Widely Discredited Study that Fuelled Fear of GM ‘Frankenfoods’ Finally Retracted

reply to post by dusty1


You're ignoring that humans have been modifying food to meet our needs almost as long as agriculture itself has existed.

reply to post by AlphaHawk

You're ignoring that humans have been modifying food to meet our needs almost as long as agriculture itself has existed.

Genetically?

With other species?

CallYourBluff
Just a quick question. What exactly was nature doing wrong?

Do you live naked in a cave in East Africa, venturing forth every day to gather edible plants and kill wild animals for food? No? You wear clothes, you have a house, you eat domesticated animals? Then I guess you think there's something wrong with nature. (You're not one of those electricity-users, are you? That stuff is horribly unnatural.)

reply to post by dusty1


Yes, with other species.

Bananas weren't always yellow you know.

reply to post by AlphaHawk


So humans have been creating genetically modified organisms for thousands of years?

reply to post by dusty1


That's not what I said though.

Just pointing out that we've been meddling long before the 70's.

It could be argued that it's semantics but cross pollination and hybridization change the genetic makeup of a plant just as much as GM.

Difference being that one is on a macro scale, the other on a micro scale.

reply to post by intrptr



So the new Associate Editor of the FCT which retracted the study, used to work for Monsanto?



What an amazing coincidence!

Former Monsanto employee put in charge of GMO papers at journal Richard E. Goodman Richard E. Goodman New article exposes industry attempts to control scientific publishing

PRESS RELEASE

Independent Science News and Earth Open Source, 20 May 2013

Just months after a study was published showing that two Monsanto products, a genetically modified (GM) maize and Roundup herbicide, damaged the health of rats, the journal that published the study appointed a former Monsanto scientist to decide which papers on GM foods and crops should be published, a new article reveals.[1] Monsanto and GM foods suffered a storm of bad publicity after a study published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) in September 2012 reported that a GM corn and Roundup caused organ damage and increased rates of tumors and premature death in rats.[2] But in early 2013 Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto researcher with close ties to the biotech industry, joined the senior editorial staff of FCT. Goodman was given the specially created position of associate editor for biotechnology. - See more at: earthopensource.org...

I'm all in favor of additional research on this subject, and I'm not saying I know that GM foods are or aren't safe for consumption, but I'm having a hard time understanding how people justify continuing support of this specific study. Whether or not you agree with the conclusion that GM foods cause cancer (in rats, humans, whatever) or are otherwise evil/bad, you should be able to see that the study was seriously flawed. If someone designs and carries out an experiment poorly and comes up with results you like, do you think it's good science to ignore the flaws and accept the results anyway?

Oh and I love that GM/organic corn squirrel "study." So science-y.

Richard E. Goodman, really? No coincidence here. Guess it's time to believe him with every study he retracts. Now eat up comrades.

reply to post by Grimpachi



This retraction of the story has a clearly evident raw underbelly that anybody can see which should draw a pause on accepting the "withdrawal" of the article. Strangely, that bit of data is not discussed here or in the source given here. One would have to go to the original study I supposed and it is probably being purged as we discuss it.

The incidence of known diseases within that particular strain of rats is surely known to a high statistical degree. We don't know the numbers of rats used in the study, but can we assume that it was sufficient enough to be indicative of the toxicity (or not) and a factor in the final determination of the original study?

If you feed a 100 rats the supposed toxic mix and more died than the average rate for that strain of rats, would that simple data be indicative? I find it difficult to image that the authors of the study overlooked that extremely important factor. For myself, show me the numbers!

An then, perhaps having a proven, susceptible strain of rats with a faulty immune system rather than more pure strain is more in line with reality in how diseases effect humans with a high degree of susceptibility to many diseases.

Actually, if the big boys want to kill the negative study, then the best thing they could do would be to run a dozen studies using the same protocols, with pure strains and tainted strains and reveal the results.

(Being a UFO experience, I learned before many of you were born to not trust Science or government.)

funny thing about monsanto, i never had to rely on their science to make judgment on them, i just had to be aware of their business practices to know they were a dark company. iv'e been in the pesticide business for a lot of years, user end, and i already know what kind of people run these companies, i'll pass on gmo's anyway thanks.

If the study in the OP in "widely discredited",then take a look at the below linked thread-
18million Americans suffering from gluten disorders linked to GMOs...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That must be made up by anti GMO fanatics,surely?

No actually its from data already released by the US Department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection Agency records, medical journal reviews as well as international research.

In other words the USDA and the EPA knew about this,but did nothing to protect the people.
Who would have thought it possible that those meant to protect people from such things,are actually doing no such thing?

Just pointing out that we've been meddling long before the 70's.

It could be argued that it's semantics but cross pollination and hybridization change the genetic makeup of a plant just as much as GM.

reply to post by AlphaHawk


So you are equating hybridization with the gene splicing of two entirely different life forms?

Which does result in a large increase in the amount of pesticides released into the environment.

CallYourBluff
Just a quick question. What exactly was nature doing wrong?

FurvusRexCaeli
Do you live naked in a cave in East Africa, venturing forth every day to gather edible plants and kill wild animals for food? No? You wear clothes, you have a house, you eat domesticated animals? Then I guess you think there's something wrong with nature. (You're not one of those electricity-users, are you? That stuff is horribly unnatural.)

Since neither of us lived before civilization neither of us can honestly say which form of life is ultimately more fulfilling for people.

The automatic assumption of those within civilization that civilization is obviously superior to whatever came before is no different than a person who has only eaten chocolate declaring it obviously superior to all other flavors.

