Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide

Abstract

Our recent work (Séralini et al., 2012) remains to date the most detailed study involving the life-long consumption of an agricultural genetically modified organism (GMO). This is true especially for NK603 maize for which only a 90-day test for commercial release was previously conducted using the same rat strain (Hammond et al., 2004). It is also the first long term detailed research on mammals exposed to a highly diluted pesticide in its total formulation with adjuvants. This may explain why 75% of our first criticisms arising within a week, among publishing authors, come from plant biologists, some developing patents on GMOs, even if it was a toxicological paper on mammals, and from Monsanto Company who owns both the NK603 GM maize and Roundup herbicide (R). Our study has limits like any one, and here we carefully answer to all criticisms from agencies, consultants and scientists, that were sent to the Editor or to ourselves. At this level, a full debate is biased if the toxicity tests on mammals of NK603 and R obtained by Monsanto Company remain confidential and thus unavailable in an electronic format for the whole scientific community to conduct independent scrutiny of the raw data. In our article, the conclusions of long-term NK603 and Roundup toxicities came from the statistically highly discriminant findings at the biochemical level in treated groups in comparison to controls, because these findings do correspond in an blinded analysis to the pathologies observed in organs, that were in turn linked to the deaths by anatomopathologists. GM NK603 and R cannot be regarded as safe to date.

Final review of the Séraliniet 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

“…Study Objectives Séralini et al (2012b) state that they replicated and improved the study by Hammond et al (2004) and "in order to know if the statistical findings (in 90 days) were biologically relevant or not on the long term". This is not reflected in the analysis and reporting in Séralini et al (2012a).…”

“…On the 9 th November 2012 an accepted manuscript titled : "Answers to critics: why there is a long term toxicity due to NK603 Roundup tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide" by Séralini et al (2012b) has been made available on-line in which the authors provide further information about their study. In this publication no reference is made to MS assessments nor to EFSA's first Statement (EFSA, 2012).…”

“…Below, Séralini et al (2012b) is discussed in the light of all the open issues identified in the first EFSA Statement.…”

“…At the time of publication no such reply from the authors had reached EFSA. A response from Séralini et al (2012b) to criticisms of their publication was however published on-line in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology on 9 th November 2012 which has been taken into account in this final EFSA Statement.…”

From the editor

“…For instance, the retraction statement observes that ''The low number of animals had been identified as a cause for concern during the initial review process, but the peer review decision ultimately weighed that the work still had merit despite this limitation.'' Moreover, in their reply to critics, Séralini et al (2013) asserted that ''Additional sets of results were included in the revision of the manuscript in response to issues raised by the reviewers prior to publication' ' (p. 480). Recognizing the study's flaws, the editor chose to publish the study nonetheless.…”