Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Retracting Inconclusive Research: Lessons from the Séralini GM Maize Feeding Study

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In September 2012, Gilles-Eric Séralini and seven coauthors published an article in Food and Chemical Toxicology claiming that rats fed Roundup©-resistant genetically modified maize alone, genetically modified maize with Roundup©, or Roundup© for 2 years had a higher percentage of tumors and kidney and liver damage than normal controls. Shortly after this study was published, numerous scientists and several scientific organizations criticized the research as methodologically and ethically flawed. In January 2014, the journal retracted the article without the authors’ consent on the grounds that the research was inconclusive. In June 2014, Environmental Sciences Europe published a slightly modified version of the retracted paper. The publication, retraction and subsequent republication of the Séralini study raise important scientific and ethical issues for journal editors. Decisions to retract an article should be made on the basis of well-established policies. Articles should be retracted only for serious errors that undermine the reliability of the data or results, or for serious ethical lapses, such as research misconduct or mistreatment of animal or human subjects. Inconclusiveness, by itself, is not a sufficient reason for retracting an article, though a flawed study design might be. Retracted articles that are submitted for republication should undergo scientific review to ensure that they meet appropriate standards. Republished articles should be linked to the original, retracted publication. Journals that are reviewing studies with significant scientific and social implications should take special care to ensure that peer review is rigorous and fair.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arjo, G., Portero, M., Pinol, C., Vinas, J., Matias-Guiu, X., Capell, T., et al. (2013). Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudoscience: An in depth analysis of the Seralini et al. study claiming that Roundup Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup cause cancer in rats. Transgenic Research, 22(2), 255–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barale-Thomas, E. (2013). The SFPT feels compelled to point out weaknesses in the paper by Séralini et al. (2012). Food and Chemical Toxicology, 53, 473–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batista, R., & Oliveira, M. M. (2009). Facts and fiction of genetically engineered food. Trends in Biotechnology, 27(5), 277–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, C. (2013). Adverse effects in a feeding study of a GM derived corn in rats. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 53, 445–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. D. (2010). Reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: A multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants. PLoS One, 5(12), e14331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brix, A. E., Nyska, A., Haseman, J. K., Sells, D. M., Jokinen, M. P., & Walker, N. J. (2005). Incidences of selected lesions in control female Harlan Sprague-Dawley rats from two-year studies performed by the National Toxicology Program. Toxicologic Pathology, 33(4), 477–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buiatti, M., Christou, P., & Pastore, G. (2013). The application of GMOs in agriculture and in food production for a better nutrition: Two different scientific points of view. Genes and Nutrition, 8(3), 255–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. (2012). Hyped GM maize study faces growing scrutiny. Food-safety bodies slam feeding study that claims increased cancer incidence in rats. Nature, 490(7419), 158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casassus, B. (2014). Change of journal does not convince critics that rat diseases were caused by genetically modified maize. Nature News, 24 June 2014. Available at http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463 Accessed 15 Jan 2015.

  • Committee on Publication Ethics. (2009). Retraction guidelines. Available at http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2015.

  • de Souza, L., & Macedo, O. L. (2013). Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 53, 440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwan, K., Gamble, C., Williamson, P. R., Kirkham, J. J., & Reporting Bias Group. (2013). Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias—an updated review. PLoS One, 8(7), e66844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EFSA, GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials. (2008). Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: The role of animal feeding trials. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 46(Supplement 1), S2–S70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entine, J. (2014). Profile of Gilles-Éric Séralini, author of republished retracted GMO corn rat study. American Enterprise Institute, June 24, 2014. Available at http://www.aei.org/article/health/profile-of-gilles-eric-seralini/. Accessed 15 Jan 2015.

  • Environmental Working Group. (2012). Five things you should know about GMOs. Available at http://www.ewg.org/research/five-things-you-should-know-about-gmos. Accessed 15 Jan 2015.

  • Food and Chemical Toxicology. (2014a). Retraction notice to “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize” [Food Chem. Toxicol. 50 (2012) 4221–4231]. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 63, 244.

  • Food and Chemical Toxicology. (2014b). Editorial board. Available at http://www.journals.elsevier.com/food-and-chemical-toxicology/editorial-board/. Accessed 15 Jan 2015.

  • Fugh-Berman, A., & Sherman, T. G. (2014). Rounding up scientific journals. Bioethics Forum, 10 January 2014. Available at http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=6684. Accessed 15 Jan 2015.

