by the Institute of Science in Society
Original Title: Retracting Séralini Study Violates Science and Ethics

Giles-Eric Séralini, a professor of molecular biology at Caen University, led a toxicological study on GM maize and Roundup herbicide involving 200 rats over a period of two years; it found an alarming increase in early death, large tumours including cancers, and diseases of the liver and kidney. The study, published in 2012 by the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) [1], was by no means the first, nor the only one to show adverse health impacts from GM feed or Roundup herbicide (see [2] GM Cancer Warning Can No Longer Be Ignored, SiS 56; and ISIS report [3] Ban GMOs Now for a comprehensive review on the health and environmental hazards of GMOs). It was the latest warning – perhaps the most dramatic – and the most in-depth long-term toxicological study ever done. Significantly, many of the most damaging effects came after 90 days, the officially mandated period of feeding trials for regulatory approval of GMOs.

What followed was a concerted worldwide campaign to discredit the findings, including the appointment of ex-Monsanto scientist Richard Goodman to the newly created post of associate editor for biotechnology at FCT [4]. Soon after Goodman’s appointment, a study by researchers in Brazil also finding potentially harmful effects from GMOs was withdrawn from FCT, but reappeared almost immediately in another journal.

On 27 November 2013, FCT editor Wallace Hayes wrote to Séralini’s team requesting them to retract their paper published just over a year ago on grounds that it was “inconclusive”, not because there was fraud or errors [5]. In fact, the paper was published after peer review by 5 referees – the usual number being 2 or 3 – and the criticisms post-publication answered in full by the team, and appeared in the same journal [6].

The substantive criticisms boil down to two: the Sprague-Dawley strain of laboratory rats used is inappropriate, as it is prone to cancer, and the number of animals for testing cancer is too small. In fact, the study was explicitly aimed not at cancer but at toxicity, for which Sprague-Dawley is the strain most commonly used; and the number of animals, 10 in each group, was in accordance with the OECD guidelines.

The reason the OECD protocol specifies larger groups for cancer testing than for toxicity is that cancer is less common and takes longer to become apparent and is therefore more likely to be missed, i.e. the aim is to avoid a false negative. The fact that excess tumours and cancer was detected even in 10 animals is arguably all the more significant, and may be due to the strong carcinogenic potential of the agents tested (see [7] Excess Cancers and Deaths with GM Feed: the Stats Stand Up, SiS 56). Even though the study was not designed to test for cancer, it would have been totally irresponsible for Séralini and his group not to report what they had found. Equally it is important for the article to remain in the public record for its implications on public health.

As Séralini’s team pointed out, the retraction of their paper is a violation of the international ethical norms as prescribed by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) accepted by FCT, as it had been most thoroughly reviewed, and by the clear admission of the FCT editor, absolutely no fraud or error was perpetrated [5]. In contrast, a study published by Monsanto in the same journal in 2004 does contain errors if not outright fraud, basically because the effect of GMOs was not compared with matched isogenic non-GMO controls, while the feed for controls was most likely contaminated with GMOs. That paper should be considered for retraction, but the issue was never even raised.

A day later, a press release was put out by a PR company entitled, “Elsevier announces article retraction from journal Food and Chemical Toxicology” [8], making it clear that the decision came from the highest level, the publishing giant that describes itself as “a global company employing more than 7,000 people in 24 countries,” and “partner with a global community of 7,000 journal editors” [9].

Elsevier is already notorious for having published 6 fake journals sponsored by unnamed pharmaceutical companies made to look like peer reviewed medical journals [10]. It is also the target of a still current boycott initiated by eminent mathematician, Sir Tim Gowers FRS, as a protest by academics against the business practices of Elsevier, especially the high prices it charges for journals and books [11]. So far, 13 974 people from all subjects have signed and pledged they will not publish, referee, or do editorial work with Elsevier [12].

Séralini’s team is standing firm against the retraction, and would resort to legal measures against the journal to protect their rights [5].

The journal and its publisher are operating a double standard in retracting a paper reporting adverse health impacts for which no fraud or error was found, as opposed to one claiming no health impacts where serious error at least is involved. This is not just a blatant violation of publishing ethics, it means conspiring to remove from the public record results that could be of great importance for public health. Furthermore, it is an abuse of science and amounts to corporate terrorism on independent science and scientists. It strikes at the very heart of science and democracy, and the aspiration of scientists to work for the public good.

That is why a group of scientists have drafted an open letter requesting a reversal of the retraction and a fulsome public apology to the authors. Until this is done, we will boycott Elsevier, decline to purchase Elsevier products, submit papers for publication, review papers or do editorial work for Elsevier [13] Open Letter on Retraction & Pledge to Boycott Elsevier. The letter is open for signing by both scientists and non-scientists. Please sign on and forward as widely as possible.

Sources

1. Séralini G-E, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois J-S. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology published online September 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005

2. Saunders PT and Ho MW. GM cancer warning can no longer be ignored. Science in Society 56, 2-4, 2012.

3. Ho MW and Sirinathsinghji E. Ban GMOs Now, ISIS, 2013, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Ban_GMOs_Now_-_Special_ISIS_Report.php

4. “Journal retraction of Seralini study is illicit, unscientific, and unethical”. Claire Robinson, GMWatch, 27 November 2013,

5. “FCT requests the retraction of Prof Seralini’study”, Frédérique Baudouin, CRIIGEN, 29 November 2013,

6. Séralini G-E, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois J-S. Answers to critics: why there is a long term toxicity due to NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modi?ed maize and to a Roundup herbicide. Food and Chem. Tox. 2013, 53, 461-8.

7. Saunders PT. Excess cancers and death, the stats stand up. Science in Society 56, 4-5, 2013.

8. “Elsevier announces article retraction from journal Food and Chemical Toxicology”, PRNewswire, 28 November 2013,

9. At a glance. Elsevier, accessed 2 December 2013, http://www.elsevier.com/about/at-a-glance

10. “Elsevier published 6 fake journals”, Bob Grant, TheScientist, 7 May 2009,

11. “Elsevier boycott gathers pace”, John Whitfield, Nature news, 9 February 2012,

12. The cost of knowledge, 13970 researchers taking a stand, accessed 2 December 2013, http://thecostofknowledge.com/

13. Open letter on retraction & pledge to boycott Elsevier. Science in Society 61 (to appear).

Tagged elsevier retracts gmo study, elsevier retracts séralini study, genetic engineering, glyphosate, glyphosate study retracted, gmo, gmo study retracted, pseudo-science, publisher retracts glyphosate study, publisher retracts gmo study, publisher retracts roundup study, roundup, roundup study retracted, science, séralini, séralini study, séralini study retracted

Print

Genetically modified organisms are a terrifying development when we know they exist, but there’s a new system of creating GMOs that’s getting a complete pass. By fiat, our governments are allowing a process that produces genetically modified ‘foods’ for sale with absolutely no oversight. They can be called natural, or simply not labeled. Nothing, absolutely nothing, interferes with their introduction into the food supply.

by Heidi Stevenson

Genetic engineering means changing the genetic material of a living plant, fungus, or animal. What we’ve been fighting is merely one type, recombinant DNA, in which the gene from one species is transplanted into another. But it isn’t the only way to change genes. Another technique has been developed and patented, technically called oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis (ODM), but branded Rapid Transit Development System (RTDS) by Cibus, of San Diego, California.

A type of rapeseed has already been developed using this technique. The UK’s Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), a part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), reviewed this product back in 2011 and concluded:

ACRE considers that herbicide tolerant (HT) oilseed rape plants produced by Cibus LLC have been developed using a form of mutagenesis. It considers that this technique does not involve the use of recombinant nucleic acid molecules. Consequently, the HT oilseed rape plants could be excluded from the GMO Deliberate Release legislation in accordance with Annex 1B of Directive 2001/18/EC.

