Via Carole Bartolotto's Blog:
"As the battle to label GMOs (genetically modified organisms) rages on,
we have another more insidious battle taking place. It's the battle to
hold on to scientific integrity, especially as it relates to research
"The Seralini study was criticized
for having a complex design, using too few rats in each group, and for
the type of rat used. In November 2013, the study was retracted from the
journal. What was the reason for the retraction? The journal's editor,
Dr. A. Wallace Hayes, said the research was not conclusive.
"Um, what? The typical reasons for retraction include unreliable
findings due to misconduct or honest error, plagiarism, redundancy, or
unethical research, none of which applies in this situation. Dr. Michael
Hansen of the Consumers Union said,
"The study was a follow-up to Monsanto's 90-day feeding study on its
NK603 corn." So why is this protocol OK for Monsanto but not for
Seralini? And was this retraction related to FCT's addition of a new associate editor of biotechnology, Richard E. Goodman, who previously was a scientist at Monsanto?
"Controversy is common in the field of science. What normally happens
is that controversial research would be clarified as new research
articles are published, without the need for a retraction. A case in
point is the research related to the low-carb diet, yet another
polarized and contentious issue...
"Emily Waltz's article "Battlefield" highlights a disturbing trend: If you publish negative research about GMOs, you will be harassed, attacked, and discredited."
Read the article here.