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
who uses the term maize any longer??
Scientific researchers for starters. And anyone who speaks Spanish.
When big pharma pays a publisher to publish a fake journalâ¦
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize
TL;DR Maize is preferred in formal, scientific, and international usage because it refers specifically to this one grain, unlike corn, which has a complex variety of meanings that vary by context and geographic region.
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
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.
Wasn't Willie Maize the Catcher in the Rye? Or am I thinking about Yogi Berra?
rewriting history since 2109
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.
Come to Europe. We grow corn too - but our corn is a different plant entirely.
When European settlers came to the new world, they found a lot of new species they had no names for. So they named them after something familiar from back home. 'Corn' was named because it was the staple crop, just like the 'corn' back home - otherwise known as wheat, or the stuff cornflakes and bread are made from. This is also why you have a robin that isn't even in the same family as the european robin: It has a similar red breast, so it was called a robin.
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!
Maize is the term used in the UK, where corn means, usually, wheat - sometimes barley.
Many dictionaries say that "corn" means the local most common grain crop, and therefore each grain type needs another name for use where it is not the most common.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Billy Maize is the Pitcher in the Rye.
...Slashdot needs a comment filter for bad pun density.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Study Linking GM Maize To Rat Tumors Is Retracted
Thank heaven for that! Somebody pass the corn please.
"Corn outside North America, Australia, and New Zealand means any cereal crop" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize)
That's quite a good reason for being specific.
Also Maiz is the Taino (native american) name for the plant, Maize is a modern derivative of that and the technically correct name.
Albanian - misër
Cebuano - mais
Danish - majs
Dutch - maïs
Esperanto - maizo
Estonian - mais
Filipino - mais
Finnish - maissi
French - maïs
German - Mais
Haitian Creole - mayi
Italian - mais
Norwegian - mais
Spanish - maíz
Swedish - majs
Turkish - misir
Well that explains a lot of things - Healthcare, Democrat, Football.
No wonder we're so confused. It's all your fault.
USA! USA! USA!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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...
really?? I mean sure it is proper but who uses the term maize any longer??
Oh dear, you just opened a can of whoop-ass on yourself....
No sig today...
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.
Looked it up, and... you are right. Cornflakes are made from maize. Huh.
After the processing they look quite unlike their source crop. I just always assumed they were wheat without thinking much about it, having seen a television program with information about their origin. On some research it appears that while the early cornflakes were made from wheat, the recipe has since been heavily revised - one of the revisions being the switch from wheat to maze as the primary ingredient.
I get the impression Kellogg himself would be very unhappy with the cereal today. He made it to be a healthy breakfast food, and the company has since switched ingredients for cheaper maze and loaded it up with added sugar and high-fructose syrup. But then, this is the man who worked tirelessly to reintroduce circumcision to the US as a preemptive way discourage masturbation, so screw him.
And yes, I know I misspelt 'maize' twice.
I'm more of a no witch hunts fanboy.
That's right. Yogi Berra snatched piknik baskets.
rewriting history since 2109
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?
But then, this is the man who worked tirelessly to reintroduce circumcision to the US as a preemptive way discourage masturbation, so screw him.
Corn flakes were a variation on that theme. Kellogg was a follower of the ideas of Sylvester Graham (who also invented the "masturbation causes blindness" nuttery). He believed that spicy or sweet foods led to "passions" and "impure thoughts".
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
BILLY MAIZE HERE!
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
"I never snatched a lot of those pik-ih-nik baskets I snatched." - Y. Berra
Funniest comment of the month and no mod points...
Everyone outside of the English speaking US.
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]
Thank you for that, now i feel foolish for posting heh
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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.
I'm firmly in the methodological naturalism fanboy group.
Not everyone. "Corn on the cob" is labeled as such in Australia and other places outside the US. It's not "maize on the cob." I've not looked for it in the UK, so no idea of the labeling there.
Learn to love Alaska
Billy Maize (Mays) also sold piles of worthless crap through infomercials.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
So the corn that Jimmy cracked was wheat -- he was husking wheat! It finally makes sense!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Here in the UK its called sweet corn, and is shortened to corn on the cob.
See also the Scandinavian languages, where "korn" means "grain(s)", and "mais" is yellow and comes on cobs. (Wheat is "hvete".)
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.
Which is one of the other points people point out that's been shot down. Corn is corn everywhere, even where "corn" is not unambiguous. I've never heard it called anything else in common use. Though other words are used in technical settings.
Learn to love Alaska
'nuff said.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
A p-value that isn't "corrected" is a p-value for an experiment you didn't do. The p-value for the experiment you DID do IS enough. Taking only very slight liberties, it is the probability that a positive conclusion (there is a difference) is wrong.
