Publishing giant of fake pharmaceutical journals fame now retracting damning research findings against GMOs and Roundup herbicide on behalf of the biotech industry Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof Peter Saunders
Giles-Eric Séralini, a professor of molecular biology at Caen University, led a toxicological study on GM maize and Roundup herbicide involving 200 rats over a period of two years; it found an alarming increase in early death, large tumours including cancers, and diseases of the liver and kidney. The study, published in 2012 by the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) , was by no means the first, nor the only one to show adverse health impacts from GM feed or Roundup herbicide (see  GM Cancer Warning Can No Longer Be Ignored, SiS 56; and ISIS report  Ban GMOs Now for a comprehensive review on the health and environmental hazards of GMOs). It was the latest warning – perhaps the most dramatic - and the most in-depth long-term toxicological study ever done. Significantly, many of the most damaging effects came after 90 days, the officially mandated period of feeding trials for regulatory approval of GMOs.
What followed was a concerted worldwide campaign to discredit the findings, including the appointment of ex-Monsanto scientist Richard Goodman to the newly created post of associate editor for biotechnology at FCT . Soon after Goodman’s appointment, a study by researchers in Brazil also finding potentially harmful effects from GMOs was withdrawn from FCT, but reappeared almost immediately in another journal.
On 27 November 2013, FCT editor Wallace Hayes wrote to Séralini’s team requesting them to retract their paper published just over a year ago on grounds that it was “inconclusive”, not because there was fraud or errors . In fact, the paper was published after peer review by 5 referees – the usual number being 2 or 3 – and the criticisms post-publication answered in full by the team, and appeared in the same journal .
The substantive criticisms boil down to two: the Sprague-Dawley strain of laboratory rats used is inappropriate, as it is prone to cancer, and the number of animals for testing cancer is too small. In fact, the study was explicitly aimed not at cancer but at toxicity, for which Sprague-Dawley is the strain most commonly used; and the number of animals, 10 in each group, was in accordance with the OECD guidelines.
The reason the OECD protocol specifies larger groups for cancer testing than for toxicity is that cancer is less common and takes longer to become apparent and is therefore more likely to be missed, i.e. the aim is to avoid a false negative. The fact that excess tumours and cancer was detected even in 10 animals is arguably all the more significant, and may be due to the strong carcinogenic potential of the agents tested (see  Excess Cancers and Deaths with GM Feed: the Stats Stand Up, SiS 56). Even though the study was not designed to test for cancer, it would have been totally irresponsible for Séralini and his group not to report what they had found. Equally it is important for the article to remain in the public record for its implications on public health.
As Séralini’s team pointed out, the retraction of their paper is a violation of the international ethical norms as prescribed by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) accepted by FCT, as it had been most thoroughly reviewed, and by the clear admission of the FCT editor, absolutely no fraud or error was perpetrated . In contrast, a study published by Monsanto in the same journal in 2004 does contain errors if not outright fraud, basically because the effect of GMOs was not compared with matched isogenic non-GMO controls, while the feed for controls was most likely contaminated with GMOs. That paper should be considered for retraction, but the issue was never even raised.
A day later, a press release was put out by a PR company entitled, “Elsevier announces article retraction from journal Food and Chemical Toxicology” , making it clear that the decision came from the highest level, the publishing giant that describes itself as “a global company employing more than 7,000 people in 24 countries,” and “partner with a global community of 7,000 journal editors” .
Elsevier is already notorious for having published 6 fake journals sponsored by unnamed pharmaceutical companies made to look like peer reviewed medical journals . It is also the target of a still current boycott initiated by eminent mathematician, Sir Tim Gowers FRS, as a protest by academics against the business practices of Elsevier, especially the high prices it charges for journals and books . So far, 13 974 people from all subjects have signed and pledged they will not publish, referee, or do editorial work with Elsevier .
Séralini’s team is standing firm against the retraction, and would resort to legal measures against the journal to protect their rights .
The journal and its publisher are operating a double standard in retracting a paper reporting adverse health impacts for which no fraud or error was found, as opposed to one claiming no health impacts where serious error at least is involved. This is not just a blatant violation of publishing ethics, it means conspiring to remove from the public record results that could be of great importance for public health. Furthermore, it is an abuse of science and amounts to corporate terrorism on independent science and scientists. It strikes at the very heart of science and democracy, and the aspiration of scientists to work for the public good.
That is why a group of scientists have drafted an open letter requesting a reversal of the retraction and a fulsome public apology to the authors. Until this is done, we will boycott Elsevier, decline to purchase Elsevier products, submit papers for publication, review papers or do editorial work for Elsevier  Open Letter on Retraction & Pledge to Boycott Elsevier. The letter is open for signing by both scientists and non-scientists. Please sign on and forward as widely as possible.
Article first published 04/12/13
Got something to say about this page? Comment
There are 15 comments on this article so far. Add your comment above.
