Whoo boy. This sounds like a familiar climate episode. Andrew Revkin tips me to this retraction of a paper that got screaming headlines worldwide, and says this along with the photo. (Warning don’t click “continue reading” while eating Thanksgiving dinner).
Yes, I wonder.
Retraction Watch writes:
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.
The language in the letter seems quite familiar to WUWT and CA readers. This would never have been found out if not for the raw data. Note the language about it:
Very shortly after the publication of this article, the journal received Letters to the Editor expressing concerns about the validity of the findings it described, the proper use of animals, and even allegations of fraud. Many of these letters called upon the editors of the journal to retract the paper. According to the journal’s standard practice, these letters, as well as the letters in support of the findings, were published along with a response from the authors. Due to the nature of the concerns raised about this paper, the Editor-in-Chief examined all aspects of the peer review process and requested permission from the corresponding author to review the raw data. The request to view raw data is not often made; however, it is in accordance with the journal’s policy that authors of submitted manuscripts must be willing to provide the original data if so requested. The corresponding author agreed and supplied all material that was requested by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief wishes to acknowledge the co-operation of the corresponding author in this matter, and commends him for his commitment to the scientific process.
Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. However, there is legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected. The low number of animals had been identified as a cause for concern during the initial review process, but the peer-review decision ultimately weighed that the work still had merit despite this limitation. A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups.
More here
Need for the raw data, low sample size numbers, normal variability, cherry picking specific subjects?
Sounds like Yamalian dendroclimatology:
They even have a ranting demanding scientist to go along with it:
Seralini — whom, as we note, tried to get reporters to sign a non-disclosure agreement when the study was first being released, a move Ivan called an outrageous abuse of the embargo system designed to turn reporters into stenographers — rejected Hayes’ findings, according toLe Figaro. And GMWatch called Hayes’ decision “illicit, unscientific, and unethical.”
Hmmm, now who does that remind you of?
IMHO, science by zealotry never advances truth.
=============================================================
UPDATE: Elsevier issues a press release from Cambridge, MA, on Thanksgiving Day even…
Elsevier Announces Article Retraction from Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology
“Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,” by Gilles Eric Séralini et al. has been retracted by the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology
Cambridge, MA, November 28, 2013Elsevier announces that the article “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,” by Gilles Eric Séralini et al. has been retracted by the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.
The journal has issued the following retraction statement:
http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
[snip waaaaaaayyyy off topic – mod]
You don’t have to do much Google-ing on GMOs to find this paper cited early and often as “fact” by the usual subjects. It never ceases to boggle the mind…
Yes, 28 citations in the Litter-chure…and a few million repetitions on Fecebook as the disinformation spreads like…uh…cancer.
@ur momisugly Mod. I know but I thought you’d appreciate the info. No problem.
[we do, but please use Tips and Notes for that -mod]
The evidence of collapse is clear. The onus on all of us is not to let this sort of fanatical weirdness gain traction again. They will try.
This calls for some corn with Thanksgiving Dinner. Excuse me while I run to the store.
I can’t imagine who would down-rate an article like this? But I suppose Anthony has that info.
This is the kind of story that helps keep science honest — something we really need in this postmodern, spin dominated world.
Too late. The mud will stick. Just think how much the warmists would whinge if they were on the receiving end of this sort of thing.
Bloke down the pub,
They would squeal like stuck pigs!
On a similar topic the wiki page for “Alar” says
“ “Alar scare” is shorthand among news media and food industry professionals for an irrational, emotional public scare based on propaganda rather than facts. There remains disagreement about . . . ”
There is now a large segment of the population too young to remember the Alar story because it hit the MSM about 1985, about 28 years ago. “You can look it up.”
On a second track, I wonder how much good Roundup and Roundup-tolerant plants have contributed to food production, nutrition, and health since the introduction? And don’t tell me none. I’ve not been on Mars for the last 40 years, and first used it in 1978.
The basis for all farming and ranching is genetic modification and management, it always has been and always will be.
A. W. says, Corn!
Happy Thanksgiving!
~~~~
I grew 3 varieties this year, each “designed” to mature with different “days to harvest.” The earliest type only grew 3 feet tall. On each package is the word Hybrid. Amazing. I used a hoe on the Cheeseweed (Malva parviflora) because this is just a garden and not a lot of effort is needed.