Of course, if you do the wrong test, your p-value is invalid. Also if you don't "correct" it.
OK, but what was the p value?
But then, this is the man who worked tirelessly to reintroduce circumcision to the US as a preemptive way discourage masturbation, so screw him.
Corn flakes were a variation on that theme. Kellogg was a follower of the ideas of Sylvester Graham (who also invented the "masturbation causes blindness" nuttery). He believed that spicy or sweet foods led to "passions" and "impure thoughts".
Weird, I was raised that the devil whispered those thoughts to you...
Be seeing you...
Weren't the Giants beaten by the Elves and Dwarves?
rewriting history since 2109
Or anyone else outside the world - oops I mean the USA.
./ your dictionary needs to be updated.
You can take your colorful words and shove it up your coulorful backside.
Along with
centre vs center
fibre vs fiber
litre vs liter
theatre vs theater
colour vs color (thank you for this, I lost several points in english because I was reading too many American books)
flavour vs flavor
humour vs humor
labour vs labor
neighbour vs neighbor
analyse vs analyze
breathalyse vs breathalyze
paralyse vs paralyze
and the list goes on...
Go murder another language. Leave english alone.
Oh, and
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
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
He believed that spicy or sweet foods led to "passions" and "impure thoughts".
So THAT'S why I have impure thoughts!
BM3
ANY number can be rounded to zero.
OK, but what was the p value?
They didn't give a p value.
I don't know if you can get the paper free but here it is.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005
Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modied maize
Ok, here is the actual paper. According to it:
So, I can do a little math. Ten equivalent groups taken from 200 animals is 20 animals each. This isn't rocket science. Breaking them out by sex is even worse, since it means that each group had only 10 animals.
Here are the 10 (not 4) groups:
1) control (normal water, normal corn)
2) 11% GM corn, not treated with roundup, normal water
3) 11% GM corn, treated with roundup, normal water
4) 22% GM corn, not treated with roundup, normal water
5) 22% GM corn, treated with roundup, normal water
6) 33% GM corn, not treated with roundup, normal water
7) 33% GM corn, treated with roundup, normal water
8) normal corn, traces of roundup in water
9) normal corn, 0.09% roundup in water
10) normal corn, 0.5% roundup in water
So, I am speaking about this after having actually read and understood the paper. Why don't you give it a look?
Aluminium vs aluminum?
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
I actually read it. I just wanted to needle the second AC in the thread for trying to sound authoritative when he/she didn't actually know the ansqwer to the question posed :-)
I live in the UK and maize is mainly a US term. We use "corn" to mean maize. Wheat and barley are called "wheat" and "barley" and never "corn".
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Here in the UK, corn always mean maize and never wheat or barley.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
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
Oh, now I see. Sorry to spoil the joke. :)
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
You do realize that most of American spellings are actually closer to what English used to be before Brits "murdered" it (to make it look more like French, because that was posh at the time).
Also, did you seriously study English somewhere where they insisted on British spelling? That's... quaint.
The editor retracting a scientific paper is no usual business. What is the next step? Seralini being charged for rape in Sweden?
"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet."
—Abraham Lincoln.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
mosb1000 answered most of this, but I wanted to address this bit:
Which is not necessarily the case.
And if you actually read the graphs in the paper, you might notice a couple things:
1: There's no indication of a dose-dependent response.
If you have control and three treatments given increasing quantities of a toxin, the effects of the toxin should increase with dose.
If the effects just fluctuate, you didn't have enough numbers.
2. There's something missing on the graphs: error bars.
He believed that spicy or sweet foods led to "passions" and "impure thoughts".
That's odd, I've recently been to India. the spicy food there didn't induce such thoughts. In fact, it took a few away...
sigo ergo sum
"centre vs center"
The American spellings are (1) more logically consistent, (2) more phonetic, and (3) almost 200 years old.
If you want to continue living in the ancient past, go right ahead. Don't bitch about those who want to move on.
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.
Enough already!!! Jack killed them.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Knock Knock
Who's there
9/11
9/11 Who?
YOU SAID YOU'D NEVER FORGET!
Bash Quote
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
Oops, soz. Meant to reply to your query but got distracted by your sig.
:-)
Yes I went to school in a former British colony, so it's British English and British Law
In hindsight I think it was more about my teacher being British herself which made me lose points due to American spelling.
Then again I almost always scored 95+ on essays, she had to find fault somewhere?
English is easy, you just have to read a lot.
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
Did you actually click on the signature?
Do you understand that half of these rats will get cancer in their lifetime even if they are not exposed to any cancer-causing agents? They are extremely susceptible to cancer and they will get it very quickly if they are exposed to something that causes cancer. That is why researchers use them to see if something causes cancer. A short trial is what these rats have been bread for. After their time's up, you cut them open and see if there are any tumors. But if you wait too long, you will get tumors anyway and your experiment is ruined.
You can see that they broke them up into groups and fed them increasing concentrations of GMO corn and roundup. With a carcinogen, there is a threshold minimum concentration where cancer appears, and increasing the concentration increases the odds an individual will get cancer. One problem with this study is doesn't show any relationship between concentration and cancer rates. Groups with higher concentrations showed lower rates of cancer than groups with lower concentrations. Many experimental groups showed lower rates of cancer than the control, in several cases the rats receiving the highest doses of supposed cancer causing agents had the lowest rates of cancer. So what's happened here is by chance the female control had less cancer than other female test groups. But in reality the data doesn't show a correlation between the concentration of roundup or roundup ready corn and cancer.
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..."
I call your "research" into question since you seem to have come to several conclusions which are completely incorrect. You are correct that two Kelloggs experimented with grains including wheat before trying maize. You are incorrect when you say that "corn flakes" were ever made of anything but maize. In America, "corn" never means wheat or any grain other than maize. The original flakes of wheat were called "granose."
You are also incorrect when you say that it was a non-Kellogg who added sugar. In fact, corn flakes were originally marketed by Will Keith Kellogg's Battle Creek Toasted Corn Flake Company and contained added sugar from the beginning.
Will's brother John Harvey Kellogg, who was not part of the business, was not in favor of adding sugar. John's objection to adding sugar had little to do with modern ideas. He thought spicy or sweet foods would increase sexual urges.
After the processing they look quite unlike their source crop.
Are you saying it's reasonable to expect a grain product to look like the grain when it first came off the plant? By that logic, you should look more askance at bread as you do at corn flakes.
But what's the origin of that word? One of the Mayan languages?
See also the Scandinavian languages, where "korn" means "grain(s)", and "mais" is yellow and comes on cobs. (Wheat is "hvete".)
I hate to burst your bubble, but the word for the plant in question, whether spelled "maize," "mais," or "maiz," comes from Spanish, which originally borrowed it from the language of the Caribbean Taíno people. All European languages got some form of that word via Spanish. The words "corn," "korn," and "grain" are related and much older in European tradition. Also, maize comes several colors, including white and purple.
Who uses the term maize? Probably most non-US citizens. A Peuvian friend educated me on my misuse of the phrase "Americans".
So who who wants to try out the maize maze?
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
I don't care.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
On the other hand we get candy corn. I think we lost.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
The problem isn't that the idea of including groups for sexes is questionable - it is the subdividing of small groups into even smaller groups based on numerous criteria. This is commonly done in small pilot studies that turn up marginal results which are later shown to be erroneous. Normally this is a non-issue. It is part of the scientific process - look for phenomena and then follow up with further study.
But when the study becomes the basis for stories in the media - watch out. We see this over and over. A small study of (insert food, chemical product, alternative treatment here) that checks a bunch of different variables shows a significant change in one or two. The media runs with the story and people begin to act as if the study is "scientific truth". When the follow up studies show that the whole thing was nonsense, it is too late. The idea has already entered the public consciousness as fact.
Here is a nice article about the effect of these sorts of preliminary results on the practice of medicine. It has some nice links to other sources on things like publication bias and researcher degrees of freedom that lead to the publication of false positives.
and the rest of the world (excluding the US) uses the word maize.
That's silly. Knowing the assumed distribution, the mean, and the p-value you can compute a confidence interval, and vice versa. Ditto for an effect size. Both of those are "solutions" proposed by people who a) don't know what the problem is b) don't know what a p-value, confidence interval or effect size is or c) are trying to play off the "but look at how much of my confidence interval DOESN'T overlap zero!" to make insignificant results seem significant.
Also, most tests aren't overly sensitive to reasonable departures from normality, and a lot of data is normally distributed by the time it's analyzed anyway, thanks to the central limit theorem. A far bigger problem is people just doing the whole thing incorrectly, or drawing unjustified conclusions. The difference of differences fallacy seems to be one of the more popular.
The number you get out of applying any old test to your data is not a p-value. Of course you need to use the right test. The problem is not p-values, it's people doing analysis who have no idea what they're doing. Of course you need to look at your residuals to make sure there aren't any patterns. Not propose some silly magic bullet solution that's mathematically equivalent to a p-value anyway.
No I did not (I have now however)
It's not often that I get to throw in a bash quote.
Couldn't help myself.
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.