If you do, forget it — it’s been retracted.
When it was published I pointed out that there was something not quite right in the paper.
Reporting that it was retracted, PZ Myers takes the opportunity to do a most excellent takedown of the whole thing: Belated retraction of Seralini’s bad anti-GMO paper.
There wer elots of red flags even before the paper came to light, as PZ reports: "At the time the paper came out, Carl Zimmer also raised holy hell because it was another case of science by press conference. There were all kinds of complaints by scientists about the study, but journalists who got the paper in advance had to sign confidentiality agreements that prohibited them from consulting with experts — they were expected to flounder about in the dark and simply accept what they were told."
I can’t emphasize enough PZ Myer’s conclusion: "So it was a terrible, sloppy paper with gaping deficiencies that somehow slipped past peer review but made scientists gape in surprise when they finally saw it published, and it’s finally being retracted. But too late: anti-GMO propagandists are now seeing the retraction as a sign that there is a conspiracy to Hide the Truth™, and are using the efforts to apply standards of evidence to the work as proof that Big Science is out to give everyone cancer."
Science distortion, unfortunately. is a game with many players, all over the political spectrum and with all kinds of agendas…