Dubious anti-GMO article withdrawn; victory for proper science.

In September of last year the minor academic journal Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper by Gilles-Eric Séralini (and others) allegedly showing health problems in rats fed corn which had been genetically modified to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup. They also, allegedly, found similar health problems in rats fed the herbicide along along with non-GM feed. The rodents experienced hormone imbalances, along with earlier, more frequent and more severe mammary tumors, compared to rats fed a non-GM diet. The authors claimed that the GM- or pesticide-fed rats also died earlier.



The paper was, and is, often cited by anti-GMO activists (including here) despite not standing up well to scrutiny (link, link). It was assessed and found wanting by governmental agencies, such as the European Food Safety Authority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EFSA The numerous issues relating to the design and methodology of the study as described in the paper mean that no conclusions can be made about the occurrence of tumours in the rats tested. Therefore, based on the information published by the authors, EFSA does not see a need to re-examine its previous safety evaluation of maize NK603 nor to consider these findings in the ongoing assessment of glyphosate.

Of course mere facts rarely stop those with an ideological agenda.......



However the journal in question has now formally retracted the paper, though not accusing Séralini and co of actual fraud.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FCT Editor The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracts the article “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,” which was published in this journal in November 2012. This retraction comes after a thorough and time-consuming analysis of the published article and the data it reports, along with an investigation into the peer-review behind the article. The Editor in-Chief deferred making any public statements regarding this article until this investigation was complete, and the authors were notified of the findings. Very shortly after the publication of this article, the journal received Letters to the Editor expressing concerns about the validity of the findings it described, the proper use of animals, and even allegations of fraud. Many of these letters called upon the editors of the journal to retract the paper. According to the journal’s standard practice, these letters, as well as the letters in support of the findings, were published along with a response from the authors. Due to the nature of the concerns raised about this paper, the Editor-in-Chief examined all aspects of the peer review process and requested permission from the corresponding author to review the raw data. The request to view raw data is not often made; however, it is in accordance with the journal’s policy that authors of submitted manuscripts must be willing to provide the original data if so requested. The corresponding author agreed and supplied all material that was requested by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief wishes to acknowledge the co-operation of the corresponding author in this matter, and commends him for his commitment to the scientific process. Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. However, there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected. The low number of animals had been identified as a cause for concern during the initial review process, but the peer review decision ultimately weighed that the work still had merit despite this limitation. A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups. Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology. The peer review process is not perfect, but it does work. The journal is committed to getting the peer-review process right, and at times, expediency might be sacrificed for being as thorough as possible. The time-consuming nature is, at times, required in fairness to both the authors and readers. Likewise, the Letters to the Editor, both pro and con, serve as a post-publication peer-review. The back and forth between the readers and the author has a useful and valuable place in our scientific dialog.

The anti-GMO fringe has received this decision with the calm rationality they're known for; accusations of undue and inappropraite influence from the GMO industry, hysterial rants describing the decision as "illicit, unscientific, and unethical" and imputations of "irregularities" within the process.

via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=269477&goto=newpost