Controversial GM maize study retracted

The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology has retracted a controversial article which claimed to have found evidence that genetically modified (GM) maize is toxic when consumed by rats.

The 2012 study caused a furore among scientists as it was widely considered to be flawed research. Prior to publication, lead author Gilles Séralini required journalists to sign a confidentiality agreement in order to receive a pre-publication copy of the paper, which means they were unable to seek expert assessment on the paper before publishing articles about it.

Shortly after the article was published, the journal received numerous Letters to the Editor questioning the article’s validity and even alleging fraud. The Editor-in-Chief requested the raw data from Séralini in order to review it.

The Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data, but expressed concern about the small sample size and the use of the Sprague-Dawley rat, which is prone to a high incidence of tumours.

“Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology,” the journal wrote in a statement.

“The peer review process is not perfect, but it does work. The journal is committed to getting the peer-review process right and, at times, expediency might be sacrificed for being as thorough as possible. The time-consuming nature is, at times, required in fairness to both the authors and readers. Likewise, the Letters to the Editor, both pro and con, serve as a post-publication peer review. The back and forth between the readers and the author has a useful and valuable place in our scientific dialogue.”

Many scientists are relieved that the paper has been retracted, particularly since it is frequently referenced as ‘evidence’ that GM foods cause cancer. However, a number of scientists have bemoaned the fact that the retraction took so long.

“This is the third time Seralini et al have been severely rebuked by food safety authorities,” said Robert Wager, technician and faculty member at the Biology Department at Vancouver Island University. Wager authored one of the Letters to the Editor critiquing Séralini’s work.

“I would hope the mainstream media is becoming more aware of the continued flaws of most if not all publications that claim harm from GE crops and food. It is not in the public’s best interest to continue to widely disseminate flawed science that is designed to generate fear, not educate. Hopefully the media will contact real experts in food toxicology for a considered opinion before they publish the next anti-GMO-industry sponsored publication. Fear generation about safe products does not serve the public’s interest.”

The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology Editor-in-Chief says the journal will continue to review all manuscripts, regardless of how controversial they are, but will remain diligent in its peer-review process.