Dr. Nancy Swanson says it's a sad day for science when a scientific journal bows to pressure and retracts a peer-reviewed published paper.

EXCERPT: Not only do the corporations own our governments, they now own science as well. Not only do they control the news via mainstream media, they now control the publication of scientific data. They are determined and relentless in their efforts to suppress evidence of harm from their products. They continually state that they want science-based discussions, but only if they get to choose the data.

More about Dr Swanson:

Dr Nancy Swanson graduated from Western Washington University with a B.S. degree in physics and math in 1986. She received her Ph.D. in physics from The Florida State University. She then worked as a staff scientist for the United States Navy. Upon returning to Washington, Nancy taught physics at WWU. She holds five U.S. patents. She is the author of over 30 scientific publications and two books on women in science. She is currently retired and grows flowers.

You can read more of Dr Swanson's articles here:
http://www.examiner.com/gmo-in-seattle/nancy-swanson---
---
Scientific journal withdraws Séralini paper on Roundup toxicity
Nancy Swanson
Seattle GMO Examiner, 29 Nov 2013
http://www.examiner.com/article/scientific-journal-withdraws-s-ralini-paper-on-roundup-toxicity?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Yesterday was a sad day for science. The Elsevier Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology (JFCT) editor, Dr A. Wallace Hayes, has bowed to political pressure and retracted a long-term study on the toxic effects of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

Chronology of events:

November, 2012: The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled, “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize.” by Gilles-Eric Séralini et al. This was the first and only long-term (two year) study of its kind ever undertaken. The findings were damning to the biotechnology corporations, showing that GMOs and glyphosate (Roundup) cause tumors, liver, and kidney damage in rats.

Almost immediately, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a statement saying the Séralini paper did not meet scientific standards set out by the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). They accused the authors of using the wrong kind of rats, not enough rats, and that the statistical analysis was inadequate. By these standards, all toxicity studies on glyphosate and GMOs should be retracted because they used the same type and approximate number of rats as those in the Séralini study.

Within a week, a whole host of scientists from the biotechnology sector, most of them plant biologists, wrote letters to the editor of JFCT demanding retraction of the paper. They all used the same arguments given by EFSA. Could this have been an orchestrated effort?

There have been seven studies published between 2004-2012 in the JFCT in which the same type of rats (Sprague–Dawley) were fed diets supplemented with material from GM plants. All of these papers were published by those companies who developed the GM plant used in the study. One paper was from Monsanto, and the others from DuPont/Pioneer. Furthermore they often did not report the formulations used, the studies were 90 days or less, and many did not adhere to the three dose level requirement. In point of fact, Séralini's study was more rigorous than most. It seems that both the EFSA and the JFCT are cherry picking data and applying double standards. If the Séralini study was less than perfect, then one would think that scientists would rush to design better experiments to further test these results. Instead they viciously attack and try to discredit the scientists and suppress the results. Does anyone smell a rat, Sprague-Dawley or otherwise?

March, 2012: Séralini published a response to critics, carefully addressing each concern.

March, 2012: The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), the Society for Ecological Research, the foundation Manfred-Hermsen-Stiftung for Nature Conservation and Environmental Protection, the Foundation on Future Farming, the non-profit organization Sambucus and Testbiotech filed a legal challenge with the European Court of Justice against the EU Commission's authorization of the import of a genetically engineered Monsanto soybean.

May, 2013: JFCT creates a new position, Associate Editor for Biotechnology, and fills it with Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto employee (1997-2004). In addition to working for Monsanto, Goodman is involved with the International Life Sciences Institute which develops industry-friendly risk assessment methods for GM foods and chemical food contaminants and inserts them into government regulations.

September, 2013: The British Government joined forces with Monsanto, EFSA and the EU Commission to defend the import of Monsanto’s transgenic soybean in the EU court. Said the Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health, Earl Howe: “The United Kingdom has a strong interest in the science-based system underpinning genetically modified product applications and so has applied to intervene in this case, which concerns the authorisation of genetically modified food and feed. Any intervention will represent the view of the government as a whole...”

November, 2013: The JFCT retracts the Séralini paper.

The grounds for retracting a scientific, peer-reviewed paper are as follows:
*Clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct (eg data fabrication) or honest error;
*Plagiarism or redundant publication;
*Unethical research.

Hayes stated that the Séralini group was not guilty of any of the above, only that their results were inconclusive and thus not up to the standards of this so very ethical journal. Now that the paper has been retracted, the results will conveniently not be permissible as evidence in court.

It seems that not only do the corporations own our governments, they now own science as well. Not only do they control the news via mainstream media, they now control the publication of scientific data. They are determined and relentless in their efforts to suppress evidence of harm from their products. They continually state that they want science-based discussions, but only if they get to choose the data. They continually tell us that there is no evidence that GMO crops cause harm either to us or to the environment.

As if lack of evidence of harm is equivalent to evidence of no harm.

It's a sad day when a scientific journal lowers itself to to being nothing more than a corporate mouthpiece. Comments to A. Wallace Hayes can be made here: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/food-and-chemical-toxicology/editorial-board/a-wallace-hayes/#contact