Hypocritical FCT journal editor refuses to retract inconclusive pro-GMO study

Wednesday, February 05, 2014 by: L.J. Devon, Staff Writer
Tags: science journal, pro-GMO study, inconclusive

eTrust Pro Certified

Most Viewed Articles
Popular on Facebook
BACK INTO THE CLOSET: Why U.S. reporters are not allowed to write about rainbow events in nations where being gay is still condemned
Depopulation test run? 75% of children who received vaccines in Mexican town now dead or hospitalized
A family destroyed: Six-month-old dies after clinic injects baby with 13 vaccines at once without mother's informed consent
INVESTIGATION: Three days before Dr. Bradstreet was found dead in a river, U.S. govt. agents raided his research facility to seize a breakthrough cancer treatment called GcMAF
BAM! Chipotle goes 100% non-GMO; flatly rejecting the biotech industry and its toxic food ingredients
BOMBSHELL: China and America already at war: Tianjin explosion carried out by Pentagon space weapon in retaliation for Yuan currency devaluation... Military helicopters now patrolling Beijing
ECONOMIC SLAVERY FOR ALL: While we were distracted with the Confederate flag flap, Congress quietly forfeited our entire economic future via fast-track trade authority
March Against Monsanto explodes globally... World citizens stage massive protests across 38 countries, 428 cities... mainstream media pretends it never happened
GMO crops totally banned in Russia... powerful nation blocks Monsanto's agricultural imperialism and mass poisoning of the population
SCOTUS same-sex marriage decision may have just legalized the concealed carry of loaded firearms across all 50 states, nullifying gun laws everywhere
Nearly every mass shooting in the last 20 years shares one surprising thing? and it's not guns
Vicious attack on Dr. Oz actually waged by biotech mafia; plot to destroy Oz launched after episode on glyphosate toxicity went viral
Holistic cancer treatment pioneer Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez dies suddenly; patients mourn the loss of a compassionate, innovative doctor who helped thousands heal from cancer
Pepsi drops aspartame from diet soda as consumers reject toxic sweetener
Bride of Frankenfood: Hillary Clinton pushes GMO agenda... hires Monsanto lobbyist... takes huge dollars from Monsanto
STATINS RED ALERT: Widely prescribed drugs act as cellular poisons that accelerate aging... deactivate DNA repair... promote diabetes, muscle fatigue and memory loss
Wild eyes and bowl cuts: Why do mass shooters always share the same hair styles and crazed zombie stares?
Mind control through emotional domination: How we're all being manipulated by the "crisis of the NOW"
(NaturalNews) Is genetically modified maize harmless? Is it really safe to consume? Is it no different than natural maize?

When the pro-GMO industry has the power to bury scientific studies that it doesn't agree with, when they have the power to pay publishers to prop up studies they do agree with, then a massive wave of confusion will settle over the minds of the people.

As conflicting studies on GMOs surface, the public at large has become skeptical of what is safe and what is not.

Inconclusive pro-GMO study propped up in FCT journal

A pro-GMO study was recently published by the journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology. Found to be inconclusive by the International Transdisciplinary Studies Group, this study reported only vague, short-term results. Despite its incompleteness, the study has been put on a pedestal by the FCT journal.

The study, carried out by a team of Chinese researchers, was conducted for only 90 days, as the researchers fed mice glyphosate-tolerant GM maize. The results showed that mice fed GM maize for 90 days reported no negative health effects. The study's incompleteness is comparable to a seven-year span for human health, which fails to show how cancer could arise over time.

Skeptical readers, consumers and independent review boards have questioned the validity of the propped up Chinese study, but the editor, A. Wallace Hayes, has refused to retract the study, despite its shortcomings.

This is strange, noting that Editor Hayes retracted a GMO study in 2013, claiming it to be incomplete. The study he retracted was actually conducted for two years, or eight times longer than the newly promoted pro-GMO study. The buried study, conducted by Prof. G. E. Seralini, found that glyphosate-tolerant, genetically modified maize elicited serious toxic effects in treated rats.

FCT publishing inconclusive studies and burying reputable ones

The newly accepted 90-day study is short and doesn't observe diseases with long latency periods, like cancer and severe organ damage; however, it lives on in the FCT journal, while the two-year study showing degenerative disease remains buried.

This proves that pro-GMO industry coercion is suppressing empowering information from ever reaching the public at large.

The truth of a more comprehensive study has been drowned out by corporate influence, which obviously has a controlling grip on publishers. The pro-GMO study is now spreading the following inconclusive message in the FCT journal:

"No adverse effects related to the consumption of GM maize were detected in the subchronic feeding study. These results indicated that the GM glyphosate-tolerant maize was as safe and nutritious as conventional maize."

The battle for scientific truth intensifies as FCT editor refuses expert panel advice

When the International Transdisciplinary Studies Group reviewed the FCT-promoted piece in December of 2013, they concluded that the pro-GMO publishing in the FCT journal could not be justified by the analyses conducted. Chariman Dr. Frederic Jacquemart wrote to Wallace Hayes, the editor of FCT, highlighting the lack of information presented by the journal. He told the editor that the study lacked statistical power and that it was impossible to know whether it was designed to show any conclusive health effects. Jacquemart wrote, "the assertion of the safety of the GM corn is thus scientifically unfounded."

Jacquemart broke down the study's fallibility, emphasizing that the conclusion of the article establishes equivalence between GM corn and conventional corn, without analyzing their equivalence, which is necessary to justify such a conclusion.

He scolded Hayes for being hypocritical and retracting the two-year Seralini study but not applying the same rules to the less complete 90-day study.

After writing Hayes twice, Jacquemart finally got a response from the FCT editor.

Editor Hayes stated that he had no intention of retracting the 90-day study from the FCT journal.

So what is really behind the hypocrisy of Hayes and his persistence to keep the incomplete study alive in the Food and Chemical Toxicology journal?

Sources for this article include:

Follow real-time breaking news headlines on
Science journal at
Join over four million monthly readers. Your privacy is protected. Unsubscribe at any time.
comments powered by Disqus
Take Action: Support by linking back to this article from your website

Permalink to this article:

Embed article link: (copy HTML code below):

Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use OK, cite with clickable link.

Follow Natural News on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and Pinterest

Colloidal Silver

Advertise with NaturalNews...

Support NaturalNews Sponsors:

Advertise with NaturalNews...


Sign up for the FREE Natural News Email Newsletter

Receive breaking news on GMOs, vaccines, fluoride, radiation protection, natural cures, food safety alerts and interviews with the world's top experts on natural health and more.

Join over 7 million monthly readers of, the internet's No. 1 natural health news site. (Source:

Your email address *

Please enter the code you see above*

No Thanks

Already have it and love it!

Natural News supports and helps fund these organizations:

* Required. Once you click submit, we will send you an email asking you to confirm your free registration. Your privacy is assured and your information is kept confidential. You may unsubscribe at anytime.