GMO Rat Study Retracted..by New Journal Editor from (Surprise!) Monsanto

Remember the Seralini study, with those gruesome images of GMO-fed rats that were engulfed by horrific tumors?  Well, great news! You can grab yourself some GMO corn and chow down now because the journal that published the study has retracted it.  Silly us, there was absolutely nothing to worry about!
The new editor over at the journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, says so – you know, Richard E. Goodman, the editor that used to work in the hallowed halls of Monsanto.
Wait….what????????????????????
I guess it wasn’t enough for Monsanto to infiltrate the government at every level - now they have to install staff to keep their GMO death crops from being negatively reviewed at respected scientific journals.
Rady Ananda, of Food Freedom News and Activist Post, reports:

In February of 2013, the FCT hired Monsanto’s former employee, Richard E. Goodman, for a new position reviewing biotechnology papers. On November 19, the FCT reported its decision to retract the published paper stating the study’s results were inconclusive because there weren’t enough rats used in the study, and the strain of rat used was not acceptable.
Writing for CRIIGEN, the independent lab with which Seralini is affiliated, Frédérique Baudouin noted that a short Monsanto study, which was published in the same journal to prove the safety of its product, “was conducted with the same strain and number of rats.”
Séralini has promised to sue. (source)

In case you don’t recall the findings of this study that has Monsanto running scared, here’s a quick refresher.
The rodents were fed a lifetime of genetically modified corn that had been doused with Roundup (glyphosate) during its growing process.  The tragic results proved that the rats had a 50-70% chance of developing horrific, grotesque tumors from the diet.  Naysayers attempted to refute the science behind the study and a war developed in the scientific community, one that is clearly ongoing with this Monsanto scientist that was very obviously put in place to discredit the harmful-to-Monsanto report.   Natural News summarized some findings of the study:

• Up to 50% of males and 70% of females suffered premature death.
• Rats that drank trace amounts of Roundup (at levels legally allowed in the water supply) had a 200% to 300% increase in large tumors.
• Rats fed GM corn and traces of Roundup suffered severe organ damage including liver damage and kidney damage.
• The study fed these rats NK603, the Monsanto variety of GM corn that’s grown across North America and widely fed to animals and humans. This is the same corn that’s in your corn-based breakfast cereal, corn tortillas and corn snack chips.

The infiltration of Monsanto into the halls of academia did not go unnoticed to a group of scientists in Europe.  They have harshly denounced the whole sordid camouflage job.

A European network of scientists (ENSSER) has also published a scathing condemnation of FCT’s behavior, warning that this level of corruption is “a flagrant abuse of science” that will “decrease public trust in science.” No doubt.
Going further, ENSSER condemned the FCT for violating “not only the criteria for retraction to which the journal itself subscribes, but any standards of good science.”
A recent article calling this matter ‘The Goodman Affair,’ noted that:
Richard E. Goodman is professor at the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska. But he is also a former Monsanto employee, who worked for the company between 1997 and 2004. While at Monsanto he assessed the allergenicity of the company’s GM crops and published papers on its behalf on allergenicity and safety issues relating to GM food (Goodman and Leach 2004).”Beyond all this, Seralini wasn’t even looking for cancer, which would require a larger number of animals, but merely prepared a chronic toxicity study under the same conditions that Monsanto used to assert the GM corn’s safety.
ENSSER explains that the short term study found not only “pronounced toxic effects” but also “increased tumour rates.” Further, the Sprague-Dawley strain of rat is the “commonly used standard for this type of research” and was the same one Monsanto used.
Most importantly, “Unpleasant results should be checked, not ignored. And the toxic effects other than tumours and mortality are well-founded.”
ENSSER concluded that, “Prof. Séralini’s findings stand today more than before, as even this secret review found that there is nothing wrong with either technicalities, conduct or transparency of the data – the foundations on which independent science rests. The conclusiveness of their data will be decided by future independent science, not by a secret circle of people.”

Monsanto is clearly striving diligently to undo the damage done by activists spreading the word about their toxic takeover of the food supply.  They are blatantly covering up the information that people need to have access to in order make informed decisions about the consumption of GMOs. I’m certainly not swayed by this retraction. I stand by my former recommendation: GMOs are not safe, even in moderation.
Learn more here:  Monsanto behind Journal’s retraction of GMO rat-cancer link