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."
"What we know about GMOs is that there are no known examples of harm caused by them that can be reproduced by scientific peers."
That is complete nonsense. They tried to publish a review paper that said there is no evidence that GMOs are unsafe, and that the 'conversation is over'. Hundreds of scientists came out against that paper and said that the conversation is anything but over, that it was basically a fraud.
This whole thing is a con job form the beginning. Monsanto has infiltrated science and government and pretty much does whatever they want, without proof. After all, this is the same company that assured us that their products Agent Orange and DDT were safe. And you want to trust them now?! This is a chemical company that is trying to take control of the food supply. Buying up seed companies (now own two-thirds of all seed companies), forcing people to use their chemicals to grow food and come to them for seeds every year.
Then, they tell everyone their chemicals and foods are safe, but refuse to label any of it! It's forced down everyone's throats. No choice. All the other garbage in food is put on labels, and people are allowed to choose for themselves whether to eat junk or not. But an UNPROVEN (regardless of what you say, it is STILL unproven) food is allowed to take over our whole food system while Monsanto execs take over the whole government process, preventing any regulation.
GMOs produce toxins. Those toxins have already been shown to stay in the human body almost indefinitely, compromising the human immune system. And, in perfect correlation to the spread of GMOs, all sorts of illnesses are growing and a rapid rate. This is why they refuse to do any long-term studies. Not only that, their toxic chemicals are wreaking havoc on the environment, and whole colonies of bees are dying. The same bees that pollinate two-thirds of the world's crops. When the bees are gone, humanity collapses.
But you go on believing that these toxins are safe. Why? I guess that's why you post under 'Anonymous Coward'. It's complete nonsense. LABEL THE *(&%$A*(&$*( FOOD!!! Let the people decide for themselves. If they are so safe, why do they refuse to label them?
These people did absolutely nothing to warrant having their paper retracted. This is just another example of the lengths Monsanto will take to silence any and all opposition. They steal people's land, ruin lives, ruin health, ruin the environment. They are a cancer on the world.
What bad science?
After they got lots of nasty letters to the editor, they asked the authors to retract. The authors declined. So the journal went over the original study with a fine-toothed comb and decided the experiment was good, the data was good, and the best objection they could come up with was that they no longer liked the sample size.