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.
Also: “The USDA runs the National Organic Program, a certification which allows producers to label products as ‘USDA Organic’ if they follow certain production standards. Foods with these labels by definition cannot contain any genetically modified material. Existing regulations already provide consumers with information and ample ability to choose not to purchase foods that have been genetically modified, if that is what they prefer.”
Not only that, the labeling and tracking applies to all crops, including wheat and other foods for which don’t even have GM crops even in use:
“I-522 is a costly and misleading measure that would hurt Washington’s family farmers and consumers,” said WAWG Past President Eric Maier of Ritzville. “While there is currently no commercially available GE wheat, I-522 would still impose new bureaucratic requirements on our members who grow and process wheat products for sale in Washington and around the world.”
Family farmers, food producers, grocers and retailers would have to implement distinct systems to grow, handle, process, transport and sell food and beverage products in Washington. Farmers would also have to create extensive new recordkeeping systems to track all food products — foods that contain GE ingredients (so they can be properly labeled) as well as foods without GE ingredients.
These new requirements would add millions of dollars in costs for Washington farmers and food companies, and make Washington products more costly than in other states.”
Certainly there is indication that the matter should be further researched.
But this was a pretty questionable study and IMHO should not have reached publication:
200 rats, 20 groups of 10, two sexes: 9 treatments and a control. (3 levels of GM maize, with and without glyphosphate, 3 levels of glyphospate)
Only 1 group of 10 animals per treatment per sex?
Only one group of 10 per sex as a control?
“Toxicity” was seen in glyphosphate groups, and GMO groups with and without added glyphospate? Are there different mechanisms at work?
It is hard for me to imagine how a 200 rat trial costs 3.2 million Euro.
Disclaimer: I am a fan of GMO – I think this is the technology that will save future generations from starving to death.
@Paul Westhaver at 6:09 pm
I am not going to argue what is the Law.
I am goint to argue what is Right.
“Save and Effective.” If there is a more absurd legal standard, I don’t know what it is.
Is a peanut safe and effective? For some it is cheap and delicious. For others it is deadly.
But it comes from “nature” so it must be good and gets approval. Yet arguably, to people with peanut allergies ‘second hand peanut’ is a far worse danger than second hand smoke.
If I graft an avacado branch onto an olive tree, I may make a new food. Do I have to show it is safe and effective to sell it? Do I have to go through the same documentation a GM firm would? What If I managed it through cross pollination — that’s at least tinkering with the plant’s genes.
I am not necessarily saying that GM’d foods don’t need some testing. What I argue is that if you create a new food — and the GOVERNMENT REQUIRES you to test it extensively before you can sell it, then that REQUIREMENT creates a parallel RIGHT of PATENT. The food has no value at all until it is tested and passes FDA hoops. The person/company that goes to the expense of testing it should, by Right, earn a Patent covering that food. That effort, the regulatory one, is what creates the value in that new property. Since the requirement to test is based upon DNA pattern, therefore the patent must be based upon the DNA, too.
For the government to require testing of a GM’d food, but not to grant patent would amount to a Tragedy of the Commons. There would be no GM work at all, for freeloaders would garner the most profit.
Another fraud posing as a scientist. I am way past fed up with these pieces [***] who are making a mockery of true science for political agendas. I can foresee a time, in the future, when the citizens and all true scientists have finally had enough and run these frauds and their co-conspirators in government and peer review panels out of town on a rail. [trimmed]
[Yes, you’re angry, this is not called for. watch your language in public as a guest. Mod]
Stephen Rasey, The FDA has jurisdiction over food additives, processing and the LABEL that goes on the food. They regulate food so that it “safe and wholesome”. That is what they do.
In order to get the legal right to LABEL food in the USA, food producers are required to adhere to the standards.
Government Departments are silos. There is no right to Patent either due to extensive required testing or examination by another government department.. A patent is granted by the USPTO… maybe. if the product is novel and not in the public domain. The FDA and USPTO don’t talk. 🙂
What I find odd is that Patents are sought and granted on living things that don’t obey conventional distribution controls.
Seems very weird to me.
Sasja Lundstr�m says:
November 28, 2013 at 11:44 am
I think this was not about whether GMO is safe or not, but about the scientific malpractice in general.
I think that if the journals would retract poorly evidenced climate studies based on climate models which omit whole bunch of factors and introduce bias through other – simmilar as in this case of the poorly evidenced study about the alleged health effects of roundup GMO on the mice model prone to cancer, the climate articles databases would quite thin.
