START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

105 Scientists Slam GMO-Rat-Study Retraction


Green Lifestyle  (tags: abuse, ethics, environment, food, genetic engineering, GMOs, greenliving, health, humans, protection, science, Roundup, Monsanto, society, world )

Kathy
- 225 days ago - altheadlines.com
What kind of hornet's nest was opened up for the GM industry in view of the retraction of the two year "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize", by G E Séralini et al, published in Food and Chemical Tox



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Kathy B. (98)
Saturday December 7, 2013, 3:41 pm
What kind of hornet’s nest was opened up for the GM industry in view of the retraction of the two year "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize", by G E Séralini et al, published in Food and Chemical Toxicology 2012, 50(11), 4221-31?

According to the article published December 5, 2013 in the Ecologist,

This arbitrary, groundless retraction of a published, thoroughly peer-reviewed paper is without precedent in the history of scientific publishing, and raises grave concerns over the integrity and impartiality of science. These concerns are heightened by a sequence of events surrounding the retraction:

the appointment of ex-Monsanto employee Richard Goodman to the newly created post of associate editor for biotechnology at FCT
the retraction of another study finding potentially harmful effects from GMOs (which almost immediately appeared in another journal)
the failure to retract a paper published by Monsanto scientists in the same journal in 2004, for which a gross error has been identified. [1]

The first bulleted item apparently speaks volumes as to Monsanto’s tactics in gaining corporate-style control over many segments of society, commerce, and government. Shouldn’t someone question the revolving door policy Monsanto’s former chief lobbyist Michael Taylor [2] has enjoyed at federal agencies, and now as FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods? Can that be why we have FDA-mandated “No GMO Labeling of Foods”?

Then there’s Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a former Monsanto employee – he was a company lawyer. [3] Does a corporate lawyer position warrant enough experience to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court?

The third bulleted item above ought to nail it down for everyone as to what’s really going on. It’s a shame what’s happening in science, the corporate world, and government during these trying times.

However, readers may recall that I wrote “GMOs: What Do the Stars Say Astrologically” back on August 2, 2013. Does astrology know more than we give it credit for?

Another publication, The Economist, also did a number on the apparent unethical retraction, and titled it tongue-in-cheek-like, “Smelling a rat.” [4]

Hopefully, the blatant shenanigans that go on in the name of vested interests to obfuscate serious scientific issues or prevail in control mechanisms that affect everyone’s well-being, e.g., the very food we eat, will turn the tide for consumers understanding GM issues, as it apparently has for those 105 very erudite and courageous scientists. Applause, applause, applause!
 

JL A. (272)
Saturday December 7, 2013, 4:57 pm
Kudos to these 105 for speaking up for maintaining ethical standards in research and research publications!
 

Barbara D. (107)
Sunday December 8, 2013, 8:15 am
105 quasi-scientists against the international scientific community? Yes, Seralini's study was published ~ and when reviewed,. was discarded as rubbish for so many errors in methodology as to make his conclusions ludicrous.
 

Kathy B. (98)
Sunday December 8, 2013, 8:38 am
Well Barbara D. first off what are your qualifications to slander Dr. Seralini? Have you studied his work? Are you a scientist? And second, since a study of this nature HAS NEVER BEEN DONE, how do you further back up your claims?

It's nice that you've chosen to be a mouthpiece for the GMO industry and a guinea pig for their products, you'll have to keep us up to date on how this works out for you.
 

Kerrie G. (135)
Sunday December 8, 2013, 8:40 am
Noted, thanks.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday December 8, 2013, 9:54 am
The study looked at the effects on the Sprague-Dawley strain. Sprague-Dawley rats were bred specifically to have extremely cancer-rates so that they could be efficiently used to study cancer. Between that and low sample-sizes which allow for high variability in cancer-rates unrelated to diet, the journal found that the probability that the difference in cancer-rates were due only to random variation were too high.

This is not a political subjective thing. This is statistics. Using a control-group and an experimental group (which was given the modified diet) they tested the rats for cancer at regular intervals and they had a well-defined average time for the development of cancer. This setup produces a Poisson distribution for time-to-development-of-cancer. Comparing the differences in the averages of the two groups to their standard deviations gives a numerical value for the probability that the difference was due to random variation. The journal sets an upper limit for that number. Any study which produces a result above that number is labelled "inconclusive" and articles which present conclusions as though that number were lower are normally rejected. Upon review of the raw data and consideration of the well-studied average time-to-cancer for the genetic strain in question, the journal found that the article should have been rejected.

