Journal withdraws controversial French Monsanto GM study

LONDON Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:50pm EST

Researcher Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen talks to reporters after a news conference at the European Parliament in Brussels September 20, 2012. REUTERS/Yves Herman

Researcher Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen talks to reporters after a news conference at the European Parliament in Brussels September 20, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Yves Herman

Related Topics

LONDON (Reuters) - The publisher of a controversial and much-criticized study suggesting genetically modified corn caused tumors in rats has withdrawn the paper after a yearlong investigation found it did not meet scientific standards.

Reed Elsevier's Food and Chemical Toxicology journal, which published the study by the French researcher Gilles-Eric Seralini in September 2012, said on Thursday the retraction was because the study's small sample size meant no definitive conclusions could be reached.

"This retraction comes after a thorough and time-consuming analysis of the published article and the data it reports, along with an investigation into the peer-review behind the article," the journal said in statement.

At the time of its original publication, hundreds of scientists across the world questioned Seralini's research, which said rats fed Monsanto's GM corn suffered tumors and multiple organ failure.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a statement in November 2012 saying the study by Seralini, who was based at France's University of Caen, had serious defects in design and methodology and did not meet acceptable scientific standards.

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.

In its retraction statement, the Food and Chemical Toxicology journal said that in light of these concerns, it too had requested to view the raw data from the study.

Seralini "agreed and supplied all material that was requested by the editor-in-chief," it said.

The journal said that while it received many letters expressing concerns about the validity of the findings, the proper use of animals and even allegations of fraud, its own investigation found "no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data."

"However, there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected," it said.

Other scientists welcomed the journal's decision to retract the paper, although some said it had come too late.

"The major flaws in this paper make its retraction the right thing to do," said Cathie Martin, a professor at John Innes Centre. "The strain of rats used is highly susceptible to tumors after 18 months with or without GMO (genetically modified organisms) in their diets."

David Spiegelhalter, a 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." In this instance, he said, "The peer review process did not work properly.

"But at least this has now been remedied and the journal has recognized that no conclusions can be drawn from this study, so I suppose it is better late than never," Spiegelhalter said.

(Editing by Bill Trott)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (1)
El3737 wrote:
What a one-sided, pro-GMO article this is. Did it come straight from Monsanto headquarters for Keland to add her byline? Reading this hogwash, you’d think every scientist on earth is in Monsanto’s stables and has been salivating for retraction of the Seralini study. But that would be a LIE. Seralini has considerable support(http://gmoseralini.org/introduction-to-scientists-support-seralini/); and he violated not a single rule for retraction. His only sin was reaching results Monsanto doesn’t like. To quote Dr. Nancy Swanson, “It is a sad day when a scientific journal lowers itself to being nothing more than a corporate mouthpiece.” Much like Reuters for running such lop-sided “journalism.”

Dec 02, 2013 7:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Photo

California's historic drought

With reservoirs at record lows, California is in the midst of the worst drought in decades.  Slideshow