Séralini's study talks about up to three times higher mortality of treated groups with higher speed – the most controversial parts are connected with so-called 'transgene expression' and consequences that reach next generations.
The connection of GMO and Monsanto together with dangerous glyphosate is the main subject of newspaper columns for years, and scientists who dare to make scientific studies and laboratory researchers in independent manner are being labeled and completely disqualified.
Monsanto's goal doesn't choose means
Despite allegations of conflict of interest, the suspicious line between lobbying and bribe and clientelism aren't anything new or old for corporative business, Monsanto has its people in scientific magazines and committees, just like other big oil and war corporations. So far, they have successfully monitored publications of scientific articles, just like covering up any 'problematic' information. We remember research that was broadcasted by almost every media, and it was about generational genetic errors caused by consumption of GMO.
Monsanto's goal doesn't choose means
Rats were eating genetically modified corn with or without controversial herbicide 'RoundUp', and French research conducted by team CRIIGEN and scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini has been quite popular on media scene, but at the end, everything was labeled as 'poor science'. 'Food and Chemical Toxicology' under the pressure of Monsanto have eliminated mentioned study, and a man responsible for that was an editor for biotechnology questions of a magazine, otherwise former Monsanto's employee.
Disqualification and deprivation of credibility
Other magazines have very strongly attacked studies, and there were attempts to take away the job of the scientific team, despite already ruining their credibility. Monsanto's argument about the former same study without same results Séralini has declared invalid because of short execution time (only 90 days), but nobody has published his denial and opinion. Exactly the opposite, very unfavorable for the scientific community, they have used journalistic tools of disqualification despite the substantial difference between three months and two years of study duration.
Cons of Genetically Modified Foods
Let us recall that Séralini's study is about up to three times increased mortality of treated groups with higher speed. Because results were hormonally and gendered dependent, males and females didn't develop cancer in same areas. Female characteristics were mammary tumors and pituitary damage while males had big tumors, liver failure, and necrosis. The most controversial parts are connected with so-called 'transgene expression' and consequences that reach next generations.
The judicial epilog on the side of science
Despite rough media articles, a study has gone through three rigorous scientific reviews and conclusions stayed the same. Séralini has started lawsuits against defamation, and first he sued French magazine 'Marianne' because of their claim that his team is 'scam'. The lawsuit was legally won one month ago. Marc Fallous lost his dispute with a president of French Biomolecular Comitée, because he forged signatures for reviews of Séralini's research.
CRIIGEN's study was published again with scientific reviews, and next big win will be an apology of media which calumniated whole scientific team. Séralini has proved that dogmatic mind with 'help' of the bribe has become a key obstacle to pure science and critical mind which it represents – and leading dogmas of today, despite all evidence are being kept under interest domain. Monsanto has lost a trial, but they still have everything they need – Séralini is guiding light how to fight against it.