Remember the explosive 2012 study published in the Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) journal, in which Gilles-Eric Seralini and other researchers proved (with photographic evidence) that rats fed a lifetime of GM corn grew horrific tumors? It turns out that the study was retracted from the FCT in November 2013 – less than a year after the journal appointed Richard E. Goodman, an ex-employee of Monsanto, as the editor tasked with reviewing its biotechnology papers.
Goodman worked for Monsanto between 1997 and 2004, where he assessed the “allergenicity” of the company’s GM crops and published papers that “confirmed” they were safe to consume. After Monsanto, he became a professor at the University of Nebraska’s Food Allergy Research and Resource Program and has been Associate Editor of Biotechnology for the FCT since February 2013.
Goodman was the editor who re-assessed the Seralini study 15 months after it was first published. The FCT officially revealed its intention to retract it on the 19th of November, claiming that the study’s findings were “inconclusive,” because not enough rats were used in the study, and because the strain of rat used wasn’t acceptable. However, according to Frederique Baudouin, a member of the independent lab with which Seralini is affiliated, the FCT was perfectly happy to publish a pro-GMO study by Monsanto which used the exact same number (and strain) of rats. Understandably enraged by this double standard, Seralini intends to sue the journal.
Why Seralini’s study made Goodman nervous
It’s not difficult to understand why someone who has dedicated his career to pushing GM poisons would want to cover up Seralini’s study. After all, the study found, among many other things, that:
1.) Rats that drank trace amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide experienced a 200-300 percent increase in tumors.
2.) Rats that were fed GM corn suffered extreme organ damage, including kidney and liver damage.
Unfortunately for Goodman, the study went viral on the Internet. Its findings have been reprinted on countless health sites, and its photographs – arguably the biggest reason for its success – can be found on virtually all comprehensive anti-GMO essays published since mid-2012. The cat is out of the bag, and removing the study from the FCT’s archives is a desperate measure that can do little but attract renewed attention to its conclusions.
Moreover, the cover-up has actually compromised the FCT’s reputation. For example, the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, a reputable network of scientists in Europe, has publicly condemned the journal for its corrupt actions:
“[T]he decision to retract Seralini’s paper is a flagrant abuse of science and a blow to its credibility and independence. It is damaging for the reputation of both the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology and its publisher Elsevier. It will decrease public trust in science. And it will not succeed in eliminating critical independent science from public view and scrutiny. […] The conclusiveness of their data will be decided by future independent science, not by a secret circle of people.”
Goodman and his secret circle of people will certainly be troubled by that statement.
Sources for this article include: