“Food and Chemical Toxicology Review”, the typical peer-review publication which published the 2012 Seralini study, has now retracted it. The editor begged Seralini to voluntarily withdraw it, but he refused, since the study is valid and the retraction is being done for anti-scientific political reasons. The reasons given for the retraction are lies. The action is driven by Monsanto cadre Richard Goodman, who joined FCT’s editorial board early in 2013 when the publication was under tremendous pressure from Monsanto and was desperate to placate the aggressive corporation. We now see the result – the publication’s scientific history is being rewritten from within. Actual science, which always produces results which question GMO corporate orthodoxy, must be suppressed, while this corporate ideological orthodoxy must then be substituted for it and masquerade as “science”.
The 2012 Seralini study was a landmark in scientific history. Although in itself it was a preliminary study and a contribution to future science, it was nevertheless the first scientific toxicology study ever performed upon a GMO, Monsanto’s NK603 Roundup ready maize.
The study was designed to extend scientific examination beyond the results of the cartel’s own feeding trials, which themselves weren’t toxicology studies and were in fact rigged to suppress toxicity effects, but which nevertheless found evidence of toxicity. Seralini had gone to court to get Monsanto’s raw data on these feeding trials. In 2009 he published a review of the Monsanto tests and called for a full-length two year study. His team then performed this full-length study and published the results in 2012.
*It was the first safety study which was performed over the full life cycle of the animal subjects, two years for rats, rather than the 90 day industry standard which is calibrated to test how the food affects animals being raised for slaughter, but not for humans eating it over their full life span. The 90 day length is meant to prevent evidence of long-run toxicity from manifesting.
*The study design also eliminated the bogus “historical” data groups which were fed various kinds of uncontrolled diets and kept under uncontrolled conditions. This fraudulent methodology, standard in industry tests, is meant to generate noise in order to drown out any toxicology signal which does arise. The Seralini study isolated the GMO, the herbicide, and the non-GM maize equivalent. It carefully controlled for other variables to eliminate this noise.
In these two ways the study was similar to but vastly superior to all the industry studies which were previously accepted at face value by regulators like the European Food Safety Agency. When I say “similar but superior”, I mean that Seralini did exactly what a real scientist is supposed to do. He saw what he considered poorly designed studies. In this case, the Monsanto studies were too short, used the bogus “historical” groups, and didn’t test for enough toxicity parameters. So he designed his study to be the same as Monsanto’s, but changing only the flawed elements. His goal was to produce a study which was basically the same as the ones the EFSA had accepted as “proving” NK603’s safety for human consumption, but done with vastly superior methodology, and see what the results would be.
This disposes of the most common “criticisms” of the study, namely the type of rat used and the number of rats used. The type was identical to the type Monsanto used, and the number was similar to the numbers used in the various Monsanto trials. FCT itself, although initially commenting on the number of rats used for the study, agreed to publish anyway on the ground of the study’s “merit”. It could hardly do otherwise, since the group sizes were similar to those in the Monsanto studies FCT had previously published.
The basic rule for assessing this study, if you know nothing else about it: It’s the same as Monsanto’s own studies, except that it improves upon several methodological flaws. There’s no criticism one can make of the Seralini study which wouldn’t apply at least as much to the Monsanto studies. If this study should be retracted, so should those. If the Monsanto studies were sufficient to approve NK603 for importation in food (as the EFSA judged), then this study gives even stronger reason to revisit that judgement.
The study found a strong link between organ toxicity and Roundup, as well as the GMO itself without Roundup. It also found evidence linking these to cancer, although the study wasn’t designed as a carcinogenicity study and therefore didn’t claim to have proven this. In the cases of both toxicity and cancer, Seralini team called for more study.
(The study also confirmed the results of the cartel’s own feeding trials, which as I said above weren’t toxicology studies and were rigged against such study, but which still found evidence of toxicity.)
How did the so-called “scientific” establishment react to this scientific advance? With a campaign of outright demonization. The fraudulent attacks which quickly became standard were being launched before the study was even published. It’s clear that no one ever had any scientific objection to the study, but purely political and ideological ones. There were no independent critics. The attacks all came from the GMO establishment and were often laundered through pro-Monsanto government bodies and the corporate media.
FCT was pressured to retract the study, but refused. At this point the cartel shifted its pressure on the publication. They now accused it of being biased against GMOs. To prove its lack of bias, it was forced to accept Monsanto’s man onto its editorial roster. The truth is, of course, the exact opposite. FCT was demonstrating its lack of bias either way, and was serving science. It was then forced to accept Goodman so that it could be subject to Gleichschaltung, attaining the ideologically correct pro-Monsanto bias, from within.
FCT’s cowardly action now demonstrates how well this corporate coordination process has worked. You can look at their excuse for the retraction and see that it’s nothing but a retread of the same tired lies which attacked the study from day one. If FCT refused to retract on these grounds in 2012, why is it doing so now? Because it was taken over from within, following the injection of a Monsanto cadre. There’s no other explanation.
Seralini is being penalized for his services to science and humanity. He even tried to perform a service for the EFSA, demonstrating to it how bogus its previous approval process had been, and offering a way for it to correct itself. As you might imagine, the EFSA was ungrateful and tried to respond with a laughable dismissal of the study. But no one could fail to see the fact that the EFSA itself had approved NK603 based on data which was similar but far less comprehensive. Ironically, after coming under great public and scientific pressure, the EFSA implicitly admitted it hadn’t done sufficient study and announced it was commissioning a two-year feeding study. The French government made a similar announcement. If these two studies are actually done and are scientifically performed, they’ll be the very first times ANY government body has ever commissioned a safety study of ANY GMO. These studies are being talked about at all only because of the Seralini study. So if these studies go forward, then Seralini will have accomplished one of his proclaimed goals, to foster more study.
This, of course, is the goal of any true scientist. We see the exact opposite from all pro-GMO technicians and credentialed types. These all do their best to suppress study and deny the need for study. Their slogan runs, “the debate is over”, as one of their leading spokesmen put it, and as they constantly echo.
We can see right there who stands for science, and who is a vicious enemy of science.
But Seralini has accomplished more than just this. His study was a landmark in the evolution of public consciousness about the health dangers of GMOs, as well as adding to the overwhelming evidence which has long since proven that glyphosate/Roundup is highly toxic to humans and causes human cancer.
The Seralini study itself helps build the public consciousness of GMO health hazards. The smear campaign it’s been subject to, and now its official suppression, will help build the political consciousness that humanity cannot co-exist with GMOs, and that nothing short of the total abolition of GMOs will suffice for us. We see what liars the pro-GMO cadres are, their moral vileness, their infinite contempt for human health and freedom, their totalitarian intent, and the fact that they’ll never stop until they achieve total domination, or until humanity stops them once and for all.
More immediately, we see how the “scientific” review process is increasingly a fraud, how “peer-review” is more and more dictated by corporate imperatives, and how we the people cannot trust any element of the system to do anything but seek our harm and indenture. Bigger picture, we see how science is a battleground, where the majority of credentialed personnel are anti-science obscurantists, fighting on the side of corporate power against scientific truth, against scientific transparency, against the bedrock ideas of science and reason as such.