In other words, an organism that’s been genetically mutated by ODM/RTDS is not being treated by the government as a genetically modified organism! This technique is sliding around the concerns of genetically engineered plants and animals by using a technique different from recombinant DNA.

New Zealand has taken an equivalent stance. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) told Cibus back in 2004 that they could go ahead with no need to go through an approval process and absolutely no oversight!

Cibus has filed for patents from the EU on several crops, including:

• Glyphosate-tolerant crops, including corn, wheat, rice, barley, soybean, cotton, sugarbeet, oilseed rape, canola, flax, sunflower, potato, tobacco, tomato, alfalfa, poplar, pine, eucalyptus, apple, lettuce, peas, lentils, grape, turf grasses and Brassica species (broccoli, Brussels sprouts, etc.).
• Sulfonylurea herbicide-tolerant canola/rapeseed.

These crops are being sold as natural! They are even claiming that these genetically engineered crops were developed using a technique that’s been in use since World War II, which is obviously untrue.

What Is Oligonucleotide-Directed Mutagenesis?

First, let’s define some terms:

• Nucleotide: The basic structural unit of DNA.
• Oligonucleotide: A molecule that contains a small group of nucleotides. Therefore, an oligonucleotide is a small string of the units that make up DNA.
• Mutagenesis: Something that can cause a mutation.

ODM involves the use of synthetic oligonucleotides. They call this molecule a Gene Repair Oligonucleotide (GRON). It contains the desired genetic change, which consists of a single nucleotide. This chain of nucleotides is inserted into the DNA of an organism. However, it’s done in such a way that the organism sees an error. So, the organism’s own DNA repair system is enlisted to fix the error. In that error-repairing process, the genetic change is affixed into the organism’s DNA.

How does this actually happen? In fact, no one knows! The technique works, but the Senior Vice President of Cibus, Peter Beetham, has admitted that the means by which the repair occurs is “elusive”. The Institute of Science in Society tells us:

Mismatch repair is ordinarily used by the cell following mistakes in DNA replication or recombination as well as in DNA damage. It relies on enzymes that recognise the mismatch by comparing the strand to a template strand’s homologous region … after which the DNA mismatched sequence is cleaved out, the correct bases synthesised and the DNA re-ligated back together. This is a highly complex process essential to the integrity of the DNA and the cell. However, this remains a speculation, and others have suggested that homologous recombination, transcription as well as DNA replication processes are involved.

So, this absolutely critical process is, essentially, a mystery. Whether it could create serious damage to DNA is unknown. Whether it might affect other parts of the DNA is unknown. Whether it has the potential of causing changes that might prove harmful to anyone who eats the resultant produce is unknown! In other words, the only thing that’s known about this process is that the desired change is made in a species. Whether other changes are made or that change might prove harmful in some as-yet unknown way is unknown.

Yet, our governing agencies have seen fit to not only rubber stamp the ODM process, but to give it a complete pass. Cibus is allowed to sell obviously genetically engineered products as “natural”. They are not required to submit to any oversight of any sort. They can churn out stuff with no labeling of any sort and leave the public entirely in the dark about the fact that they are, indeed, eating genetically engineered foods that haven’t even undergone the pathetically limited oversight of governmental agencies for GMOs produced by Monsanto and other corporations.

You thought that Monsanto was scary? Welcome to Cibus, Monsanto on steroids!

Sources:

• Beware the Changing Face of Genetic Modification; Institute of Science in Society.
• What Is RTDS?; Cibus.
• Rapid Trait Development System in Plants; Cibus.
• Site-directed mutagenesis; Biochemistry Journal; P Carter. PMCID: PMC1146940.

