NWR: Study on Genetically-modified Plants

I

Ian Fitzsimmons

Ian Fitzsimmons
Sorry to be such a derivative news transcriber this morning, but I thought this article would be of interest to folks here. Le Monde, embargoed and under confidentiality agreement until today, is hot off the press with the results of a recent study indicating significant health affects on rats, attributable to a diet of corn that was genetically-modified by Monsanto to withstand crop treatment with Round-Up, a Monsanto herbicide.

It's in French, but I imagine the same story will appear in the US press almost immediately. Should be a hot topic.
 
A study released to coincide with a book written by Serlini, done as a tag on to prior studies that were shown to have flawed expermental designs and illustrated with graphic pictures of rat tumors despite the fact the the statistically meaningful outcomes had nothing to do with the tumors.

So I guess the point being, Monsanto is evil, the impacts of excessive herbicide use in GMO corn have probably not been studied enough, and sure maybe the corn itself is problematic, but this guy has a pretty poor track record and its hard to believe anything until we read the underlying paper.

The back half of the Le Monde article is priceless BTW.
 
My French is not so good, but I'd translate

Et ce d'autant plus qu'elle est publiée dans une revue importante, ne publiant qu'après "une relecture par les pairs" (ou peer review)

as saying it was published only after a peer review.
 
originally posted by Jason D:
Well Nature seems to have printed a rather strong attack on the paper

Loading…

www.nature.com
Click to expand...
This reads like the usual mess when big money is involved: one body approved the use of the corn but won't release the data, so this guy gets a bunch of rats sick and goes on the offensive, yada yada.

The fact that no one will sit down with 200 rats and JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION is rather telling, don't you think?
 
The fact that no one will sit down with 200 rats and JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION is rather telling, don't you think?

Telling of what though. Its one thing if Monsanto rigged the protocol - they are interested in not proving the GMO corn is problematic, its another problem all together that these folks intentionally poorly constructed their protocol. They are trying to prove GMO is problematic. If the right rats was going to prove their point why wouldn't that have used them? Why wouldn't they have doubled the number or rats? Why would they send out press pictures showing off the tumors that the statistical data didn't show a causal relationship to the GMO corn?
 
originally posted by Jason D:
Telling of what though.
Click to expand...
You make my point: the groups involved are arguing over something other than science, otherwise, they would have done a better job in the lab. (The linked article was pretty darn clear about which rats and how many.)
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
I read it that way, too. Do you happen to know if his previous, apparently discredited work was also peer-reviewed?
Click to expand...
I'd mention that peer-review is a very human, fallible process. You would certainly rather see it than not in the random headlined study de jour, but it certainly is no promise of truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top