Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague–Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups. Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology. And it is natural. All agricultural ingredients have to go through processing before they get to the consumer. The Editor-in-Chief wishes to acknowledge the co-operation of the corresponding author in this matter, and commends him for his commitment to the scientific process. Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. The peer review process is not perfect, but it does work. The editorial board will continue to use this case as a reminder to be as diligent as possible in the peer review process. Please see Food and Chemical Toxicology 53 (1), pp. 440–483, for all Letters to the Editor and the response. Likewise, the Letters to the Editor, both pro and con, serve as a post-publication peer-review. The time-consuming nature is, at times, required in fairness to both the authors and readers.
The back and forth between the readers and the author has a useful and valuable place in our scientific dialog. The Editor-in-Chief again commends the corresponding author for his willingness and openness in participating in this dialog. The journal’s editorial policy will continue to review all manuscripts no matter how controversial they may be. Pesticides and a whole raft of other ingredients some stakeholders argue do not belong in a product labeled as ‘all-natural’. Writing in the blog of the Washington Legal Foundation last month, director of outreach Stephen Richer said the FDA should take action to address this issue, adding: “ Legislatures, or regulatory bodies acting as an agents of the legislature, are far better suited to define politicized, complex terms like ‘natural’ than are judges and juries through class action litigation. ”Jamba JuiceFounded in 1990, Jamba Juice Company is a leading food and beverage retailer with more than 760 stores selling smoothies, juices, yogurt and other products. The low number of animals had been identified as a cause for concern during the initial review process, but the peer review decision ultimately weighed that the work still had merit despite this limitation. The retraction is only on the inconclusiveness of this one paper. This is getting very silly. However, a stevia industry source said the wording of the complaint was very misleading. He said: Stevia can be extracted using some of the methods described in the lawsuit, although the major suppliers do not use these methods, so it is a bit of a blanket statement. The journal is committed to getting the peer-review process right, and at times, expediency might be sacrificed for being as thorough as possible. This lawsuit is manipulating facts in order to paint something in a graver light. Attorney: We don't use hexane or hydrochloric acid, for example. Ingredients extracted using organic solvents such as hexane;
Partially hydrogenated vegetable oils; However, there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected. However, it is in accordance with the journal’s policy that authors of submitted manuscripts must be willing to provide the original data if so requested. 2 The corresponding author agreed and supplied all material that was requested by the Editor-in-Chief. The request to view raw data is not often made; You have to think at the moment, is it really worth making an all-natural claim? ”Is FDA 1993 definition very useful? The FDA follows a 1993 policy that states: “[FDA] has not objected to the use of the term[natural]on food labels provided it is used in a manner that is truthful and not misleading and the product does not contain added color, artificial flavors or synthetic substances. ”However, this does not help firms fighting lawsuits over high fructose corn syrup; Term paper on glycosides. It has developed a range of consumer packaged goods including frozen bars and smoothie kits, which come in five flavors and feature the ‘all-natural’ claim. A spokesperson said: “We just received the suit and are investigating the allegations. GMOs; Please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal ( ). The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracts the article “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize, ” which was published in this journal in November 2012. The growing threat of civil litigationSpeaking to this publication last month, Justin Prochnow, shareholder at law firm Greenberg Traurig LLP, said the lack of a legal definition of natural meant opportunistic plaintiffs’ attorneys were having a field day with all-natural claims. He added: Because the FDA has declined to formalize a definition of natural, plaintiffs' lawyers have seized upon the opportunity to file lawsuits over the use of 'all natural', knowing that the ultimate decision of whether a product is truly natural or not is one that will often have to be decided by a judge or jury. That usually means a long, drawn out case that forces many defendants to settle the case or risk huge legal fees, so the lack of a formal definition of natural is a great situation for plaintiffs' lawyers. Speaking at the Nutracon conference last week, he added: “One of the biggest threats to the dietary supplements industry right now is the growing threat of civil litigation.
Steviol glycosides are the demineralized and decolorized with ion exchangers and spray dried. ”It adds: “ At times, concentrated solutions of hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide are used to regenerate ion exchange resins. ”Stevia industry source: Many of these letters called upon the editors of the journal to retract the paper. Customers also as k detailed questions about extraction methods and they want us to walk them through every step of the process. But the more important point - that I think a 'reasonable consumer' would understand - is that if I open a pack of Reb-A sweetener or if I went into my backyard and chewed on a stevia leaf, the same molecule would pass my lips. A class action lawsuit filed in California this week argues that steviol glycosides should not be considered natural, owing to the chemical processing sometimes used to extract them from the stevia leaf. The complaint, filed by law firm Finkelstein Thompson LLP on behalf of plaintiff Kevin Anderson on March 12, is the latest in a string of class action lawsuits filed against firms including PepsiCo, Kellogg, ConAgra and Kraft for allegedly misleading consumers with ‘all-natural’ claims. Anderson argues that Jamba Juice’s ‘all-natural’ smoothie kits deceive consumers because they contain “ unnaturally processed, synthetic and/or non-natural ingredients ” including ascorbic acid, citric acid, xanthan gum… and steviol glycosides. While some of these ingredients might be derived from a natural source, says the complaint, the extraction and processing methods mean that shoppers would no longer consider them to be ‘natural’. “A reasonable consumer would not consider food products containing unnaturally processed, synthetic substances or substances created via chemical processing to be ‘all-natural’. ”Steviol glycosidesAs for obtaining steviol glycosides from stevia leaves, it says: “ Although there are numerous extraction methods, some involve adding chloroform or hexane to dried plant leaves… “Flocculants such as calcium hydroxide and aluminum sulfate may be used to facilitate the removal of undesired accompanying substances. The Editor in-Chief deferred making any public statements regarding this article until this investigation was complete, and the authors were notified of the findings. Very shortly after the publication of this article, the journal received Letters to the Editor expressing concerns about the validity of the findings it described, the proper use of animals, and even allegations of fraud. Please note that Internet Explorer version 8. x is not supported as of January 1, 2016. At this point, we have every reason to believe the ‘all natural’ claims on the smoothie kits are in full compliance with FDA guidelines. ”A class action lawsuit filed in California this week argues that steviol glycosides should not be considered natural, owing to the chemical processing sometimes used to extract them from the stevia leaf. Copyright - Unless otherwise stated all contents of this web site are 2017 - William Reed Business Media SAS - All Rights Reserved - Full details for the use of materials on this site can be found in theSubscribe to our FREE newsletterAccess all events listing According to the journal’s standard practice, these letters, as well as the letters in support of the findings, were published along with a response from the authors. 1 Due to the nature of the concerns raised about this paper, the Editor-in-Chief examined all aspects of the peer review process and requested permission from the corresponding author to review the raw data. This retraction comes after a thorough and time-consuming analysis of the published article and the data it reports, along with an investigation into the peer-review behind the article. Please refer to for more information. This article has been retracted: