Sralini aair

tary lm about the study in conjunction with the press

conference.[3]
Following widespread criticism by scientists, Food and
Chemical Toxicology retracted the paper in November
2013 after the authors refused to withdraw it.[6] The
editor-in-chief said that the article was retracted because its data were inconclusive and its conclusions
unreliable.[1] In June 2014 an amended version of the article was republished in Environmental Sciences Europe,
and the raw data were made public. The journal did not
conduct any further peer review; reviewers checked only
that the scientic content of the paper had not changed.[2]

1 Background
Main article: Gilles-ric Sralini

Gilles-ric Sralini, in a 2015 photograph

Sralini, a professor of molecular biology at the

University of Caen, is president of the scientic advisory
board of the Committee of Research and Independent
Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), which
opposes genetically modied food (GM food). Sralini
co-founded CRIIGEN in 1999 because he judged that
studies on GM food safety were inadequate.[7][8]

The Sralini aair was the controversy surrounding the

publication, retraction, and republication of a journal article by French molecular biologist Gilles-ric Sralini.
First published by Food and Chemical Toxicology in
September 2012, the article presented a two-year feeding
study in rats, and reported an increase in tumors among
rats fed genetically modied corn and the herbicide
RoundUp. Scientists and regulatory agencies subsequently concluded that the studys design was awed and
its ndings unsubstantiated. A chief criticism was that
each part of the study had too few rats to obtain statistically useful data, particularly because the strain of rat
used, Sprague Dawley, develops tumors at a high rate over
its lifetime.[1][2]

Before 2012 Sralini had published other peer-reviewed

papers that concluded there were health risks to GM
foods.
In 2007 he and two others published a
Greenpeace-funded study (Sralini 2007).[9][10] It concluded that MON 863, a corn rootworm-resistant Bt corn
developed by Monsanto, caused health problems in rats,
including weight changes, triglyceride level increases in
females, changes in urine composition in males, and reduced function or organ damage in the liver, kidney,
adrenal glands, heart and haematopoietic system.[9] The
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that
all blood chemistry and organ weight values fell within the
normal range for control animals, and that the paper had
used incorrect statistical methods.[11][12][13] The French
Commission du Gnie Biomolculaire (AFBV) also criticized the studys conclusions.[14]

The publicity surrounding publication of the article also

attracted criticism, with science writer Declan Butler
calling it a tightly orchestrated media oensive.[3] As
part of a news embargo, Sralini required journalists to
sign an unusual condentiality agreement in exchange
for advance access to the article, prohibiting them from
conferring with other scientists before the press conference announcing publication.[n 1] At the press conference,
Sralini emphasized the studys potential cancer implications, and photographs from the article of treated rats
with large tumors were widely circulated by the media.[4]
The French Society of Toxicologic Pathology pointed
out that, because such tumors are commonly found in
older rats, the inclusion in the article of those images
from treated rats, without also showing control rats, was
misleading.[5] Sralini also released a book and documen-

In 2009 the Sralini lab published another study

(Sralini 2009), which re-analyzed toxicity data for NK
603 (glyphosate resistant), MON 810 and MON 863
strains.[15] The data included three rat-feeding studies
published by Monsanto scientists on MON 810.[16][17][18]
This study concluded that the three crops caused liver,
kidney and heart damage in the rats.[15] The EFSA
1

2
concluded that the authors claims were not supported
by their data, that many of the statistical criticisms of
Sralini 2007 applied to Sralini 2009, and that the
study included no new information that would change
the EFSAs conclusions.[19] The French Haut Conseil des
biotechnologies (High Council of Biotechnologies Scientic Committee or HCB) reviewed Sralini 2009 and concluded that it presents no admissible scientic element
likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs. The HCB questioned the authors independence, noting that, in 2010,
the body to which the authors belong displayed material from a 2008 Austrian anti-GM study, the results of
which had been acknowledged as mistaken by the studys
authors.[20] Food Standards Australia New Zealand concluded that the results of Sralini 2009 were due to chance
alone.[21]

3 RECEPTION
The papers abstract stated: In females, all treated groups
died 23 times more than controls, and more rapidly.
This dierence was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs.
All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the
pathological proles were comparable.

2.2 Publication strategy

Sralini held a press conference on the day the study

was released in which he promoted the cancer results
as the studys major nding.[3] At the press conference
he also announced the release of a book and lm about
the study.[27][28] Selected journalists were given early access to the paper on condition they sign a condentiality agreement, which meant they were unable to confer
with other scientists before the embargo expired.[4] In
In 2010 Sralini sued Marc Fellous, president of the contrast, embargo guidelines by journals such as Nature
French Association of Plant Biotechnology, for libel, af- allow reporters to check their stories with independent
[n 2]
ter Fellous criticized Sralinis research, in part because experts.
it was funded by Greenpeace. The judge ruled that the Seralinis approach was widely criticized. A Nature editocharge about the funding was defamatory. Fellous was rial called it a public-relations oensive. The result of
ned 1000; Sralini was awarded a symbolic 1 in the condentiality agreement, the journal said, was that
damages.[22]
critical commentary was absent from the rst round of
[n 3]
The
A 2011 article by the Sralini lab that reviewed 19 stories, the ones most likely to be remembered.
press
conference
and
publication
occurred
weeks
before
published animal-feeding studies, as well as data from
animal-feeding studies submitted for regulatory approval, the vote on California Proposition 37, which called for
concluded that GM food had liver and kidney eects labeling genetically modied food. The study was cited
[31]
that were sex and dose dependent, and advocated for by supporters of the proposition.
longer and more elaborate toxicology tests for regulatory The ethics committee of the French National Centre for
approval.[23]
Scientic Research wrote that Seralinis public-relations
approach was inappropriate for a high-quality and objective scientic debate.[3] Science journalist Carl Zimmer
criticized the science journalists who participated.[32]
2 2012 study
Cosmos Magazine's Elizabeth Finkel said that the condentiality clause had allowed Seralinis story to prance
unfettered before second opinions arrived.[33]
2.1 Study background
On 19 September 2012, the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology published a peer-reviewed paper enti3 Reception
tled Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and
a Roundup-tolerant genetically modied maize.[24] The
two-year toxicity study, which cost 3.2 million, was 3.1 Scientic evaluation
conducted at the University of Caen by Sralini and seven
colleagues. It had been funded by and run with the col- The study was criticized by various regulatory authorities
and scientists. With few exceptions, the scientic comlaboration of CRIIGEN.[3][25]
a more rigorous
The study used 100 male and 100 female Sprague Dawley munity dismissed the study and called for [34]
peer-review
system
in
scientic
journals.
rats, divided into twenty groups with 10 rats each. Ten diets were tested separately on the males and females. The
diets comprised 11 percent, 22 percent and 33 percent
genetically modied corn (NK603) and the rest standard
laboratory rat food; NK603 corn that had been treated
with Roundup, also at 11, 22 and 33 percent; and corn
that had not been genetically modied, accompanied by
diering concentrations of Roundup in the water. A control group was fed 33 percent non-GMO corn; the rest of
their diet was standard laboratory rat food.[26]:34

Many said that Sralinis conclusions were impossible to

justify given the statistical power of the study. SpragueDawley 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).[35][36][37] The Sralini experiment covered
the normal lifespan of these rats. The longer an experiment continues, the more rats get cancer naturally, that

3.1

Scientic evaluation

makes it harder to separate statistical noise from the

in tumour incidence between treatment groups
hypothetical signal. For the study to achieve such separaon the basis of the design, the analysis and the
tion (statistical power), each control and test group would
results as reported. Taking into consideration
have to include suciently many subjects.[3] Organisation
Member States assessments and the authors
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
answer to critics, EFSA nds that the study as
guidelines recommend 20 rats for chemical-toxicity studreported by Sralini et al. is of insucient sciies, and 50 rats for carcinogenicity studies.[38]:56 In adentic quality for safety assessments.[38]
dition, if the survival of the rats is less than 50% at 104
weeks (which is likely for Sprague-Dawley rats) the recommended number of rats is 65.[3][36][37] The Sralini The European Federation of Biotechnology industry association, which counts Monsanto and other biotech rms
study had only ten per group.[3]
among its members,[51] called for the paper to be reTom Sanders from Kings College London noted a lack of tracted, calling its publication a dangerous failure of the
data on amount of food given, and on growth rates. Fur- peer-review system.[3] Six French national academies
ther noting that rats are susceptible to mammary tumors (of Agriculture, Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, Technolwhen food intake is not restricted. Sanders said, The ogy and Veterinarians[52] ) issued a joint statement an
statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would ap- extremely rare event in French science[53] condemnpear the authors have gone on a statistical shing trip.[39] ing the study and the journal that published it.[52] The
The Washington Post quoted Marion Nestle, the Paulette joint statement dismissed the study as 'a scientic non[53]
FCT, an Elsevier imprint, has a peer review
Goddard professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food event'.
Studies and Public Health at New York University and process, and at least three scientists reviewed the paper
food safety advocate: "'[I] cant gure it out yet....Its prior to publication. The journal published a statement
weirdly complicated and unclear on key issues: what in their November 2012 issue, that the Editors have enthe controls were fed, relative rates of tumors, why no couraged those people with concerns to write formally to
dose relationship, what the mechanism might be. I cant the Editor-in-Chief, so that their views can be publicly
think of a biological reason why GMO corn should do aired.
this.....So even though I strongly support labeling, Im In March 2013 FCT published a letter[5] from Erio
skeptical of this study.'"[40] Likewise, Dan Charles, writ- Barale-Thomas,[54] Principal Scientist of Johnson &
ing for NPR, noted that in the study, rats that ate 33% GM Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development and
food developed fewer tumors than did those who ate 11% the President of the Conseil dAdministration of The
GM food, suggesting the absence of a dose response.[41] Socit Franaise de Pathologie Toxicologique (SFPT,
University of Calgary Professor Maurice Moloney pub- French Society of Toxicologic Pathology[55] ). SFPT is a
licly wondered why the paper contained so many pictures non governmental/non prot organization formed by vetof treated rats with horric tumors, but no pictures of erinarians, physicians, pharmacists and biologists specialcontrol group rats.[42]
ized in veterinary and toxicologic pathology. Its aim is to
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.[43] A joint report by
three Canadian regulatory agencies also identied signicant shortcomings in the study design, implementation and reporting.[44] Similar conclusions were reached
by the French HCB and the National Agency for Food
Safety,[45] the Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie,[46]
the Technical University of Denmark,[47] Food Standards
Australia New Zealand,[48] the Brazilian National Technical Commission on Biosafety,[49] and EFSA.[38][50]
EFSA concluded:
The study as reported by Sralini et al.
was found to be inadequately designed, analysed and reported...The study as described by
Sralini et al. does not allow giving weight
to their results and conclusions as published.
Conclusions cannot be drawn on the dierence

