Roundup-Ready GMO Maize Causes Serious Health Damage

[Judi Lynn]

Last edited Sat Jun 28, 2014, 04:44 AM - Edit history (1)

June 25, 2014
Seralini Redux

Roundup-Ready GMO Maize Causes Serious Health Damage
by OLIVER TICKELL

A highly controversial paper by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini and colleagues has been republished after a stringent peer review process.

The chronic toxicity study examines the health impacts on rats of eating a commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize, Monsanto’s NK603 glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup.

The original study, published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) in September 2012, found severe liver and kidney damage and hormonal disturbances in rats fed the GM maize and low levels of Roundup that are below those permitted in drinking water in the EU.

However it was retracted by the editor-in-chief of the Journal in November 2013 after asustained campaign of criticism and defamation by pro-GMO scientists.

Toxic effects were found from the GM maize tested alone, as well as from Roundup tested alone and together with the maize. Additional unexpected findings were higher rates of large tumours and mortality in most treatment groups.

Criticisms addressed in the new version

Now the study has been republished by Environmental Sciences Europe. The republished version contains extra material addressing criticisms of the original publication.

The raw data underlying the study’s findings are also published – unlike the raw data for the industry studies that underlie regulatory approvals of Roundup, which are kept secret. However, the new paper presents the same results as before and the conclusions are unchanged.

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/25/roundup-ready-gmo-maize-causes-serious-health-damage/

[bananas]

1. k&r nt

[cprise]

2. “We also show that the decision to retract cannot be rationalized on any discernible scientific or

ethical grounds."

They are calling the FCT retraction an act of censorship.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

3. This study was retracted because it was bullshit.

The author of the study then PAID a journal with almost no reputation to republish it.

It's still a bullshit study, and has been THOROUGHLY debunked.

But continue to be part of the anti-vax/anti-climate change crowd.

Edit to add:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-06-seralini-life.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/06/24/zombie-retracted-seralini-gmo-maize-rat-study-republished-to-hostile-scientist-reactions/
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/24/retracted-seralini-gmo-rat-study-republished/

[roody]

4. I didn't see anything about vax or

climate change in the OP.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

8. The "article" is a press release...

But those who deny the science and push with an agenda (the anti-GMO folk) are just like the anti-vaxxers and anti-climate change folk.

[Nihil]

11. Blah blah fucking blah

Smear, slander, libel ... anything to protect the mighty industry eh Mr "Musician"?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

12. Uhhmmm... It IS a press release...

That's not a smear. That's a fact.

I stand for science. You seem to stand for unsubstantiated bullshit. Have fun wading through it. Hope you brought some golf shoes.

[Nihil]

13. You don't stand for science at all. You stand for broad brush smears.

e.g.,

>> But continue to be part of the anti-vax/anti-climate change crowd.

and

>> just like the anti-vaxxers and anti-climate change folk.

i.e., no rebuttal, just bullshit.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

14. You're defending a press release

about an article in a pay to play science journal that has little to no respect...

And you ignored refutation from respected papers.

Have fun!



I'm out.

[Nihil]

15. I'm not defending anything. I am pointing out your hypocrisy, bias and slander.

You've been "out" for quite a while already.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

16. So...

I'm biased because I know the study is bullshit (and have sources to back it up), and it's slanderous to point out that a discredited scientist is discredited because...

I've added facts to this discussion. No one apparently read them. If you had, you wouldn't be slinging shit.

Oh, what's your definition of hypocrite? Because I haven't said a DAMNED thing that's hypocritical.

[Nihil]

17. See .13 (and read it this time).

> Oh, what's your definition of hypocrite? Because I haven't said a DAMNED thing that's hypocritical.

>> push with an agenda (the anti-GMO folk) are just like the anti-vaxxers and anti-climate change folk.

You are hypoctical because you behave with the same binary attitude that you accuse others of.

You dislike anti-GMO people so you immediately smear them as being the same as anti-climate change
and anti-vaccination people. That is not merely a broad brush smear, that is blatant bigotry that is
characteristic of very small-minded people - the opposite of a true scientist. (Hence the hypocrisy
when you exhibit the very behaviour that you are criticising.)

It is analogous to taking a perceived slight by an African American and expanding it to justify bigotry
against Latin Americans, Muslims, Nordics & Chinese "because they are all the same" - i.e., "Not Me".

I am not - and have not been - defending the article (or "press release&quot . I am highlighting your
attitude of fanatical "us vs them" anger in your posts and saying that it is both misplaced and
unnecessary - especially in a group dedicated to the common theme of environmental issues.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

18. But they are the same...

Science is on the side of GMO. Just like it's on the side of vaccines and climate change.

Science is NOT on the side of the anti-GMO folk. They have ONE discredited paper. Same with the anti-vaxxers. Same with anti-climate change (albeit, climate change may have more).

They claim that it's a corporate conspiracy that there is no science against GMOs. Same with anti-vaxxers. Same with anti-climate change...

Do you see where I'm going here? I'm not smearing anyone, I'm pointing out the obvious.

And you want environmental issues? Non-GMO food (or "organic" as it's falsely called) takes more energy to grow and harvest, then ship around the US than it's conventional counterpart. WAY more.

Let me put it another way:

If someone was on this site, posting anti-vaxxer or anti-climate change BS, they'd be ridiculed and laughed out of here. But it's ok to post anti-GMO, even though it's just as discredited? THAT is hypocrisy.

[FogerRox]

19. End user agrements are required by Pioneer, Monsanto & Syngenta

before you can have access to their GMO seeds for reseach.

Kinda precludes any independent research on GMO seeds/crops when the researcher cant publish in a reputable medical journal without permission from Pioneer, Monsanto & Syngenta. And possibly the reason Lancet hasnt published an unfaltering paper on GMOs since 1996.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

20. Unless you're a researcher at ANY US university...

http://grist.org/food/genetically-modified-seed-research-whats-locked-and-what-isnt/

excerpt:

"Monsanto has a blanket agreement allowing research at all universities in the United States. And actually, when Shields et al. made their complaint, Monsanto claimed it already had many of these agreements in place allowing independent research."

[Nihil]

21. Another excerpt from your own link:

> Scientists can’t work with seeds before they come on the market.
> That hampers (the) ability to make recommendations about which seeds
> work best under different conditions, or to test for unwanted effects.

Yeah ... sounds less like "proactive science applying the precautionary principle"
and more like "totally under the corporate thumb".



I'm not even going to go into the cess-pit of why it is only "any US university"
and why it is Europeans who have banned untested GMOs ...

[FogerRox]

22. Another excerpt from your link

Remember the study [PDF] that showed that Monarch butterflies might die if they ate too much insect-resistant GE corn pollen? That was technically an illegal study, he said.

[GliderGuider]

5. What an utterly transparent smear.

Almost a work of art.

But not quite.

[Tumbulu]

6. dream on, you shout for the losing crowd

it's over and your team knows it. Your handlers lied in the beginning and you keep on thinking that you can get away with it. Pay enough bribes, destroy enough careers of thoughtful scientists and you can keep on keeping on. Europeans did not fall for these falsifications. They knew their science a bit better than our elected officials.

But your industry made it's boatloads of money, polluting our soils, infecting our soil's microbe biome with untested genes. Got lots of money, caused irreparable harm, who knows if we will ever recover from this?

But in the end you have lost the potential to do real good with your technology because you were so greedy and dishonest about it in the beginning. You let the business people destroy the potential of what the scientists could have really done.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

7. My handlers?

My industry? Funny. I'm a musician. I just happen to have a grasp on science, and can discern truth from bullshit.

But, the fact remains that the whole study was bullshit and still is bullshit. But now, Seralini put money behind it to get it re-published. And the "story" you're reading is his press release.

You know what else Europeans did? They fell for the anti-vaxxer movement and banned some vaccines based on a discredited study.

You can easily click on the links I provided (from reputable sources), or you can believe what you want to believe (which, by the way, is 100% bullshit).

[Tumbulu]

9. Yes, dream on and keep posting this slanted drivel

it is all typical of the gmo squad here on DU and elsewhere.

Forget it, your time is up. Gig's over.

[Judi Lynn]

10. Hope your music talents are more refined than your communication skills. n/t

[HuckleB]

23. I would have thought you would not buy into already debunked propaganda.

The ethics of pushing this are just well, they're unethical.