Table of Contents:
- Your children might be born naked
- Unbiased science critical for agriculture and consumers
- A French study was published in fall 2012 that links genetically modified food to tumors and to liver failure in certain rats. That study was retracted by its publisher in November of 2013 for being inconclusive in its findings. What does that mean?
A French study was published in fall 2012 that links genetically modified food to tumors and to liver failure in certain rats. That study was retracted by its publisher this past November for being inconclusive in its findings. What does that mean?
In plain talk, it means the debate over GM crops continues. Most folks already know where they stand on GM crops, and nothing much is going to change either side’s minds.
The retraction for some reason made me think of a few phrases I’ve heard over the years, all from farmers. One farmer told me, “If you don’t want to get cancer, don’t drink water...almost everybody who’s ever gotten cancer drank water.”
He was being tongue-and-cheek there, but the debate over GM crops isn’t.
Back to the study. It got plenty of play and attention when it was published, at least from those who follow such things. This particular study centered on glyphosate and Roundup-resistant corn. The scientists exposed the rats to water that had herbicide in it and fed the rats all the Roundup-resistant corn they could eat. The female rats got tumors, big ones. The male rats’ livers failed them.
But here’s the rub: the rats used in the study were a kind that tends to get tumors anyway as they get older. Did the GM crops or herbicide cause the tumors in this study? Or the liver failure? The study’s authors claim they did.
At the time of publishing, anti-GMO folks liked the study. Others said it was flawed right out of the gate, particularly Monsanto, which as you know has a big dog in the fight over GM crops. Some European politicians found the support they wanted to continue to poo poo GM-related things, banning them even harder than they already do, I guess.
But was it bad science? Maybe, but it was good enough, or it met the peer-reviewed publication’s standards, to be published in the first place. Did pressure from those who support GM technology have a role in its retraction? Strange.