SUBSCRIBE

Breaking News on Food & Beverage Development - EuropeUS edition | Asian edition

Headlines > Science & Nutrition

Séralini saga continues as retracted GM study is republished in second journal

1 comment

By Nathan Gray+

24-Jun-2014

Séralini Monsanto GM cancer study republished

The long running controversy over the Séralini study linking Monsanto GM crops and herbicides to cancer took a fresh twist today as the widely criticised article was republished in a second journal.

The move comes after the initial publication of the study was retracted by the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), Dr Wallace Hayes, amid much criticism from scientists and regulatory authorities.

Professor Giles-Eric Séralini, the researcher behind the now infamous study linking consumption of Monsanto's NK603 GM maize and its associated herbicide Roundup to long term toxicity and cancer in rats recently said the decision to retract the study was based on ‘unscientific double standards’.

“We are forced to conclude that the decision to withdraw our paper was based on unscientific double standards applied by the editor," said Séralini at the time.

"These double standards can only be explained by pressure from the GMO and agrochemical industry to force acceptance of GMOs and Roundup." 

The saga now takes a fresh twist as the original work, which critics say is still ‘highly flawed’, has been has been republished in Environmental Sciences Europe , owned by Germany's Springer group.

The raw data has also been placed in the public domain for others to scrutinise, the researchers said.

"Censorship of research into the risks of a technology so intertwined with global food safety undermines the value and credibility of science," the team said in a statement.

Winfried Schröder, editor of the journal Environmental Sciences Europe of the Springer Group, said: ‘’We want to enable a rational discussion about the study of Séralini et al. (Food Chem Toxicol 2012, 50:4221–4231) by republishing it.”

“This methodological competition is the energy necessary for any scientific progress. The sole purpose is to enable some scientific transparency and on this basis, a discussion that does not try to hide, but focuses on these needed methodological controversies.”

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter

Get FREE access to authoritative breaking news, videos, podcasts, webinars and white papers. SUBSCRIBE

1 comment (Comments are now closed)

The need for the worst case scenario condition

I don't see what is wrong with the study. A study such as this to find the most harmful effects of GMOs has to use the worst case scenarios that can be created in the study. People who said that the paper are biased are not aware of this need for the worst case scenario so they say that the study is trying to find fault with GMOs.

Why are the people who claimed the study to be flawed so stupid?

If a scientist wants to find the effects of the AIDS virus on humans, would he then ask his test subjects to wear the most amount of protection possible? I don't think so.

Cancer is always formed in the worst case scenario condition, so to recreate cancer, the worst case scenario conditions have to be created.

People need to think more before perceiving the study to be flawed.

I quote from http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/seralini-gmo-study-republished/

"- The population of rats used have a high propensity for tumors. This causes a great deal of background noise, and would likely favor a false positive result."

Humans who get cancer are exactly those who have a high propensity for tumors. Nothing wrong here.

"- There were only 20 rats in the control group, and 80 in the exposure groups, an atypical asymmetry."

Higher number in the exposure group can have a higher chance of detecting any strange tumors. Nothing wrong here.

"- The data reports that “some” of the test groups had a higher tumor incidence, while others did not – sounds suspiciously like cherry picking the data."

Again, the need for the worst case scenario effects would require the choosing of the higher tumor incidence. There is specifically the need for cherry picking the higher tumor incidence.

"- The statistical analysis done by the team was atypical, characterized by nutrition researcher Tom Sanders as ”a statistical fishing trip,” while a more standard analysis was excluded."

Again, I emphasise the need to find the worst case scenario effects.

"- Exposure to GM corn or the herbicide Roundup had the same negative effects. It is inherently implausible (admittedly not impossible) for such distinct mechanisms to have the same effect."

Everybody knows correlation is not causation, so? What the study is doing is to narrow down the suspect not to prove anything. Move on.

"- There was no dose response at all – which is a critical component of demonstrating a toxic effect."

Irrelevant. There is a need for bioaccumulation duration in the liver. Toxins need to take time to bioaccumulate in the liver.

"- The researchers did not control for total amount of food consumed, or fungal contaminants, both of which increase tumors in this population of rat."

Again, there is the need for the worst case scenario conditions. The rats can eat how much they want, who can determine the right 'standard' amount they should eat? Dumbass.

All these factors are deliberately meant to create the worst case scenario conditions to find the worst possible effects of GMOs on the rats.


Explaining the real health threats from GMOs
http://thethinktankguideforsmarterliving.blogspot.sg/2014/06/explaining-real-health-threats-from-gmos.html

GMOs that are altered to withstand Monsanto's Round Up herbicide have the greatest levels of herbicides/pesticides, conventional have moderate and organic have the least contamination.

Report abuse

Posted by Timothy Tang
02 July 2014 | 09h05