Monsanto Buys Science
Buying science, or making inconvenient science disappear, is Monsanto’s M.O., as well as the M.O of Exxon Mobil and the Koch Brothers regarding climate change. (See Exxon’s Shocking Climate Lie.) Junk science comes relatively cheap; using undersized samples, “studies” of too-short duration, cherry picked data and duplicitous percentages, etc., you can get any result you like, if you can only pay. Monsanto, of course, can pay and pay.
Monsanto disappears Seralini Study
In the case of the Seralini rat study, Monsanto showed the entire scientific community that the quickest way to disappear a peer-reviewed study published in a respected scientific journal is to put an editor in place who can then pull the offending piece threatening your bottom line. After Seralini’s study was published in 2014, Monsanto used its considerable connections to have its own man installed as editor of that same journal. That inside Monsanto man honored his masters by promptly retracting the offending article. Monsanto, of course, then pointed to this righteous action as proof that Seralini’s work with the glyphosate-tumored rats was not legitimate, that it failed to prove anything at all. The ploy might have worked, as it had worked with a former Monsanto employee named Michael Taylor when he crossed over to work with the FDA in order to make government rulings to force bovine growth hormone down our throats. But this time a funny thing happened on the way to the corruption. Real scientists protested. Real scientists re-reviewed Seralini’s rat tumor study, and another real journal, one surprisingly not yet owned by Monsanto or its minions, re-published the piece. The entire circle of lunacy, to our knowledge, was unprecedented in the annals of scientific literature.
The Old Installed Editor PloyIt was a page right out of the Monsanto playbook that they had previously used most effectively with Michael Taylor, a Monsanto poster boy for government corruption via corporate money. Taylor worked as a vice president for Monsanto when the company was pressuring the FDA to greenlight its horrible bovine growth hormone BGH. Once Monsanto was ready to present it to the FDA for clearance, Taylor took an executive job with the agency in a position he used to approve a proposal he’d help write while with Monsanto. Neat trick that, if more than a little heavy handed. When professional journalists like Jane Akre tried to report on Monsanto’s shenanigans and the little problem that BGH had with causing cancer, she was summarily driven out of her job. Read the facts, the history. It’s not “conspiracy theory” to state the straight truth: Monsanto is a huge advertiser (and political contributor, of course). The company is uber connected. Journalists or reporters who don’t understand that corporate sponsors dictate the so-called “news” do not last long in the job. Consequently, journalism is sadly all but dead in corporate-controlled Amerika (as Kafka pointedly spelled it).
How Damaging is Seralini Study to Monsanto?
For at least ten reasons, Seralini’s study is quite damaging to the whole dirty Monsanto gambit to monopolize our food supply and poison the world with glyphosate.
Ten Things to know about the Séralini study:
1. Monsanto minions’ criticisms of Séralini’s study claim it was a badly designed cancer study. It wasn’t. It was a chronic toxicity study, and it was well-designed and well-conducted.
2. Dr. Séralini’s study is the only long-term study on the commercialized GM maize NK603 and the pesticide (Roundup) with which it is designed to be grown.
3. Monsanto minions have argued Seralini didn’t use the right rats. (Pity he didn’t use Michael Taylor and some other actual Monsanto rats.) Séralini used the same strain of rat (Sprague-Dawley, SD) that Monsanto used in its 90-day studies on GM foods and in its long-term studies on glyphosate.
4. The SD rat is about as prone to tumors as are humans. In a further parallel with humans, the SD rat’s tendency to cancer increases with age.
5.Compared with industry tests on GMO foods, Séralini’s study analyzed the same number of rats but over a longer period (two years instead of 90 days), measured more effects more often, and was uniquely able to distinguish the effects of the GMO food from the pesticide with which it is grown.
6. If one argues that Séralini’s study fails to prove that the GMO food tested is dangerous, then one must also accept that industry studies on GMO foods fail to prove they are safe.
7. Séralini’s study showed that the 90-day tests typically done on GMO foods are not long enough to see long-term effects like cancer, organ damage, premature death. The first tumors appeared 4-7 months into the study.
8. Séralini’s study showed that industry and regulators are wrong to dismiss toxic effects seen in 90-day studies on GMO foods as “not biologically meaningful”. Signs of toxicity found in Monsanto’s 90-day studies were found to develop into organ damage, cancer, premature death in Séralini’s two-year study.
9. Long-term tests on GMO foods are not required by regulators anywhere in the world.
10. GMO foods have been found to have toxic effects on laboratory and farm animals in several studies.