Here is the original letter: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Open_letter_to_FCT_and_Elsevier.php
It claims that the review did not find cause for retraction, which it lists. However, the first cause on the list, "clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct or honest error", which is independently sufficient for retraction, was found.

This is nothing exceptional. Only roughly 10% of academic articles published in peer-reviewed journals survive independent verification. Many of those are due to overstated confidence in results. The only abnormal aspect here is that while usually the math is done correctly and random variation exceeds expectations (which it can do because it is random), in this one incorrect values were used or relevant pre-existing available information was ignored, causing errors in the math.
 

Barbara D. (107)
Sunday December 8, 2013, 9:55 am
http://academicsreview.org/2012/09/scientists-smell-a-rat-in-fraudulent-study/
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/10/french-gm-corn-study-not-scientifically-valid/#.UqSuGMRDvz8
http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=2945
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-seralini-gmo-study-retraction-and-response-to-critics/
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gm-corn-rat-study/
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2012/09/28/turning-point-from-the-french-maize-study-gm-opponents-look-like-climate-deniers/#.UqSw88RDvz8
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-are-safe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html
http://www.psmag.com/health/scientific-debate-gm-foods-theyre-safe-66711/
 

Theodore Shayne (56)
Sunday December 8, 2013, 10:08 am
Noted
 

Kathy B. (98)
Sunday December 8, 2013, 10:32 am
Stephen: The statistical analysis confirmed that disturbances in hormonal function in treatment groups resulted from ingestion of GM maize NK603 and Roundup, with a 95% confidence level. Critics appear to demand that Séralini must prove at the 5% level, i.e. beyond reasonable doubt, that GM maize and/or Roundup are hazardous. Even if he has not done that, he has clearly done enough to raise doubts in the mind of any reasonable person.

The EU claims to accept the precautionary principle in cases “where preliminary objective scientific evidence indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern”.

In other words, if there is preliminary evidence, you cannot simply ignore it. At this stage, it is not for Séralini to prove beyond any doubt that there is a danger. In a reasonable world, another independent group would be funded to replicate and extend the scope of the experiments, following an accepted protocol for carcinogenesis and taking on board any of the critics’ points that have scientific validity. Some do, but there is a difference between seeing how an experiment could have been done better and dismissing it out of hand.
 

Kathy B. (98)
Sunday December 8, 2013, 10:34 am
Congratulations Barbara on yet again failing to answer the question and for being able to find such an excellent batch of partisan articles.
 

GGmaSheila D. (132)
Sunday December 8, 2013, 12:12 pm
The important issue is IMPARTAL testing, by IMPARTIAL labs. Science can be imperfect, that' s why more than one test, by more than one lab is necessary to get at the truth. As far as GMOs go, I've only seen, or heard about, Monsanto, and toadies, reports and the Seralini report, which was blown apart...but by whom??
We need long term test results by major sientific groups, not any asociated with Monsanto and other GE seed producers. This has been the problem all along, because Monsanto and their ilk either blacken honest rreports or get them buried where no consumers can see them...
 

Malgorzata Zmuda (176)
Sunday December 8, 2013, 1:18 pm
noted
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday December 8, 2013, 2:17 pm
Hi Kathy :)

The EU may accept the precautionary principle for policy-purposes, but the journal is under no obligation to do so. (I think that with the current application of the precautionary principle, the dangers of over-caution outweigh those of demanding harder evidence, but my opinion is not what matters here.) Séralini claimed to have shown a difference in hormones at the 95% confidence-level, but the standard against which he compared the results of the experimental group were wrong because his analysis did not account for the abnormalities of the breed of rats that he used.

Essentially, he had average result X with a standard deviation Sx which he compared against some average Y which has a standard deviation Sy. He said X - Y is greater than 2 * sqrt(Sx^2 + Sy^2) so at 95% confidence the difference between the control-group and the experimental one is systematic rather than random. The problem, from what I understand, is that he used the wrong values for Y and Sy, using those for typical rats rather than those of the Sprague-Dawley strain which was bred specifically to get relevant abnormalities (a different value for Y). Upon review, it was found that using the same raw data and accounting for the genetic abnormality, the probability of systematic differences dropped below that required for publication.

There certainly is a difference between improving upon an experiment and dismissing it. Journal papers fail verification all the time without getting retracted. However, that verification is normally done with improvements that were either not available to the original authors at the time of the original experiment (better equipment, larger samples, etc.) while in this case, only information that the authors could not possibly have missed was used to improve the analysis had he done due diligence. Doing due diligence, when a research-group purchases Sprague-Dawley rats for experimentation, it knows what it bought.
 

Kathy B. (98)
Sunday December 8, 2013, 3:16 pm
Stephen, you're missing two important parts regarding the Sprague-Dawley strain of rats 1) they were chosen because their incidences of cancer are close to those seen in humans and 2) they are the same strain of rats used in numerous Monsanto studies of shorter duration.
 

Kathy B. (98)
Sunday December 8, 2013, 4:33 pm
Kevin Coleman friend of mine from England and former Care2 member has asked me to post the following comment on his behalf:

'I met with Professor Seralini in September 2013 at the Houses of Parliament in London, England where he presented his research to a packed committee room of the All Party Group on Agroecology.

From the outset he made it very clear to us all that his research was purely to find out if there were any toxicity issues associated with the herbicide Roundup.

They never set out to discover whether the herbicide or the GM corn could cause cancer.

He also made it very clear that they deliberately copied Monsanto's earlier (I believe it was their 2004 paper which I also believe appeared in the same journal) research 'precisely' by using exactly the same breed of rats and the same chemicals and food sources so that they could replicate 'exactly' Monsanto's research but run it to full term of life expectancy of the rats, rather than the original 90 days that Monsanto did, to see what would happen over the entire lifetime of the rats (which for the record is 2.5-3 years on average).
He also explained that when rats reach the end section of their lives in this particular research trial, which is usually the last 6 months or so of their expected lives, any illnesses or cancers were ignored as these could not be definitely ascribed to the treatments the rats were receiving or the fact that they were simply getting old.

The only other change from Monsanto's earlier research was to include an additional level of concentration of the herbicide Roundup to go along with Monsanto's original levels. They had two levels of herbicide toxicity. 11% and 33%. Professor Seralini added a 22% level to provide an additional point of reference for graphical purposes. Any scientist worth their salt would know why he added an additional concentration level and how this would be used on a graph, so to all those GMO supporters out there please don't even try to deny that this was a legitimate addition.

The research team discovered cancerous tumours were developing around 120 days which surprised them all. As stated before the research was looking for toxicity effects not cancers.

The really strange thing is why the likes of the biotech industry tried to make a mockery of this research because of the cancers when it wasn't a cancer research project. In fact it did show extreme toxic reactions in many of the rat samples in addition to some very worrying cancerous tumours. Not exactly an indictment of the safety of Roundup nor of the GMO corn.

Oh and get this GMO Supporters club. 90 days of a rats life is equivalent to between 7 and 9 years of age in humans. Now go figure out why there has been an abnormally high increase in childhood cancers over the same time period as that of the use of Roundup and an even larger increase since GMO food. That will take some explaining either way but to discriminate against a genuinely honest and thorough piece of research simply because it contradicts the corporate profit theory is scandalous.

If I was going to eat something I would want to be absolutely certain it would do me no harm. Besides it would be too late to do anything about it if I'm already on my death bed with terminal cancer. So why are you idiots of the pro GMO supporters club so suicidal?

But it gets better.

The international convention on research using animals states quite clearly that if any cancerous tumours develop at any stage of any research, regardless of the fact that cancer research may not even be the purpose of the research, that animal or those animals exhibiting cancerous tumours have to be observed to the end of their lives or until such time as they are euthanized in order to avoid unnecessary suffering as per the international conventions on animal welfare and treatment in experiments.

So Professor Seralini and his team had to abide by the international convention regarding the cancerous tumours even though that wasn't the reason for the research in the first place.So what part of this research being for 'toxicity only' do the GMO supporters not get?

Now the really obvious bits.
In the EU we apply the precautionary principle to protect lives and environmental habitats. There is nothing political about that unless your a fascist dictator in need of population control measures of the fatal variety.

We also know the difference between corruption and truth. Sounds hard when things get complicated with meaningless dribble but hang in there. It will become clear.

In the EU the maximum contamination level for the herbicide Roundup in human drinking water supplies is twice the amount found in the Seralini research to cause severe breast cancer in the female rats at a very much earlier age than the breed of rats used would have ever shown.

Then we have the blatantly obvious fact that even Professor Don Huber has produced research into the herbicide Roundup which also calls into question its toxicity.

Then we have the current brawl down in Argentina where thousands of people have been poisoned with Roundup used on GMO soya crops. It is currently being investigated by independent authorities but as usual denied ferociously by Monsanto.

Then there are the glaringly obvious flaws of the original Monsanto research which Professor Seralini replicated and has had removed wrongfully from the journal, despite that Monsanto research being demonstrably flawed and still resides on the journals files as accepted. Odd really.

Odder still is the fact that under the international conventions on peer reviewing of research the only time a paper can be removed from a peer reviewed publication is if the research is deeply flawed, manipulated or is a replication of other peoples work PR an earlier work. The editor stated quite clearly that none of these conditions applied and made some feeding excuse to justify the retraction. Not a legitimate reason for retraction under the international convention of peer reviewing research.

Then we have this obviously biased appointment of a former Monsanto senior with an obviously biased and and hidden agenda. He also removed another peer reviewed piece because it went against GMO crops but that has been subsequently been republished elsewhere.

My view of the criticisms leveled at Professor Seralini and his research have been altogether deviously corrupt and motivated by the strong arm tactics from the biotech industry. After all they all have far too much to lose and far too much biased influence in the academic system through their financial leverage.

Its time we had some honesty here and not the bought and paid for hand wringing dishonesty of the biotech barons.
So all you GMO supporters wake up. The next victim of these biotech barons blight on the planet just might be you or worse still someone you actually care about. Remember, when the brown sticky stuff hits the fan, as it will pretty soon now, your handlers will be nowhere to be seen. You'll be on your own among us. So choose your side carefully. Your going to need us long before your current handlers need you.

 

Kathy B. (98)
Sunday December 8, 2013, 7:54 pm
Here are your 'quasi-scientists' Barbara:

Signed by (Scientists)

Daniele Agostini MD Public health Epidemiology Health environment , Bologna, ITALY
Norman Albon PhD Bristol Crystal growth Semiconductors Lipids membranes UK France USA Norway , retired, Chesham, UNITED KINGDOM
Michael Arconada Natural Biological Medicine www.naturalhealthmethods.org Director of Research, 1981, Sag Harbor, UNITED STATES
David Ashton MA Cantab VetMB MRCVS, Hitchin Hertfordshire, UNITED KINGDOM
Elisabeth B Cking PhD, GERMANY
Michel B Gin Ph D Microbiology, CANADA
Alick Bartholomew MA in geology University of Cambridge, Bath Somerset, UNITED KINGDOM
Henry A Becker BE MSc ScD FCIC Killam Laureate 1992 Engineering Medal 1990 Prof Emeritus Queen s university, Kingston, Ontario, CANADA
Reinhold Berz Professor of Medicine MD President of ThermoMed International DGTR Germany, German Society of Thermography and Regulation Medicine, GERMANY
Thomas Blakeslee CalTech graduate 1962 My books are published in 9 languages , Thomas R Blakeslee, Westlake Village, UNITED STATES
Wendy Burke Ryan Engineer, Sierra Vista, UNITED STATES
Dr Maria Caparis PhD Marine Biology Marine Scientific Expert Consultant to the United Nations Environment Programme , GREECE
Mingyu Chen Ph D Professor in Computer Science, Chinese Adademy of Sciences, Beijing, CHINA
E Ann Clark PhD Plant Agriculture University of Guelph retired , Ontario, CANADA
James Cooley BA honors MA PhD developmental psychology, Lawrence Kansas, UNITED STATES
Alain Cuerrier Botany ethnobotany systematics, Plant Biology Research Institute, Montreal, CANADA
Joe Cummins Ph D Genetics Prof Emeritus of Genetics Distinguished Fellow of ISIS, London Ontario, CANADA
Robert M Davidson MD PhD FAIS Internal Medicine Fellow of the American Institute of Stress, Texas, UNITED STATES
Lucille Elna P De Guzman PhD Seed Technology, University of the Philippines, Los Banos, PHILIPPINES
Emilio DelGiudice PhD High Energy and Quantum Field Theorist Prigogine Medalist 2009, Milan, ITALY
James DeMeo PhD Geographical Earth Science and Climatology, Orgone Biophyscial Research Lab, Ashland Oregon, UNITED STATES
Robert S Dotson MD Clinical Instructor University of Washington Medical Center Ophthalmology Department, Seattle Washington, UNITED STATES
Philippe Elskens PhD photobiomodulation, Veurne, BELGIUM
Irina Ermakova Prof doctor of biology, Russian Academy of sciences, Moscow, RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Christopher Exley PhD Professor Bioinorganic Chemistry Aluminium and Silicon Research Group, Birchall Centre Lennard Jones Laboratory Keele University, Staffordshire, UNITED KINGDOM
Pamela Fernandez PhD in Crop Physiology, University of the Philippines, Laguna, PHILIPPINES
Michael W Fox DSc PhD BVetMed MRCVS veterinarian and bioethicist, Indian Project for Animals and Nature, Golden Valley Minnesota, UNITED STATES
Alan Fredeen phd pag professor of dairy systems, dalhousie university, Truro, CANADA
Sibylle Gabriel M A Cognitive Semiotics, Haute Savoie, FRANCE
Luis Javier Garavito Barrera IQ 61UN CO MScChemEng MIT 64 USA, cand PhD ChemEng by Research UofBradford 68 UK , LJGB C a SCS, Bogot D C , COLOMBIA
Bryan Gardham B Sc Plant Biotechnology , CANADA
Roberto Germano Solid State Physics MSc PROMETE srl CEO, PROMETE Srl, Napoli, ITALY
Adrian Gibbs BSc PhD ARCS FAA, ANU Emeritus Faculty, Canberra, AUSTRALIA
Xiulin GU PhD Agricultural and Resource Economics 1999 Univ Hawaii USA , Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, Kunming, CHINA
Julian Haffegee M Phil Biophysics, Webmaster and Productions Editor Science in Society, ISIS, Milton Keynes, UNITED KINGDOM
Sue Hammond MD retired , UNITED STATES
Nancy Haynes Medical Laboratory Technician, UNITED STATES
Joseph Heckman PhD Soil Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, UNITED STATES
Kaj Henriksen PhD Ass Professor emeritus Environmental Engineering and Biology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, DENMARK
George Hewitt Chartered Civil Engineer project director for Nation Agriculture Centres International, Institution of Civil Engineers London, Bangor, UNITED KINGDOM
Mae Wan Ho Ph D Biosafety Expert Quantum Biologist Prigogine Medalist 2014, Director Institute of Science in Society, London, UNITED KINGDOM
Frieder Hofmann Dipl Biol Environmental Monitoring Vice Chair VDI Board Biodiversity GMO Monitoring Risk Assessment, Oekologiebuero TIEM Integrated Environmenatl Monitoring, Bremen, GERMANY
Linus Hollis ScD ScD, Oakland, UNITED STATES
Don M Huber PhD Plant Biologist Professor Emeritus Purdue University Melba Idaho, UNITED STATES
Anthony Hughes B Sc Dip Chem Eng Dip Stats Lic Ac, Natural Medicine Clinic, Dublin , IRELAND
Elizabeth Jacobo Magister Scientiae in Natural Resources Student of PhD in agroecology, Facultad de Agronom a UBA , Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA
Lilian Joensen Biologist PhD, Grupo de Reflexi n Rural, Buenos Aires , ARGENTINA
Nejc Jogan PhD associate professor, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, SLOVENIA
Brian John MA D Phil, Ex Durham University Dept of Geography, Wales, UNITED KINGDOM
Rainer Krell Biology Entomology tropical agriculture PhD Guzi International Peace Price 2010, ITALY
Louis Krut MB ChB MD University of Cape Town South Africa Adjunct Professor St Louis University, St Louis University, St Louis MO , UNITED STATES
Jacques Larochelle PhD in cell physiology, Laval University, Quebec, CANADA
Amyan Macfadyen Biologist Ecologist Soil Scientist Fellow of Inst Biol Zool Soc London Brit Ecol Soc R Irish Acad c C , Professor, Sheffield, UNITED KINGDOM
Gerson Machado Biomedical Engineering PhD, MBD, Belo Horizonte, BRAZIL
D L Marrin Hydrochemistry Ph D , UNITED STATES
INDIRA MARTIN PhD Biomedical Sciences, Nassau, BAHAMAS
Rosemary Mason MB ChB FRCA Award winning ex editor of medical journal, Scotland, UNITED KINGDOM
Leovegildo Matos Animal Nutrition Veterinary Immunology, Embrapa, Goiania Goi S, BRAZIL
Stacy Maurer PhD, Fairfield, UNITED STATES
Daniel Mejia Economics drug policy, Universidad de los Andes, Bogota, COLOMBIA
Ted Mendoza PhD Agronomist, University of the Philippines, Los Banos, PHILIPPINES
Christl Meyer http://christl-meyer-science.net/Neuer%20Ordner%20%285%29/CURRICULUM%20%20VITAE%202009.pdf, AIDS Research, Vienna, AUSTRIA
Dittmar Michael particle physics and energy , ETH Zurich Switzerland, Geneva Switzerland, SWITZERLAND
Belay Ali Million Researching on the role of participatory mapping for learning and change in the context of resilience and biocultural diversity, MELCA Ethiopia AFSA, Addis Ababa, ETHIOPIA
Peter Molenaar Distinguished Professor of Human Development Professor of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, UNITED STATES
Eva Novotny PhD Astrophysicist, Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM
John O Brien PA C Board certified Physician Assistant, Littlerock Family Medicine Suite 101, Tumwater, UNITED STATES
John W Oller PhD Professor of Communicative Disorders, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, UNITED STATES
John Palmer PhD Prof of Mathematics retired University of Arizona, Tucson, UNITED STATES
Randy Peele BS in Biology 40 years experience in horticulture and landscaping, Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, Seneca SC 29678, UNITED STATES
Julio Perez Evolution bioinvasions PhD, Universidad de Oriente, Cumana, VENEZUELA
Pietro Perrino Agronomist Genetisist and Botanist Conservation and utilization of plant genetic resources Former Director of Germplasm Institute and Research Manager, Bari, ITALY
Steve Philbrick B A in Computer Science M Ed in Educational Technology M S in Computer Science expected May 2014 , University of Maine, Orono, UNITED STATES
Alexis Pietak PhD Physics Queen s University Canada, Organic Electric, Kingston, CANADA
Michel Pimbert PhD Agroecology Director Centre of Agroecology and Food Security Coventry University , Coventry, UNITED KINGDOM
Gerald Pollack PhD Editor in Chief Water Prof Bioengineering University of Washington Prigogine Medalist 2011, Seattle Washington, UNITED STATES
Arpad Pusztai FRSE chemist biochemist expert on nutritional and toxicological studies, Budapest, HUNGARY
Paul Rosch MD Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry Chairman American Institute of Stress, New York Medical College, Hastings On Hudson, UNITED STATES
Michael Rovine Ph D Professor of Human Development, Penn State University, University Park PA, UNITED STATES
Matthew Rowland Bsc Hons Environmental Science, Transition Technology, UNITED KINGDOM
Frank Rowson B Vet Med , Matamata, NEW ZEALAND
Barry T Rubin Ph D Physical Chemistry Electrochemistry UNITED KINGDOM, Kings Lynn, UNITED KINGDOM
George Ruta Physician M D , Cambridge, UNITED STATES
Anthony Samsell PhD Scientist Consultant, Deerfield New Hampshire, UNITED STATES
Peter T Saunders Ph D Theoretical Cosmology Prof Emeritus Applied Mathematics Biomathematician, Co Director Institute of Science in Society, London, UNITED KINGDOM
Stephanie Seneff Ph D, Senior Research Scientist MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge Mass, UNITED STATES
Rupert Sheldrake MA PhD, London, UNITED KINGDOM
Vandana Shiva Ph D Quantum physics winner of Right Livelihood award numerous other prizes honorary degrees from numerous universities worldwide, Director of Navdanya, New Delhi, INDIA
Eva Sirinathsinghji Ph D Neuroscience Molecular Biology Staff Writer for Science in Society, Institute of Science in Society, London, UNITED KINGDOM
Gene Sperling Pharmacist Allergy Immunology, Breathe Rite Air, Thousand Oaks, UNITED STATES
Oliver Springate Baginski PhD lecturer Natural Resources Environment, School of International Development University of East Anglia, Norwich, UNITED KINGDOM
Gregory Sullivan research physician in neuroscience, UNITED STATES
Nancy Swanson Ph D Quantum optics 5 US patents author of books, Seattle Washingon, UNITED STATES
Roger Taylor BVSc PhD, Retired from Univ Bristol, Guildford, UNITED KINGDOM
Scott Thomson PhD molecular immunology BSc in neuroscience , Royal Veterninary College, London, UNITED KINGDOM
Lucija Tomlijenovic PhD, University of British Columbia Faculty of Medicine, CANADA
Colin Trier BSc PhD in Environmental Science CChem MRSC CEnv MIEnvSc, Grasp the Nettle Cooperative, Tavistock, UNITED KINGDOM
David Tyler PhD MSc BSc Physicist, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UNITED KINGDOM
Miquel Vallmitjana Molecular Biologist, Vall S Occidental, SPAIN
Alberta Velimirov Quality of organic food, Vienna, AUSTRIA
Kenneth Walton Molecular Biology PhD from Vanderbilt University in 1970 followed by 40 years of experience as an educator and researcher in the biomedical sciences, Maharishi University, Fairfield, UNITED STATES
Peter Williams B Sc hons Ph D , Sydney , AUSTRALIA
Dick Wullaert PhD Materials Science Functional water and nuclear materials research, Bioguard Industries Inc , Santa Barbara, UNITED STATES
Oscar Zamora PhD Professor and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, University of the Philippines, Los Banos, PHILIPPINES
Victor Zue ScD MIT NAE Member Academia Sinica Member Okawa Prize winner, MIT, Winchester, UNITED STATES
 