Tagged agribusiness, agribusiness gmo, cibus, genetic engineering, genetic modification, genetically modified foods, gmo, monsanto on steroids, mutagenesis, oilseed rape cibus, oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis, Rapid Transit Development System

by Heidi Stevenson

Until the advent of Agribusiness, the single most important factor in farming was soil quality. To that end, any farmer worth his keep made improving the soil one of the priority tasks. Crops were rotated. Soil was amended with compost made from organic wastes, like dead plants, urine and feces from all possible sources. Soil was protected from blowing away. It was treated like the precious resource that it is.

Now, though, Agribusiness treats soil as if it’s nothing more than an anchor for plant roots, almost like a nuisance. Poisoning it with their chemicals is of no concern. Leaching it of nutrients without replacement is not their problem. After all, they can get everything they need from mining operations. The requirements of plants are reduced—in the profits-oriented Agribiz mindset—to a few basic needs, which are usually defined as nitrogen – N on the periodic table, potassium – K on the periodic table, and phosphorus – P on the periodic table. Look at nearly any fertilizer label and that’s what you’ll see: the relative amounts of N, K, and P.

This approach can only come to a bad end—an end that’s now staring the industry in the face as its sources of phosphorus, once freely available from well-cared-for soil, now comes from mining operations. That’s right. Two of the primary constituents of all life on earth, phosphorus and potassium, are now brought to us through raping the earth. The problem is that reserves are playing out.

We’ll focus on phosphorus, because it’s the one that’s closer to disappearing. There’s only so much stored away in rocks, and modern food is becoming threatened. Plants cannot grow without phosphorus … and Agribusiness has tossed natural phosphorus away by refusing to recycle and allowing our birthright of soil to be tossed to the winds and swept away by water.

Obviously, the modern way is failing. We must return to old ways of food production. The myth of economies of scale, which we’re told can bring more and more better and better stuff, is coming to an end, an end that’s been denied, but must be faced. We cannot continue to rape the earth, to pull resources that had been given up slowly but are now torn from the earth’s body with no regard for the devastaton left behind. Look at the photo above. It’s a phosphorus mine, which exists primarily to support Agribusiness. It’s a monument to Agribusiness greed, a great scar in the earth that screams of insustainability.

Phosphorus is part of every cell in your body. Because of Agribusiness’s profligacy, we’re running out of an element that’s necessary for life. As proof of that profligacy, we need only take a look at the waste from factory farm operations. They create dead zones in rivers, and even oceans, because of the massive amount of phosphorus that is not used, but instead is washed off into waterways, causing massive algae blooms that rob the water of oxygen, leaving nothing for fish to breath.

Death brought to you by Agribusiness.

It’s almost humorous. As Agribusiness slowly starves us of micronutrients by delivering food divorced from the cycle of soil building, it’s also threatening to create permanent and rapid starvation as it sucks up the earth’s reserves of phosphorus.

Will we ever learn that there’s no shortcut in food production? The appearance of cheap food is nothing but smoke and mirrors, an image that completely ignores the long term effects of low cost food. We’re already paying for it in our health and environmental devastation. As reserves of phosphorus run out, with estimates running at peak phosphorus happening by 2050, at the latest, then one of the primary building blocks of all life will be unavailable to more and more people.

The simple fact is that we’re living on borrowed time. Until we realize that the piper must ultimately be paid, we’re behaving like the good citizens of Hamlin, who let their children be taken away because their greed wouldn’t allow them to pay the piper.

Sources:

• You Need Phosphorus to Live—and We’re Running Out
• Be persuasive. Be brave. Be arrested (if necessary)
• The Looming Soil Phosphorus Shortage
• Phosphorus: Essential to life—Are we running out?

Tagged agribusiness, agribusiness death, agribusiness destroys soil, agribusiness phosphorus, agribusiness profits, agribusiness soil, death brought to you by agribusiness, environment, mining for food, mining phosphorus, phosphorus disappearing, phosphorus required for life