Journal set to retract Seralini GM rat cancer study

By Nathan Gray contact

- Last updated on GMT

Research that linked genetically modified crops and Roundup with massive tumours in rats will be withdrawn, says the the journal which originally published the research.
Research that linked genetically modified crops and Roundup with massive tumours in rats will be withdrawn, says the the journal which originally published the research.

Related tags: Roundup

A heavily criticised rat study that linked Monsanto's genetically modified maize and the herbicide Roundup to increased cancer risks is set to be withdrawn by the journal that published it.

The research first hit the headlines last year when Gilles Seralini his colleagues published their findings in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. ​The study, along with graphic images of tumour ridden rats released by the authors, attainted global media coverage with suggestions that long term exposure to even relatively low levels of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup and the genetically modified  NK603 resistant maize crop could result in a ‘greatly increased risk of tumours’ and premature death​.

Now, however, A. Wallace Hayes the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology​ has sent Seralini a letter saying that the paper will be retracted if he does not agree to withdraw it.

In a letter to Dr Seralini dated the 19th November, Hayes asserts that the journal board had completed a 'thorough examination' of the data provided to them by the researcher and had expressed many concerns about the quality of the data, and ultimately recommended that the article should be withdrawn.

"I have been trying to get in touch with you to discuss the specific reasons behind this recommendation,"​ wrote Hayes. "If you do not agree to withdraw the article, it will be retracted."

The letter also notes that very shortly after the publication of the study, the journal received many letters to the editor expressing concerns about the validity of the findings it described, the proper use of animals, "and even allegations of fraud."

"Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. However, there is legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected,"​ the letter continues.

The right thing to do ... but too late?

Within weeks of its appearance in the peer-reviewed journal, more than 700 scientists had signed an online petition calling on Seralini to release all the data from his research​, while the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a statement​ concuding the research was of ‘insufficient scientific quality to be considered valid.' EFSA added that the research had serious defects in design and methodology and did not meet acceptable scientific standards.

Commenting on the decision to withdraw the study, Professor Cathie Martin, group leader at the John Innes Centre, UK said that the major flaws in the paper make its retraction the right thing to do. While David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, said: "It was clear from even a superficial reading that this paper was not fit for publication, and in this instance the peer review process did not work properly."

"At least this has now been remedied and the journal has recognised that no conclusions can be drawn from this study, so I suppose it is better late than never,"​ he added. "Sadly the withdrawal of this paper will not generate the publicity garnered by its initial publication."

Related topics: Science, GM food

Related news

Show more

22 comments

Show more

Interesting

Posted by Claire,

I avoid GMOs personally, as I font think they have been tested long enough to really understand the effects. I also don't particularly like the stranglehold that Monsanto has on our food system. But even from my perspective, something is not right with this study. When you did deeper, it was an 'independent' study funded by Greenpeace... About as independent as Monsanto funding it! both sides have an agenda. I did however find this http://www.foodsmart.govt.nz/elibrary/review-report-seralini/r-BN_07-050_Review_of_Report.pdf , from the NZ government which clearly shows the process under which the decision for withdrawal was made. I found it interesting that no new data was tested, just a manipulation of the old data. Some of the comments and criteria still make me think GMOs are not tested sufficiently, but it is not all about an ex monsanto employee just pulling the plug on the research as the conspiracy theorists would have us believe. I still hope to see either complete long term tested proof that GMOs are catagorically safe or have them withdrawn, but dirty tricks like this only harm the cause

Report abuse

Obviously Fake

Posted by Amanda,

This study was so obviously fake and I'm so happy that it has been retracted. I'm so sick of these anti-GMO scientists, who clearly have an agenda, publishing these "studies" that do not follow scientific procedures. It just gives the anti-science biotech opponents garbage to spew around to those that will never take the time to actually look into it. It is unethical. I'm glad this happened.

Report abuse

I'm guessing as per their MO, Monstanto is threatening to sue.

Posted by S.HEPPNER,

I find it highly suspect that Monsanto's first reaction to any kind of criticism is sue first, get to the heart of the matter later. If their products are so easily defendable by science then prove the Seralini's wrong instead of flat out silencing them.

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Monsanto-threatens-to-sue-EFSA-over-publication-of-maize-GM-data

Report abuse

Follow us

Featured Events

View more

Products

View more

Webinars