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.
Any time Pamela Gray (: And you would be proud of your neighbors to the north here in Washington. We just voted down GMO labeling requirements as onerous and unnecessary. Happy Thanksgiving. I am thankful for all of you at WUWT as I have learned so much over the years. It’s been the best.
While on the subject Seralini does reply to the criticisms of his work if you are interested in his side of the story:
http://gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Seralinial-AnswersCritics-FCT_2013.pdf
The short version can be read here if you don’t have the time or inclination to wade through the PDF:
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/component/content/article?id=14306
Another point is that it may not be the GM food itself but all the glyphosate (Roundup) that is doing the damage. It destroys plants by interfering with what is called the “shikimate pathway”. That doesn’t exist in humans so the theory was that glyphosate was safe but that pathway does exist in the bacteria in your gut where 75% of your immune system is regulated. Autoimmune diseases and inflammation ensue when that is damaged.
More interesting reading on the pathways that glyphosate interferes with human health:
Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, “Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases” Entropy 2013, 15(4), 1416-1463; doi:10.3390/e15041416
http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/Entropy/entropy-15-01416.pdf
Another fake-study, by UNEP:
http://climategate.nl/?p=29875&preview=true
Did they know about the “high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat” before they began the study? If yes then maybe that’s why they chose this rat. Let’s look at this dirty rat.
This was an odd study, three different levels of GMO corn +/- roundup and a roundup control.
Pick a high GMO, match with control corn +/- roundup. Use all females or all males. You have an n=50, punch ears circle, square, triangle and wave. Make damned sure that you are not only virtuous but are seen to be virtuous.
Fix all organs on death.
They picked rats and cherries.
Can I have funding please to check the incidence of facial tumours on Tasmanian Devils? Pleeeeease. Pretty please. I promise to blame it on genetically modified animals or global warming. Send me money, now! 😉
How did this get past peer review? Didn’t the experts know about the high incidence of tumors in these rats? They either did and let it slide or they were not experts.
Yet many, many Calamastrologists get away with fraud and misleading the public. If you want evidence just go to Google Scholar and type in ‘climate change’ then spend the next 80 years of your life reading through largely horseshit.
SasjaL says:
November 28, 2013 at 1:37 pm
“And yes, the genone is a perfect Pandora’s box, as the functionality of most inactive sequences are unknown and will not be known before activated. The scientists need to know how unlock first …! (Trial and error) Simple as that!”
Well, if you fear unforeseen consequences by “activation” of “inactive sequences” ( I put that in scare quotes because traditionally it was defined that a gene is something that encodes a protein; everything else is inactive sequences; we already know now that the situation is not as clear cut as that ); then you should quiver in your boots all the time as nature has the nasty habit of doing the weirdest things with genomes all the time; e.g. virii intruding and inserting some gene they got from who-knows-where into your body cells.
There is one criticism of GMO’s that I find reasonable – the method of traditional gene insertion is ugly and imprecise; and a post-selection using, I think, antibiotica is used to select for the cells in which the gene insertion worked as intended; that requires that an antibiotica resistance gene is part of the inserted sequence.
A newer, better method is to create a prototype using this clumsy gene insertion; and if it performs as intended, you sequence it and then try to rebuild it with traditional seed library crossbreeding until an organism with a sufficiently similar gene sequence – but without the antibiotica resistance gene – has been created.
…and my favorite example for the weirdness of genetics in nature is this charming creature; a sea slug that is shaped like a leaf and has stolen algae genes to learn how to make chlorophyll.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/green-sea-slug/
Don’t eat it, DirkH! 🙂
Paul Westhaver at 12:24 pm
I have real questions if “life” ought to be subject to patent protection.
On the one hand, people insist that producers of GMO products conduct to conduct long term test on the safety of GM foods and that there are no carcinogenic effects detectable in the next generaltion.
On the other hand, people, sometimes the same peopl as above, also question whether GM derived life is subject to patent protection.
It is patent protection that allows a GM research lab to generate the revenue needed to justify the many years of testing demanded by some in the public.
So… either accept patent protection to pay for the research required for a business in GM plants and animals,….
or, give up the demand to test to exhaustion the products of GM research if you hold they cannot be patented.
Nature itself does GM research rather haphazardly as a means to evolution and bacteriologic life cycles. There is no one to hold the patent, but there is no one to sue for alleged harm, either.
After the publication of the study by Gilles-Eric Seralini, the first study carried out on rats fed NK603 maize over their whole lifespan, which shows that the toxicity of these GMOs on rats, many criticisms and questions have arisen about the conditions in which the study was carried out and its credibility. Dr Joel Spiroux, co-author and assistant director of the study, and president of Criigen (Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering) responds.
First criticism: 200 rats is too small a sample for a solid study …
– The sample of 200 rats, 20 rats per group, is the same number of rats used [GMW note: analysed] by Monsanto in its 3-month study. In contrast, we studied many more toxicological endpoints. An experiment with more rats would have cost more money. The study already cost 3.2 million Euro.
The type of rats used, Sprague-Dawley, is known to easily develop tumours …
– Yes, but this type of rat is used the world over for toxicological research. These rats have the advantage of being stable in biological and physical levels. They all pretty much the same profile, the same weight … These are the rats used from the beginning in the research on GMOs by the firms that produce them, including by Monsanto. And the facts are there: those that were fed GM corn, with or without Roundup, develop more diseases. And much faster.
Looking closely, male rats fed GM corn does not generally develop more tumours than the controls …
– One must look at the speed which which tumours are triggered. In all three treatment groups of rats, tumours or diseases of the kidneys and liver begin in the 4th month and explode in the 11th and 12th months. Which corresponds to the age of 35 to 40 years in a human. In the control group, tumours occurred mostly at the end of life, in the 23rd and 24th months, which seems to be normal in these rats.
Scientists point to the lack of information on the exact composition of the diet on which rats were fed …
– These are standard biscuits/chow, the same again as those used by the producers of GMOs in their studies. The only difference is that we have precisely measured the concentration of GM maize: 11% for the first group, 22% for the second and 33% for the third.
The amount of GMO consumed by the rats is more than is consumed by humans…
– Think again. The doses of NK603 maize are comparable to what humans eat over a lifetime in America, where GMOs are sold freely, unlabelled, untraceable. This prevents them being identified as a cause of disease and opens the door to denial. This is why we hear for example that Americans have been eating GMOs for 15 years and are not sick.
The magazine chosen to publish the study, “Food and Chemical Toxicology,” is not the most prestigious in the United States.
– It is far from being secondary: it is an internationally known scientific journal. Publications are subject to peer review, and the peer reviewers express contradictory opinions. And it’s the same journal in which Monsanto and other manufacturers publish their counter-studies.
We also hear that Gilles-Eric Seralini is committedly anti-GM, that he got the results he wanted.
– Absolutely not. Gilles-Eric Seralini the Criigen (Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering) and researchers in his lab at the University of Caen are also working on genetically modified organisms, because it gives them access to the knowledge of life. They have nothing against GMOs for the manufacture of drugs. Insulin, for example, is produced from GMOs. This does not prevent me from prescribing it to my patients with diabetes. One can recognize these medicines by the presence on the label of the term “recombinant protein”. So yes to GMOs in the pharmaceutical laboratory. However, Gilles-Eric Seralini and we are against agricultural GMOs, because they are inadequately labelled and their long-term toxicity is poorly studied.
You are not oncologists, what do you know about tumours?
– No, we are not oncologists and have never said otherwise. This is a toxicity study, not a carcinogenicity study, which follows other protocols. Moreover, we have nowhere stated that tumours were cancerous. These are fibro-adenomas and kerato-acanthomas [?chirato-acantomes], which can turn into cancer in older rats.
A counter-study is needed.
– We agree. We also want a counter-study, but it must be carried out by independent researchers. Not by those who produce studies for manufacturers of GMOs. That is not the position of the EFSA at the moment (European Food Safety Agency).
The susceptibility of rats to tumors is very high in the first place, according to this pet care website:
“Mammary cancer is a common cause of tumors in rats and mice and can occur in both males and females. The prevalence of tumors varies with the strain of animal. In some mouse strains, 70% develop mammary tumors. In mice, mammary tumors are also associated with the mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV), which predisposes a mouse to develop mammary cancer. One strain of this virus is termed the “Bittner agent.””
Let’s also keep in mind that there is an enormous variety of lab animals used for testing. These have varying degrees of susceptibility to cancers and infections, and are specially modified in order to study these diseases. For example: http://jaxmice.jax.org/list/newavl_ra3.html
So I think an interesting question is whether it is advisable to listen to every activist or government or NGO that gives tumors to rats or mice, and then uses the science to take more control over what really are individual food choices.
Some journals demand raw data to even review it in the first place.
Zeke says:
November 28, 2013 at 3:56 pm
“Don’t eat it, DirkH! :)”
I didn’t say “favorite dish”. I prefer vertebrates; I’m not French.
From the Editor’s Note of retraction:: http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology#sthash.n59nUZPN.dpuf
Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data.
There might be intentional misrepresentation, but the Editor found no evidence of it.
However, there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected.
Let’s remember that Journals should also publish experiments that FAIL to reject hypothesizes. It is part of the experimental record to be communicated to others.
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.
What kind of merit? Merit for further study? Interesting, but not statistically significant results? I’m OK with that.
But somehow a merit for further study gets twisted into calls to ban products.
Did the Journal publish with the necessary caveats on statistics and procedure problems?
Was the Jurnal “used” to establish a scientifically insignificant, but politically significant finding?
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
What kind of peer review did this paper encounter?
Problems with sample size?
Problems with carcinogenic rates with the control groups?
You don’t need a Ph.D. is statistics or biology to spot these RED flags.
Yet despite the red flags, the Journal publishes anyway, then has second thoughts looking at no more data that what should have been in the original article, decides to retract.
Journals are in business to make money. I get that. I appreciate it. I for one do not expect Journals to validate experiments. I don’t even require statistical significance for papers published in journals. FAILURE to meet statistical significance is an important finding. But I expect Journals to insist authors be upfront with the strength of their conclusions.
