That a former Monsanto scientist should find himself in charge of a specially-created post at the very journal that published two landmark studies questioning the safety of that company’s products should surprise no one who is aware of the Monsanto revolving door. This door is responsible for literally dozens of Monsanto officials, lobbyists and consultants finding themselves in positions of authority in the government bodies that are supposedly there to regulate the company and its actions.
Find out more about Monsanto’s ability to suppress scientific dissent in this week’s edition of the BoilingFrogsPost.com Eyeopener report.
This is nonsense. How do I know it? because I work for Monsanto. Myself and anyone I work with there wouldn’t work there if any of this trash talk was true. We constantly see this trash talk about what goes on at Monsanto and it is nonsense. We might dream of if only we could persuade people to see common sense but we dare not and are not allowed to influence like it is suggested.
In fact I see Seralini work influenced by his backers. I know enough about this type of testing to test you that just a cursory look at the data shows it doesn’t say what the conclusions were and this is what a multitude of independent bodies have also said.
BY THE WAY the scientist involved has made a clear statement that he doesn’t believe he was influenced by Monsanto. Are you calling him a liar? Do you have the ability to read minds – amazing maybe you should try to publish that one. Honestly. Science isn’t perfect but with such an important subject you don’t announce your result through a press conference and you make sure that peers review your work and any questions about the data are looked into.
Companies are criticized for submitting their own data. But this is done under tight scrutiny – typically GLP standards that are much higher than academic studies – ask any academic who has tried to follow the process
Mike, there is no suggestion that Goodman was directly influenced by Monsanto. It could be argued that there was no need for such direct influence, given that Goodman has long been a spokesperson for the GMO industry and the supposed safety of GMO products, via ILSI, the industry-funded lobby group. And of course Goodman got offered the position at FCT as a direct followup to his criticising the Seralini study vocally to the editor of FCT. You, not we, are the one invoking the word “liar”. It is not a word I would apply to this complex situation. However, to me this is a clear sign that journals should publish the interests of their editors, as per the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics.
Regarding your point about GLP and regulatory science, I am afraid the debate here in Europe has moved on from a situation where it can be claimed with any credibility that industry studies are typically of a higher standard than academic studies. GLP is not a guarantor of scientific quality, just a lab management system brought in to combat industry fraud, as a result of some major frauds that had already occurred, interestingly involving Monsanto and glyphosate. We cannot directly judge the quality of industry studies underlying approvals of pesticides because they are kept secret. However just from the info that is in the public domain, we can know enough to ascertain that the whole process of pesticide approvals is deeply unscientific and that the interpretations made of the industry studies by industry and regulators are extremely questionable. See
http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/roundup-and-birth-defects-is-the-public-being-kept-in-the-dark
for more info.
When it comes to scientific research, I will put my faith in an independent laboratory who has no vested interest in a product, and I give no credence to any studies funded by federal grants or the company who wishes to sell the product, because in most cases they are looking for specified results, regardless of what the product might be, but especially when it comes to food. Weather you believe in God or not, earthly existence was created in a delicate balance; and science needs to stop trying to play God.
Do you really believe he would admit to it if he was being influenced by Monssnto?I think not.Contradicting wether someone days is not calling then a liar. You are just adding your own words to create an argument.