And the major study purporting to prove the contrary argument has been discredited:
As the Genetic Literacy Project reports, the GMO wars are escalateing after the discrediting of a central pillar of the anti-crop biotechnology movement and the stumbling by a prominent science journal.
Gilles-Éric Séralini, author of the controversial rat study that claimed to show that genetically modified corn could lead to a high incidence of cancer, says he is contemplating suing the journal that published the study if it goes through with its stated plan to retract it.
In a stunning development, the editor of the Food and Chemical Toxicology, A. Wallace Hayes, sent the French scientist a letter dated November 19 saying that the paper will be withdrawn if Séralini does not agree to do it voluntarily. In either case, evidence of the discredited paper will be expunged from the journal’s database.
According to Le Figaro, which broke the story, Séralini rejected Hayes’ findings. The French scientist, who works in Caen as founding director of anti-GMO research group called CRIIGEN, the Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering, said the journal’s criticisms of his work were “unacceptable,” adding, “Were FCT to persist in its decision to retract our study, CRIIGEN would attack with lawyers, including in the United States, to require financial compensation for the huge damage to our group.”
The impending retraction comes as a blow to anti-GMO campaigners, who have been leveraging the fact that the article appeared in a first-line journal put out by the prominent scientific publisher Elsevier. It has been cited 28 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
Many scientists believe the journal badly botched the peer review of this paper. The editor’s letter appeared to be carefully crafted, apparently in anticipation of a legal response by Séralini and the anti-GMO industry, which has brandished the paper over the past 14 months as ‘proof’ that genetically modified foods pose potentially serious health hazards, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.
“Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data.” Wallace wrote. “However, there is legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected. … This retraction comes after a thorough and time-consuming analysis of the published article and the data it reports, along with an investigation into the peer-review behind the article.”
I refer right honorable readers to this past post, which states fully what I think of the anti-GMO crowd.