  • Grunewald, W., & Bury, J. (2013). Comment on “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize” by Séralini et al. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 53, 447–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, B., Dudek, R., Lemen, J., & Nemeth, M. (2004). Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42(6), 1003–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, B., Goldstein, D. A., & Saltmiras, D. (2013). Response to original research article, in press, corrected proof, ‘‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’’. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 53, 459–464.

  • Institute of Science and Society. (2013). Retracting Séralini study violates science and ethics. Available at http://www.isis.org.uk/Retracting_Serallini_study_violates_science_and_ethics.php. Accessed 15 Jan 2015.

  • Langridge, P. (2013). Problems lie at several levels and bring into serious question the quality and standard of the editorial processes in your journal. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 53, 441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2012). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemaux, P. G. (2008). Genetically engineered plants and foods: A scientist’s analysis of the issues (part I). Annual Review of Plant Biology, 59, 771–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicole, W. (2012). A closer look at GE corn findings. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(11), A421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ollivier, L. (2013). A comment on “Séralini, G.-E. et al., Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol. (2012).” http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 53, 458.

  • Panchin, A. Y. (2013). Toxicity of Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize is not supported by statistical tests. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 53, 475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portier, C. J., Goldman, L. R., & Goldstein, B. D. (2014). Inconclusive findings: Now you see them, now you don’t! Environmental Health Perspectives, 122(2), A36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Public Citizen. (2014). Genetically modified organisms. Available at http://www.citizen.org/publications/publicationredirect.cfm?ID=5102. Accessed 15 January 2015.

  • Resnik, D. B. (2012). Environmental health ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Retraction Watch. (2014). Retracted Seralini GMO-rat study republished. Available at http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/24/retracted-seralini-gmo-rat-study-republished/. Accessed 15 Jan 2015.

  • Robert, W., Lerayer, A., Fedoroff, N., Giddings, L. V., Strauss, S. H., Leaver, C., et al. (2013). We request a serious reconsideration of the recent paper by Seraliniet al. alleging tumorigenesis in rats resulting from consumption of corn derived from crops improved through biotechnology (Séralini et al. 2012). Food and Chemical Toxicology, 53, 455–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, D., Kamoun, S., Williams, B., & Festing, M. (2013). Re: Séralini, G.-E., et al. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol. (2012). Food and Chemical Toxicology, 53, 450–453.

  • Schorsch, F. (2013). Serious inadequacies regarding the pathology data presented in the paper by Séralini et al. (2012). Food and Chemical Toxicology, 53, 465–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Godlee, F., Osorio, L., & Smith, R. (2008). What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101(10), 507–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Séralini, G. E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., Hennequin, D., & de Vendômois, J. S. (2012). Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50(11), 4221–4231. Retraction in: Food and Chemical Toxicology (2014), 63, 244.

  • Séralini, G. E., Mesnage, R., Defarge, N., Gress, S., Hennequin, D., Clair, E., et al. (2013). Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 53, 476–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Séralini, G. E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., et al. (2014a). Republished study: Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environmental Sciences Europe, 26, 14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Séralini, G. E., Mesnage, R., Defarge, N., & de Vendômois, J. S. (2014b). Conflicts of interests, confidentiality and censorship in health risk assessment: The example of an herbicide and a GMO. Environmental Sciences Europe, 26, 13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snell, C., Bernheim, A., Bergé, J. B., Kuntz, M., Pascal, G., Paris, A., & Ricroch, A. E. (2012). Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50(3–4), 1134–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tester, M. (2013). It does not become the quality of a journal such as Food and Chemical Toxicology to publish such poor work. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 53, 457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tien, L. D., & Huy, H. L. (2013). Comments on “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize”. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 53, 443–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Y., He, X., Luo, Y., Zou, S., Zhou, X., Huang, K., & Xu, W. (2013). A 90-day feeding study of glyphosate-tolerant maize with the G2-aroA gene in Sprague-Dawley rats. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 51, 280–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Intramural Program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 111 Alexander Drive, Box 12233, Mail Drop CU 03, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA

    David B. Resnik

Authors
  1. David B. Resnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David B. Resnik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Resnik, D.B. Retracting Inconclusive Research: Lessons from the Séralini GM Maize Feeding Study. J Agric Environ Ethics 28, 621–633 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9546-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9546-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation