But obviously, this case shows they CAN handle such findings.

I never get an answer.

I looked it up on-line, got a number of fuzzy "definitions."

Apparently in some circles, guilt by accusation and asking for actual evidence that is peer-reviewed is "materialism."

"Dr" Andrew Wakefield used fake data to link autism to vaccines, that report has been withdrawn and Wakefield discredited.
Except among those who are still true believers, like Jenny McCarthy.

In the case mentioned in the OP, the methodology was flawed, the rats being used are prone to tumors in the first place.

So why is this study being still promoted?

One of three reasons, mainly:

1. The promoter is insane. Paranoid rejections of what is new and innovative is nothing new, you should have seen the laws that used to be in place to restrict this newfangled gadget called the "automobile."
In Saudi Arabia they still say women won't be able to have babies if they drive.

2. The agenda is paramount.
That agenda being that "big business" is out to poison us.
All evidence that shows otherwise is "evil" or "brainwashing."

3. Money. "Organic" food is a scam, just go to your local supermarket, and look at the price of milk, and notice the price of organic milk.
There is very little, if any, difference between a strawberry, and an "organic" one, yet the "organic" strawberry will undoubtedly be as much as 2 or even 3 times higher in price.

and that is important in a household that doesn't always regularly consume milk.

OK Arch, here's my response. If in some ultimate sense you want "answers," then your own faculties will no doubt avail you.

1. In the first place, since the start of the controversy the media has done an egregiously bad job of reporting on what the Seralini study actually said, as opposed to what corporate opponents said the study said. In the 2nd place, it is of glaringly obvious ethical concern that the "newly hired" editor who shitcanned the article is a former Monsanto employee. Hello? Is that not some kind of red flag?

2. As far as I can see, Seralini is not the active ingredient here in arguing for the study to get proper respect, but rather people and organizations who feel profoundly concerned that the staff of life (broadly speaking) is being mechanically overshadowed at a blistering pace, without careful truly independent long-term research. All of this accompanied by a long, well-documented pattern of corporate bullying and perverse ethical and business behavior. Hello? Red flag #2

3. Money? I don't think so. You should really go visit a bunch of these farms. Then bring up the money question again. To quote the late Oscar Wilde, "What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. And a sentimentalist...is a man who sees an absurd value in everything, and doesn't know the market place of any single thing.” Maybe you will agree with me that most of the people on the organic side tend toward the sentimentalist end of the equation, and that the GMO, Inc. Corporate Dynamo tends to the cynical. At any rate, for some folks that is Red flag #3.

Big AG spends millions of dollars to put out their point of view.quash any opposing viewpoints, sue family farms into oblivion and have their cronies entrenched in some of the highest regulatory bodies, courts and educational institutions in the land.

But it's us small sustainable farmers who are the money grubbing vermin.

Gotta love it, don't you?

Pity the poor rats (and people) who are occultly fed the corporate mutant food like substances.



http://www.independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science/

From Forbes:
"As the Genetic Literacy Project reports, the GMO wars are escalateing after the discrediting of a central pillar of the anti-crop biotechnology movement and the stumbling by a prominent science journal...."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/11/29/notorious-seralini-gmo-cancer-rat-study-retracted-ugly-legal-battle-looms/