While I have no doubt it happens, and there is certainly loads of fishy goings on with Monsanto and the way some journals function.
Looking further into Seralini, it seems this isn't the first time he has been criticised for poor methodology and statistical analysis. He is also fairly open about being anti-GM, which is fine, but it certainly seems to be leading to pretty bad bias in his work, particularly when it comes to data analysis and representation. All sides seem to be at fault, basically.
Though I do think that stricter and more extensive testing should be a requirement and the containment concerns certainly need addressing.
Edit - and I should add, I think that articles which have passed peer review should be left in place and open to rebuttal, with the exception of blatantly fraudulent work.
EB Musicman/Ibanez/Ampeg/Peavey/Marshall/Tech 21
Last edited by i_got_a_mohawk : 12-16-2013 at 07:58 PM.