Scientific evaluation The study was criticized by various regulatory authorities and scientists. With few exceptions, the scientific community dismissed the study and called for a more rigorous peer-review system in scientific journals. Many said that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the
statistical power of the study. Sprague-Dawley rats have a lifespan of about two years and have a high risk of cancer over their lifespan (one study concluded that over eighty percent of males and over seventy percent of females developed cancer under normal conditions). The Séralini study had only ten per group. The
Washington Post quoted
Marion Nestle, the
Paulette Goddard professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at
New York University and food safety advocate: "'[I] can't figure it out yet....It's weirdly complicated and unclear on key issues: what the controls were fed, relative rates of tumors, why no dose relationship, what the mechanism might be. I can't think of a biological reason why GMO corn should do this.....So even though I strongly support labeling, I'm skeptical of this study.'" Likewise, Dan Charles, writing for
NPR, noted that in the study, rats that ate 33% GM food developed fewer tumors than did those who ate 11% GM food, suggesting the absence of a dose response.
University of Calgary Professor
Maurice Moloney publicly wondered why the paper contained so many pictures of treated rats with horrific tumors, but no pictures of control group rats. Many national food safety and regulatory agencies condemned the paper. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment VP Reiner Wittkowski said in a statement, "The study shows both shortcomings in study design and in the presentation of the collected data. This means that the conclusions drawn by the authors are not supported by the available data." A joint report by three Canadian regulatory agencies also "identified significant shortcomings in the study design, implementation and reporting." Similar conclusions were reached by the French HCB and the National Agency for Food Safety, the
Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie, the
Technical University of Denmark,
Food Standards Australia New Zealand, the Brazilian National Technical Commission on Biosafety, and EFSA. EFSA concluded: The study as reported by Séralini
et al. was found to be inadequately designed, analysed and reported...The study as described by Séralini et al. does not allow giving weight to their results and conclusions as published. Conclusions cannot be drawn on the difference in tumour incidence between treatment groups on the basis of the design, the analysis and the results as reported. Taking into consideration Member States' assessments and the authors' answer to critics, EFSA finds that the study as reported by Séralini et al. is of insufficient scientific quality for safety assessments. called for the paper to be retracted, calling its publication a "dangerous failure of the peer-review system." – condemning the study and the journal that published it. The joint statement dismissed the study as 'a scientific non-event'. from Erio Barale-Thomas, principal scientist of
Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development and the president of the Conseil d'Administration of The Société Française de Pathologie Toxicologique (SFPT, French Society of Toxicologic Pathology). SFPT is "a non governmental/non profit organization formed by veterinarians, physicians, pharmacists and biologists specialized in veterinary and toxicologic pathology. Its aim is to promote knowledge in pathology, toxicology and laboratory animal sciences for safety studies of drugs, chemicals and food products, and the role of the pathologist in the study design and data interpretation." The BBAC committee, whose members are drawn from the Belgian biotech Professoriat, to find useful information and new concerted ideas." A 2015 reanalysis of multiple animal studies found that Seralini chose to forgo statistical tests in the main conclusions of the study. Using Seralini's published numerical data, the review found no
significant effects on animal health after analysis with
statistical tests. The finding that "in females, all the treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls" was not statistically significant. The highest mortality was observed for the group of female rats fed 22% genetically modified
maize. This difference was not statistically significant. Seralini also originally claimed males in groups fed 22% and 33% genetically modified maize had three times lower mortality than controls, but this was also not statistically significant. The findings of liver necrosis and mammary tumors were also not significant. A 2017 study found that since it was retracted, Seralini et al. (2012) had been cited 60 times after it was retracted, and that more of these citations were negative (39%) than were positive (26%).
Responses to criticism Séralini and supporters defended the study design, the interpretation of the results, and manner and content of the publication. Support for the study came from the
European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), of which CRIIGEN is a member. A subsequent study published in 2013 by ENSSER concluded that EFSA (
European Food Safety Authority) applied double standards in evaluation of feeding studies, criticized EFSA's applied criteria. Séralini responded to criticisms of his methodology (and specifically a lack of difference between rodent groups at higher doses) with a July 2015 paper in
PLOS ONE claiming that all laboratory rodent diets are contaminated with "dangerous" levels of GMOs. This has been strongly criticised by numerous experts, for example,
Tamara Galloway said that the study "speculates beyond the evidence presented in this paper". Other Séralini supporters criticized the retraction of the study, concluding the response was a product of industry-driven campaign and regard this as a concerning example of industry interference in the scientific process.
Officials At the time of the initial release,
French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said that, if the results are confirmed, the government would press for a Europe-wide ban on the maize and The
European Commission instructed the EFSA in Parma, Italy, to assess the study. and in November 2012, Kenya banned all GM crops. In 2022, Kenya reversed the ban in its entirety.
Media The press conference led to widespread negative media coverage for GM food, especially in Europe.
Jon Entine in
Forbes stated, "Seralini's research is anomalous. Previous peer-reviewed rat feeding studies using the same products (NK603 and Roundup) have not found any negative food safety impacts. The Japanese Department of Environmental Health and Toxicology released a 52-week feeding study of GM soybeans in 2007, finding "no apparent adverse effect in rats." In 2012, a team of scientists at the University of Nottingham School of Biosciences released a review of 12 long-term studies (up to two years) and 12 multi-generational studies (up to 5 generations) of GM foods, concluding there is no evidence of health hazards."
Andrew Revkin wrote in a blog the study was another instance of "single-study syndrome", and that the study was in support of an "agenda".
Henry I. Miller, in an opinion piece for Forbes, said "[Seralini] has crossed the line from merely performing and reporting flawed experiments to committing gross
scientific misconduct and attempting
fraud." Séralini responded by saying, "...that he won't make any data available to the EFSA and the BfR until the EFSA makes public all the data under-pinning its 2003 approval of NK603 maize for human consumption and animal feed." Proponents of California's GM labeling referendum, Proposition 37, hailed the study. A statement about the controversy, and especially the attacks on Seralini, was published in
Le Monde, signed by 140 French scientists; the letter said:
Lawsuit In 2012 Séralini sued the editor of
Marianne and journalist Jean-Claude Jaillet for defamation after they accused him of fraud. The
High Court of Paris ruled in Seralini's favor in 2015. The court said that the fraud allegation had first been made by Henry I. Miller in
Forbes. The journalist was fined a total of 3,500 euros, while the editor was fined twice that amount because of past convictions. == Retraction ==