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.[5] The letter criticized the Seralini study on several fronts, and concluded:
However, given this study presents serious deciencies
in the protocol, the procedures and the interpretation of
the results, the SFPT cannot support any of the scientic
claims drawn by the authors, and any relevance for human risk assessment. This letter presents the consensus
scientic opinion of the Conseil dAdministration of the
SFPT.[5]
The Belgian Federal Minister of Public Health asked the
Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council (BBAC) to evaluate
the paper. The BBAC was asked to inform the Minister whether this paper (i) contains new scientic information with regard to risks for human health of GM maize
NK603 and (ii) whether this information triggers a revision of the current authorisation for commercialisation
for food and feed use of this GM maize in the European
Union (EU).[56] The BBAC committee, whose members are drawn from the Belgian biotech Professoriat,[56]
pointed out that the long duration of this study is a pos-

3 RECEPTION

itive aspect since most of the toxicity studies on GMOs higher doses) with a July 2015 paper in PLOS ONE claimare performed on shorter periods, and concluded that:
ing that all laboratory rodent diets are contaminated with
dangerous levels of GMOs.[67] This has been strongly
Given the shortcomings identied by the
criticised by numerous experts,[68] for example, Tamara
experts regarding the experimental design, the
Galloway said that the study speculates beyond the evistatistical analysis, the interpretation of the redence presented in this paper.[69]
sults, the redaction of the article and the preOther Sralini supporters criticized the retraction of the
sentation of the results, the Biosafety Advisory
study, concluding the response was a product of industryCouncil concludes that this study does not condriven campaign and regard this as a concerning example
tain new scientically relevant elements that
of industry interference in the scientic process.[70]
may lead to reconsider immediately the current authorisation for food and feed use of GM
maize NK603. Considering the issues raised
3.3 Ocials
by the study (i.e. long term assessment), the
Biosafety Advisory Council proposes EFSA
At the time of the initial release, French Prime Minister
urgently to study in depth the relevance of the
Jean-Marc Ayrault said that, if the results are conrmed,
actual guidelines and procedures. It can nd inthe government would press for a Europe-wide ban on
spiration in the GRACE project[57] to nd usethe maize and The European Commission instructed the
ful information and new concerted ideas.[56]:9
EFSA in Parma, Italy, to assess the study.[71] In late
September 2012, Russia temporarily suspended importThe study was also criticized by the European Society of ing GM corn as a result of the study[72] and in November
Toxicologic Pathology, which expressed shock at the way 2012, Kenya banned all GM crops.[73]
the rats in the study were treated and questioned whether
the study was legal to perform under European law.[58]
A 2015 reanalysis of multiple animal studies found that
Seralini chose to forgo statistical tests in the main conclusions of the study. Using Seralinis published numerical data, the review found no signicant eects on animal health after analysis with statistical tests. The nding that in females, all the treated groups died 23 times
more than controls was not statistically signicant. The
highest mortality was observed for the group of female
rats fed 22% genetically modied maize. This dierence
was not statistically signicant. Seralini also originally
claimed males in groups fed 22% and 33% genetically
modied maize had three times lower mortality controls,
but this was also not statistically signicant. The ndings of liver necrosis and mammary tumors were also not
signicant.[59]

3.4 Media
The press conference led to widespread negative media
coverage for GM food, especially in Europe.[71] Le Nouvel Observateur covered the press conference in a story
called, Yes, GMOs are poisons!".[74]

Jon Entine in Forbes stated, Seralinis 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 52week feeding study of GM soybeans in 2007, nding no
apparent adverse eect 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
3.2 Responses to criticism
health hazards.[75] Andrew Revkin wrote in a blog the
study was another instance of single-study syndrome,
Sralini and supporters defended the study design, the in[76]
terpretation of the results, and manner and content of the and that the study was in support of an agenda.
publication.[60][61][62] Support for the study came from Henry I. Miller, in an opinion piece for Forbes, said "[Serthe European Network of Scientists for Social and En- alini] has crossed the line from merely performing and revironmental Responsibility (ENSSER), of which CRI- porting awed experiments to committing gross scientic
IGEN is a member.[63][64] A subsequent study published misconduct and attempting fraud.[77] Sralini responded
in 2013 by ENSSER concluded that EFSA (European by saying, "...that he won't make any data available to the
Food Safety Authority) applied double standards in eval- EFSA and the BfR until the EFSA makes public all the
uation of feeding studies, criticized EFSAs applied data under-pinning its 2003 approval of NK603 maize for
criteria.[65] An open letter in support of Seralinis arti- human consumption and animal feed.[3]
cle, signed by about 130 scientists, scholars, and activists, The Guardian's Environmental Blog stated that the study
was published in Independent Science News, a project of linking GM maize to cancer must be taken seriously
the Bioscience Resource Project.[66]
by regulators and that although it attracted a torrent of
Sralini responded to criticisms of his methodology (and abuse, it cannot be swept under the carpet. They also
specically a lack of dierence between rodent groups at noted CRIIGENs funding of the research and reported

5
Sralinis response: namely, that studies in support of GM
food are usually funded by corporates or by pro-biotech
institutions.[25] Proponents of Californias GM labeling
referendum, Proposition 37, hailed the study.[78][79]

further scientic peer review, because this had already been conducted by Food and Chemical Toxicology, and had concluded there had been no fraud nor
misrepresentation.[87] The republication renewed the
over the
A statement about the controversy, and especially the at- controversy, but now with additional controversy
[88]
behavior
of
the
editors
of
both
journals.
tacks on Seralini, was published in Le Monde, signed by
140 French scientists; the letter said: "...the protocol fol- In July 2015, the International Agency for Research on
lowed in this study presents defects that are subject to Cancer published a monograph on glyphosate, which condebate within the scientic community.... We are deeply tained an evaluation of the Sralini paper as republished
shocked by the image of our community that this contro- in June 2014 and the conclusion, that the study was inadversy gives citizens. The risk expertise to human health equate for evaluation because the number of animals per
or the environment is a dicult activity which is fac- group was small, the histopathological description of tuing many uncertainties Many of the threats to our planet mours was poor, and incidences of tumours for individual
have been revealed by scientists isolated and conrmed animals were not provided.[89]
by many studies coming from the scientic community.
In this case, it would be more ecient to implement research on the health and environmental risks of GMOs 6 See also
and pesticides, improve toxicological protocols used for
placing on the market and nance a variety of researchers
Pusztai aair
in this domain....[80]

3.5

Lawsuit

In 2012 Sralini sued Marianne magazine and journalist

Jean-Claude Jaillet for defamation after they accused him
of fraud. The High Court of Paris ruled in Seralinis favor
in 2015. The court said that the fraud allegation had rst
been made by Henry I. Miller in Forbes.[81]

Retraction

In November 2013, Elsevier announced that FCT was

retracting the paper, after the authors refused to withdraw it.[6][82] The journals editors concluded that while
there was no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data, the results were inconclusive and
"[did] not reach the threshold of publication for Food
and Chemical Toxicology. After an in-depth look at
the studys raw data, no denitive conclusions could be
reached regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate
in overall mortality or tumor rates, given the high incidence of tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats and the small
sample size. Normal variance could not be excluded
as the cause of the results.[6] Following many enquiries
about the retraction, FCTs editor-in-chief said that:
Sralini and his supporters strongly objected to the
retraction,[82][83][84] and Sralini himself threatened to
sue FCT.[85]

7 Notes
[1] Agence France-Presse, September 20, 2012: Breaking
with a long tradition in scientic journalism, the authors
allowed a selected group of reporters to have access to
the paper, provided they signed condentiality agreements
that prevented them from consulting other experts about
the research before publication.[4]
[2] Nature Geoscience editorial, December 2011: Giving the
media advance notice of upcoming papers and full access
to them several days before publication allows reporters
time to research a story, and ask independent experts to
comment on the full peer-reviewed paper.[29]
[3] Nature, September 2012: With such strong claims and
the predictably large eect they will have on public opinion, researchers should take care how they present their
ndings to the public and the media. They should spell out
their results clearly; emphasize the limitations and caveats;
and make it clear that the data still need to be assessed, and
replicated, by the scientic community. That didn't happen. The paper was promoted in a public-relations oensive, with a related book and lm set for release this week.
Furthermore, journalists wishing to report the research
had to sign condentiality agreements that prevented them
from contacting other scientists for comment on the paper
until after the embargo had expired. Some, to their credit,
refused, or accepted and then revisited the story critically
once their hands were no longer tied by these outrageous
restrictions. The result was the exclusion of critical comment in many of the breaking stories the ones that most
people will remember.[30]

