A row has erupted over the sudden retraction of a French scientific study that claimed to have found tumors and other problems in rats fed genetically modified maize and exposed to a common, associated herbicide.
In a complete change of heart, the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology is distancing itself from Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini’s research. The journal announced it is retracting the long-term study on the toxic effects of Monsanto Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)—GMO Maize it published a year ago. It said the reason for the retraction was not that the study is fraudulent, or that the scientist had fabricated data, but rather because the study is inconclusive. This dramatic U-turn has left the scientific community scratching their heads and wondering whether there is more to this issue.
Food and Chemical Toxicology published the paper from Seralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University last November. It was the first study to focus on the long-term effect of the toxicology of herbicides and the effects on animals, and it is the only long-term study under controlled conditions that examines the possible effects of a diet of GMO maize treated with Monsanto Roundup herbicide. The study details how groups of rodents were fed a diet that included the Monsanto engineered maize known as NK603.
The NK603 maize has modified genetics so that it can resist the Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup. This biotech innovation allows farmers to spray their fields with Roundup, which kills off weeds, without harming the crop.
In his experiments, Seralini and colleagues examined 200 rats. Some ate engineered maize sprayed with Roundup; some ate just the GM maize with no herbicide present; and a third group consumed no GM material but had traces of Roundup introduced into their drinking water. A fourth group acted as the control and ingested a non-GM maize and non-tainted water.
Seralini’s team submitted his research results to the journal after following a rigorous four-month review by scientific peers. Seralini’s paper received instant scientific acclaim, but was extremely damaging to Monsanto GMO program on seeds and herbicide, as laboratory pictures of rats with huge grotesque cancer tumors appeared in the media.
Initially Seralini’s research was praised for his two-year study that was designed to match the expected life of a standard rat, and it far exceeded the usual 90-day trial Monsanto conducts before submitting its results to the EU European Food Safety Authority for approval.
The long-term study proved critical to explaining the first tumors appearing in rats at four to seven months into the study. In Monsanto’s earlier 90-day study on the same GMO maize NK603, it also revealed signs of toxicity, but were dismissed as not biologically meaningful by industry and EU food safety authorities alike.
The Monsanto study states that few proteins are toxic when ingested, and those that are toxic typically act in an acute manner. Thus, acute administration to mice was considered appropriate to assess any potential toxicity associated with the CP4 EPSPS protein. There were no treatment-related adverse effects in mice administered CP4 EPSPS protein by oral gavage at dosages up to 572 mg/kg. Monsanto concluded that the results from this study demonstrated that the CP4 EPSPS protein was not acutely toxic to mammals.
Despite the fact that Monsanto’s study indicated that there were some side effects to the mice eating the maize and herbicide, it is Seralini’s research that has been criticized in some circles.
Critics are unhappy with choice of rat he used in his study — the albino Sprague-Dawley strain of the animal has a tendency to develop cancers, especially the mammary tumors. And some have questioned his methodology. But other scientists have refused to dismiss the paper’s findings.
In a statement to MintPress, Dr. Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at King’s College, London, who acted as an adviser to Seralini’s team, said: «I think these are very important findings. At the very least, what this study highlights is: firstly, the need to test all GM crops in two-year, lifelong studies; and, secondly, when looking at testing the toxicity of herbicides/pesticides, we need to test the full agricultural formulation and not just the active ingredient.»
So why has the scientific community changed its mind?
There some emerging reports indicating Monsanto’s had a huge role in changing the opinion of the journal. According to RT reports, the publishing house Elsevier, which manages the scientific journal, created an associate editor position that was filled by Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto employee who during his time at Monsanto worked to develop industry-friendly risk assessment methods for Monsanto GM foods and chemical food contaminants to influence government regulations.
Others have pointed out that an inconclusive report wouldn’t warrant a complete retraction of a study.
«Inconclusiveness of findings is not a valid ground for retraction,” Claire Robinson of GM Watch said. “Numerous published scientific papers contain inconclusive findings, which are often mixed in with findings that can be presented with more certainty. It is for future researchers to build on the findings and refine scientific understanding of any uncertainties.”
The issue of toxins in herbicide isn’t a new to Monsanto. Earlier this year, Monsanto paid a French farmer compensation after he became ill when he was exposed to herbicide.
Reuters reported a French court found Monsanto guilty of pesticide poisoning and was ordered to pay compensation. Paul Francois inhaled Monsanto’s Lasso pesticide when he was cleaning his sprayer tank on his farm in southern France in 2004. He suffered many neurological problems, including memory loss, headaches, and stammering.
As Monsanto continues its research and development of new genetically engineered products, should scientists and government bodies re-evaluate how studies are approved? And should industry-led studies have more long-term studies instead of the present law of just 90 days?