Retraction by corruption: the 2012 Séralini paper

Abstract

It is often claimed that there is now a “general consensus” that genetically modified1 foods are safe for consumption. Yet this is manifestly untrue, as evidenced by a publication entitled “Statement: No scientific consensus on GMO safety”, signed by some 300 scientists and other experts [1] independent of the GM industry. The dichotomy between GM proponents and GM critics exemplifies the conclusions of Kvakkestad et al. [2], who interviewed 62 scientists from universities or industry working in the fields of molecular biology, ecology and conventional plant breeding. Of these, 92% could be classified into one of two groups: one with a moderately negative attitude and the other with a positive attitude toward GM crops. The second group contained no ecologists but all of the scientists working in the GM industry. Another study by Diels et al. [3] examined 94 articles and found that a favourable opinion about a GM crop was associated with a professional conflict of interest. Data on financial conflicts of interest was scarce, as funding was in many cases undeclared, although articles that did not declare funding tended to be associated with a favourable outcome. The claim of consensus is widely made in an apparent effort to persuade the public and discredit the scientists who refute it with scientific evidence. In order to silence such scientists, various methods have been employed, such as defamation of a researcher’s competence, ad hominem attacks and even physical threats. In the past, Árpád Pusztai [4] and Ignacio Chapela [5] have been notable victims of a covert campaign to achieve retraction, on spurious grounds, of results unfavourable to the GM industry. The retraction of the Séralini et al. (2012) paper [6] is especially irrational because the work, which found harm from a GM maize in a laboratory feeding trial, was essentially a superior