Daily Mail: Sean Poulter, "Cancer row over GM foods as study says it did THIS to rats... and can cause organ damage and early death in humans "
Jon Entine in Forbes: "Seralini's research is anomalous. Previous peer-reviewed rat feeding studies using the same products (NK603 and Roundup) have not found any negative food safety impacts. The Japanese Department of Environmental Health and Toxicology released a 52-week feeding study of GM soybeans in 2007, finding "no apparent adverse effect in rats." In 2012, a team of scientists at the University of Nottingham School of Biosciences released a review of 12 long-term studies (up to two years) and 12 multi-generational studies (up to 5 generations) of GM foods, concluding there is no evidence of health hazards."[74] Andrew Revkin dubbed it another instance of "single-study syndrome", and contended that the study was in support of an "agenda"
Yes, it could be sensationalism. But if there are so many flaws in this research, as its sceptics are quick to point out, why haven't there been more studies like this?
There's an expression the author uses in this article: Tom Philpott 'Does GMO Corn Really Cause Tumors in Rats?' that I think is really effective. He writes that we are "Eating in the dark."
Between 1992 and 2002—the period over which GMO crops moved rapidly from test plants to farm fields to dinner tables, the USDA spent about $1.8 billion on ag-biotechnology research—of which about 1 percent went to safety testing, a Union of Concerned Scientists analysis shows. Meanwhile, the ag-biotech industry uses its patent power to maintain tight control over who researches what—and dominates the research agenda at America's main ag-research universities. When we eat GMOs, as millions of Americans do every day, we're still eating in the dark. The French study didn't fully illuminate the situation, but it's a start.
