'messy public relations' indeed.

"I suspect this decision has a lot more to do with messy public relations than with science. From a strictly scientific perspective, the Séralini study isn’t a big deal: It’s just one of the many safety trials that researchers have performed on GM foods; it amounts to little when considered as part of the whole picture. The way scientists usually deal with this sort of finding is to ignore it. As Séralini’s team pointed out in a response to the retraction [doc], many other studies might be disqualified if they were held to the same standard.

From a public-relations perspective, on the other hand, the Séralini study is a huge deal. To people who aren’t familiar with the larger body of research, and who mistrust GMOs, it looks like proof that GM food kills. It produced disturbing images of tumorous rats that continue bouncing around social media to this day. The retraction provides an easy rejoinder to that sort of thing. As in, “You know that study was retracted, right?”"

Stupidity and its need to circumvent fact and observation wins out here - only because it's institutionalized.

But facts are a pesky thing - they just don't go away because enough people have been convinced to ignore the reality of what observing those facts mean.

http://grist.org/food/rat-retraction-reaction-journal-pulls-its-gmos-cause-rat-tumors-study/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Daily%2520Nov%25203&utm_campaign=daily