Séralini study retracted by applying unethical subjective industry double standards.

The unprecedented forced retraction of the Séralini et al’ study by Elseviere, the publisher of the and journal has caused considerable global condemnation in the Scientific community.

Séralini et al’s study documented the negative of ’s GM and fed to rats over a long term period and caused an alarming global reaction when first published.

The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility condemned the retraction of the study.

A new peer reviewed study authored by Hartmut Meyer has pointed out the unethical and subjective double standards applied to forcing the retraction of the Séralini et al., paper.  “Use of such double standards is a common response from scientists calling for GMO deregulation and, somewhat surprisingly, also from some government authorities, to studies that show negative environmental and of GMOs. Only those studies that find problems are subjected to excessive scrutiny and rejected as defective. This approach appears to be a tactic to avoid dealing with ‘inconvenient’ results, whilst selecting for ‘convenient’ results,” Meyer said.

The peer review study can be viewed in its entirety here:  http://www.enveurope.com/content/25/1/33

Be Sociable, Share!

    Staff

    Writers for the Food Exposed blog

    One thought on “Séralini study retracted by applying unethical subjective industry double standards.

    • December 27, 2013 at 6:17 pm
      Permalink

      The Seralini paper was retracted for very good reasons that were not set out by the editors to protect the good name of the authors, and also the editors’ own since the paper should never have been published in the first instance.

      Simply consider the photos of the rats with enormous tumours: patently unethical; totally unscientific since the photos do not add anything to the understanding of the paper’s content; and absolutely unacceptable since their purpose was to stage a worldwide media campaign.

      Meyer and Hilbeck write: “The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluated the study as defective based on conceptual and methodological shortcomings by retroactive application of the recommendations of its recent guidance on 90-day feeding studies.” Read carefully! EFSA would have retroactively applied something that surely was not known when it was supposedly applied… Hilarious.

      They also write: “Our comparative analysis of the three relevant NK603 publications, including a 90-day feeding study of Monsanto, showed that all of them satisfy or fail to satisfy the EFSA evaluation criteria to a comparable extent; the rejection of only one of the papers is, thus, not scientifically justified.” Read carefully! Have the authors realized that EFSA was only requested to assess the Seralini paper?

      Reply

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *