Trending >

Anti-GMO founding father Mark Lynas says internet trolls changed his mind

He used to, with the help of some like-minded friends and the cover of night, destroy them.

Today, this celebrated environmentalist and founding father of the anti-GMO movement says he has changed his mind about genetically modified organisms, and is facing a mountain of backlash because of it.

The British author Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, was in Saskatoon Friday for the Canadian Science Writers Association conference and talked to the StarPhoenix about his about-face on GMOs. While scholarly papers defending GMOs are receiving more press these days, Lynas says the catalyst for his reversal was slightly more lowbrow: an internet troll.

“The moment was probably when I published my last anti-GMO piece in the Guardian newspaper in 2008 and I’d just won the Royal Society Science books prize for Six Degrees: Our future on a hotter planet,” he said. “I was enjoying being celebrated as a trusted scientific authority. And the comments under my anti-GMO article said, ‘This guy doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. He’s clearly not familiar with the science on the issue.’ That wounded me. So, I actually learned something from Internet comments. I realized that I had to shut up. Then I had to educate myself and start right back to basics.”


Lynas says when he dug deeper into the practicalities of feeding a world population that is projected to reach 9.6-billion by 2050, the idea of achieving that goal without technology seemed quaint and idealistic, something he blames on the blush of youth. The author says changing his mind has placed him squarely in the role of villain to the anti-GMO faithful.

“I knew at the time I didn’t believe it,” he explained. “I wrote it in an internet café. I thought: ‘God, I really need to have some sources for these things.”

“Obviously I’m demonized in their literature on the Internet. I recognize I’ve got that coming. It’s the penance I have to pay for what I’ve done in the past. I still respect people’s commitment on this issue, even if I think, ultimately, they’re damaging the interests of poorer people and environmental sustainability.”

Lynas’s reversal came early in 2013, in dramatic fashion. At the Oxford Farming Conference, he delivered a 50 minute speech that was met with what he describes as “shocked applause”.

“It was a complete demolition, not just of anti-GMO but of the whole organic thing,” Lynas told the Guardian. “For a lot of people, it was an ‘Oh fuck’ moment. They realised they’d been lied to, at a very profound level, by the very people they’d trusted.”

Lynas said the seeds of doubt about the movement had been planted in him more than a decade earlier.

“Everyone thought of themselves as being tolerant and open-minded,” he says. “But if you said something critical about them, you’d be in quite serious trouble.”

The American astrophysicist Neil de Grasse Tyson, who hosts the radio program turned TV show Star Talk, came face to face with this recently. He suggested that the anti-GMO crowd “chill out” and look at the science. He was met with predictable opposition.

“Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food,” said deGrasse Tyson. “There are no wild, seedless watermelons. There’s no wild cows…You list all the fruit, and all the vegetables, and ask yourself, is there a wild counterpart to this? If there is, it’s not as large, it’s not as sweet, it’s not as juicy, and it has way more seeds in it. We have systematically genetically modified all the foods, the vegetables and animals that we have eaten ever since we cultivated them. It’s called artificial selection.”

Lynas says that by the time he penned his last piece of what he called “GM Crap” he no longer believed what he was writing.

“I knew at the time I didn’t believe it,” he explained. “I wrote it in an internet café. I thought: ‘God, I really need to have some sources for these things.”

Mark Lynas and Monsanto

Since his reversal on GMOs, Lynas has gone full bore in the opposite direction. In fact, he recently penned a piece in support of Monsanto, whose popular herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) was the subject of what he called a “witch hunt” within the “natural” or “organic” communities, which repeatedly claimed Roundup was a carcinogen when none of the science actually backed that claim up.

“The glyphosate saga is a fascinating case study in how easily politics can derail science,” Lynas argued. ” In watching the glyphosate issue evolve I found myself gradually becoming more and more aghast at how quickly and thoughtlessly evidence-based policymaking was thrown away in European centers of power. I don’t want to over-hype it, but it felt a little like mob rule. You can still burn the witch in Europe if the witch is called Monsanto. Over glyphosate Monsanto was stitched up good and proper, as we say in England.”

Is the anti-GMO movement dead?

In the time since Lynas changed his mind about Genetically Modified Organisms it seems the world has a little bit too. Take this Google Trends graph of the popularity of the term. One can clearly see a spike in interest in the term prior to 2014, around the same Lynas abandoned the movement. Now it seems to be skidding back to the time when no one really Googled it.


Soon after the term “GMO” peaked in our vernacular,  William Saletan penned an oft-quoted piece for Slate, in which he basically took a torch to the movement.

“The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud,” Saletan argued. “Labeling them will not make you safer.”

Saletan agreed with Lynas that the anti-GMO movement was essentially a witch hunt with little science to back it. Instead, he said, ill-informed governments were quick to fashion laws to appease consumer anxiety that had no basis in fact.

“The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all declared that there’s no good evidence GMOs are unsafe,” he said. Hundreds of studies back up that conclusion. But many of us don’t trust these assurances. We’re drawn to skeptics who say that there’s more to the story, that some studies have found risks associated with GMOs, and that Monsanto is covering it up.”

Saletan said there is no logical reason to avoid GMO food.

“The central argument of the anti-GMO movement—that prudence and caution are reasons to avoid genetically engineered, or GE, food—is a sham,” he added. “Activists who tell you to play it safe around GMOs take no such care in evaluating the alternatives. They denounce proteins in GE crops as toxic, even as they defend drugs, pesticides, and non-GMO crops that are loaded with the same proteins. They portray genetic engineering as chaotic and unpredictable, even when studies indicate that other crop improvement methods, including those favored by the same activists, are more disruptive to plant genomes.”

Do genetically modified foods save lives?

It is interesting to see the switch in public dialogue about GMOs in the short time since Mark Lynas’s mea culpa. Today, you are as likely to see articles about the positive effects of GMOs on society. One such example is that of Golden Rice, which was created by scientists Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer, to help approximately a quarter billion children who who subsist mostly  on rice and suffer from vitamin A deficiency. Golden rice was created in the 1990s by inserting two naturally occurring genes from corn into rice. It is golden in color because it contains beta-carotene, which is a precursor to Vitamin A.

So what happened? The product was ready to go but was blocked by the political lobbying of the anti-GMO movement, something that may have costs millions of lives, if we are to believe a team of international scientists.

“Golden Rice has not been made available to those for whom it was intended in the 20 years since it was created,” says scientist and author Ed Regis. “Had it been allowed to grow in these nations, millions of lives would not have been lost to malnutrition, and millions of children would not have gone blind.”

Regis singles out GreenPeace as a major reason for the blockage of Golden Rice.

“Greenpeace opposition to Golden Rice was especially persistent, vocal, and extreme, perhaps because Golden Rice was a GM crop that had so much going for it,” he said.

Below: Mark Lynas on his conversion to supporting GMOs – Oxford Lecture on Farming

We Hate Paywalls Too!

At Cantech Letter we prize independent journalism like you do. And we don't care for paywalls and popups and all that noise That's why we need your support. If you value getting your daily information from the experts, won't you help us? No donation is too small.

Make a one-time or recurring donation

About The Author /

Cantech Letter founder and editor Nick Waddell has lived in five Canadian provinces and is proud of his country's often overlooked contributions to the world of science and technology. Waddell takes a regular shift on the Canadian media circuit, making appearances on CTV, CBC and BNN, and contributing to publications such as Canadian Business and Business Insider.
insta twitter facebook


  1. Mark had an important insight. If you put out scientifically sound facts you will likely get trashed by folks who don’t like the conclusion. At least Mark had the humility to recognize where he had done the same thing.

  2. I see the Big-GMO “spokesmen” are all over this one.
    They seem to have been given advance notice.
    Easy to spot – and they pop up to self ID.

  3. Ken, you add nothing to the discussion except unfounded accusations. Much like the anti-gmo folks, plenty of blame, lacking on evidence.

  4. The evidence is quite clear for those with open eyes and those who see the same “spokesmen” on every such article with the same tired lines.

  5. There’s no such evidence Ken, just biased articles written by some conspiracy theorist or misinformed scared soccer moms.

  6. Alternet is one of the minor woo supporting sites out there, but they still publish woo all the time.

    Like supporting the idea of cell phone radiation cancer nonsense.


    Not to mention that they actually supported Seralini’s study when he first published it, kinda showing what quacks they are, since anyone with even a cursory knowledge of scientific studies could debunk it.


  7. Ahh another comment from one of those fake profiles the “spokesmen” get issued.

  8. I implore everyone reading this to peruse my comment history and then look at rel0627’s history. I have posted about 7 comments in the last week. I literally could not even make it through the past 24 hours of yours. Remind me who has the agenda again?

    Also, you need to go outside, dear. You need sunshine to make Vitamin D. Stay healthy!

  9. Yea, you are the only gmo fanboy with the “farmer” in their profile name. If I wasnt on the computer for work who would wanna sit inside all day, right? Dear?

  10. LOL. You are obviously not working.

    But for some reason it is it not the least bit surprising that an ill-informed conspiracy theorist is also not very good at their job. Hmmm….

  11. How do you know? Nothing more legit than a “farmer” online playing shrink……

  12. Dude you are delusional. Have fun wasting your money on trendy overpriced “organic” or “non-GMO” BS.

  13. After reading this, one can only hope that somebody notable on the anti-vax bandwagon will do the same.

  14. “Everyone thought of themselves as being tolerant and open-minded,” he says. “But if you said something critical about them, you’d be in quite serious trouble.”

    that’s the definition of so many “progressive” people these days.

  15. and people on the other side of the spectrum as well. just seems the progressive ones are those that really think of themselves as open minded.

  16. Since their first commercial introduction in 1996, the costs and benefits
    of genetically engineered plants and animals have generated controversy
    among consumers, farmers, advocates, and scientists. Potential risks that
    need to be managed include inadequate control (e.g., GMO genes transferring
    to non-GMO crops), transfer of allergens, displacement of native species,
    and other unpredicted issues. Some stakeholders are concerned about
    the emergence of super-weeds, reliance of farmers on agrichemical inputs,
    reduced biodiversity, or other environmental and trade issues (Benbrook,
    2012; Garcia and Altieri, 2005; Gurian-Sherman, 2009; Liberty Beacon
    Staff, 2013). As a result, the technology has been taken up very unevenly.
    For example, in the United States, no wheat or rice is genetically modified.
    Globally, Western Europe has imposed strict labeling and tracking requirements
    that have essentially banned products of the technology there, while
    Canada, China, Brazil, and Argentina grow genetically modified crops,
    especially for animal feed. Differing standards and timing of approvals
    for genetically engineered products has disrupted trade patterns and led to
    disputes. Overall, genetic engineering continues to struggle for acceptance
    among some consumers and for additional applications, such as in animal
    and aquaculture production

    NAS 2015
    A Framework for Assessing Effects of the Food System

  17. And yet you don’t even use a real picture of yourself. I bet you’re the only fake profile here. You’re the “spokesmen” that you keep referring to, just on the anti-gmo side. Science doesn’t need spokesmen – holistic pseudoscience does.

  18. I applaud his about face on the issue, he saw the light of reason, and changed his mind because the evidence persuaded him to, no one deserves a tirade or vitriol for having a change of mind, all should be celebrated for being wrong and in error because ultimately it opens new frontiers and new perceptions. People may not like the reality of something but reality doesn’t require them to like it.

  19. The people on both extremes of an argument commonly think of themselves as openminded

  20. Is that why you talk about it vaguely without ever substantiating your nonsense claims?

  21. Oh boy. You just sit there all day waiting to unleash zingers like that one, huh? Notice the distinct lack of evidence yet again. But hey, as long as you get the last word then maybe you’ll convert some easily conned fools, right?

  22. Try reading THIS – A Framework for Assessing Effects of the Food System – a key part of which I posted above. Troll

  23. The 1st. thing I thought was …He sold out to the dollar…..I know of a person who work in a top Toronto hospital who was dead set against of having M.S.G. in the food system. Then ONE DAY she published a paper on the merits of having M.S.G. in the food system and the money stated to flow her way..

  24. Or he just discovered science and mathematics. I understand most people have no better than a Grade 8 education in science, but some of us actually understand how things in this world work, and it’s not all some conspiracy theory.

  25. Modern genetic engineering techniques also have been a powerful force for change.
    Genetically engineered corn and soybeans have led to the most rapid transformation of global
    cropping patterns in history. In the United States, 90 percent of all cotton, corn, and soybean acres
    have genetically engineered traits (Fernandez-Cornejo et al., 2014) and globally, they are planted
    in 28 countries (James, 2012). From a global perspective, the Food and Agriculture Organization
    acknowledges that biotechnology can be a useful tool to address the issue of food security when
    applied appropriately (FAO, 2014). Potential benefits of GMO food applications include
    improved nutritional value (e.g., the incorporation of the vitamin A precursor, β-carotene vitamin
    A addition to rice), increased fish yield (e.g., aquaculture tilapia), and tolerance of poor
    environmental conditions (e.g., drought-resistant and salt-tolerant crops). Although 60 percent of
    the area planted to bioengineered seeds is in the United States and Canada, adoption in
    developing countries is expanding rapidly, and 90 percent of the 14 million farmers planting
    transgenic crops live in developing countries (James, 2012). This rapid adoption is driven by
    higher yields and lower pesticide costs that more than offset higher seed costs, with these benefits
    captured by small and large farmers alike (Raney and Pingali, 2007).

    NAS 2015
    A Framework for Assessing Effects of the Food System

    I can copy and paste from a document that largely supports GMO as well!!

  26. An honest question here…. I get from the story that he had some sort of epiphany. But where are the arguments supporting it? Am I just supposed to believe GMO’s are the only viable option for feeding the world and that the long term effects of GMO’s (nutrition wise, but also in the sense of companies patenting food) are well understood and studied. I would like to believe so, but haven’t read anything in this piece to win me over. So a guy who’s not very good at science got burned, and then did some fact checking (which as stated, he’s not very good at) and then he changed his mind. I should agree with him why?

    Honestly, anyone with better answers than this piece is welcome to share them. Win me over.

  27. Well, I won’t speak for Mark Lynas, because I don’t know what was going through his head other than a realisation that he didn’t have evidence to support the anti-GM pieces he was writing. That seemed to be the epiphany if you will.

    As to feeding the world. The short answer is that organic agriculture will not do it. There is simply not enough fixed nitrogen available to grow the crops needed to feed the world. That is a physical constraint that cannot be overcome.

    What technologies will be useful? It will be a mix of technologies. No one technology will be able to solve all of the issues, which are complex. The problems include: a growing population, a growing desire on the part of people in 3rd world nations to live a lifestyle similar to that enjoyed in the US, poor governance, poor infrastructure, limited arable land, climate change, availability of water, and farm land lost to urbanisation.

    Being able to grow more food on less land is clearly a goal in addressing the issue of feeding a growing population. The two factors that have increased crop productivity over the past couple of decades have been plant breeding and agronomy. So they would be obvious places to invest.

    In some places, GM technology has been an enabling technology for both. Corn and soybean productivity gains in North America and canola productivity gains in Canada due to breeding have far outstripped productivity gains in wheat. This is because companies have been investing in background breeding in these crops, but not in wheat. In addition, for soybean and canola, GM technology facilitated the adoption of no-till agriculture, which has also boosted productivity.

    Using GM technology to place useful traits in crops as a means of increasing productivity through both breeding and agronomy would seem a useful adjunct to other activities to increase production.

    Then there is the option of changing the nutritional value of crops, so that less food needs to be consumed by animals and (perhaps humans, but I don’t see this being quite as successful due to behavioral reasons).

  28. Accusing people of being in it for the money, is not as a matter of course an actual scientific position. In fact, science is one of the most massive and time tested revenue generating things ever. You can do good science and make money at it. Though, most of the stuff here is just trying to make sure Africa doesn’t starve. But, then clearly anybody who supports the scientific consensus is clearly a smokesman. All this anti-global warming people, they are in it for the money too, ignoring that all the money is the oil companies.

  29. I don’t know why this post didn’t post before:

    Monsanto is another evil mega-corp. They are solely driven by profit.

    That being said I think it would be nice if people stop conflating GMO and Monsanto. 🙂

  30. Or that person stopped thinking with their rectum, embraced scientific fact and became better at their job and started getting promoted and paid more.

  31. Boohoo, people don’t agree with me so they must be shills! That is really the only argument you have, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

  32. Same tired lines? You mean like “You are a shill for Big”?

    Yeah same tired lines of someone who has no argument.

  33. Newsflash for you Tinkerbell: Accusing someone of having a vested interest only works if you have actual proof. Without it you just come off as sad and pathetic.

  34. We’re told to be open-minded. To be willing to change when we feel like we may not be so sure anymore. And then we’re called flip-floppers, or wafflers when we grow out of old ideas.

  35. Guess we won’t see you as one of these “spokesmen” you seem so overly concerned with. At least they can admit when they are wrong.

  36. Mark, let me respectfully state you have no idea what you are talking
    about. The problem is not growing the food, it’s the monetary system
    that distributes it. If you want to discuss how to feed the world, let’s
    do an experiment. I’ll fill up two shipping containers for free, one
    with GMO corn, and one with non-gmo corn. Then you can explain to me how
    GMOs are going to feed the world by distributing that food.

  37. Go read Chris Preston’s comment below. Perhaps then you’ll delete this woefully uniformed comment.

  38. Hi, my profile isn’t fake, and GMOs are safe. The only “studies” taht show they “aren’t” are poorly done, have been recanted, or are simply made-up by bored and/or scared people.

  39. That’s old news, albeit most still think Wakefield is credible and has achieved martyrdom 😛 I want to see Tenpenny, Kate Tietje, Joel Lord et al stop spreading cockamamie lies for their own benefit.

  40. depends, i guess the spectrum im thinking of is “old fashioned” vs “progressive”. i’d say the old fashioned people wouldnt boldly proclaim theyre open minded being that their mindset is more of the “if it aint broke, dont fix it” way of thinking, yet progressive people think their open mindedness led them to a new truth, which ironically makes all other ideas wrong in their eyes.

  41. LOL. Its like they dont think you will actually go read the documents they post. Baffling but hilarious…

  42. Sterling, you have again proven the fact that any science or truth that conflicts with the corrupt cherry picked agenda driven GMO pesticide industry junk pseudo-science agenda will be rejected.

    Lynas, was never a major player with Greenpeace. He was a second rate hack writer with no sense of ethics who sold himself to a corrupt industry to better him self financially.

    The environmental movement sees Lynas a s a sold our joke.It’s instructive that the GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber would stoop so low as to use someone like him.

  43. You have got the GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber PR based talking points down pat.

    Only trouble is, you don’t know that your 180 degrees from the truth.

    Slumber on, sheepie.

  44. It’s not being a troll if someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about and you say so.

  45. Oh, please.

    Human beings can be evil or not, depending on their choices.

    The way that humans beings organize to accomplish things is neither evil nor good. It’s just a form of organization. So, no, “evil mega-corp” is not a sensible idea. It’s a nonsense phrase.

    In fact, “evil corporation” is really just the most recent version of “bourgeoisie.” It demonizes those who produce, in order to secure the uninformed cooperation of (e.g., “dupe”) large numbers of workers in a mob, so that those controlling the mob can gain political power. In other words, it’s Marxist doctrine.

    So whether you know it or not, and whether you agree with it or not, if you use the phrase “evil corporation” or any permutation thereof, you’re a tool of modern Marxists.

  46. BS…oh and as far as Seralini….again Biotech corruption and censoring via smear campaign!


    Finally, don’t forget that Séralini did not act alone: he headed up a team of researchers, working out of a respected academic institution, the University of Caen in France. It is it highly unlikely that an entire group of charlatans would be able to obtain funding, perform, write up and publish shoddy or fraudulent work in such an environment. Not only that, but the experimental would have been thoroughly examined before approval by the university’s ethics committee.

  47. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3915254/#!po=96.1538 “The paper was peer reviewed by scientists on behalf of the FCT and published accordingly. Hence, it initially met the threshold for publication. In our opinion, there must be a different threshold for forced retraction of the paper, and we believe that this paper did not reach that threshold. The COPE guidelines for retracting articles (Committee on Publication Ethics 2009) provide four reasons for retraction: scientific misconduct/honest error, prior publication, plagiarism, or unethical research. None of these reasons apply to this particular article, and yet Elsevier, a member of COPE, chose to retract the paper.”

  48. http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/press-release

    Claire Robinson said, “It seems that the editor of FCT, Dr Hayes, effectively did the job for the GM and agrochemical industry that the expert witnesses failed to do. The witnesses couldn’t demolish the study through scientific argument, so it had to be removed from the record. That is what Séralini’s critics told Hayes to do,[17] and he obliged.

    ”Additional quotes from scientists on the retraction (all published at endsciencecensorship.org)”The retraction is a shameful violation of scientific and publishing integrity by economic and political interests.” Donald R. Davis, PhD, nutritional biochemist at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, Washington State University; retired from Biochemical Institute, University of Texas at Austin, USA

    “The excellent work of Professor Séralini and his colleagues should be published in all the independent scientific journals of the world, as a form of protest and resistance against pressure of transnational corporations.” Tomás Enrique León Sicard, PhD, Professor of Agrology, Institute of Environmental Studies, National University of Colombia

    “Séralini’s study underpins the urgent need of carcinogenic risk assessment of GMO crops, and should never have been retracted from FCT.” Henk A.Tennekes, PhD, consultant toxicologist, member of EUROTOX; Dutch, Swiss and British Societies of Toxicology; Society of Toxicologic Pathology; International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)/Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM), Netherlands

    “The retraction was clearly based on political and economical interests and pressure, as it does not have a scientifically sound justification. Science is not built upon ‘definitive’ studies. In fact, within a scientific framework, a hypothesis is never definitive; it can always be re-tested and generate new, more robust knowledge. This is what should be done in this case. The article should be reinstated, and its findings can be confirmed or contested by replication and new studies. It is shameful that, in this day and age, commercial interests still have so much influence in scientific publishing.” Daniel Ferreira Holderbaum, MSc, PhD student in Plant Genetic Resources, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil

    “What has been done regarding retraction of Seralini’s peer-reviewed publication and defamation is outrageous. It is without precedent, and is completely unacceptable.” Richard Doherty, MD, retired Faculty Professor in the Departments of Pediatrics, Genetics, Radiation Biology & Biophysics at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, USA”This study should be reinstated or studies supporting the safety of NK603 should retracted as well: they are no more conclusive.” Vincent Detours, PhD, IRIBHM (a research institute of the Faculty of Medicine), Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

    “Withdrawal and censorship of the Séralini report is an act of complicity to conceal the flaws of a lethal technology. This is criminal behaviour.” Miguel Lovera, PhD, Universidad Católica de Asunción – CEIDRA (Studies and Research Center for Agricultural Law and Agrarian Reform), Paraguay

    “What happened to the Séralini study is not science, it is censorship. Scientific data should not be suppressed merely because it does not conform to pre-determined beliefs or conflicting interests. The Séralini study should be reinstated and if necessary, repeated.” Catherine Greenall, MPhil, MRSC, CChem, C.Sci, MCIWEM, CWEM

    “This retraction is politically motivated and ignoring science that is now consolidated in many studies showing that glyphosate is a damaging substance both for human health and the environment generally.” Malcolm Hooper, Professor Emeritus, PhD, BPharm, MRIC, CChem Royal Society of Chemistry, Society for Medicines Research, British Pharmacological Society, UK

    “This is reminiscent of trials of Galileo at the hands of the Vatican. These tactics bring shame onto the scientific fraternity and erode the confidence of the public in the scientific process.” Shideh Pouria, PhD, MBBS, BSc, MRCP (UK); Vice President, British Society for Ecological Medicine; Visiting Research Fellow, King’s College London, UK

    “Science must remain independent if it is to be relevant and must be evidence-based not results-driven. Elsevier are shooting themselves in the foot as they have lost all credibility as a science publisher and made a mockery of the peer review system.” Vivienne Laval, PhD, molecular genetics, UKContact: Claire Robinson info@endsciencecensorship.org +44 (0)752 753 6923Notes

  49. Politics, not science

    In his statement, Dr Hayes also stressed that “Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology.”But hold on a minute. Science is surely an ongoing conversation between researchers, not a procession of definitive statements. When a paper is published that asks important questions or offers new avenues for further research, follow-up studies are performed and science moves on. That’s how it’s supposed to work, anyway – but as we’ve seen in cases like those of Dr Arpad Pusztai, Ignacio Chapela and David Quist, and Dr Judy Carman in the world of GM research, and Dr Andrew Wakefield elsewhere, the practice of science is all to easily derailed by corporate–governmental interests.The scientific publishing industry even has guidelines, to which FCT is a signatory, specifying when retraction is appropriate. These clearly do not apply in the case of Séralini et al, as pointed out by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER).Even Dr Hayes may appreciate the absurdity of the situation. In his retraction statement, he admits that his review of Séralini et al’s raw data “Found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data”. We can only imagine his embarrassment at being forced to rely on the scientifically unsupportable ‘inconclusive results’ gambit to justify pulling the paper.

    Corporate science at Elsevier?

    Meet Richard E Goodman. Mr Goodman was appointed to a brand-new position at FCT – Associate Editor for Biotechnology – in early 2013, several months after Séralini et al was published. He also used to work for Monsanto and has ongoing links with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a notorious big business front group. Soon after Mr Goodman was parachuted onto the FCT board, the journal retracted two articles, including a Brazilian paper that questioned the safety of the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin present in many GM crops. Furthermore, FCT’s conflicts of interest don’t end there, and Elsevier, FCT’s publisher, has form.All in all, we agree 100% with GMWatch: the “Journal retraction of Séralini study is illicit, unscientific, and unethical”.Put even more simply: it’s bad science.”

    “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 Editor-in-Chief again commends the corresponding author for his willingness and openness in participating in this dialog. The retraction is only on the inconclusiveness of this one paper.The journal’s editorial policy will continue to review all manuscripts no matter how controversial they may be. The editorial board will continue to use this case as a reminder to be as diligent as possible in the peer review process.”

  50. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14

    …”BREAKING: 2012 Seralini GMO/Roundup Study REPUBLISHED in Springer Journal of Environmental Sciences.

    Paris, 24 June 2014

    Republication of Professor Séralini’s study: Time to be responsible.The 2012 study on the chronic toxicity of Roundup herbicide and the genetically modified Roundup-tolerant maize NK603 by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and colleagues has been republished by the Springer group, with open access to its raw data. Now there will be a few embarrassing questions for the authorities.After two years of controversy and pressure that led to the retraction of the study in November 2013, which was first published in 2012 by the Food and Chemical Toxicology (Elsevier group) journal, the research team of Professor Séralini has announced that they have republished the study in the Journal “Environmental Sciences Europe”, published by the Springer Group. By republishing their study with some new data which are available online, the team of Professor Séralini confirms that the world’s best-selling pesticide, Roundup, causes severe liver and kidney deficiencies and hormonal disturbances, such as breast tumours, at low environmentally relevant levels. Similar effects were observed from the chronic consumption of Roundup-tolerant GM maize. This is due to residues of Roundup and to the specific genetic modification of this maize. The formulations of Roundup, as well as Roundup-tolerant GMOs, should therefore be considered endocrine (hormone) disruptors and shoud be re-evaluated for safety by the health authorities.Winfried Schröder, editor of the journal Environmental Sciences Europe of the Springer Group, stated: ‘’We want to enable a rational discussion about the study of Séralini et al. (Food Chem Toxicol 2012, 50:4221–4231) by republishing it. This methodological competition is the energy necessary for any scientific progress. The sole purpose is to enable some scientific transparency and on this basis, a discussion that does not try to hide, but focuses on these needed methodological controversies.”

    The research team of Prof Séralini made the choice of an open access publication in a peer-reviewed journal, which arranged the third peer-reviewed assessment of the study. The researchers have published online the raw data of the study with free access for the entire scientific community – something that the industry has always refused to do, claiming commercial confidentiality or intellectual property restrictions. But is there any real secret to keep? How could the results of a health study violate an industrial secret? Is industry hiding the actual toxicity of compounds that accumulate in our bodies and our environment? Dr Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, medical doctor and President of CRIIGEN says, “Pesticides such as Roundup and agricultural GMOs cannot be ignored in the explanation of the epidemic of environmental pathologies”. In addition, he emphasizes “the deficiency of the regulatory assessment of pesticides and GMOs, which endangers public health.” CRIIGEN is asking for free access to toxicological studies which have authorised the placing on the market of different formulations of Roundup, the free access to raw data on the toxicological urine and blood analyses for all products, and urges the legal authorities to undertake further public research, with a commitment to placing its findings in the public domain, regarding the possible toxicological and endocrine disrupting effects of GMOs and Roundup, as other pesticides, using long-term exposure periods to ensure the real protection of public health.
    Jun 24, 20

  51. Please post just ONE Independent chronic toxicity study, done to deduce toxicology in humans, minimum of 3 mammalian species (rodents, pigs, dogs or monkeys) preferably multi generational, that indicates safety in the long-term consumption of GMOs and their associated pesticides. One other caveat~ it must be a GM variety currently on the market today.

  52. Don’t you mean “victory for a small element of the scientific community working on GMO, who may be a wee bit biased” Jemma?

    Will it be a “victory for science” when, many years from now, the unintended consequences of GMO crops are unleashed on what’s left of our native ecosystems?
    It’s already happening with ‘conventional’ crops and supposedly “100% safe” herbicides, such as Glyphosate.
    France has just banned the domestic sales of Roundup.

    But why? After all, the scientists developing it at the time said it was “100% safe”.

    Problem is, some other scientists have now disproved this.

    See the problem here?

  53. There are MANY problems, corruption and collusion!
    GMOs cannot be GRAS (generally recognized as safe) the proper testing was not done and the testing that was showed GMOs caused harm to humans and animals! The FDA is a FRAUD!
    Please watch video clip….the fact IS GMOs are on the market ILLEGALLY! They cannot be considered GRAS!

    he FDA IGNORED their own scientists warnings….they did NOT test GMOs properly…GMOs are on the market illegally!



    This is a must watch… Steven Druker says every GMO food is on the market illegally

    The Des Moines Register presented a free panel discussion Tuesday afternoon on the pros and cons of genetically modified crops http://archive.courier-journal.com/VideoNetwork/2744565232001/Steven-Druker-say-every-GMO-food-is-on-the-market-illegally

  54. http://gmoinside.org/debunking-gmo-myths-feeding-world/

    Debunking GMO Myths: Feeding the World
    By Michelle Kim •

    When sorting out the myths and truths surrounding genetically modified foods, one of the most common arguments you’ll hear is that GMOs are the key to “feeding the world”.

    Undoubtedly, the world we are trying to feed is under a lot of stress. The climate is changing. Intensifying weather events, record-breaking temperatures, devastating periods of drought – these issues do not bode so well, especially when talking about food production. To add to the laundry list of problems already plaguing our warming planet, the global population is projected to reach 9.6 billion by the year 2050. Considering these extreme pressures on Planet Earth’s capacity to sustain us, it is clear that avoiding a global food shortage will require creativity and innovation.

    Biotechnology companies like Monsanto rely heavily on the claim that genetically modified crops will solve world hunger. Monsanto’s marketing strategy says it all: “Produce more. Conserve more. Improve lives.”

    Is genetic engineering really the best solution to feeding the world? Here are a few important factors to consider before putting all of our eggs in biotech’s basket.

    -Tyler Lorenzen, Vice President of Business Development, World Food Processing
    1) Genetically modified crops have not shown to dramatically increase yield.

    In February, the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS) released a report on GMOs, which found no increase in yield potentials for genetically modified crops in the past fifteen years. The report also stated that “yields of herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant seeds may be occasionally lower than the yields of conventional varieties.”

    In 2009, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) published a report titled Failure to Yield, which evaluated the benefits of genetically engineered crops and their supposed ability to feed the world. The report compared the intrinsic and operational yields for insecticide-resistant (Bt) corn and herbicide-tolerant corn and soy to those of conventional crops – “intrinsic” meaning production under best possible conditions and “operational” referring to production under typical environmental stressors like pests and drought. In their study, the Union of Concerned Scientists found that none of the genetically engineered crops increased intrinsic yields, and that both the herbicide-tolerant corn and soy failed to increase operational yields. UCS does not deny the potential role of biotechnology in boosting crop yields down the road, but the report recommends against supporting genetic engineering at the expense of other technologies, some of which have already shown to improve yields at little to no cost to farmers. The report advises a greater dedication of research and development to such technologies, including modern plant breeding and organic and sustainable farming.

    2) The majority of GMO crops are not feeding hungry people.

    The US is the largest GMO producer in the world, with 70.2 million hectares dedicated to growing soy, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa, papayas, and squash. Despite the astounding land area used to grow these crops, 40% of US corn goes to fuel, and a majority of US soy is purchased by the animal feed industry. On a global scale, soy, corn, cotton, and canola make up 99% of all GMO crops – with a similarly unbalanced distribution between people, livestock, and non-food industries.

    The high volume of GMO crops diverted to animal feed is not necessarily all bad. Christopher Barnett, an economist at Cornell University studying international agriculture and poverty, explained in an interview with NPR that cheap feed crops help drive down the cost of meat in industrializing countries like China and Brazil, providing greater access to high calorie proteins. On the other hand, Barnett also explains that the cheap commodity crops–like corn and soy–are not providing the nutrients that hungry people need. If more corn in the food supply drives down the price of cornmeal, lower income populations will end up purchasing more cornmeal and less of nutrient-rich foods, like produce and dairy. One could also argue that increased meat consumption is not part of a sound solution to food security. Shenggen Fan, director of the International Food Policy Research Institute, describes the need for meat consumption to decrease in order to reduce the impact of high energy and natural resource inputs necessary for meat production.

    3) GMO-fueled agriculture is diminishing diversity and sovereignty in our global seed supply.

    Seed diversity plays a pivotal role in securing a stable food system. Greater genetic diversity allows for greater variety in plants’ response to unfavorable conditions, leading to increased stability in crop production. In a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the diversity of crops and seed varieties were identified as “as a key element in people’s livelihood strategies…crucial to their ability to adapt and survive in unfavourable environmental conditions.” Seed diversity is intertwined with the importance of seed sovereignty, which harnesses the ability of communities to maintain crop diversity through the saving and exchanging of seeds. By providing a means for preserving cultural heritage and identity, seed sovereignty is especially meaningful in third world farming communities.

    With biotechnology companies peddling their patented GMO varieties to the global market, and increasingly in the global south, crop diversity and seed sovereignty are both put at risk.

    In 1995, the UN estimated that 75% of all agricultural diversity had been eradicated and replaced with “modern”, monocropped varieties. Much of the loss in diversity is attributed to the Green Revolution, when farmers began to plant a smaller selection of high-yielding crops in monocultures – which unfortunately, rules growing practices today. With genetically engineered corn, soy, cotton, and canola taking up the lion’s share of biotechnology’s attention, there is reason for concern that GMO monocultures will continue to expand at the expense of more diverse and better-adapted crop varieties.

    In developing countries, seed diversity and seed sovereignty are particularly important, as climate change hits the poorest the hardest. The biotech industry takes special care to market its work with farmers in developing countries – take Monsanto’s Water Efficient Maize in Africa (WEMA), for example. Initially borne out of conventional breeding methods, WEMA has been re-created as a genetically engineered variety, field tests for which are already underway in Mozambique, Tanzania, and Uganda.

    But Patricia Muir, a professor in the Botany and Plant Pathology department at Oregon State University, wrote:

    “Few plant breeding or biotechnology efforts are aimed at helping to enhance properties (agricultural and nutritional) of crops that can be grown in much of Africa, as most such efforts are devoted to private sector, economically lucrative enterprises. Yet the native biodiversity in African crops is a valuable resource that could be utilized to enhance food production there, along with providing access to sustainable agricultural practices, including water harvesting, zero tillage, legume rotations, crop-livestock systems, and so forth.“

    Overall, genetically engineered seeds have continued to narrow the scope of seed diversity already diminished by the Green Revolution. With increased dependence on a smaller variety of crops, more and more of them genetically engineered and grown in monocultures, other practices like the ones Muir mentions–zero tillage, legume rotations–lose their due value. It doesn’t help that genetically engineered crops are strictly patented and prohibit farmers from saving seed, effectively cutting farmers’ ties with community-powered, regional, sovereign food systems.

    Keep in mind: This is just a snapshot of the issues contained within the larger problem of food security. But even with this partial analysis, it is clear that the global puzzle of seed supply, crop production, and food distribution has been a particular challenge, not even taking into account the advent of genetic engineering. How will we feed over 9 billion people? With our finite natural resources, how will we be able to meet these ever-increasing demands on land, water, and energy? The answers aren’t easy, but perhaps we should look to a number of diverse solutions – rather than the singular deliverance promised by biotechnology.

  55. 8 Proofs We Don’t Need GMOs To Feed The World
    Key research shows we don’t need GMOs to feed the world
    Print Friendly
    Christina Sarich BY CHRISTINA SARICH

    Do we really need Monsanto’s GMOs to feed the world? Looking at the research and the studies, the answer is quite clear. Let’s take a look at the 8 proofs that we most certainly do not need GMOs to feed the world:

    1. One Organic Rooftop Farm Can Feed 9000 People

    One organic rooftop farm can feed 9000 people. They don’t use pesticides, herbicides, or fungicides, and they provide fresh produce to their community year-round (1). This is a big slap in the face to the biotech companies who lie, saying that GMO is needed to feed the world. This is only one urban farm bucking the system.

    “Several of the high profile advocates for conventional agricultural production have stated that the world would starve if we all converted to organic agriculture. They have written articles for science journals and other publications saying that organic agriculture is not sustainable and produces yields that are significantly lower than conventional agriculture.” ~ Avery (2000) Trewavas (2001)
    Are these claims really true?