Barbara D. (107)
Monday December 9, 2013, 9:34 am
Among the *experts* we have an epidemiologist, several veterinarians, geologist, thermographer (quack), marine biologist, computer scientist, psychologist, a lab technician, economics, astrophysicist, particle physicist, communicative disorders, mathematician, psychiatrist, and a quantum physicist to name a few.
I would have to assume these ladies and gentlemen are expressing a personal opinion rather than an expert opinion.
Meanwhile, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Science, the Royal Society of Medicine, the European Commission, the American Society of Cellular Biology, and the American Society of Microbiology have all dismissed Seralini's flawed (and many consider fraudulent) study and endorse GM.
 

Kathy B. (98)
Monday December 9, 2013, 12:33 pm
Ha, I knew you'd go there Barbara. The title specifically says scientists, it doesn't say soil or crop or animal or anything of that nature. Do you think the publication is limited to science papers on a single subject? Do you think only one sort of scientist should be alarmed that a paper was withdrawn FOR NO VALID REASON?

You need to start following the money a little better Barbara.

 

Barbara D. (107)
Tuesday December 10, 2013, 5:12 am
http://www.biofortified.org/2012/09/gm-corn-and-cancer/
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/09/why-i-think-the-seralini-gm-feeding-trial-is-bogus/comment-page-1/
http://www.vib.be/en/news/Documents/20121008_EN_Analyse%20rattenstudie%20S%C3%A9ralini%20et%20al.pdf
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/09/24/bad-science-on-gmos-it-reminds-me-of-the-antivaccine-movement/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/521452

I believe (as do most scientists) there is more than ample reason for withdrawal and retraction of Seralini's publication. Andrew Kneiss gives a very revealing R code simulation of just one of the failures in Seralini's
methodology that the study was contaminated with, along with failures to report and biased statistical analysis.
For reference, the last link is Suzuki/Mohr/Kimmerle's study of the occurrence of endocrine tumors in Sprague Dawley rats.
 

Kathy B. (98)
Tuesday December 10, 2013, 4:30 pm
Without reading the original research, or any of Serilini and his teams answers to the criticisms of his research, and by only reading biased, industry backed publications it is your scientific opinion that the research is bogus.

