Barb’s note: More manipulation of science by the king of deception, Monsanto. Anything that hints at a problem with GMO technology appears to be undergoing a deletion from the journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology. How can anything this journal publishes be considered valid at this point?

Seralini-tumour-rat-Food-and-Chemical-toxicology-710pxGM Watch

Points made by Dr E Ann Clark in a Canadian radio interview about the retraction of two papers suggesting potential harm from GM crops.

Dr Clark was formerly an Associate Professor in Plant Agriculture at the University of Guelph where her specific interests included the risk assessment of genetically modified crops.

Clark Comments for Calgary Today, 29 Nov 2013

1.  The issue is the retraction of papers suggesting potential harm to rats from GM crops.

2.  I am a crop physiologist by training, so the content and methodology of the retracted papers – dealing with mammalian physiology, histopathology, and blood chemistry – are out of my area of expertise.  Thus, I will comment solely on the issue of retraction of two papers by the refereed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.  Both papers, one by Gilles-Eric Seralini and colleagues in France and a second by Mezzomo and colleagues in Brazil, dealt with GM corn – the first with RR corn and Roundup itself, and the second with several types of Bt [toxin].

3.  Both papers were submitted and went through the conventional process of peer review before being accepted and published in 2012.  The Seralini paper was reviewed by 5 scientists, unlike the more typical 2 or 3 scientific reviewers.

4.  Early in 2013 – after the two papers had been accepted and published – a wholly new position – deputy editor in biotechnology – was created at the FCT journal and filled by an allergy specialist from the University of Nebraska – Richard E. Goodman.  As it happened, this specialist had worked for Monsanto in Regulatory Sciences from 1997 until July, 2004.

5.  Within months of Dr. Goodman’s arrival at FCT, two papers which identified possible concerns with GM corn were retracted.  Reasons for retraction are unknown for the Brazilian paper – which has since been published in another journal.  READ MORE...

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “Orwellian airbrushing of scientific record”

  1. Kev C says:

    Funny you should say that but yes it does sound oxymoronic. :-)
    Bags I get the scan results of our UK government. Would be useful to know who to have sectioned first. :-)

  2. Abe says:

    Seralini, LaPage, and the rest of them have over night made me switch from a Francophobic to a Francophile!
    VIVA LaFrance!!

    Doesn’t the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology sound a little oxymoronic to anyone else besides me??

    BTW, I think an MRI should be mandatory so we can see how many dead spots are in some of these clowns heads!! Seems to me most of these cerebral leprachauns, that tell us what to believe, are full of them!!

  3. Kev C says:

    Why is 2+2= to 5?
    Because I said so!

  4. Kev C says:

    2+2=5…….Got it?
    2+2=5…….Got it?
    2+2=5…….Still not got it? Bang!
    Ad infinitum!