The article below is an intelligent analysis of the campaign to neutralize the 2012 Séralini study on GM maize and Roundup, as well as of the study itself.
Scientists explain why the retraction of the study is not scientifically justified:
182 scientists condemn the retraction:
1352 scientists boycott Elsevier over the retraction:
The dirty details behind the attacks on Séralini’s notorious GMO rat study
Naturalsociety.com, 14 May 2014
Remember the GMO rat study finding that rats fed GMOs developed tumors and died prematurely? After Seralini’s long term toxicity study results were publicized with displays of rats showing huge tumors, a tsunami of outrage from pro-GMO related scientists got favorable mainstream media (MSM) press. The hundreds of scientists who defended Seralini’s work were ignored. Many fence-sitters were left confused and willing to side with the barking dogs of the biotechnology industry.
This publicized display was the air and sea attack to soften the defense of the anti-GMO ideology island. Then the actual landing attack against that island’s science was embarked by setting up former Monsanto scientist Richard E. Goodman in a newly created biotech editorial position at the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT).
That’s the journal where Seralini’s study “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize” had been originally peer reviewed and posted. With Goodman steering the landing craft, the editor-in-chief of FCT, Wallace Hayes, removed Seralini’s paper from the journal.
Hayes admitted the study was not fraudulent or inaccurate, but explained that it was inconclusive. Honest defending scientists jumped on that one, explaining that peer reviewed published studies are often inconclusive, recommending “further studies”.
In case you're thinking I’m pulling the trigger on Goodman too quickly, around that same time a Brazilian study proving Monsanto’s Bt corn insecticide starter genes do not disintegrate in mammalian stomachs as claimed by Monsanto, but survive intact to harm mammals’ blood cells was also pulled from FCT. That study has now been published in another journal.
Debunking GMO Scientists’ Criticisms as Liberally Reported by the MSM
Wrong rats used: They were the same rats Monsanto had used in a 90 day trial. The Sprague-Dawley (SD) strain has a life expectancy of 24 to 36 months. Just right for a two year study that’s intended to replicate the life span of a human.
SD Rats Tend to Have Spontaneous Tumors: True, around 30% of SD rats get cancer symptoms without test induced provocations. Again, this mimics human statistics on cancer. More SD rats fed well under maximum regulatory amounts of Roundup along with the Roundup Ready corn developed tumors than the control rats within four to seven months of the study. The exposed rats also died earlier than the non-exposed control rats.
Too few Rats: The short Monsanto study used 20 rats for each group. But, they only checked urine and serum samples of 10 in each group. The Seralini study used 10 for each grouping, but they tested urine and serum samples from all 10.
Insufficient Amount of Rats for Proving Carcinogenicity: The title of the study tells us that proving carcinogenicity was not Seralini’s intent, it was a long term toxicity study. Tumors were incidental, but are required to be reported without drawing conclusions in toxicity studies. Seralini reported without conclusions about cancer. The rats who were exposed showed signs of liver, kidney, and pancreatic damage.
Seralini’s conclusion was that Roundup herbicide and Roundup resistant GMO corn is not safe and further studies are necessary before approving it. But the sight of those rats with such huge tumors certainly made some waves, eh?