    2. Small Organic Farms Are Working, Even In Major Cities

    Lufa Farms has an astonishing approach to feeding the world. Their newest rooftop hothouse in the suburb of Laval near Montreal, produces enough veggies for more than 9,000 people. According to Lufa’s founder Mohamed Hage, this is only the beginning. From rhubarb to kale, and organic milk, cheese, and tofu, Lufa is feeding its community without following Big Ag practices. The company plans to expand to Chicago soon.

    3. Airports Serving… Sustainable Foods?

    Or take La Guardia airport – yes, you read that right. An airport is also sticking it to Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta by serving organic, local, and sustainable food at their upscale eateries scattered through different terminals.

    Read: Russians Prove Small-Scale Organic CAN Feed the World

    Agribusiness advocates such as Steve Kopperud need a reality check. They think you can’t feed the world on organic, sustainable, non-GMO food, but they are dead wrong.

    4. The UN Admits We Don’t Need GMOs

    Even the UN once admitted that, “organic and other sustainable farming methods that come under the umbrella of what the study’s authors called ‘agroecology’ would be necessary to feed the future world.” You can read the pdf here.

    5. Sustainable Agriculture = Increased Crop Yields

    Further, an editorial in New Scientist stated that low-tech sustainable agriculture is increasing crop yields on poor farms across the world, often by 70 percent or more. This is achieved by replacing synthetic chemicals with natural fertilizers and natural pest control methods, while the Union of Concerned Scientists has pointed out that GE crops are failing to yield:

    “. . .GE soybeans have not increased yields, and GE corn has increased yield only marginally on a crop-wide basis. Overall, corn and soybean yields have risen substantially over the last 15 years, but largely not as result of the GE traits. Most of the gains are due to traditional breeding or improvement of other agricultural practices.”
    Conversely, vertical organic farming is going high tech and big-scale. Utilizing the space equal to a small one-bedroom apartment, healthy food can be grown for a small family.

    “Using a combination of new growing techniques and more sustainable energy practices, food markets around the world could soon benefit from the adoption of plant factories taking up a lot less space than traditional agriculture but boasting significantly more production.”
    6. Aquaponics

    Also look at places like Urban Organics in Minnesota. They use aquaponics to grow food sustainably. The company was established in an old brewery, which was vacant for almost two decades. They now grow a variety of herbs and healthy vegetables.

    7. States Taking Action

    Maine is also growing loads of organic food. The Maine Organic Farmers and Gardener’s Association suggests this economical solution:

    “Consider the fact that half a pound of pole bean seeds, which you can buy for between $4 and $15 depending on the catalog and variety of bean, will plant a 100-foot row that can yield 150 pounds of beans The price of fresh, organic green beans at Maine farmers’ markets is about $3 per pound, so even if you paid $15 for your seed, that 150 pounds would have grossed $435 for you!”
    8. Home Gardening: Grow Your Own Food!

    Even home gardeners are increasing their organic food yields with tried and true techniques that have been around for ages. Just planting according to your growing region can help you yield a cornucopia of fresh, healthful food. For a list of the best regional varieties, look here.

    Biotechnology companies like Monsanto rely heavily on claims that GMOs will solve world hunger. Their marketing strategy says it all: “Produce more. Conserve more. Improve lives,” but we can produce more, and of a much higher quality without resorting to biotech tricks.

    Seemore: http://naturalsociety.com/proof-dont-need-gmo-feed-world/#ixzz3b8RVP2MV

  56. Claims That GMOs Will “Feed The World” Don’t Hold Up
    Contact: Shannon Van Hoesen
    (202) 667-6982
    Washington, D.C. – A report released today by Environmental Working Group delivers a stinging rebuke to conventional agribusiness’ argument that genetically modified crops are the answer to future global food shortages. A thorough analysis of recent research conducted in the United States and around the world shows that genetically engineered crops (often called GE or GMOs) have not significantly improved the yields of crops such as corn and soy.

    “Biotech companies and proponents of conventional, industrial agriculture have touted genetically engineered crops as the key to feeding a more populous, wealthier world, but recent studies show that this promise has fallen flat,” wrote Emily Cassidy, the EWG research analyst who authored the report.

    She points out that while genetically engineered crops have been a mainstay in conventional agriculture in the U.S. for roughly two decades, they “have not substantially improved global food security” and have instead increased the use of toxic herbicides and led to herbicide-resistant “superweeds”.

    Over the last 20 years, yields of both GE corn and soy have been no different from traditionally bred corn and soy grown in Europe, where genetically engineered crops are banned, she found.

    Corn and soybeans account for roughly 80 percent of the global land area devoted to growing GE crops, and both are overwhelmingly used for animal feed and biofuels, not for food. This is unlikely to change in light of increased consumption of meat around the world and the U.S. biofuels policy requiring production of millions of gallons of corn ethanol to blend into gasoline.

    “There is a way out of this mess that will produce enough food for the world’s burgeoning population with minimal impact on our environment,” said Cassidy. “In combination, smarter use of fertilizers, a dramatic shift in biofuels policy, a significant reduction in food waste and a better diet could largely address the need for more calories in the future.”

    The Just Label It campaign, which advocates for mandatory federal labeling of GMO foods, provided funding support for this new report. Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Just Label It, said, “Biotech companies and their customers in chemical agriculture have been attempting to sell the benefits of GMOs for two decades. Between exaggerated claims about feeding the world and a dramatic escalation in the use of toxic pesticides, it is no wonder consumers are increasingly skeptical.”

    Traditionally bred varieties have been the major source of improved crop yields in recent years, her report concludes, and this trend is likely to continue. Moreover, investment in genetic engineering is no substitute for solving the real causes of food insecurity and poverty, such as improving access to basic resources and infrastructure in developing countries.

    “Seed companies’ investment in improving the yields of GMOs in already high-yielding areas does little to improve food security; it mainly helps line the pockets of seed and chemical companies and producers of corn ethanol.” Cassidy writes. “The world’s resources would be better spent focusing on strategies to actually increase food supplies and access to basic resources for the poor small farmers who need it most.” http://www.ewg.org/release/claims-gmos-will-feed-world-don-t-hold

  57. Bring them on! Please post just ONE Independent chronic toxicity study, done to deduce toxicology in humans, minimum of 3 mammalian species (rodents, pigs, dogs or monkeys) preferably multi generational, that indicates safety in the long-term consumption of GMOs and their associated pesticides. One other caveat~ it must be a GM variety currently on the market today.

  58. Okay then this should be easy then…Please post just ONE Independent chronic toxicity study, done to deduce toxicology in humans, minimum of 3 mammalian species (rodents, pigs, dogs or monkeys) preferably multi generational, that indicates safety in the long-term consumption of GMOs and their associated pesticides. One other caveat~ it must be a GM variety currently on the market today.

  59. Trendy? Organic was the NORM until 1996 when GMOs were silently pushed into our Market place without the proper independent chronic toxicity testing…GMOs cannot be GRAS (generally recognized as safe) the proper testing was not done and the testing that was showed GMOs caused harm to humans and animals! The FDA is a FRAUD!
    Please watch video clip….the fact IS GMOs are on the market ILLEGALLY! They cannot be considered GRAS!

    he FDA IGNORED their own scientists warnings….they did NOT test GMOs properly…GMOs are on the market illegally!



    This is a must watch… Steven Druker says every GMO food is on the market illegally

    The Des Moines Register presented a free panel discussion Tuesday afternoon on the pros and cons of genetically modified crops http://archive.courier-journal.com/VideoNetwork/2744565232001/Steven-Druker-say-every-GMO-food-is-on-the-market-illegally

  60. everybody that changes their mind or disagreed from the start is automatically a shill right?

    way to deal with facts instead of attacking persons.

  61. Facts? Here is a fun fact…Most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters.#1367 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835
    Please post just ONE Independent chronic toxicity study, done to deduce toxicology in humans, minimum of 3 mammalian species (rodents, pigs, dogs or monkeys) preferably multi generational, that indicates safety in the long-term consumption of GMOs and their associated pesticides. One other caveat~ it must be a GM variety currently on the market today.

  62. Well, see who has learnt how to copy and paste.

    But seriously you should read what you copy and paste first.

    “One Organic Rooftop Farm Can Feed 9000 People”

    What a completely ridiculous statement. Unless you had a 9000 acre rooftop at your disposal I suppose.

    Anyone who makes such a claim is clearly off with the fairies, a few sandwiches short of a picnic, or a few stubbies short of a sixpack.

  63. The fact that you have to call people sheep is hilarious. I can’t take people seriously when they do that – even if I agree with them on things, I have to laugh at them and distance myself. It’s so sad.

    So basically, all you have is “no u r wrong & u r a sheep”?


    (And it’s “you’re 180 degrees” – you’re wrong about that, but it’d still be “you’re”, since it’s a contraction for “you are”. Not sure if I can trust “scientific facts” from a person who doesn’t know the difference.)

  64. Funny, but YOUR profile and history is private. Perhaps you are actually the shill here. Keep shilling for the organic industry, dude.

  65. The “Alliance for Natural Health”? That’s your idea of a reliable source? It’s not like only individual scientists broke down the study, regulatory organizations did as well.

    The European Food Safety Authority heavily criticized the study.


    As did the Australia/New Zealand Food Standards Authority.


    As did the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment.


    As did Health Canada.


    As did the French Academies of Science.


  66. Personally, I agree that the paper shouldn’t have been retracted. However, that isn’t really relevant to the fact that the paper itself is still crap. See the reviews by regulatory organizations that I linked to your other comment.

  67. The funny thing is how Seralini remains so ignorant on the fact that it is the very length of his study that is one of its major problems. The fact that he did a 2 year study using those rats rather than a 90 day study is what makes his study so bad. And it seems that he’s just been putting his fingers in his ears every time that’s been pointed out.

  68. As I said in my other reply, I agree that the paper shouldn’t have been retracted. But that doesn’t change how much crap the study is.

    However, the people in there actually trying to defend the study is just sad. Though I suppose it’s not much different than the climate change deniers and their list of 1000 scientists or whatever. It still remains irrelevant and has no bearing on the scientific consensus on a topic made up of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of scientists.

  69. It’s actually funny the blatant lie in that press release. It was not peer reviewed again, it was merely checked to make sure no changes to the paper had been made from when it had been published previously. Seralini, to this day, continues to claim that the paper was peer reviewed by the new journal, in direct contrast to what the very editor of the journal stated.


  70. “minimum of 3 mammalian species (rodents, pigs, dogs or monkeys) ”

    There is no such thing. Your requirements are bullshit.

  71. And here we go down the rabbit hole that is the anti-GMO idiotweb blogosphere echo chamber

  72. Your original statement was a lie.

    I am a truth teller and I am here to expose lies from the corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber goons.

    Apparently you are the one that can not tell the difference between real science, and corrupt cherry picked agenda driven GMO pesticide industry junk pseudo-science that must be protected for real science and the truth at all costs.

  73. Apparently you are not any better at recognizing logic than you are at seeing the difference between real science and corrupt cherry picked agenda driven GMO pesticide industry junk pseudo-science.

    By your logic anyone who see’s through the corrupt industry disinformation and junk science must be working for the organic industry.

    Go and get your self some education and learn how to actually evaluate things instead of spewing your GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber cognitive bias all over these pages.

  74. That’s odd… I thought Mark WAS and internet troll…?

    Oops! My mistake. He’s an internet shill for biotech corporations…

  75. If you reject his study, you would logically have to reject all Monsanto’s studies as well…

  76. They can’t do it TZ, because they know that no such study exists. If there was even one such study, there would be no debate. Alas, the biotechs march on completely unregulated and no one to hold them accountable for illegally foisting their products on the market.

  77. Your looking in your corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation goon magic mirror again.

  78. You’d need more than 9000 acres, it’s producing organic milk too. I’ll bet getting cows up there and keeping them from falling off is a bit of a challenge.

  79. More silly, pointless and wrong copy and paste.

    A GM product would only be considered GRAS if it could be demonstrated through testing that there were no differences to the parent crop. That is why each event is regulated on a case-by-case basis.

    Seriously, you would have to be completely ignorant about the regulatory process to accept the argument put forward by Steven Druker.

  80. Please give me one truth we didn’t arrive at by science. Or some truth that was somehow determined without it. Because as fun as it is to call people science worshippers, or say they think science has all the answers, it’s really hard to find an answer that we didn’t science our way into. In fact, to date the only things we actually totally understand are understood through the lens of science.

  81. No you would have to have brain cells that are actually working which apparently you do not posses…there are actual COURT documents PROVING his case….go to the links and READ!

  82. “COURT documents PROVING his case”?

    Don’t make me laugh.

    I suppose you mean the case he brought against the FDA in 1998 that was thrown out by the courts? What that judgement showed was the FDA was acting legally.

Leave a Reply