Show Buttons
Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Hide Buttons

Home » Biotechnology »Health »News » Currently Reading:

Corn Fakes

November 2, 2007 Biotechnology, Health, News No Comments

The article below is reprinted from the British magazine Private Eye, No. 1194, 28 September-11 October 2007. The ‘heavy-handed’ libel threats referred to below temporarily closed the GM Watch website this summer.

Heavy-handed libel threats on the part of a biotech researcher have done little to silence criticism of a scientific paper claiming that shoppers prefer GM produce.

Published in the British Food Journal three years ago, the paper was based on the findings from a Canadian farm store where customers were offered a choice of GM or non-GM sweetcorn. The four researchers concluded that 50 percent more people opted for the GM crop. The journal branded the study its “most outstanding paper” of the year.

Alas, the paper did not disclose that above the non-GM corn was a sign asking shoppers: “Would you eat wormy sweetcorn?”, while the GM crop was signed: “quality sweetcorn.” The Canadian journalist who originally uncovered the story said there had been pro-GM literature in the shop, but nothing from GM’s critics.

UK campaign group GM Watch published a photo of the wormy sweetcorn sign under the title ‘Award for Fraud’. Following its expose, in May last year, the New Scientist carried demands from a researcher on scientific ethics at Cambridge University that the British Food Journal withdraw the paper.

The journal’s editor refused, although he did print a letter condemning the paper alongside one from one of its authors, Douglas Powell of Kansas State University, dismissing the allegations. Powell said the signs were only up for a week, contained the language of consumers and were “not intended to manipulate consumer purchasing patterns”.

Then, last month another of the paper’s authors, Canadian government analyst Shane Morris, threatened a libel action against GM Watch’s internet service provider.

Morris said the wormy signs had been taken down long before he joined the research team on 27 September 2000. He put two photos on his blog that he said showed the “wormy” sign had been removed and replaced. But a computer scientist who saw the images disputed this. And a Toronto-based food policy expert, Dr Rod MacCrae, who visited the shop on September 27 2000, told the Eye: “All I can tell you is that a wormy corn sign looking very much like the one in GM Watch’s photo, was there at the farm the day I visited.”

Dr Richard Jennings, who lectures on scientific practice at Cambridge University, is adamant the paper should have been withdrawn. “The case is a flagrant fraud, as far as I see it. It was a sin of omission by failing to divulge information which quite clearly should have been disclosed.” But then, if the researchers had disclosed the wormy corn labels, would any respected scientific journal have published it?

Reproduced by kind permission of PRIVATE EYE

Comment on this Article:

Science News on the Web

Why Independent Science News?

Scientific inventions and ideas shape the future. As science becomes ever more beset by commercial and ideological pressures, there is urgent need for scientific reporting and analysis from an independent, expert, public interest perspective. With this standard, Independent Science News works to shape a future that is biodiverse, just, and healthy for everyone.
More about us...

Sign up to our mailing list

E-mail address:
Name (optional):

Related News Articles

GE Soybeans Give Altered Milk and Stunted Offspring, Researchers Find

What Happened to Obama’s Promise to Restore Scientific Integrity?

New Research Links Neonicotinoid Pesticides to Monarch Butterfly Declines

EU Safety Institutions Caught Plotting an Industry “escape route” Around Looming Pesticide Ban

How “Extreme Levels” of Roundup in Food Became the Industry Norm

Can the Scientific Reputation of Pamela Ronald, Public Face of GMOs, Be Salvaged?

No Scientific Consensus on Safety of Genetically Modified Organisms

The Experiment Is on Us: Science of Animal Testing Thrown into Doubt


Climate Technofix: Weaving Carbon into Gold and Other Myths of “negative emissions”

Sandakan Sabah Biomass Power Plant

By Rachel Smolker, PhD When the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) published their most recent fifth assessment report, something surprising and deeply disturbing was lurking in the small print in chapter three on “mitigation”. Related PostsHow the Science Media Failed the IAASTDNew Report Links Food, Climate and Agricultural PoliciesRethinking …

Students Protest the University of California’s War on Agroecology

Gill Tract Farm March 2012

(UC STUDENTS’ OPEN LETTER TO THE EXTERNAL ADVISORY BOARD OF THE AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTE (ASI) & SAREP) As the students of the University of California, we come to you today to share our often silenced voices, our vision, and concerns we have about our common future. Our intention here is …

Why the United States Leaves Deadly Chemicals on the Market


By Valerie Brown and Elizabeth Grossman Scientists are trained to express themselves rationally. They avoid personal attacks when they disagree. But some scientific arguments become so polarized that tempers fray. There may even be shouting. Such is the current state of affairs between two camps of scientists: health effects researchers …

Why Andrew Cuomo’s Pollinator Task Force Won’t Save New York’s Bees

Bombus affinis, the Rusty-Patched Bumblebee

By Tracy Frisch As in other parts of North America, beekeepers in New York have been experiencing unsustainable losses of honeybee colonies. In 2014-15, annual colony losses in New York reached 54 per cent, according to the Bee Informed Partnership survey. And though losses were lower in preceding years, they …

More Commentaries...


Poison Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA

Poison Spring Evaggelos Valllianatos

Book Author: Evaggelos Vallianatos with McKay Jenkins Reviewed by: Carol Van Strum “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts,” Richard Feynman famously declared in 1966. Ever quick to challenge accepted wisdom, he distinguished the laudable ignorance of science, forever seeking unattainable certainties, from the dangerous ignorance of experts …

The Real Cost of Fracking: How America’s Shale Gas Boom Is Threatening Our Families, Pets, and Food

The Real Cost of Fracking book cover

Book Authors: Michelle Bamberger and Robert Oswald Reviewed by Allison Wilson (The Bioscience Resource Project) The first researchers to systematically document ill health in livestock, pets, and people living near fracking drill sites were Michelle Bamberger and Robert Oswald. Bamberger, a veterinarian, and Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at …

More Reviews...