Mole Valley Farmers
Farminguk
30 September 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


USA | 30 September 2016
Toolbox unveiled to help preserve agriculture in Utah County

Rex Larsen, a fifth-generation Utah County farmer, is facing issues that the previous generations didn’t have to worry about, namely, rapid urban development encroaching on farmland. His farm, he s...


China | 30 September 2016
Will big agriculture mergers impact smallholder farmers?

A tsunami-sized wave of corporate megamergers sweeping the agrochemical industry has the potential to reshape the landscape of global farming and food production. If approved, the multibillion doll...


USA | 30 September 2016
Morris farm works to rebound after beef recall

A Connecticut farm in the middle of a beef recall is giving refunds, and fighting to guarantee its reputation. Truelove Farms had one steer sent off to Adams Farm in Massachusetts in late July for ...


USA | 30 September 2016
Small dairy farm wins with robotic milking

Old English cheese recipes and high-tech production put Kenton County farmer on the menu. On a rainy day, Eddie Gibson sits outside his dairy barn near Walton looking out at his 130-acre farm. Surr...


Canada | 30 September 2016
Schumer continues push against harmful Canadian dairy rules

A push against Canadian protectionism harming O-AT-KA Milk and dairy entities has reached federa Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer said Wednesday that...



Trending Now

Viewed
Discussed


Top stories you may have missed
FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

Farm subsidy payments funded by the UK taxpayer are being paid to millionai...


FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

Labour will end the badger cull and prioritise ending bovine TB, Shadow Def...


FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

A herd of rare White Park cattle could die out if its owners do not urgentl...


FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

The UK government is "failing" to support farmers in the long-term accordin...


FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

Retailer Co-op has announced that from May 2017 all of its bacon and lamb w...


FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

Over 50 wildlife organisations have compiled a stock-take of all the UK's n...


FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

In the run up to the EU farm ministers meeting the agricultural sector have...


FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

The RPA must iron out a number of problems that still exist with 2015 BPS p...


FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

Tourism businesses in the countryside are being held back due to the uncert...


FarmingUK
FarmingUK Logo

FarmingUK

A 24 point action plan aimed at revitalising Scotland's sheep sector after ...


closeicon
Username
Password