Republication
8 References

In June 2014, the original study was republished in

the journal Environmental Sciences Europe.[86][87] The
editor said that the paper was republished without

[1] Wallace Hayes A (2014). Editor in Chief of Food

and Chemical Toxicology answers questions on re-

traction.
Food Chem.
Toxicol.
65: 3945.
doi:10.1016/j.fct.2014.01.006. PMID 24407018.
[2] Cassasus, Barbara (25 June 2014). Paper claiming GM link with tumours republished.
Nature.
doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15463.
[3] Butler, Declan (10 October 2012). Hyped GM maize
study faces growing scrutiny. Nature 490 (7419): 158.
doi:10.1038/490158a. PMID 23060167.
[4] France orders probe after rat study links genetically modied corn to cancer. Agence France-Presse. 20 September 2012.
[5] Barale-Thomas, Erio (2013).
Letter to the editor.
Food and Chemical Toxicology 53: 4734.
doi:10.1016/j.fct.2012.10.041. PMID 23165156.
[6] Elsevier Announces Article Retraction from Journal
Food and Chemical Toxicology. Elsevier. 28 November 2013.
[7] Gilles Eric Sralini and Committee for Independent
Research and Information on Genetic Engineering, CRIIGEN.
[8] Carman, Tim (19 September 2012). French scientists
question safety of GM corn. The Washington Post.
[9] Sralini, Gilles-Eric; Cellier, Dominique; De Vendomois,
Jol Spiroux (2007). New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modied Maize Reveals
Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 52 (4): 596602.
doi:10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5. PMID 17356802.
[10] GM maize MON863: French scientists doubt safety.
GMO Compass. 16 March 2007. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
[11] Statement of the Scientic Panel on Genetically Modied Organisms on the analysis of data from a 90-day rat
feeding study with MON 863 maize, EFSA, adopted 25
June 2007.
[12] European Food Safety Authority (2007). EFSA review of statistical analyses conducted for the assessment of the MON 863 90-day rat feeding study.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2007.19r.
[13] Les experts europens innocentent un OGM, Le Figaro,
13 July 2007.

REFERENCES

[16] 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): 100314.
doi:10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.013. PMID 15110110.
[17] Hammond, B.; Lemen, J.; Dudek, R.; Ward, D.; Jiang,
C.; Nemeth, M.; Burns, J. (2006). Results of a 90day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn
rootworm-protected corn. Food and Chemical Toxicology 44 (2): 14760. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2005.06.008.
PMID 16084637.
[18] Hammond, B.G.; Dudek, R.; Lemen, J.K.; Nemeth,
M.A. (2006). Results of a 90-day safety assurance
study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected
corn. Food and Chemical Toxicology 44 (7): 10929.
doi:10.1016/j.fct.2006.01.003. PMID 16487643.
[19] EFSA Minutes of the 55th Plenary Meeting of the Scientic Panel on Genetically Modied Organisms Held on
2728 January 2010 IN Parma, Italy, Annex 1, Vendemois et al 2009 (PDF). European Food Safety Authority
report. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
[20] Opinion relating to the deposition of 15 December 2009
by the Member of Parliament, Franois Grosdidier, as to
the conclusions of the study entitled 'A comparison of the
eects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health'".
UK Food Standards Agency. p. 2. Retrieved 11 November 2010.
[21] Feeding studies and GM corn MON863. Food Standards Australia New Zealand. July 2012. Retrieved 10
October 2012.
[22] Olivier, Vincent. OGM: deux chercheurs au tribunal
(GM: two researchers in court), L'Express, 19 January
2011 (English translation).
[23] Sralini, Gilles-Eric; Mesnage, Robin; Clair, Emilie;
Gress, Steeve; De Vendmois, Jol; Cellier, Dominique
(2011). Genetically modied crops safety assessments:
Present limits and possible improvements. Environmental Sciences Europe 23: 10. doi:10.1186/2190-4715-2310.
[24] Sralini, Gilles-Eric, et al. ""Long term toxicity of a
Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically
modied maize, Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50(11),
2012, pp. 42214231.
Butler, Declan. Rat study sparks GM furore, Nature
News, 25 September 2012.

[14] Les Organismes Gntiquement Modis, Annexe B.

Avis de la commission du gnie biomolculaire sur ltude
statistique du CRIIGEN du mas MON863, report prepared for the French Prime Minister by the Centre
d'Analyse Strategique, 20 July 2007. Retrieved 31 May
2013

[25] Vidal, John (28 September 2012). Study linking GM

maize to cancer must be taken seriously by regulators.
The Guardian (London). Retrieved 8 May 2013.

[15] De Vendmois, Jol Spiroux (2009). A Comparison of

the Eects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian
Health. International Journal of Biological Sciences 5 (7):
70626. doi:10.7150/ijbs.5.706. PMC 2793308. PMID
20011136.

[27] Sralini, Gilles-Eric (2012). Tous Cobayes !: OGM, pesticides et produits chimiques. Editions Flammarion. ISBN
978-2-08-126236-2.

[26] A scientic analysis of the rat study conducted by Gilles

Eric Sralini et al., Vlaams Interuniversitair Instituut
voor Biotechnologie, 19 January 2013.

[28] Tous cobayes? (2012) IMDb. IMDB. IMDB.com.

[29] Embargoes on the web. nature.com. 22 December

2011.
[30] Poison postures. Nature 489 (7417): 474. September
2012. doi:10.1038/489474a. PMID 23025010.
[31] Silver, Charlotte (September 26, 2012). Californias
Prop 37: Monsanto, GMO labelling and the public interest. Al Jazeera. Retrieved December 28, 2015.
[32] On the Media Radio Show, 2012 Sep 28 Manipulating
Science Reporting
[33] GM Corn and Cancer: the Seralini Aair
[34] Martinelli, L; Karbarz, M; Siipi, H (February 2013).
Science, safety, and trust: the case of transgenic
food..
Croatian Medical Journal 54 (1): 916.
doi:10.3325/cmj.2013.54.91. PMID 23444254.
[35] Suzuki, H; Mohr, U; Kimmerle, G (1979). Spontaneous
endocrine tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats. Journal of
cancer research and clinical oncology 95 (2): 18796.
doi:10.1007/BF00401012. PMID 521452.
[36] Mortality and In-Life Patterns in Sprague-Dawley
(PDF). Huntingdon Life Sciences. Retrieved 26 October
2012.
[37] Sprague Dawley (PDF). Harlan. Retrieved 26 October
2012.
[38] European Food Safety Authority (2012). Final review of
the Sralini et al. (2012a) publication on a 2-year rodent
feeding study with glyphosate formulations and GM maize
NK603 as published online on 19 September 2012 in Food
and Chemical Toxicology. EFSA Journal 10 (11): 2986.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2910. Lay summary EFSA (4
October 2012).
[39] Ben Hirschler and Kate Kelland. Reuters. September 20,
2012 Study on Monsanto GM corn concerns draws skepticism
[40] Tim Carman for the Washington Post. Posted at 07:30
PM ET, 19 September 2012. French scientists question
safety of GM corn
[41] Charles, Dan (19 September 2012). As Scientists Question New Rat Study, GMO Debate Rages On. NPR. Retrieved 1 November 2014.
[42] Amos, Jonathan (19 September 2012). French GM-fed
rat study triggers furore. BBC News. Retrieved 22 August 2013.
[43] Sta (1 October 2012) A study of the University of Caen
neither constitutes a reason for a re-evaluation of genetically modied NK603 maize nor does it aect the renewal
of the glyphosate approval German Federal Institute for
Risk Assessment (BfR). Retrieved 14 October 2012
[44] Sta, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food
Branch, Health Canada; Animal Feed Division, Animal
Health Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency;
Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada.
October 25, 2012 Health Canada and Canadian Food
Inspection Agency statement on the Sralini et al.
(2012) publication on a 2-year rodent feeding study with
glyphosate formulations and GM maize NK603

[45] Sta (22 October 2012) French panel rejects study linking
GM corn to cancer Agence France Presse. Retrieved 23
October 2012
[46] Sta (8 October 2012) VIB concludes that Sralini study
is not substantiated VIB Life Sciences Research Institute,
Belgium. Retrieved 14 October 2012
[47] Sta (October 2012) The Technical University of Denmark National Food Institutes assessment of a new longterm trial with genetically modied maize NK603 and
spray Roundup (In Danish) Technical University of Denmark, Danish National Food Institute, Rertrieved 23 October 2012
[48] Response to Sralini paper on the long term toxicity
of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modied maize. FSANZ website. October 2012.
Archived from the original on 20 October 2012. Retrieved 13 November 2013.
[49] Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation : Considered Opinion (PDF). Cibiogem.gob.mx. Retrieved
2013-08-20.
[50] Devos Y, Aguilera J, Diveki Z, Gomes A, Liu Y, Paoletti C et al. (2014) EFSAs scientic activities and
achievements on the risk assessment of genetically modied organisms (GMOs) during its rst decade of existence: looking back and ahead. Transgenic Res 23 (1):125, see pg 15. doi:10.1007/s11248-013-9741-4 PMID
23963741
[51] EFB (2013) Members
[52] Avis des Acadmies nationales dAgriculture, de
Mdecine, de Pharmacie, des Sciences, des Technologies, et Vtrinaire sur la publication rcente de G.E.
Sralini et al. sur la toxicit dun OGM Communiqu de
presse 19 octobre 2012
[53] Six French academies dismiss study linking GM corn to
cancer (Update 2)", Agence France-Presse, October 19,
2012.
[54] Erio Barale-Thomas linked in page
[55] webpage of the Socit Franaise de Pathologie Toxicologique
[56] Bioveiligheidsraad Conseil de Bioscurit (Belgian
Biosafety Advisory Council) (2012). Advice of the
Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council on the article by
Sralini et al., 2012 on toxicity of GM maize NK603
[57] GRACE project. grace-fp7.eu.
[58] Bartholomaeus, A; Parrott, W; Bondy, G; Walker, K; ILSI
International Food Biotechnology Committee Task Force
on Use of Mammalian Toxicology Studies in Safety Assessment of GM, Foods (November 2013). The use of
whole food animal studies in the safety assessment of genetically modied crops: limitations and recommendations.. Critical Reviews in Toxicology. 43 Suppl 2: 124.
doi:10.3109/10408444.2013.842955. PMID 24164514.

