Remember this study? It was the first published, peer-reviewed, long-term (2-year) animal study of GM corn:
Long Term Toxicity Of A Roundup Herbicide And A Roundup-Tolerant Genetically Modified Maize, Food and Chemical Toxicology (FTC), 19 September 2012.
“Rats fed on a diet containing NK603 – a seed variety made tolerant to dousings of Roundup – or given water containing Roundup at levels permitted in the United States died earlier than those on a standard diet.
The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumours, as well as severe liver and kidney damage.
The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group.”
The publisher was hounded by Monsanto and other biotechnology supporters to retract it. Pro-GM lobbyists criticized both the study and the FCT journal for publishing it. FCT initially stood by the study but succumbed to industry pressure and retracted it in November 2013.
The study has been republished:
Republished Study: Long-Term Toxicity Of A Roundup Herbicide And A Roundup-tolerant Genetically Modified Maize, Environmental Sciences Europe, 24 June 2014
This looks terrible for the original publisher, the one that retracted it. Its review board has lost credibility. The reason given for the retraction was that the study was “inconclusive” which, of course, is not grounds for retraction.
“Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. … Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology.”
The study underwent a third round of peer review before being republished, and:
The republished version contains extra material addressing criticisms of the original publication. The raw data underlying the study’s findings are also published – unlike the raw data for the industry studies that underlie regulatory approvals of Roundup, which are kept secret. However, the new paper presents the same results as before and the conclusions are unchanged.
Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist based in London:
“Few studies would survive such intensive scrutiny by fellow scientists. … If anyone still doubts the quality of this study, they should simply read the republished paper. The science speaks for itself. If even then they refuse to accept the results, they should launch their own research study on these two toxic products that have now been in the human food and animal feed chain for many years.”