Syngenta UK
Farminguk
24 August 2016 | Online since 2003
Briefing Media - FG Classified


31 January 2014 07:52:31 |

Scientists condemn retraction of GM study


A group of 41 scientists have signed a public statement condemning the retraction of a study on genetically modified crops conducted by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team at the University of Caen, France.
The study found that rats fed GM maize and low levels of Roundup in their diet suffered severe organ damage, particularly to the liver, kidneys and pituitary gland.
The scientists united to condemn the retraction by the editor of the Elsevier journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). They also urged the public to support the initiative by demanding the German government release the toxicology studies on glyphosate, the main chemical ingredient of Roundup.
Séralini’s study passed peer review with minor revisions and was published by FCT in September 2012.
The paper was subjected to a sustained campaign of attack by pro-GM scientists, many of whom had undisclosed links to the GM crop industry or with government agencies that had previously approved this or other GM crops as safe.
FCT’s editor, Dr A. Wallace Hayes, retracted the paper over a year after it was published. The decision came after a nontransparent, second review by a panel of unnamed persons of unknown professional competence and with undisclosed potential conflicts of interest.
According to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), of which FCT is a member, retraction of a paper is reserved for cases of misconduct, error, redundant publication or plagiarism, and unethical research.
None of these criteria apply to the Séralini paper, as Dr Hayes conceded. Dr Hayes stated that the retraction was solely based on the “inconclusive” nature of the tumours and mortality outcomes, based on the relatively low number of animals and the strain of rat used, which is reportedly prone to spontaneous tumours. Dr Hayes wrote: “No definitive conclusions could be drawn from the inconclusive data”.
However, the scientists say that the lack of “definitive conclusions” is an invalid and unprecedented reason for retracting a study, since many scientific papers contain inconclusive findings.
In addition, the main findings of the Séralini study were severe organ toxicity in the animals fed GM maize and/or Roundup. Yet these findings, which are statistically significant and as conclusive as it is possible for such results to be, have also been erased, due to the presence of some alleged “inconclusive” findings in the paper.
Just months before the retraction was announced, Dr Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto scientist, was appointed to a newly created editorial position in biotechnology at FCT. Soon after Goodman’s appointment, a second paper challenging the safety of GM crop technology was withdrawn from FCT (though it was immediately re-published in another journal).
In a separate initiative, over 860 scientists worldwide have condemned the retraction in an open letter to FCT and have announced that they will boycott Elsevier journals.
Dr Angelika Hilbeck, senior scientist, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Institute of Integrative Biology IBZ, Zurich, Switzerland; Chair, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), said:
“This retraction lacks any scientific basis. If the lack of 'definitive conclusions' were a valid reason for retraction, our libraries would be almost empty, as I have yet to see a study that yielded results of ‘definitive’ conclusiveness.
“In fact, the surprising revelation of FCT’s highly irregular post-publication evaluation process is that Séralini’s study would appear to be flawless. In response to massive, orchestrated pressure from industry-aligned circles, a secret group of unknown people was set up with the sole aim of finding weaknesses in the study to allow it to be shot down and retracted (we have no verifiable evidence that these people were experts in the relevant fields of science or in anything, for that matter). Yet after trying hard for one full year, all they could come up with was a lack of ‘definitive conclusions'.
“To me, this is a confirmation of the quality of the study and the integrity of the researchers, as very few studies would pass such an extraordinary evaluation process.”
Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist based at a leading London medical school, said: “Based on the science presented in the Séralini paper, it is extremely difficult to see any cause for retraction, especially since the journal’s editor, Dr A. Wallace Hayes, only highlighted two of several aspects of the paper – the tumours and mortality rates – as ‘inconclusive’.
“This suggests that even in the editor’s view, the bulk of the findings – the severe organ toxicity in rats fed GM maize and low levels of Roundup – must be valid. To retract the whole paper based on the perceived inconclusiveness of just a proportion of the data presented is scientifically untenable.
“In deciding to retract the paper, the editor is not being true to the science. I conclude that the retraction must be due to other, non-scientific reasons.”
Dr David Schubert, professor, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, CA, USA, said: “The editor of the journal claimed that the reason for retraction of the Séralini study was that ‘no definitive conclusions can be reached’. As a scientist, I can assure you that if this were a valid reason for retracting a publication, a large fraction of the scientific literature would not exist.
“Before the retraction, a former Monsanto scientist was brought into the journal as biotechnology editor. Therefore, a combination of intense pressure from scientists and a new pro-industry editor led to the elimination of an exceptionally important study.
“I am convinced that there is significant evidence, like that presented by Séralini, that some GM foods are hazardous to human health. In order for data supporting this possibility to enter public discourse, scientists must place their ethical responsibilities above corporate profits and cease their continual assault on the science relating to GM safety. The protection of scientists’ right to publish their findings without censorship or retribution must be preserved.”

Download

2 Comments

loginuserlogo
Name

Please enter your name


Email

Please enter your email

Please enter valid email


Comment

Please enter your comment


Post Comment

Your comment has been submitted successfully. Please wait for admin approval.


Comments


Canada | 24 August 2016
Canadian farmers see bumper wheat crop as rain curbs quality

Canada’s wheat production will rise more than expected this year, adding to a global glut of the grain, while canola output will probably decrease, according to a government report. Wheat output wi...


France | 24 August 2016
Lactalis ready to discuss milk prices with angry French farmers

Europe's largest dairy producer, Lactalis, said on Tuesday it was ready to renegotiate milk prices paid to producers after hundreds of farmers protested outside its headquarters in northwestern France...


Japan | 24 August 2016
Is Japan's wagyu beef bubble bound to burst?

Bad news for high-end beef lovers: Japan’s Wagyu bubble could be on the verge of bursting. Prized Wagyu calves are currently fetching wildly inflated prices, says Nikkei Asian Review, and "If sky-high...


USA | 24 August 2016
Grassley to hold hearing on agriculture mergers next month

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley said Tuesday he will hold a hearing next month to discuss a wave of consolidation among seed and chemical producers, including the merger of Dow and DuPont. The chairman of...


Kenya | 24 August 2016
Should agriculture be a required school subject?

Despite the grumbling of many frustrated American school kids taking math tests, the broad subjects required in public schools each have firm arguments for their respective inclusion. But that does...



Trending Now

Viewed
Discussed


Top stories you may have missed
FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

The sustained recovery of pig prices since the spring has come at a time wh...


FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

A World Trade Organisation (WTO) panel has declared the Russian import ban ...


FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

A new study has linked oilseed rape crops grown from neonicotinoid-treated ...


FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

Philip Hammond is to guarantee billions of pounds of UK government investme...


FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

Access to the foreign labour market is 'critical', according the chief exec...


FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

The Tenant Farmers Association has said the National Trust's vision for a p...


FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

Ulster farmers will 'not lie down and wave the white flag' when Brexit nego...


FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

The cost of rural crime to the UK economy costs £42.5 million a year, accor...


FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

A young farmers club member from Oxfordshire has created a petition on the ...


FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

The farming sector has reacted negatively to a proposal to reintroduce the ...


closeicon
Username
Password