An example of bad headlines

From Skeptical Raptor we have this headline:
"Séralini’s controversial GMOs cause cancer article retracted"

Yes, his first study ("Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize") was retracted. But he wasn't studying all GMOs. He was studying Roundup Ready corn fed to rats, which contains glyphosate. This headline is deceptive and borderlines on being plain inaccurate. There is plenty of proof Roundup Ready crops contain glyphosate, and are dangerous to animals and humans. I have yet to see evidence that drought-resistant eggplant is a problem. If you have such evidence please put your link to the study in the comment, and a description of what the study says.

All this over-generalization and hysteria makes the non-GMO movement look really bad. I take offense because I'm part of the non-Roundup Ready movement. I want the right to choose which poisons I put in my body, and usually that's a glass of wine at dinner. I didn't pay for wine with glyphosate, nor do I want it. Even some organic wines had glyphosate.


The Skeptical Raptor article continues:

But here’s the simplest of simple math–glyphosate is not sprayed directly on the ears of corn. Glyphosate suppresses weeds, and would kill corn if sprayed directly. So the amount on that ear of corn is basically undetectable.

Wrong. Roundup Ready crops are sprayed directly with Roundup, and the crops don't die. That's the GMO part. Other non-RR crops are regularly sprayed with Roundup 2 days before harvest so the whole crop dies at the same time. All parts of a crop dying at the same time doesn't normally happen on a farm. Different areas of the field ripen at different rates. Thus when they are harvested, they are full of Roundup.

There are plenty of studies that show glyphosate is dangerous to cells, animals, and humans even at low doses. To accept some studies and not others for the convenience of profit is not science. To assume a substance is safe when it has not been proven to be safe in peer-reviewed studies is also not science, nor is it wise.