Saturday, January 11, 2014

The Anti-Science Behavior of GMO Proponents

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 about GMOs...
     "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 In November 2013, the study was retracted from the journal.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.

No comments:

Post a Comment