There was a matter in the 1980s, eerily similar to both this and to AGW, when quite a few in The Establishment thought there was a coming epidemic of cancers caused by man-made chemicals. The main support for various horror stories came from animal testing. It was concluded (one thought finally) that non-human animals were not to be taken as a proxy for humans.
The epidemic did not happen.
The main pro-scientists became anti-scientists.
The cancer problem dropped below the horizon.
It’s all in a meticulous book “The Apocalyptics” by Edith Efron, Simon & Schuster New York, 1986.
The book gives some nice pointers on how to quell an epidemic (of false scare stories).
wow, I read the comments and slowly I begin to understand that people actually belived the study says the GMO-plants are toxic, LOL. Of course not, it is the toxicity of the herbicides the plants tolerate in copius amounts that is studied! The plants when unsprayed are of course not toxic only because they are labeled GMO. Further, the mice are prone to tumours and/or cancer, they must be or you would need thousands of mice studied over several decades to find any trends, that is standard protocol in toxicology. I cant find many problems with this study, and as usual you need more studies to confirm. And the similarities with Mann et al seems to be the preassure on the editor to retract a paper that challanges the “consensus” view that the herbicide roundup is perfectly harmless to humans, and or mice it seems. Maybe I should not go there but the people promoting GMO often are the same people promoting AGW and that in it self sets of all sorts of alarms in me.
Mark Twain scores again.
@Paul Westerhaver: “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.”
One of the more interesting things I’ve seen was a collection of old Edison phonograph tubes; the celluloid things. There were a large number of original boxes with them. The each of which had a copy right notice on it that they were not to be sold by the purchaser. Bought once, owned once.
Another interesting issue is the cotton gin. Which was really little ore than a few bits of wood and some wire. What is interesting about it is that the manufacture of it wasn’t verboten, but the unauthorized manufacture and sale was.
By any traditional notion of the subject, then it is the planter that let the seeds off their property that is the violator. And the only one that can be held to account. But then, if GM companies went after their own customers, because wind, things would end rather quickly.
@Zeke: “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.”
Absolutely agreed. The best manner to do that is read the product information. And yes, of course it costs more. Everything costs more. In this case it only requires that the food companies fire up Microsoft Word and add a bit of 10 point text ‘may include GM corn’ and the deed is done. The whole process ought take around 5 minutes or so. If there is a market of interest, then the producer can source only GM or non GM product and spend the 5 minutes, once, to label it also. And no the ‘Organic’ label doesn’t cover it as it speaks to an entirely different subject. Though, personally, I’m rather appreciative of the ‘organic’ label as I know precisely not to buy those products.
@Zeke: ” and the GOVERNMENT REQUIRES you to test it extensively before you can sell it, then that REQUIREMENT creates a parallel RIGHT of PATENT. ”
It does no such thing. The government requires that cars are crash tested, but that doesn’t require that the make and model gets a patent. It’s orthogonal, not parallel.
What happened to the idea that the customer is always right? Some commentators seem to think that the producer is always right if he/she is American.
Pamela Gray says:
November 28, 2013 at 2:07 pm
Khwarizmi, given your fears, don’t eat roast Turkey for Thanksgiving. And your connection between LT and myalgia syndrome is very weak. The two main studies on this correlation have long been debunked.
= = = = = =
It would be great if you could point this silly uneducated driveler to the “two main studies” you mention in such vague terms, and also to where those studies were “debunked.”
The connection that you claim is “weak” exists only between a GM-produced batch of L-Tryptophan and EMS.
In fact, every case of EMS occurred in a consumer of the GM-produced batch..
The disease thus appears to be an artifact of Showa Denko’s GM-production of L-Tryptophan, which we know was tainted with mutant forms of the amino:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eosinophilia%E2%80%93myalgia_syndrome
Showa Denko flushed every copy of the bacteria down the toilet as soon as the “connection” was an established fact, btw. (I mention that because the wiki doesn’t)
As far as I can tell, those deadly mutant forms of the amino acid have never occurred in any non-GM production process.
Roast turkey, which I don’t eat as a custom at thanksgiving because I’m an Aussie, happens to be high in L-Tryptophan. But no outbreaks of EMS seem to occur over thanksgiving in the U.S..
The correlation between GM-produced L-Tryptophan & EMS in not weak — it’s intractable.
I guess that’s why you didn’t point to where “those studies” (huh?) were “debunked.”
markx says:
November 28, 2013 at 7:53 pm
…
Disclaimer: I am a fan of GMO – I think this is the technology that will save future generations from starving to death.
Monsanto uses phrases like “patent infringement” and “seed piracy.” One question to very seriously consider is, “if a company can ‘patent’ a plant – GMO or not, then can we expect that company or another to attempt patent a GMO’d human being?” Would such a company argue seriously that such human could not reproduce with out a “license?’ At present the Supreme Court has barred such patenting, but the court’s argument was simply that the company that attempted the patent had not in fact “created” anything. It simply identified a natural phenomenon – the gene. The court however did indicate that modifying a gene into a form not found in nature was an “invention” and thus presumably patentable, even if it were “installed” in a heritable fashion in a human being. Think about that for a bit.
You have a genetic mutation that associated with a specific disorder. Some company like Monsanto works out a therapeutic regime that “corrects” the mutation modifying and making it harmless and the change is heritable. We’ll stipulate that the modification is harmless. But the company patents that modification and wins the patent on the grounds that the specific change has not occurred before in the human genome. Your child is safe from the genetic threat you carry, but, he or she is in fact a GMO carrying the “patented” property of the company. Twenty years later they want children. Currently patents become unenforceable after about 20 years. The period is a little variable because at present time delays allow for extending the term of patent’s force. And don’t forget almost all chemical and pharmaceutical companies really, really want to extend patents even farther. Theoretically, your child is a proprietary product of the company (not you and your spouse) and cannot reproduce without permission any more than a farmer can grow GMO corn to be set aside as seed stock with license. Monsanto claims this is restriction is to “level the playing field” for “honest” farmers [who can’t afford to defend a lawsuit and know it].
I don’t mind GMOs. I do have very grave doubts about the ethics of companies that patent them.
I actually read that study and was amazed how it ever got published. The study design was nothing short of amazing:
1. Rat strain and study duration: Use of rats that spontaneously develop tumours during their lifetime and study duration that covers their lifetime. Sure to get a lot of pics of tumours no matter what you fed the rats.
2. 1 control group and 9 test groups: the tumours developed by 20 control rats were compared to the tumours of 180 test rats that were fed various doses of GM corn and Roundup. Guess which group got more anomalies?
Basically, it was a game of dice, except one side got 1 throw and the other 9. Laws of probability gave Seralini his results.
The damage is done. There are no shocking pictures to go with the retraction so it will not make a good front page.
Also I think the animal welfare overseers should have been a bit more vigilant. The animals could have been euthanized before the tumours were the size of a pea if the researchers weren’t going for shock value.
“Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data.” To a Mann, this is exoneration. To a man, this is “don’t sue me, but you’ve exaggerated your point with fake science and ignored your responsibility to know better.”
I dont understand why people are worried about GMOs? If a scientist targets and changes 1-5 genes in a plant, it becomes some sort of “Frankenfood”. But if another scientist bombards seeds with gamma rays, powerful chemicals or plant viruses, changing 1-1000 genes in random ways, this is “Organic”? Crazy world we live in. Gamma ray mutagenic seeds have been used for decades according to the IAEA. http://www.iaea.org/technicalcooperation/areas-of-work/agri-food-security/index.html
Pamela Gray says:
November 28, 2013 at 1:50 pm
Sasja, just so you know, I have had plenty of experience with Round-up. I buy the generic brand to save money. Same chemical product, acts the same way, but way cheaper.
===
ah but..the carrier base chem is? yeah no one knows cos its not required to be listed, some tests apparently found the carrier or other unlisted ingredients ,as, if not more, toxic than the glyphosate.
then theres the patents
new and novel unlike etc
net hing its “substantially equivalent and safe?
and if you reckon seralin etc amount of rats were too low?
then whats Monsantos feed trials of around 6 calves inc one dead n replaced say for their numbers OR correct practice?
and sorry but a 30 day shed trial of a 2xmod soy meal with NO autopsy etc reports available?
yup that slack inept trial was enough to allow Aus FANZ to say that soy was ok for aussies!
as for roundup and chem fert etc not harming soils?
I ran a small soil test lab
sprayed/treated soils were microbially almost dead! finding much at all took repeated slides, bacteria isnt enough for healthy soil
@Bjorn from Sweden,
” Maybe I should not go there but the people promoting GMO often are the same people promoting AGW and that in it self sets of all sorts of alarms in me.”
Really? It is the AGW folks teaming up with the Anti-GMO crowd that hang out with the “save the polar bears” nutjobs that break organic bread with the “save Himalayan rain forests” wackos that trade hairnets and bathing techniques with the “I got a poor education in Art History so I can’t find a job especially with all my facial tattoos and piercings so I hate all capitalist pigs” whiners. But maybe your professional protesters do things differently in Sweden………?
And perhaps in the laboratory they “drench” glyphosate on plants, in practice, we try to use the least amounts possible. A typical application rate is: 1qt glyphosate mixed in 12 gallons of water as carrier sprayed on 1 acre (43560 sq ft). We raise, on average, 30,000 plants per acre. There are 946.35 grams per quart. So 946.35/43560= 0.021725g per square foot. Although each plant has 1.452 square feet of space (43560/30000) at the time of application the corn plant covers less than .10 of its allotted space. (we are targeting weeds remember?) For simplicity we will use the 0.10 sq ft for plant size, so for each application of glyphosate on corn, each plant will receive and metabolize .0021725g of glyphosate. That’s hardly a “drenching” If you want to drill it down even more……….of that 1quart glyphosate per acre, depending on the formulation, usually at least 80% is inert ingredients.
Jquip says: “And no the ‘Organic’ label doesn’t cover it as it speaks to an entirely different subject.”
“Welcome to the National Organic Program
USDA Organic Seal
What is organic?
Organic is a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural product has been produced through approved methods that integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used.”
As for your other remarks about how simple and easy labeling and enforcement would be, this is already addressed in the excerpt from the Washington Wheat Growers quote above. The labeling requirements, the creation of a bureaucracy, the enformcement, and the tracking are extensive. The legislation rejected in my state affects all farmers, even those who are not even using GMOs (wheat), and dairy and cattle farmers, who are purchasing the corn to feed the cattle and poultry. Who you listen to, the growers and the people affected by the law, or the government and activists – this is your choice. But the costs of labeling and enforcement are more extensive than the impression most people have. Furthermore, it is meaningless because there is no test that actually gives results finding a difference between the corn, or the cattle or livestock fed by the corn and those who are not.
The second quote about the patent I did not write.
Clovis, these tumors are larger than any we are allowed to grow in rats, either in the US or UK.
Brian H says: November 29, 2013 at 12:09 am “Mark Twain scores again.”
Nyaah, Mark Twain didn’t say that, P. T. Barnum did. Unless you mean what Twain quoted from Benjamin Disraeli “Figures often beguile me,” he wrote, “particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: ‘There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'” (Mark Twain (1906-09-07). “Chapters from My Autobiography”. North American Review. Project Gutenberg. Retrieved 2013-11-29.)
The folks involved in the side discussion about L Tryptophan- related illnesses should spend time reading research articles instead of organic watermelon sites.
In addition, those who think supplements are better than prescription drugs need to take out a hefty health and life insurance policy. The potential serious side-affects of the unregulated manufacturing and importation free-for-all of supplements seem to breeze by the watermelon heads. Specific to L Tryptophan used as a dietary supplement:
http://www.drugs.com/mtm/l-tryptophan.html
“In 1989, a life-threatening condition called eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS) occurred in many people using L-tryptophan and some died from the condition. All of these people had taken L-tryptophan distributed by a company in Japan. This L-tryptophan was found to contain trace levels of impure ingredients. Since that time, the FDA has limited the availability of L-tryptophan in the U.S. However, the increased use of the Internet has made many dietary supplements available from non-U.S. sources.
There have been no published cases of EMS within the last several years, but you should be aware of the symptoms. Stop using L-tryptophan and call your doctor or care practitioner at once if you have any of these signs of EMS: severe muscle pain (most often in the shoulders, back, or legs); weakness, numbness, tingling, or burning pain (especially at night); tremors or twitching muscle movements; swelling in any part of your body; skin changes (dryness, yellowing, hardening); breathing difficulty; uneven heartbeat.”
So for those who think GM is the issue here, it was an impurity introduced in the processing (probably from the bacteria ladened fermentation step) of this supplement that has been implicated, not the pure or genetically modified substance itself. There have been cases of the myalgia syndrome from other supplements as well. Bacteria impurities were also implicated.
Be careful what you put in your mouth. If it is L tryptophan you want, eat Turkey and other food sources of this chemical, food that you wash and prepare in the kitchen. Don’t take supplements. You don’t know where that supplement has been. Yuck.
Bjorn,
Thanks for your patience.
It seems that America is so polarized that many have trouble realizing that their favorite slanted news source may be correct on one issue and have it backward on the next.
In fact, the way it works is there is the charade of multiple views being presented but the winning is rigged. Punches are pulled, the ball gets dropped and before you know it each issue is decided to the favor of the powerful interests while the interests of the public go by the wayside.
That’s our two party system as well. They have it down to a science.