Argentine Protesters vs Monsanto: "The Monster Is Right on Top of Us"
Monday, 09 December 2013 13:41
By Fabiana Frayssinet, Inter Press Service | Report
<http://truth-out.org/news/item/20526-argentine-protesters-vs-monsanto-the-monster-is-right-on-top-of-us>
--0--
<http://truth-out.org/news/item/20516-in-depth-journal-retracts-independent-study-linking-monsanto-gmo-corn-to-cancer-in-rats>
In Depth: Journal Retracts Independent Study Linking Monsanto GMO
Corn to Cancer in Rats
Monday, 09 December 2013 13:19
By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | Report
Last September, an alarming study rocketed through media and
unleashed a storm of controversy. French researchers appeared to have
uncovered a link between a Monsanto genetically engineered corn
variety and cancer in lab rats. Now, more than a year later, a
respected American scientific journal has taken a black eye and
retracted the study, reigniting a global debate that raises serious
questions about the media's coverage of biotechnology research and
the deep divisions between industry-backed researchers and
independent scientists.
The two-year study, conducted by a team lead by French biotech critic
Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen, found that groups of
lab rats fed a lifetime diet of either Monsanto's NK603 corn (NK603
is treated with Roundup herbicide) or exposed to varying levels of
Roundup herbicide in drinking water died earlier and had higher rates
of tumors and organ damage than controls. NK603 is a genetically
modified organism, or GMO, that is bioengineered to tolerate Roundup.
On November 28, the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology
officially retracted the study, effectively removing Séralini's
findings from the realm of accepted science. In a statement, chief
editor, A. Wallace Hayes, echoed critiques from scientists around the
world who pointed out that Séralini did not experiment on enough rats
to support his explosive cancer claims, and the Sprague Dawley lab
rats used in the study are prone to developing tumors if allowed to
live long enough.
Independent scientists, however, say the Sprague Dawley breed is an
industry standard for toxicity research, and while the Séralini study
is not perfect, there is no legitimate reason to remove it from
scientific debate. Séralini and his team refused an offer from Hayes
to voluntarily retract the study and continue to publically defend
their findings.
"Inconclusive," But "Not Incorrect "
Hayes said that he "found no evidence of fraud or intentional
misrepresentation of the data," but after reviewing Séralini's raw
data, determined the results were "not incorrect," but
"inconclusive," and therefore not suitable for publication.
Séralini's supporters were quick to point out that Hayes' journal is
a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics and guidelines issued
by the committee state that editors should only consider retracting a
study if there is evidence of plagiarism, unethical research, or
unreliable findings based on misconduct or honest error. Simply being
"inconclusive" does not make the cut.
"You don't get papers retracted for this," said Michael Hansen, a
biotechnology analyst for Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer
Reports. Hansen added that plenty of published scientific studies are
inconclusive, and the retraction borders on "scientific censorship."
Here's where the Séralini Affair gets tricky. The French team never
definitively concluded that Monsanto products caused bulging tumors
in the rats; his team simply reported the high tumor rates along with
its analysis of kidney and organ damage. The project was a long-term
toxicity study model of a 90-day Monsanto safety study, which also
used Sprague Dawley rats, not a carcinogenicity study, which would
have required a larger number of lab rats. In response to heaping
criticism, Séralini's team members said they had simply pointed out
the alarming tumor data and called for further research on the safety
of GMO corn.
While ANSES, the French food safety authority, joined other European
food regulators and scientific academies in dismissing the study, the
French officials also called attention to the "originality" and
agreed that more research should be done on the long-term health
effects of consuming GMO crops and the pesticides associated with
them. The European Commission has also considered funding a long-term
feeding study on Monsanto corn.
Séralini did hype the cancer findings in the media while
simultaneously releasing a book on his GMO research. The study was
initially released to journalists under a heavily criticized embargo
and included grotesque images of rats with giant tumors. The breaking
news generated alarming headlines around the world, setting off a
general panic among politicians and regulators in several countries
where GMOs are unpopular. France launched an investigation into the
findings, and Russia declared a temporary ban on NK603 while food
safety officials reviewed the study.
Amid media hype, public discussion of the study deteriorated into a
grinding and spin-heavy information war. Pro-business pundits and
industry-funded front groups went on the offensive to discredit the
study and called for a retraction. Independent scientists and biotech
critics attempted to expose Séralini's detractors as industry shills
who stand ready to trash any research that raises concerns about
GMOs. Proponents of a failed GMO food labeling ballot initiative in
California touted the study as alarming evidence that consumers
cannot be sure that GMO groceries are safe. Writers Keith Kloor and
Jon Entine attacked progressive news outlets for lending legitimacy
to the study and accused GMO skeptics of being the left-wing version
of climate-change deniers.
The retraction announcement further fanned the flames. Forbes.com,
which initially published several articles attacking the study,
celebrated the retraction. Biotech critics attempted to spark a
scandal by pointing out that Richard Goodman, a food allergy expert
and professor at the University of Nebraska, had been appointed an
associate biotechnology editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology a few
months after the study was published. Goodman is a former Monsanto
employee, but he has denied being involved in the decision to retract
the Séralini study.
In an email to Truthout, Goodman said that he left Monsanto in 2004
and continued his career as an independent research professor, but
"people will connect the dots that they perceive to be true, no
matter what I say.
"If you knew me personally, you would know that people do not tell me
what to write or say (or if they do try, I will not listen)," Goodman
wrote. "I listen to the scientific facts, and I think as a scientist.
I judge based on science."
A Double Standard?
In an official response to the retraction, the Séralini team said its
research was a long-term toxicology study modeled from short-term
industry studies like those funded by Monsanto to gain regulatory
approvals in Europe, and its critics are holding the independent
science to a "double standard." If the journal throws out Séralini's
study, they argued, then a 90-day Monsanto study on NK603, which used
the same breed of rats, should be thrown out as well.
"It is true that there's clearly a double standard here," Hansen told
Truthout. "Any study that shows no problem with [GMOs], as soon as
its published, it's just accepted, it's not looked with detail . . .
but any study that shows any problems, it gets ripped apart and ran
through with a fine-tooth comb."
Hansen says the Food and Chemical Toxicology has published several
long-term studies that determined GMOs did not harm the same Sprague
Dawley rats Séralini was criticized for using, but those have not
been retracted. Hansen also points to a recent European review of
Séralini's study and two other feeding studies on NK603, including
the Monsanto study that Séralini had based his own research on. The
comparative analysis found that all three studies failed to satisfy
European Food Safety Authority criteria, but the regulatory body only
dismissed the Séralini study, revealing "critical double standards."
So what's left of the Séralini Affair? It's now clear that the
initial rat tumor uproar was based on a well-publicized, but
inconclusive, toxicology study that raised more questions than it
answered before being removed from the scientific cannon under
sketchy ethical circumstances. But Séralini has succeeded in pointing
out flaws in the industry's own GMO safety testing and inspired
further research on the subject, at least in Europe.
Whether he intended to or not, Séralini also taught the media some
important lessons about covering biotechnology issues in a world
where the voices of independent scientists compete with powerful
corporations claiming to own the right to define legitimate science.
It seems the public relations teams for the biotech and agrichemical
industry may not the only ones who know how to play the game.
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel