A heavily criticized study of the effects of genetically modified maize and the Roundup herbicide on rats is being retracted — one way or another.
The paper — by Gilles Seralini and colleagues — was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology last year. There have been calls for retraction since then, along with other criticism and a lengthy exchange of letters in the journal. Meanwhile, the paper has been cited 28 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, and the French National Assembly (their lower house of Parliament) held a long hearing on the paper last year, with Seralini and other scientists testifying.
Now, as reported in the French media, the editor of the journal, A. Wallace Hayes, has sent Seralini a letter saying that the paper will be retracted if Seralini does not agree to withdraw it.
If the guy is this good at fraud science, he would fit right in with global warmer fraudsters and the whole IPCC cabal of scammers.
Probably a BFF of Lizzie May.
Right up her science alley.
I remember when Political Science was about politics rather than science.
Some CGTs (Crunchy Granola Types) that I know latched on to this report about a year ago. The report may have been cited only 28 times in the scientific world but it has great currency amongst the Enviro-MENTALists and was broadly cited by various groups including some that have been funded by TIDESlike groups that get their funding from US donors that would benefit by Canadian agriculture being less successful.
It would take years to wash the references to that particular study out of the mindset of the CGTs and many who swallow their political products transmitted by the CBCs of the world.
It is, however, beyond dispute that glyphosate is a strong chelating agent and immobilizes micro nutrients such as iron, manganese and zinc, making them unavailable to the plant. As much as 80 to 90%. Making nutritional efficiency compromised for anyone who consumes the plant.
GE crops were supposed to be nutritionally as good or better than conventional. Obviously not the case.
….and high incidence of cancer being around 70% during a rat’s two year lifespan. Something science journalists should find relevant no matter how anti-GMO they are. You’d think the unorthodox release methods followed by a movie and book by the scientist would raise a few flags too. I’d like to think that science journalists, having been made to look foolish, would be a little more skeptical of obvious attempts to create fear for political reasons. Not likely. If a study came out next week that CAGW causes volcanic eruption the usual suspects would report it as fact.
At this point, with all the junk science out there, I’m skeptic of all the doom and gloom science and those who use science to extract money and influence public policy. Real science is doing fine and improving the lives of humans. Neo-Malthusians like Attenborough on the left and the amusing but melancholy Steyn on the right are too myopic. Lomborg, Matt Ridley and other optimistic writers tend to give a more balanced and accurate views.
So they breed a rat to be highly prone to cancer and are surprised when a lot of them get cancer?
It reinforces the fact that a study’s being published in a peer-reviewed journal does not equate with the findings of the study necessarily being valid. Being published in a journal means it’s a study of interest.
Wether or not it should have been retracted because of the strain of rat used is to some degree irrelevant. What is more germane is an appreciation of and elucidation of the fact that given the high incidence of tumors in the strain of rats used, differences in tumor frequency between the two groups can be accounted for by chance alone and a recognition of that should have been part of the analysis and the discussion or the peer review process.
Again, just because it’s in a peer reviewed journal doesn’t mean it’s gospel truth. Unfortunately given the level of scientific (il)literacy in the population, reinforced by pseudoscientists with political agendas and equally scientifically illiterate “educators’, that fact gets overlooked.
– and who wrote the “studies” that told us Aspertame was preferable to sugar, Hydroginated oils were better than natural butter, that salt kills and eggs are death – who was that? People with business interests in competative foods/markets? Buyer beware.
Good rule of thumb for the consumer – if it’s synthetic it’s not good to ingest too much of it.
Snake oil misinformation still sells.
So what food crops in Canada are grown using glyphosate?
If it’s safe then there shouldn’t be any problem letting consumers know with appropriate package labeling.
if it’s synthetic it’s not good to ingest too much of it.
Posted by: Occam
Exactly. That’s why product ingredient and country of origin labeling is important.
Yes, and it comes from both sides. The chemical companies as well. Glyphosate was originally patented as a chelating agent, and that’s exactly what it does. It’s, basically, AIDS for plants. It knocks down the plant’s defenses so that soil borne pathogens can kill it.
It’s no wonder soil pathogens are becoming more of a problem when it’s being actively fed.
The thing is that there is so much political and ideological agenda involved in this topic that it is almost impossible to discuss it rationally and the fear mongers make use of the fears.
I am by no means an expert and do not pretend to be very knowledgeable, but many plants have been genetically modified in some manner to be resistant to certain herbicides, to mature earlier, to improve yields, to be more drought tolerant, to make better use of heat units in marginal crop zones. For example, potatoes have been modified to suit the french fry and potato chip market. Many fresh fruits have been modified by being their tree branches being grafted to other roots, such as beginning in the early 1900s peach branches being grafted to plum roots. Peaches have been modified to cater to the fresh fruit market and modified differently to be used in the canning market.
I see a big difference between traditional plant breeding methods like cross breeding and grafting, as compared with gene splicing and genetically engineering frankenfood. No thanks, I don’t want cockroach genes in my green beans, even if it does increase yields. Sell that crap to the starving 3rd world.
Message held for censor review? I wonder what ‘bad’ word I used. See for yourselves if my response to Ken gets posted. Am I on the CBC or SDA forum?
I am no fan whatsoever of enviro nuts, and I buy a huge jug of roundup each year from the local farm supply, but companies like Monsanto are just as bad as those who oppose them. Indeed one of the *big* reasons why the enviros are getting so much traction on this issue is because the big players on the other side leave much to be desired.
1. Find scientific journal looking for a bump in readership.
2. Submit a paper which is alarming in it’s message.
3. Suggest sympathetic “peers” who think as you do to review your work.
4. Don’t worry that it will be challenged. It’s unlikely because it’ already peer
reviewed.
5. If it is later challenged and withdrawn because it’s found to be worthless,
don’t worry because few will even know that it’s been withdrawn.
6. Write thank you notes to reviewers and publisher. Be gracious but don’t admit
anything.
7. Go on speaking tour. Collect cash. Get hired by Green Peace for big salary.
8. Testify before government officials as expert.
WHAT COULD GO WRONG?
Mankind has be doing selective (genetic) modifications of animals and plants for at least 5000 years. If anyone has ever seen “primitive” corn, you’ll know what I mean!! When it’s difficult to know who or what to believe, as in the case of Gilles Seralini, one has to look at the man himself and make a judgement of trust or no trust. He’s an anti GMO ZEALOT! That’s his entire career. Zealots are not scientists. Gilles Seralini’s published paper, the subject of this discussion, bears this out. It’s not science and he knows it.
Whoa there hotshot. There’s much more to crop plant health/resiliency/nutrient uptake and consequential food quality than periodic applications (1-2x/yr) of 360 g glyphosate per acre not incorporated in the soil with tillage. Glyphosate has no effective herbicidal properties when soil applied – must be absorbed by green leaves. This salt dissolves and dissociates almost immediately upon soil contact and is thus rendered environmentally innocuous. Where glyphosate translocates systemically within the crop plant to actively growing root meristem tissue – you might see short-term chelation of micronutrient cations in that portion of root tissue (not the soil itself), which is easily overwhelmed by translocation of same micros by colonized symbionts such as vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae, particularly under no-till conditions. I could go on, but then again, I’m just a small-time crop farmer so what do I know, eh?
I could go on, but then again, I’m just a small-time crop farmer so what do I know, eh?
Rather a fresh faced one too, maybe a little narrow between the eyes… 🙂
I can tell you exactly what you know. You know what you’ve been told. Or have observed, interpreted through the lens of what you’ve been told.
Glyphosate (the active ingredient in Round-up) breaks down quickly to AMPA. After that, breakdown is very slow (half life on Fl sand is 6 months, clay soils up to 22 years). Adding phosphate to soil reverses this breakdown. No evidence has been shown that the micros gly chelates ever become available again. And it is cumulative. Next application ties up more micros, etc, etc.
10 Points made by Dr E Ann Clark in a Canadian radio interview about the retraction of two papers suggesting potential harm from GM crops.
Dr Clark was formerly an Associate Professor in Plant Agriculture at the University of Guelph where her specific interests included the risk assessment of genetically modified crops.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15192-orwellian-airbrushing-of-scientific-record