Dec 10

297 scientists and experts agree GMOs not proven safe (European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, Dec 10, 2013):

*EU chief scientist Anne Glover’s backing for GM condemned as “irresponsible”

*Independent researchers work double shift to address “red flags” on GMO safety

Press release, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, 10 Dec 2013

The number of scientists and experts who have signed a joint statement[1] saying that GM foods have not been proven safe and that existing research raises concerns has climbed to 297 since the statement was released on 21 October.

Dr Angelika Hilbeck, chair of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), which published the statement, said, “We’re surprised and pleased by the strong support for the statement. It seems to have tapped into a deep concern in the global scientific community that the name of science is being misused to make misleading claims about the safety of GM technology.”

Continue reading »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Nov 29

ENSSER Comments on the Retraction of the Séralini et al. 2012 Study (European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, Nov 29, 2013):

ENSSER Comments on the Retraction of the Séralini et al. 2012 Study

Journal’s retraction of rat feeding paper is a

travesty of science and looks like a bow to industry

Elsevier’s journal Food and Chemical Toxicology has retracted the paper by Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini’s group which found severe toxic effects (including liver congestions and necrosis and kidney nephropathies), increased tumor rates and higher mortality in rats fed Monsanto’s genetically modified NK603 maize and/or the associated herbicide Roundup[1]. The arguments of the journal’s editor for the retraction, however, violate not only the criteria for retraction to which the journal itself subscribes, but any standards of good science. Worse, the names of the reviewers who came to the conclusion that the paper should be retracted, have not been published. Since the retraction is a wish of many people with links to the GM industry, the suspicion arises that it is a bow of science to industry. ENSSER points out, therefore, that this retraction is a severe blow to the credibility and independence of science, indeed a travesty of science.

Inconclusive results claimed as reason for withdrawal

Continue reading »

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,