Desiree Rover Comment left 4th December 2013 18:06:02
Andrew Wakefield and Árpád Pusztai all over again!!! Truth not allowed...
Anthony Hughes Comment left 5th December 2013 06:06:20
The Scientific Process, whereby hypotheses are researched, findings are reviewed by peers and conclusions are published with the expectation of consensual approval by the Global Community of Scientists, is dying. The lay person is rightly confused and can no longer trust the academics. With this latest atrocious activity I contend that the process is practically dead. But out of death, often comes renewal. This could be the last straw. Fraudsters of all types are facing the day of reckoning, and a great purge of their ilk by honest scientists and the disaffected public is in the offing. Send this report to every person on the planet.
Roger Richardson Comment left 5th December 2013 06:06:13
Antoinette Halberstadt Comment left 5th December 2013 06:06:50
As a thinking person who is very alarmed about GMO's, and glad to see an organization such as ISIS trying to make science more understandable to the average person who isn't a scientist, I am, however, disappointed in the somewhat inflammatory language used on this page. Language such as "amounts to corporate terrorism on independent science and scientists" is not neutral, rational language. It detracts from this organization's attempts to promote rational thought. Thanks, though, for the information.
Jean Navert Comment left 6th December 2013 13:01:22
Nothing surprising. All this is part of the same game played by the Biotech industry. It should be as simple as this. Do the independent long term scientific studies required to prove that the GMOs are safe and that they don't cause major environmental issues and if they are proven safe; we will be more than happy support them. This retraction from FCT is a pure joke!
Todd Millions Comment left 7th December 2013 21:09:02
Comparisons to the Ermakova gm soy rat feeding trials(search this site)-will prove an instructive prequeal to this. Start digging-the only cure for it is blackmail and extortion,while leaving room for a noble sounding excuse that will do for a reason.Appeals too truth and Life?Not in the whoreocracy I was born and raised in.And you won't be the only ones compramising the power that be's catspaws.So be it.Do it for the right reasons,and know your reasons.
James Paterson Comment left 9th December 2013 06:06:26
WWF is clearly a proponent of GMOs; I am withdrawing my support from them and cancelling my yearly donation.These continuing scandals will only alienate key WWF stakeholders and undermine the desirability of the organization ironically even in the eyes of the corporations that are contributing to the credibility problem in the first place.
Susan Wright Comment left 10th December 2013 07:07:09
I'm supporting the scientific research that isn't funded by the biotech companies. It's very important for all of us to be aware of the information these scientists have worked so hard on to make it available to all of us.
Tine Comment left 10th December 2013 20:08:55
It is a disgrace to humanity if research that may help people make informed choices about the food they eat is censored!!!
Stephen Whiting Comment left 13th December 2013 09:09:02
Same old, and the response has to be the same as well. We need not only to support and promote independent research but also shine a light on research commissioned by vested interests. We need to join together, stand up and speak out against corporate control of the very stuff of life.
Ole Tellefsen Comment left 15th December 2013 10:10:32
Isn't it peculiar that this historically unprecedented illegality of scientific traditions happens exactly when the US-EU Free trade agreement is under development?
Agnes Mills Comment left 6th February 2014 06:06:24
No more GMO.
John Sleeman Comment left 16th April 2014 12:12:08
Science is one the legs of our civilisation which will most likely stand or fall by its understanding of nature (Gaia). If there is not even truth and integrity in science then there is little hope that we will resolve the many challenges that we face right now. We will be too busy lying to each other to come up with real effect solutions. Just as well we are more than just a physical body.
Stefan Thiesen Comment left 22nd April 2014 14:02:30
I read the Seralini paper and found absolutely nothing wrong with it, methodologically, and the conclusions appear consistent (mind you, I'm a physical scientists and not an expert in the field, although I took microbiology and molecular biology courses. The real problem is that especially in the field of molecular biology the scientific expertise by now largely exists within the protected sphere of corporate "commercial secrets" and patents, and the vested interests of the involved corporations contradict science (scientia = knowledge, i.e. "truth seeking"). Science is dead the moment it looses it independence, the moment it is enslaved by dictated by corporations. That's why we have to fiercely protect the remaining independent public research capacities in any nations. Universities should live up to their name!
Stefan Thiesen Comment left 24th April 2014 08:08:58
I have been thinking for decades that "Monsanto" stands for "Money Saint", fully embracing the holy religion of money, going after our food.chain to turn it into profit, no matter what the (fully externalized)cost. But I'm afraid the problem also largely lies within science and among scientists: Companies like Monsanto and their ilk couldn't and wouldn't exist without scientists prostituting their brains. I maintain that if we do a full systems analysis of mankind's problems at large it all comes down to the ill directed incentives driven by deep design flaws of our economic system. And no matter what we do: as long as these deep design flaws (i.e. fiat money, compound interest, fractional reserve banking, forced perpetual growth etc.) are not addressed, nothing will fundamentally change and all well meant activism is little more than placebos.