Finally a defense of Seralini's Gm Food study to set the record straight.
As many people concerned about GM seeds, crops and foods are aware, Seralini, a French scientist at the Univ of Cannes, was able to do a lengthy study that did several things no prior study on Gm foods had done - it involved feeding rats Gm food, and then waiting to determine the results of the Gm food on the animals' health. A much longer time frame was used than the ones employed by Monsanto to let us know that Gm foods are safe. Rather than just feeding the rats and waiting a few weeks to see how many rats lived vs died, died, this study actually allowed the animals to stay alive for months of study. At the end of the research period, it was found that the organs inside the rats were disintegrating or else filled with tumors.
Of course the implications of this were profound.
Now remember that Seralini himself did not say that this was the study to end all studies He knew this was a preliminary study but he also realized that his findings might offer encouragement to other scientists who are doubting that Gm foods ar e safe. Those scientists could design studies to examine similar situations.
http://www.gmoseralini.org/the-dirty-details-behind-the-attacks-on-seralinis-notorious-gmo-rat-study/
From the article:
(regarding the 24/7 Main$ream Media coverage of the "failure of Seralini's study) This publicized display was the air and sea attack to soften the defense of the anti-GMO ideology island. Then the actual landing attack against that island’s science was embarked by setting up former Monsanto scientist Richard E. Goodman in a newly created biotech editorial position at the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT).
That’s the journal where Seralini’s study “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize” had been originally peer reviewed and posted. With Goodman steering the landing craft, the editor-in-chief of FCT, Wallace Hayes, removed Seralini’s paper from the journal.
Hayes admitted the study was not fraudulent or inaccurate, but explained that it was inconclusive. Honest defending scientists jumped on that one, explaining that peer reviewed published studies are often inconclusive, recommending “further studies”.
Debunking GMO Scientists’ Criticisms as Liberally Reported by the MSM
** Wrong rats used: They were the same rats Monsanto had used in a 90 day trial. The Sprague-Dawley (SD) strain has a life expectancy of 24 to 36 months. Just right for a two year study that’s intended to replicate the life span of a human.
** SD Rats Tend to Have Spontaneous Tumors: True, around 30% of SD rats get cancer symptoms without test induced provocations. Again, this mimics human statistics on cancer. More SD rats fed well under maximum regulatory amounts of Roundup along with the Roundup Ready corn developed tumors than the control rats within four to seven months of the study. The exposed rats also died earlier than the non-exposed control rats.
** Too few Rats: The short Monsanto study used 20 rats for each group. But, they only checked urine and serum samples of 10 in each group. The Seralini study used 10 for each grouping, but they tested urine and serum samples from all 10.
** Insufficient Amount of Rats for Proving Carcinogenicity: The title of the study tells us that proving carcinogenicity was not Seralini’s intent, it was a long term toxicity study. Tumors were incidental, but are required to be reported without drawing conclusions in toxicity studies. Seralini reported without conclusions about cancer. The rats who were exposed showed signs of liver, kidney, and pancreatic damage.
= new reply since forum marked as read