The parallels to AGW science are fascinating, and greater transparency certainly allows informed individuals to draw their own conclusions. That being said, this hardly exonerates GMO in the food supply. Shoddy science on the anti-GMO activist side doesn’t let Big Food off the hook as transparency should apply to both sides equally. It doesn’t.
As a health-conscience individual and a parent, I prefer not to have our family participate in this real time experiment with GMO. Others may disagree, claiming we are wasting our money choosing to eat real food rather than today’s engineered and manufactured offerings. That may be the case, but it’s our choice and our right.
Monsanto and the others have vigorously fought mandatory GMO-labeling laws that inform consumers as to exactly what they are eating. Stating “there’s no conclusive evidence of harm” isn’t the same thing as demonstrably safe, regardless of what the agricultural interest’s marketing departments claim. Transparency needs to flow in both directions. Unlike the AGW-activists, our family isn’t looking to repeal the industrial revolution, we simply want to know what’s in our food when shopping. The food industry fights this tooth and nail, they abhor transparency.
The presence of obnoxious activists doesn’t automatically mean the other side is in the right.
cmcmail says: November 28, 2013 at 10:31 am “The basis for all farming and ranching is genetic modification and management, it always has been and always will be.” The basis for all cookery and cuisine is mixing ingredients, always has been and always will be. Now the neo-Luddites would quibble about how quickly the ingredients are mixed.
Unfortunately non-existence, as of risk, cannot be proven.
The Thanksgiving turkey was fed for 1000 days by the farmer, each feeding a datum in the turkeys confidence in Utopia. On the 1001 day the turkey met his BLACK SWAN – the axe. Happy Thanks Giving, we have many blessings for which to give thanks.
I smell a rat… happy Thanksgiving America!
Hjälp!
Vet ungefär hur jag formulerar en kommentar om GMO i generella termer på svenska, men får inte till det med engelskan. Ifrågasätter inte att berörd studie kan vara skräp, men många kommentatörer på WUWT beter sig precis som klimathotsförespråkare, när man ingår i en diskussion om GMO med dom. Att ifrågasätta GMO är uppenbart tabu.
Mina argument: Ett genom kan betraktas som ett oerhört stort kombinationslås. Lyckas man låsa upp en inaktiv sekvens vet man inte konsekvenserna fullt ut. Konsekvenserna behöver inte synas omgående, utan kan i sin tur trigga något annat (oönskat) och/eller dyka upp generationer senare. För ca 10-15 år sedan kände man till sjukdomar som triggades av upp till sju (7) specifika förändringar. Vad är känt idag …? Ju storre genom, ju fler kombinationer … Det påstods för något år sedan att människans genom var kartlagt, men det ser jag som en tidningsanka. Anledningen är enkel – om det är korrekt borde det ha hänt mycket inom medicinområdet sedan dess, men …
Förespråkare, främst den ekonomiska intresenten Monsanto, menar att vi sysslat med detta så länge vi har fött upp bl.a. hundar och katter. Håller med till en viss del, men där är frågan om avel/framavel, där man inte kringgår dom naturliga “regler”, som finns vid onaturlig korsbefruktning. (Endast raser inom samma arter tillåts fortplanta sig. Närliggande arter i vissa fall med steril avkomma – ex. häst/åsna/zebra.) Man kan t.ex. inte para en hund med en katt, eftersom det är olika arter. Att då framtvinga en korsning mellan olika typer av arter kan då få oanade konsekvenser, ex. kombinationen växt och djur (jo, de har prövat … tomat m. torsk …)
Vad händer när en GM-art korsas med den naturliga/ursprungliga versione?. Det kan bli en multiresistent (under-) art, med oanade följder! Det är inte säkert att det märks på första generationen efter … Arters utveckling sker inte primärt via “selektivt urval” utan via mutationer (orsakade av strålning). Med tanke på hur lång tid arter har utvecklas, sedan liv uppstod på jorden, borde de önskade kvalitéerna redan funnits i godkända kombinationer, men det gör de inte.
Vi, främst majsodlare i Mellan- och Sydamerika, vet följerna med att odla GMO. De odlarna har inget annat val än att fortsätta med detta, då marken är steril (förgiftad av Roundup) för annan gröda. Ekonomiskt sitter odlarna i Monsantos knä …
Allt detta är anledningar till att odling inom och import till EU är förbjuden. Berörd lobby har dock lyckats luckra upp dessa regler för någon enstaka produkt, men förbehållet att produkterna skall vara tydligt märkta. Med tanke på att över 90% av all majsproduktion för export är just GMO, så blir man fundersam när man i butikerna finner en uppsjö av olika fabrikat av majs, ALLA utan någon form av ursprungs-/GMO-märkning …
Sasja
Skickat från min mobil …
GMWatch does not think that honest error was made. But it was made. Those that know little about the limits of statistics used for significant difference make such mistakes. Small sample size and non-random subject selection are key sources of error in research design that can and often do lead to spurious “significance”. This type of error is usually made by folks who do not understand the necessary components of robust research.
The most that can be said of this piece of research (more a clinical case study than multi-subject double blind random selection treatment research) is that clinical observation appears to warrant further research.
The old saying, that a lie can be half-way round the world before you have got your pants on is a good one.The problem with lies is if you tell them often enough,people stop listening.
There have been a lot of studies regarding the safety of GMOs:
A recent paper by independent Italian scientists noted there have been 1783 studies on safety and health issues related to GMOs over the last ten years alone, including many publicly funded studies, confirming the safety of GMOs. The literal avalanche of GMO safety studies, short term and long, have prompted more than 100 of the world’s independent science bodies to conclude that foods made from genetically modified crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic varieties.
So who is behind this bizarre declaration? ENSSER, for those not familiar with it, is an organization with a mission. Its members believe—this is faith and not science—that the debate over GMOs is over, that the technology is harmful and should be banned or restricted out of existence. Its members are among the most high profile anti-GMO activists in Europe. Remember the pictures of rats supposedly twisted into cancerous monsters after eating GMO corn that were blasted across cyberspace and onto ‘laugh-out-loud’ pop shows like Dr. Oz? The rats were props for humans, according to the notorious 2012 Gilles-Erich Séralini study that stands as one of the most discredited experiments in scientific history. Séralini is a signee of this statement, along with co-author Nicolas Defarge, who is ENSSER’s Deputy Chairman.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/24/michael-pollan-promotes-denialist-anti-gmo-junk-science-brags-he-manipulates-new-york-times-editors/
The withdrawl of this paper will be portrayed by the Greenies, as the effects of “Big Agri” putting pressure on the journal, to subvert the truth.
Science Please!
Information please!
If we have to label toys to be used by kids over 6 yrs old, etc, then it is a reasonable request to have GMOs labeled as such.
GMOs ought to be labeled and the individual attribute(s) augmented in the GMO ought to be identified. ie vitamin boost, pest resistance, etc.
After all, we do eat them for nutritional reasons, therefore we should know.
I have a beef with GMOs at another level. The USPTO issues patents on gene sequences. ie Round-Up ready corn. If that corn inadvertently (wind or bird dispersion) ends up in a field not under contract with the patent holder (monsanto for example) then the field owner is unknowingly in violation of Monsanto’s licenses deal and subject to legal action. Not fair. Since part of the natural life cycle of seeds is to be dispersed by wind and water and animals.
I have real questions if “life” ought to be subject to patent protection.
I know about the limits of sample size and non-random subject selection. My research had only 6 subjects and their selection was non-random. Why? It was basic research. I needed to be able to see whether or not frequency specificity of the auditory brainstem response to high-frequency specific auditory signals was maintained at each synaptic junction. So I selected subjects whose auditory brainstem response to white noise was easily detected from background brain wave activity in at least the 1st synaptic junction, the third synaptic junction and the 5th synaptic junction. The utility of such testing in random subjects from the general population was yet to be examined. Some people’s brainwaves are not random even when at rest. Mine are like that. It proved impossible to get a basic white noise ABR from my head, let alone a high frequency specific one.
This is to say that one must consider the limits of your research and what it was designed to examine. The researchers of the above paper seemed to miss-match their design with their purpose. A not uncommon mistake.
A better design would have been to use rats with no known propensity to tumors with this first research. The sample could have been small. Then they should have opened it up to many rat strains which would have required a large overall sample size as well as larger strain specific sample size.
What should be obvious to many here is that someone without a Ph.D. (me) knows this. Why didn’t they? Poor quality Ph.D. program? That would be my guess.
http://neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu/s2/chapter13.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_brainstem_response
@JeffC The problem is you ignore costs. Tracking every ingredient in every food, perhaps passing through an animal is very expensive. Far better for folks who are concerned about this issue to find vendors who will cater to their needs by undertaking whatever expense is entailed to provide the info you seek. The rest of us can just continue in ignorance if we wish.
Where is Gail Combs when you need her ?