(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:http://www.gmwatch.orghttp://science.naturalnews.com