[59] Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I.

(2016-01-14).
Published GMO studies nd no
evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology 0 (0):
15.
doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684.
ISSN
0738-8551. PMID 26767435.
[60] Sralini, Gilles-Eric; Mesnage, Robin; Defarge, Nicolas;
Gress, Steeve; Hennequin, Didier; Clair, Emilie; Malatesta, Manuela; De Vendmois, Jol Spiroux (2013). Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due
to a Roundup-tolerant genetically modied maize and
to a Roundup herbicide. Food and Chemical Toxicology 53: 47683. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2012.11.007. PMID
23146697.
[61] Sralini et al. (January 31, 2014). Letter to the Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE)" (PDF). Retrieved
June 28, 2014.
[62] GMOSeralini. Retrieved April 24, 2014.
[63] Sta, ENSSER. Page last modied: 10-18-2012.
ENSSER Comments on Sralini et al. 2012
[64] European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) (2012). Questionable
biosafety of GMOs, double standards and, once again, a
shooting-the-messenger style debate
[65] Hartmut Meyer and Angelika Hilbeck (2013). Rat feeding studies with genetically modied maize a comparative evaluation of applied methods and risk assessment standards. Environmental Sciences Europe 25: 33.
doi:10.1186/2190-4715-25-33.
[66] Independent Science News (2012) Seralini and Science:
an Open Letter, Oct 2 2012
[67] Mesnage, R; Defarge, N; Rocque, LM; Spiroux de Vendmois, J; Sralini, GE (2015). Laboratory Rodent Diets Contain Toxic Levels of Environmental Contaminants:
Implications for Regulatory Tests.. PLoS One 10 (7):
e0128429. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0128429. PMC
4489719. PMID 26133768.
[68] expert reaction to study investigating content of and contaminants in laboratory rodent diets. Science Media
Center. July 2, 2015. Retrieved September 9, 2015.
[69] Pesticides in lab rat feed causes a stir. news24.com. July
3, 2015. Retrieved September 9, 2015.
[70] Fagan, John; Traavik, Terje; Bhn, Thomas (29 August
2015). The Seralini aair: degeneration of Science to
Re-Science?". Environmental Sciences Europe 27 (19).
doi:10.1186/s12302-015-0049-2. Retrieved 3 September
2015.
[71] Butler, Declan. Rat study sparks GM furore, Nature
News, September 25, 2012. doi:10.1038/489484a PMID
23018942
[72] Sta, Phys.org. September 26, 2012 Russia suspends
Monsanto corn imports
[73] Emily Willingham for Forbes. December 9, 2012.
Seralini Paper Inuences Kenya Ban of GMO Imports

