Visit our Re-post guidelines
What kind of hornet’s nest was opened up for the GM industry in view of the retraction of the two year "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize", by G E Séralini et al, published in Food and Chemical Toxicology 2012, 50(11), 4221-31?
According to the article published December 5, 2013 in the Ecologist,
This arbitrary, groundless retraction of a published, thoroughly peer-reviewed paper is without precedent in the history of scientific publishing, and raises grave concerns over the integrity and impartiality of science. These concerns are heightened by a sequence of events surrounding the retraction:
- the appointment of ex-Monsanto employee Richard Goodman to the newly created post of associate editor for biotechnology at FCT
- the retraction of another study finding potentially harmful effects from GMOs (which almost immediately appeared in another journal)
- the failure to retract a paper published by Monsanto scientists in the same journal in 2004, for which a gross error has been identified. 
The first bulleted item apparently speaks volumes as to Monsanto’s tactics in gaining corporate-style control over many segments of society, commerce, and government. Shouldn’t someone question the revolving door policy Monsanto’s former chief lobbyist Michael Taylor  has enjoyed at federal agencies, and now as FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods? Can that be why we have FDA-mandated “No GMO Labeling of Foods”?
Then there’s Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a former Monsanto employee – he was a company lawyer.  Does a corporate lawyer position warrant enough experience to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.
The third bulleted item above ought to nail it down for everyone as to what’s really going on. It’s a shame what’s happening in science, the corporate world, and government during these trying times.
However, readers may recall that I wrote “GMOs: What Do the Stars Say Astrologically” back on August 2, 2013. Does astrology know more than we give it credit for?
Another publication, The Economist, also did a number on the apparent unethical retraction, and titled it tongue-in-cheek-like, “Smelling a rat.” 
Hopefully, the blatant shenanigans that go on in the name of vested interests to obfuscate serious scientific issues or prevail in control mechanisms that affect everyone’s well-being, e.g., the very food we eat, will turn the tide for consumers understanding GM issues, as it apparently has for those 105 very erudite and courageous scientists. Applause, applause, applause!