General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSerralini's Univ of Caens' Study of Monsanto's GM corn has been re-published:
The criticisms that were made have been addressed. Now the governments in Europe will have to consider the situation of how the risk of eating the Gm maize far outweighs the benefit!
http://www.alternet.org/food/major-study-demonstrates-monsanto-gmo-corn-product-can-cause-damage-liver-and-kidneys-and
Serralini Study has been republished, after addressing concerns
The chronic toxicity study examines the health impacts on rats of eating a commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize, Monsanto's NK603 glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup.
The original study, published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) in September 2012, found severe liver and kidney damage and hormonal disturbances in rats fed the GM maize and low levels of Roundup that are below those permitted in drinking water in the EU. However it was retracted by the editor-in-chief of the Journal in November 2013 after a sustained campaign of criticism and defamation by pro-GMO scientists.
Toxic effects were found from the GM maize tested alone, as well as from Roundup tested alone and together with the maize. Additional unexpected findings were higher rates of large tumours and mortality in most treatment groups.
#### More information at the alternet link, at the top of this OP
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Of course, my eyes do glaze over.
And it might have been posted on Late Breaking News, or over at health.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Might want to read through it for how the republishing of this "study" is meaningless:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025226677
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)'Course, yours is only about the 7th or 8th thread about the study being republished that we've had over the last 3 weeks.
Sid
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Seralini et al "published" their study in a zero impact factor, pay-to-publish open access "journal" that did no peer-review at all on the content of their paper.
Their study is just as flawed and meaningless as it was when it was retracted by the much more respected Food and Chemical Toxicology.
Sid
mike_c
(36,281 posts)Environmental Sciences Europe (ESEU) decided to re-publish the paper to give the scientific community guaranteed long-term access to the data in the retracted paper, editor-in-chief Henner Hollert told Nature. We were Springer Publishings first open access journal on the environment, and are a platform for discussion on science and regulation at a European and regional level. ESEU conducted no scientific peer review, he adds, because this had already been conducted by Food and Chemical Toxicology, and had concluded there had been no fraud nor misrepresentation. The role of the three reviewers hired by ESEU was to check that there had been no change in the scientific content of the paper, Hollert adds.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Regarding what is happening. The statement was made back in 2002.
Extrapolating outward from that statement: It is all, in its own way, vanity publishing. The people with the Big Fat Thick Pockets of cash control the science labs in this country, from the university chemistry lab on up. (Development that started really setting in toward the end of the 1990's)
The same Fat Cats control Congress, and governmental agencies and the "government stamp of approval." And if you think we have ourselves a free press, rather tthan the one that exists to influence people into deciding that Corporate Controlled Products are safe, or that the Journals aren't totally contaminated by the tentacles of Corporate Control, there are several bridges that I could sell you.
Anyway here is the article discussing a very interesting development over at New England JoM:
www.coastalpost.com/02/07/05.htm