Science journal retracts French study on GM foods
A controversial French study purportedly linking genetically modified foods to tumours and organ failure in rats — research widely hailed by anti-GM activists and fiercely denounced by scientists — has been retracted. I wonder who was really behind all of this - Monsanto?
JOHN THYS / AFP/GETTY IMAGES
French professor Gilles-Eric Seralini gives a press conference Thursday at EU headquarters in Brussels to denounce the removal by the Food and Chemical Toxicology review of his study published in September 2012 on the effects of genetically-modified maize fed to rats.
Science publisher Elsevier announced Thursday that its journal, Food and Chemical Toxicity, was pulling the paper after lengthy review of the raw data. Because of problems with the type and number of animals used, they said, the study was inconclusive and does “not reach the threshold of publication.”
Since the paper was published in November 2012, the last name of its author, Gilles-Eric Séralini , became a byword for scientific scandal .
The original study described rats that for two years were exposed to herbicide-tainted water and fed an unlimited diet of Roundup-resistant maize, a type of corn genetically modified to resist herbicide and marketed by the agribusiness giant Monsanto.
Séralini and his co-authors claimed many of the female GM-fed rats grew massive mammary tumours and that the males suffered from liver damage; all died more quickly than animals fed a non-GM diet.
The findings rocketed around the world, expedited by anti-GM activists .
But scientists immediately and loudly objected. In journal’s editor a deluge of letters to the Food and Chemical Toxicity journal’s editor, other publications and around the web, researchers panned the study for being fundamentally flawed.
The type of rat Séralini used is well known to develop tumours, especially with age and especially when fed an unrestricted diet, many pointed out. In fact, the company that markets the rats itself noted the high instance of mammary tumours in females.
The study had other design and analysis problems. It used a tiny control group and offered no explanation of why females rapidly developed cancer but males appeared resistant, among other flaws. In addition, some said it was cruel to allow the rats to live so long after developing massive tumours.
“This paper as it is now presents poor quality science and dubious ethics,” two biosafety experts wrote .
Health Canada published a statement questioning Séralini’s results and stating that the “overwhelming body of scientific evidence” supports the safety of genetically modified foods. The European Food Safety Authority called the paper scientifically unsound .
In another move that deeply troubled observers, before allowing access to the paper Séralini asked news outlets to sign a confidentiality agreement that prevented reporters from obtaining independent commentary from outside experts.
On Thursday, in a statement emailed to the Star, Séralini threatened legal action as a result of the retraction and demanded the journal also retract an unspecified article on the same genetically modified organism supposedly authored by Monsanto.
Séralini’s supporters also struck out, calling the retraction unethical : the journal itself said it did not find evidence of misconduct or fraud and that the review panel had concluded only that the study was inconclusive, not incorrect.
Experts, meanwhile, commended the retraction, calling it “justified” and “long overdue.” But some fretted that the decision would receive less media attention than the original publication, and that it would only reinforce Séralini’s image as an anti-establishment martyr.
The editors of Food and Chemical Toxicity and its publisher, Elsevier, which also puts out marquee journals such as The Lancet , defended their peer review-process, which should have screened the paper for major problems. But critics were deeply skeptical about their claim that “at times, expediency might be sacrificed for being as thorough as possible.”
The saga is sure to further stoke controversy over the supposedly superior peer-review process at traditional journals like Elsevier’s when compared to upstart open-access journals online .sssciences
