I quote from this article:
According to the article published December 5, 2013 in the Ecologist, This arbitrary, groundless retraction of a published, thoroughly peer-reviewed paper is without precedent in the history of scientific publishing, and raises grave concerns over the integrity and impartiality of science. These concerns are heightened by a sequence of events surrounding the retraction:
- the appointment of ex-Monsanto employee Richard Goodman to the newly created post of associate editor for biotechnology at FCT
- the retraction of another study finding potentially harmful effects from GMOs (which almost immediately appeared in another journal)
- the failure to retract a paper published by Monsanto scientists in the same journal in 2004, for which a gross error has been identified. [1]
End of quote.
Whilst the statistical significance of the conclusions of the work are not strong as a result of the study following a process specified by Monsanto itself, the results are a powerful indicator of the impact of GMO foods upon rats and hence an indicator that they are not exactly “substantially equivalent” to normal foods, as the FDA would have us believe. However, what is most interesting is that Monsanto have been caught red-handed in setting up the game to have the paper retracted. It is a perfect example of how Monsanto and others play these games, and the outcry might be a small chink in the usually impregnable onslaught by such organisations and those they represent. What interests me most is that most scientists will not protest for fear of threatening their own livelihood, though in my experience many science and other researchers don’t even see the hamster wheel they are inside of. So this outcry is a milestone in itself.
Recent Comments