Oh yea, and the Sprague Dawley strain of rats is the same strain Monsanto uses in their 90 day research.

The appropriate reasons for retracting a journal article, those have been agreed upon by a committee on publication ethics, and Food and Chemical Toxicology is a member of that organization. Looking at their guidelines, they say there’s only three reasons to retract a paper. One, clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct, that is, data fabrication or honest error. Two, plagiarism or redundant publication. Three, unethical research. In the letter that the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology, Dr. Wallace Hayes sent to Dr. Séralini, they admitted that they found no problem with plagiarism, unethical research or data fabrication.
 

Barbara D. (107)
Wednesday December 11, 2013, 6:43 am
By thoroughly analyzing the original study, volumes of literature from both the anti-GMO stance and pro-GMO scientific viewpoint, Seralini's response to withdrawal/retraction, and ultimately reviewing Seralini's raw data it's abundantly clear that A. Wallace Hayes is correct in his position that Seralini's study was too fatally flawed to have even been considered for publication.
Another fatal flaw, this time in the peer review process, does not validate a piece of junk science. Anyone who bases a conclusion on Seralini's study most likely also endorses Andrew Wakefield's 1998 anti-vaccine study which was also subsequently retracted. Unfortunately, not before it caused a great deal of biased media furor ~ as we see once again with this GMO debacle.
 

Barbara D. (107)
Wednesday December 11, 2013, 7:09 am
Also, shall we not dwell on Seralini's use of the Sprague Dawley strain? Although it was one of his fatal flaws it was not, by far, the only one. Yes, Monsanto used the strain also; however, they allowed for the statistical probability of tumour occurence whereas Seralini did not.
The multiple flaws in sample size, lack of adequate controls, lack of adequate dosage reporting, incorrect statistical analyses, and accusations of unethical practices all contributed to the study's demise.
 

Kathy B. (98)
Wednesday December 11, 2013, 4:43 pm
Barbara, you're defending the indefensible. Hayes DIDN'T EVEN READ THE STUDY. And how do you compare a 2 year toxicity study with a 90 day study?
 

Barbara D. (107)
Wednesday December 11, 2013, 7:42 pm
There no reason for any comparison. I'm beginning to question what it is you're contesting. Seralini's study stands as it is, and very simply it's fatally flawed. There might be a question as to the technical legitimacy of the retraction, but the salient point remains that the so-called study was never fit for publication and it's conclusions were based on bias rather than proper statistical analysis.
This not just the opinion of my (partisan??) scientists. As early as 26 Sept, 2012, the European Commission officially requested the European Food Safety Authority (Belgium, Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, and the Netherlands) to independently review the study. Their findings were as follows:

EFSA’s final review reaffirmed its initial findings that the authors’ conclusions cannot be regarded as scientifically sound because of inadequacies in the design, reporting and analysis of the study as outlined in the paper. It is not possible, therefore, to draw valid conclusions about the occurrence of tumours in the rats tested. Based on the information published by Séralini et al., EFSA finds there is no need to re-examine its previous safety evaluations of NK603 or to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate.
 

Kathy B. (98)
Wednesday December 11, 2013, 8:29 pm
There are no reasons for comparison - why because it's uncomfortable for the bio-tech industry to find out their profits may be at risk?

What am I protesting? Too many things to list, start with corporate control of our food, patenting seeds and all of the inadequately tested crap that is in our food and environment.

The French have plans to duplicate Serilini's study and have found that his methodology was correct. Not everyone agrees with EFSA, as they have become as corrupt as our own USDA and FDA.
 

Barbara D. (107)
Thursday December 12, 2013, 7:23 am
Ahh, the truth be told! We're not discussing acceptable scientific methodology at all. The question is not the reliability of Seralini's conclusions, but the simple fact that the only bullet the anti-GMO lobby had has finally been acknowledged for what it was.

Every government and agency are cohorts in the BigConspiracy, are they? Then why is it that our life expectancy has increased by 10yrs ~ despite all these alleged inadequacies?

It comes down to a choice ~ consider verifiable science-based information from credible sources or read GM Watch, the Non-GMO Project, Carman, and MurkyCola and others of that ilk.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.