Thread: GMO Rat Study Retracted..by New Journal Editor from (Surprise!) Monsanto

GMO Rat Study Retracted..by New Journal Editor from (Surprise!) Monsanto

Posted on December 1, 2013 by Daisy Luther

Remember the Seralini study, with those gruesome images of GMO-fed rats that were engulfed by horrific tumors? Well, great news! You can grab yourself some GMO corn and chow down now because the journal that published the study has retracted it. Silly us, there was absolutely nothing to worry about!
The new editor over at the journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, says so – you know, Richard E. Goodman, the editor that used to work in the hallowed halls of Monsanto.
Wait….what????????????????????
I guess it wasn’t enough for Monsanto to infiltrate the government at every level - now they have to install staff to keep their GMO death crops from being negatively reviewed at respected scientific journals.
Rady Ananda, of Food Freedom News and Activist Post, reports:

In February of 2013, the FCT hired Monsanto’s former employee, Richard E. Goodman, for a new position reviewing biotechnology papers. On November 19, the FCT reported its decision to retract the published paper stating the study’s results were inconclusive because there weren’t enough rats used in the study, and the strain of rat used was not acceptable.
Writing for CRIIGEN, the independent lab with which Seralini is affiliated, Frédérique Baudouin noted that a short Monsanto study, which was published in the same journal to prove the safety of its product, “was conducted with the same strain and number of rats.”
Séralini has promised to sue. (source)

In case you don’t recall the findings of this study that has Monsanto running scared, here’s a quick refresher.
The rodents were fed a lifetime of genetically modified corn that had been doused with Roundup (glyphosate) during its growing process. The tragic results proved that the rats had a 50-70% chance of developing horrific, grotesque tumors from the diet. Naysayers attempted to refute the science behind the study and a war developed in the scientific community, one that is clearly ongoing with this Monsanto scientist that was very obviously put in place to discredit the harmful-to-Monsanto report. Natural News summarized some findings of the study:

• Up to 50% of males and 70% of females suffered premature death.
• Rats that drank trace amounts of Roundup (at levels legally allowed in the water supply) had a 200% to 300% increase in large tumors.
• Rats fed GM corn and traces of Roundup suffered severe organ damage including liver damage and kidney damage.
• The study fed these rats NK603, the Monsanto variety of GM corn that’s grown across North America and widely fed to animals and humans. This is the same corn that’s in your corn-based breakfast cereal, corn tortillas and corn snack chips.

The infiltration of Monsanto into the halls of academia did not go unnoticed to a group of scientists in Europe. They have harshly denounced the whole sordid camouflage job.

A European network of scientists (ENSSER) has also published a scathing condemnation of FCT’s behavior, warning that this level of corruption is “a flagrant abuse of science” that will “decrease public trust in science.” No doubt.
Going further, ENSSER condemned the FCT for violating “not only the criteria for retraction to which the journal itself subscribes, but any standards of good science.”
A recent article calling this matter ‘The Goodman Affair,’ noted that:
Richard E. Goodman is professor at the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska. But he is also a former Monsanto employee, who worked for the company between 1997 and 2004. While at Monsanto he assessed the allergenicity of the company’s GM crops and published papers on its behalf on allergenicity and safety issues relating to GM food (Goodman and Leach 2004).”Beyond all this, Seralini wasn’t even looking for cancer, which would require a larger number of animals, but merely prepared a chronic toxicity study under the same conditions that Monsanto used to assert the GM corn’s safety.
ENSSER explains that the short term study found not only “pronounced toxic effects” but also “increased tumour rates.” Further, the Sprague-Dawley strain of rat is the “commonly used standard for this type of research” and was the same one Monsanto used.
Most importantly, “Unpleasant results should be checked, not ignored. And the toxic effects other than tumours and mortality are well-founded.”
ENSSER concluded that, “Prof. Séralini’s findings stand today more than before, as even this secret review found that there is nothing wrong with either technicalities, conduct or transparency of the data – the foundations on which independent science rests. The conclusiveness of their data will be decided by future independent science, not by a secret circle of people.”

Monsanto is clearly striving diligently to undo the damage done by activists spreading the word about their toxic takeover of the food supply. They are blatantly covering up the information that people need to have access to in order make informed decisions about the consumption of GMOs. I’m certainly not swayed by this retraction. I stand by my former recommendation: GMOs are not safe, even in moderation.
Learn more here: Monsanto behind Journal’s retraction of GMO rat-cancer link
Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor. Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at daisy@theorganicprepper.ca
Don't forget to follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter.

http://dcclothesline.com/2013/12/01/...rise-monsanto/

Grocery Manufacturers Push to Label GMO Foods as “Natural”



Grocery Manufacturers Push to Label GMO Foods as “Natural”


December 19, 2013—Center for Food Safety (CFS) today called on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to resist industry pressure to allow genetically engineered (GE) foods to be labeled as “natural.” The Grocery Manufacturer’s Association (GMA) recently announced it would be submitting a petition to the agency asking that it formally define the term “natural” to include foods produced using genetic engineering. GMA’s actions come in response to both recent state and judicial pressure on the issue, as well as CFS’s demand that FDA exclude genetic engineering from any definition of “natural” and to refrain from defining the controversial term without public input.
“There is nothing natural about genetic engineering, which is exactly why the Grocery Manufacturers Association wants FDA to create a special exemption for it. Natural is a great marketing tool and the industry doesn’t want to be restricted in using it,” said Colin O’Neil, director of government affairs for Center for Food Safety. “FDA should not respond to GMA’s demands for a special GMO loophole. FDA has a duty to protect consumers, not industry.”
Genetic engineering, by its very definition, is not a natural process. It is an artificial and novel process, which often involves inserting foreign (often bacterial) genetic material into a food plant, crop or animal. The U.S. Patent Office has granted numerous patents on genetically engineered plants, finding that they and novel elements in them are not naturally occurring.
According to FDA policy, food labels can’t be false or misleading. A reasonable consumer would not expect foods labeled “natural” to contain GE ingredients. As such, labeling GE foods with the word natural would be exceptionally misleading to consumers.
Defining the term natural has been controversial since FDA first attempted the process in 1991. FDA declined to define the term, issuing guidance in 1993 stating the agency would “maintain its current policy . . . not to restrict the use of the term ‘natural’ except for added color, synthetic substances, and flavors.” To date, there is no legal definition of “natural” for food labels.
FDA is also in the process of finalizing their guidance on voluntary labeling of GE products, which has been languishing since its introduction in 2001.
“Genetic engineering makes silent but fundamental changes to our food at the molecular and cellular level, the full human health and environmental consequences of which are still being discovered. These changes fundamentally affect consumers, food manufacturers, and the public at large. Because of this and the growing consumer concern over GE foods, FDA should refrain from defining ‘natural’ in an ad hoc and haphazard manner without first providing to the public notice of the proposed rulemaking and an opportunity to comment on these important issues. In the alternative, if FDA considers it appropriate to define natural without issuing a rule, then it should specifically prohibit labeling GE foods as ‘natural,’” wrote CFS in its November letter to FDA.

http://organicconnectmag.com/grocery.../#.UrnHvPaQT5Y



Natural????? Oh okay!!!!! Naturally What!!!! Naturally Disgusting!!!! Must be referring to Grocery Manufacturers don't ya think!!!!!