In 2012, a scientific team led by Gilles-Éric Séralini published a paper showing that laboratory rats fed Monsanto GM corn throughout their lives developed cancer in 60-70% of rats (versus 20-30% of the control group), as well as liver and kidney problems and premature death.
Now, the journal that published it has retracted it, in another shameful example of corruption in scientific circles, since the reasons given do not apply to similar studies by Monsanto. The newly hired editor (a former Monsanto official) He admits that Séralini's article is serious and not incorrect, but that the results are not conclusive, something that concerns many articles and is part of the process of scientific discussion.
In another context, but on the same subject, Randy Schekman, winner of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Medicine, when receiving the award, called for a boycott of scientific publications “such as Nature, Science and Cell” (and he could have included the one that now retracted Séralini’s award) for the damage they are doing to science, by being more interested in media impact and profits than in the quality of the articles. Schekman assured that he will never publish there again and called for publishing in open access journals, with transparent processes. This adds to other complaints about the incestuous relationship of the industries with this type of journals, to obtain authorization for products by publishing scientific articles.
Séralini's study is very relevant for Mexico, because the rats were fed Monsanto's 603 corn, the same that the transnationals are requesting to plant on more than a million hectares in the north of the country. If approved, this corn would be massively included in the daily diet of the country's large cities, whose tortilla factories are supplied mainly in those states. Since Mexico is the country where direct human consumption of corn is the highest in the world and throughout life, the country would become a repetition of Séralini's experiment, with people instead of rats, with a high probability of developing cancer in a few years, in a time span sufficient for the government to have changed and the companies to deny their responsibility, claiming that it was a long time ago and that transgenic corn cannot be proven as a direct cause.
Séralini's article was published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, after months of peer review by other scientists. Within hours of its publication and in a totally unscientific manner (they could not seriously evaluate the data at that time), scientists close to the biotechnology industry began to repeat partial and inaccurate criticisms, curiously identical, since they came from a so-called Science Media Center, funded by Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and other multinationals.
In order to retract the article, it is now alleged that the number of rats in the control group was too low and that the Sprague-Dawley rats used in the experiment are prone to tumors. They fail to mention that Monsanto used exactly the same type and number of control rats in an experiment published in their journal in 2004, but only for 90 days, reporting that there were no problems, thus achieving approval of the Mon603 corn. Séralini prolonged the same experiment and extended it, throughout the life of the rats, and problems began to appear from the fourth month onwards. It is clear that the journal applies double standards: one for Monsanto and another for those who show critical results.
Séralini's team explained that the number of rats used is standard in OECD toxicology experiments, but more are used for cancer studies. But their study was not looking for cancer, but for possible toxic effects, which has been widely proven. The larger number of rats in cancer studies is to rule out false negatives (cancer that is present but not visible), but in this case the presence of tumors was so large that even for that evaluation it would be sufficient. His team also pointed out from the beginning that more specific cancer studies should be done.
At a global level, there are several statements signed by hundreds of scientists defending Séralini's study, but in Mexico, Cibiogem (biosafety commission), displaying its lack of objectivity and commitment to the health of the population, only publishes the side of the controversy that favors the transnationals, ignoring the responses of numerous independent scientists.
It is important for the population in Ecuador to remain alert, because although President Rafael Correa has called for a “great national debate to decide scientifically,” it is necessary to know if those consulted have conflicts of interest due to their relationship with the biotechnology industry and to take into account documents such as those of the Union of Scientists Committed to Society, supported by more than 3,000 scientists worldwide.
Likewise, the alert remains in place because despite the fact that these are products specifically prohibited by the current Constitution of Ecuador, the Ministry of the Environment launched promotional ads that were later suspended due to the large number of citizen protests.
Little Whale Yes Online.
Main source: Publication in ALAINET by Silvia Ribeiro. Researcher at the ETC Group
EN 
ES_ES