Just because everyone is more or less required to use all those things you listed lest they be deemed crazy... doesn't mean it's certain this is better than the alternative.

It doesn't mean I'd be able to easily leave civilization if given a real choice, but not even having a real choice makes me skeptical of accepting a priori that the one I'm locked inside is inherently superior.

Silcone Synapse
If the study in the OP in "widely discredited",then take a look at the below linked thread-
18million Americans suffering from gluten disorders linked to GMOs...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That must be made up by anti GMO fanatics,surely?

No actually its from data already released by the US Department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection Agency records, medical journal reviews as well as international research.

In other words the USDA and the EPA knew about this,but did nothing to protect the people.
Who would have thought it possible that those meant to protect people from such things,are actually doing no such thing?

From your source in the link

Genetically modified foods such as soy and corn may be responsible for a number of gluten-related maladies

Don't worry the anti-GMO groups are out in full force trying to discredit the discredited study. Err ....I think that's how it goes.

Hey they are even recycling other discredited anti-gmo propaganda such as.

Back in 1999, a story by the UK press Independent reported:

...that Monsanto employees don't eat their very own GM (genetically modified) foods, in their High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire UK facility. .

Of the 1999 article, Greenpeace locked on to the news story, reportedly exposed by Friends of the Earth, was subsequently spread by the local and international media.
(no reference found on the FoE site)



"The firm running the canteen at Monsanto's pharmaceuticals factory at High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, serves only GM-free meals, Friends of the Earth said. In a notice in the canteen, Sutcliffe Catering, owned by the Granada Group, said it had taken the decision "to remove, as far as practicable, GM soya and maize from all food products served in our restaurant. We have taken the above steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve."


The notice was posted by the Sutcliffe Catering Group......not their employers, Monsanto.
That UK facility is now closed.


But let's look at the facts as described by the initial story.....
1) One Monsanto facility, in the UK, in 1999
2) The decision was posted by a contracted caterer, employed by Monsanto.
3) This story was never confirmed. (denied later)

Lately, the current anti-GMO activists have renewed (recycled) this story.
link

Hell there are two other threads on ATS that have popped up since mine and I thought that was against T&C. Oh well.

dreamingawake

Richard E. Goodman, really? No coincidence here. Guess it's time to believe him with every study he retracts. Now eat up comrades.

Please. "He" didn't retract it. It wasn't the decision of one single person. The criticisms of the study have come from all arenas, not just from Goodman, and Goodman was not even involved in reviewing the data in the decision-making process that led to the retraction. The original study was flawed and thus you cannot draw scientifically-sound conclusions from it. The fact that the study's experimental design was lacking has nothing to do with Monsanto, no matter how much you want it to. The original paper shouldn't have passed through the peer-review process to begin with, but, as the statement of retraction readily admits, peer review is imperfect. The journal decided, after another review process, to retract the study. From the official retraction statement:

Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. However, there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected.
[...]
Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology. The peer review process is not perfect, but it does work. The journal is committed to getting the peer-review process right, and at times, expediency might be sacrificed for being as thorough as possible. The time-consuming nature is, at times, required in fairness to both the authors and readers. Likewise, the Letters to the Editor, both pro and con, serve as a post-publication peer-review. The back and forth between the readers and the author has a useful and valuable place in our scientific dialog.

Can we please stop pushing the "Goodman retracted a legitimate study because EVIL MONSANTO" meme and be a little less black and white, now?

reply to post by opopanax


I think Goodmans explanation merits some scrutiny.

The study was retracted apparently because not enough rats were used (200 rats were used), and the wrong strain, in accordance with OECD guidelines.

What is the OECD?

Our mission

The mission of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is to promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world.

The OECD provides a forum in which governments can work together to share experiences and seek solutions to common problems. We work with governments to understand what drives economic, social and environmental change. We measure productivity and global flows of trade and investment. We analyse and compare data to predict future trends. We set international standards on a wide range of things, from agriculture and tax to the safety of chemicals.

A global organization that works with industry and governments to establish global economic policies.


But according to the OECD long term toxicology study guidelines:

1. There are no guideline requirements for specific strain of rodents.

2. 10 rodents of each sex per group are required to meet its guidelines.

Summary of Considerations in the Report from the OECD Expert Groups on Short Term and Long Term Toxicology

A sufficient number of animals should be used so that at the end of the study enough animals in every group are available for thorough biological evaluation. After considerable discussion, it was agreed that for rodents each dose group and concurrent control group should contain at least 10 animals of each sex.

Similarly, there is no firm recommendation for the use of specific strains as it is considered that at the present time the state of development testing provides no firm justification for such a recommendation.

OECD LIBRARY

The Sprague-Dawley SD rat which was used in the study, has the same life expectancy as the Wistar rat
Table 1

In toxicity studies, Wistar Han (WH) and Sprague Dawley (SD) rat strains are both utilized and acceptable for EU and US test guidelines. In general, however, WH are preferentially used in Europe and SD rats are generally preferred in the US.

Link


This information seems to contradict Mr Goodmans reasons for retraction.

seeker1963
There are many other studies out there. Just because one has come out as being false, does not make it true that GMO's are safe and healthy!

Maybe this study was bad, then again, maybe it wasn't. Monsanto has very deep pockets and they buy reseachers, universities and politicians at a moments notice. Who's to say they did not pay for this retraction?

We evolved along with our food sources. GMO was put on the market with essentially no prior testing in what was nothing more than a paid political decision. This would not have happened if the corporations and government were concerned with consumer safety.