REFERENCES

[74] Malaurie,
Guillaume (September 20,
2012).
EXCLUSIF. Oui, les OGM sont des poisons !
Le Nouvel Observateur. Tempsreel.nouvelobs.com.
[75] Entine, Jon (30 September 2012). Does the Seralini
Corn Study Fiasco Mark a Turning Point in the Debate
Over GM Food?". Forbes.com. Retrieved 11 May 2013.
[76] Andrew
C.
Revkin
Single-Study
Syndrome
and the G.M.O. Food Fight September 20,
2012,dotearth.blogs.nytimes
[77] Miller, Henry I. (25 September 2012). Scientists Smell
A Rat In Fraudulent Genetic Engineering Study (opinion). Forbes.
[78] Sta, Right to Know.Posts tagged Seralini
[79] Pollack, Andrew (20 September 2012). Foes of Modied Corn Find Support in a Study. New York Times.
Retrieved 15 November 2014.
[80] Andalo C, Chercheuse AHS, Atlan A, Auclair D, Austerlitz F, Barot S. Science et conscience English translation
via Google Translate: Science and conscience. Le Monde.
14 November 2012.
[81] Elise Ferret (27 November 2015). Le professeur GillesEric Sralini remporte le procs en diamation face
Marianne. France 3, Basse-Normandie (France Tlvisions). Retrieved 1 December 2015.
[82] Barbara Casassus for Nature News. November 28, 2013
Study linking GM maize to rat tumours is retracted: Publisher withdraws paper over authors objections, citing
weak evidence
[83] Michael Hiltzik for the Los Angeles Times. November 29,
2013 Notorious anti-GMO study is retracted creating
more controversy
[84] Portier, Christopher J.; Goldman, Lynn R.; Goldstein,
Bernard D. (1 February 2014). Inconclusive Findings: Now You See Them, Now You Dont!". Environmental Health Perspectives 122 (2): A36A36.
doi:10.1289/ehp.1408106.
[85] Entine, Jon (29 November 2013). Sralini Threatens
Lawsuit In Wake Of Retraction Of Infamous GMO Cancer Rat Study. Forbes. Retrieved 19 February 2014.
[86] Sralini, Gilles-Eric; Clair, Emilie; Mesnage, Robin;
Gress, Steeve; Defarge, Nicolas; Malatesta, Manuela;
Hennequin, Didier; de Vendmois, Jol. Republished
study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a
Roundup-tolerant genetically modied maize. Environmental Sciences Europe 26 (1): 14. doi:10.1186/s12302014-0014-5.
[87] Casassus, Barbara (26 June 2014). Paper claiming GM
link with tumours republished. Nature. Retrieved 26
June 2014.
[88] Science Media Centre. June 25th, 2014. Controversial
GM study republished experts respond
[89] IARC monograph on glyphosate, p. 35, right column

External links
Sralini, Gilles-Eric; Clair, Emilie; Mesnage,
Robin; Gress, Steeve; Defarge, Nicolas; Malatesta,
Manuela; Hennequin, Didier; De Vendmois, Jol
Spiroux (2012). Long term toxicity of a Roundup
herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modied maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (11):
422131. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005. PMID
22999595. (Retracted)
Gilles-Eric Sralini, Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnage,
Steeve Gress, Nicolas Defarge, Manuela Malatesta,
Didier Hennequin and Jol Spiroux de Vendmois
(2014). Republished study: long-term toxicity of a
Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modied maize. Environmental Sciences Europe 26: 14. doi:10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5. (as
republished)

10

10

10
10.1

TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

Text

Sralini aair Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair?oldid=703580102 Contributors: Topbanana, Vsmith,

SlimVirgin, LFaraone, Bobrayner, RichardWeiss, Edison, Rjwilmsi, Bgwhite, Mikalra, Chris Capoccia, Dialectric, NeilN, Derek R Bullamore, BullRangifer, JzG, Twocs, Vindheim, JohnCD, Anthonyhcole, Jayen466, Lbertybell, Casliber, Second Quantization, Guy Macon, Lfstevens, Flaming Ferrari, Yobol, Nbauman, Chiswick Chap, STeamTraen, Kmhkmh, Viridium, Alexbrn, SPACKlick, Sunrise,
Mr. Stradivarius, Daydavid, Runjonrun, Jusdafax, EdChem, Roxy the dog, Jytdog, Glacierman~enwiki, David Tornheim, AnomieBOT,
Tryptosh, Bluerasberry, Citation bot, RevelationDirect, FrescoBot, I dream of horses, BlackHades, Trappist the monk, RjwilmsiBot, Aircorn, John of Reading, Minor4th, ClueBot NG, Lowercase sigmabot, Mr. Stradivarius on tour, BG19bot, Petrarchan47, CinagroErunam,
Northamerica1000, Writ Keeper, ConradMayhew, Shisha-Tom, Conifer, Timelezz, Dexbot, Sminthopsis84, Dusha100, Me, Myself, and I
are Here, Randykitty, I am One of Many, AmericanLemming, Everymorning, Wuerzele, Redddbaron, Polentarion, Kingofaces43, Prokaryotes, Honey2013, Lientinge, JeanLucMargot, Hog1983, Puzo ital lyy, Risleydc, Monkbot, Second Quantisation, Chaudeau, Endthelies,
Heatheromeara, AngeloLeonardo, GodOfNonTyranny, Mystery Wol and Anonymous: 25

10.2

Images

File:Gilles-Eric_Sralini,_October_2015_(cropped).JPG
Source:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/
Gilles-Eric_S%C3%A9ralini%2C_October_2015_%28cropped%29.JPG License: CC BY-SA 4.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: La doc du 92
File:TPI1_structure.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/TPI1_structure.png License: Public domain Contributors: based on 1wyi (http://www.pdb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=1WYI), made in pymol Original
artist: < '// . . / /U :A T ' 'U :A T '>A </>< '// . . / /U _ :A T ' 'U :
A T '>T </>

10.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0