingent of motivated believers who think that "natural" food contains Maggi Health Fairies, and that Big Science and Corporations kill the fairies by Playing God(!!1!@1!). it's really hard to get funding to try studying anything against Big Ag's corporate profit interests
"It's impossible to disprove Darwinism, because the Darwin lobby controls all granting in the life sciences!" "It's impossible to disprove general relativity, because the government suppresses that truth!"
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
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 kind of thing you might have big a-priori safety concerns about, above and beyond genetic modification to speed along selective breeding processes for traits not directly related to dumping massive amounts of toxins onto food products. So, yes, humans have been doing "genetic engineering" for a long time, but less so for capabilities to saturate fields with weird shit that kills all the other plants.
Interestingly, they've been dumping actual shit on plants for a long time before that, which is probably more dangerous than the glyphosate that you are (for some unknown reason) afraid of.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."