So the questitons remain. What changed between approval and now for the Journal to go from publication to retraction? Did the authors intentionally misrepresent insignificant results as significant? Did the peer review not dial back exaggeration?
Pamela Gray: “So for all you folks who are thinking this is a good case for labeling, it is not.”
I appreciate your insights on this. But making a case for product labeling for the purposes of informed consent don’t need a scientific basis. It only needs enough people with enough concerns, however derived, to justify it.
And going further than this, to turn your nose up at what biologists state is… probably good advice. We’re all aware of how badly consensus science performs in other domains already. And biology, specifically the nutritional end of things, is downright infamous for stating that the harmful is safe, and the safe is harmful. Which is an issue that goes far beyond torts and government permission offices such as the FDA.
Paul Westhaver; ” Not fair. Since part of the natural life cycle of seeds is to be dispersed by wind and water and animals.”
Yeh, this is fundamentally broken. The entire purpose of the patent system is that someone has to actively do something to violate it. When mother nature is doing just what she’s always done, then Monsanto and similar ought be suing Gaia or God; assuming they can get the accused party in the courtroom.
Fundamentally, it’s good business sense for pro and anti GM outfits. Pro GM outfits get a nice protection racket going if a neighboring field is using GM crop. If so, to avoid suit, the neighbors have to plant the same and from the same company. Anti GM outfits can use it is a cudgel against GM for the same reasons. The suits are the same in either case, the importance of which is which depends on what arguments make it into the ruling opinion.
To: Stephen Rasey,
Safety and Efficacy of the product falls under the FDA.
Novelty of a gene sequence fall under the USPTO.
Testing for safety is an obligation as dictated by the FDA.
Any company who produces a GMO has 2 sets of lawyers. 1) Lawyers to argue that the food is safe and effective to satisfy the FDA. These lawyer will argue that there is nothing different in the GMO compared to natural food. 2) a second set of lawyers who will argue until the cows come home, that the gene sequence is novel and not in the public domain.
These lawyers are usually different people but they are arguing 2 contrary points of view at the same time for the same company.
Testing for pleiotrpy would be an FDA type consideration.
Regardless of whether there is a patent or not, the company MUST do the testing to prove safety and efficacy in order to label the GMO as food in the USA.
Patent protection and the testing related to the patent prosecution is by comparison a very small financial burden.
So I would argue that there is no this-or-that here. No obligation to test in order to have a benefit from the patent.
My point is that “Life” processes are not confined to the gene sequences. The GMO DNA ie seeds are spread naturally so they can’t be protected the same way a copyrighted book or a product can be protected. I suggest that a new body of law would need to be created to deal with subsequent natural mutation, crossbreeding, and dispersion and the possibility that a life process may exist and may not be discovered, rendering the novelty as mute.
JQuip… yes I agree. And I would add: who has the money to pay for the prosecution.
“Which is an issue that goes far beyond torts and government permission offices such as the FDA.”
It has been defeated at the ballot box, and the regulations for labeling food is getting lengthy and costly to comply. Whether a person requires organic foods, has an allergy, has religious dietary standards, is a strict vegan, or the government thinks you should know the calories in a hamburger, these issues are best dealt with through personal research. Voters and small business owners have roundly said no to these and other government requirements, such as labeling calories on menus and prohibiting certain sized drinks from being served. These cost more for consumers, they cost more for smaller businesses, it gives more for the government to enforce, and the science behind it is fraught with the handiwork of activists and extremists. However, for those who are indeed fanatic about this issue, they should by all means go to the local Rich Hippy store and get the food that they most fancy.
By all means, do not eat food when you are clouded with Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. I think we can all agree that is plainly bad for the digestion! (:
From the perspective of the growers, grocers, and shoppers, the obverse side of the coin:
First, genetically altered crops have been in production in the U.S. for nearly 20 years, have been deemed safe through extensive testing by the federal government, and have shown zero adverse effects on the health of the general public.
In addition, it has been acknowledged by both WFM and the Non-GMO Project that no test exists that can tell the difference between sugar, corn, soy or any of the others that came from GMO seed being any different than commodities that came from conventional seed. In addition, if a cow, a pig or a sheep eats crops that come from GMO seed, there is no test in existence that can tell any difference in the meat or milk from that of any other animal.
So how does WFM, the Non-GMO Project or any of the other advocates of this policy intend to verify their label? The short answer is they can’t. But what they are telling consumers is that products earn a non-GMO label by going through a “process-based” verification process. Ultimately what that means is that livestock feed must first be certified organic and second, it must be traceable and tested. Without a major paradigm shift in U.S. livestock production, neither of those processes is possible at a meaningful level.
If WFM wants to develop and fund a verification process to provide its shoppers with a meaningless label, we don’t see a problem. But creating a new government bureaucracy that essentially does the same thing is absurd.
Please read the whole article.
Frank Priestley is president of the Idaho Farm Bureau.
– See more at: http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20131018/ARTICLE/131019880#sthash.uSRN2tie.dpuf