Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
November 28, 2013
Elsevier announces that the article "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize," by Gilles Eric Séralini et al. has been retracted by the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.
The journal has issued the following retraction statement:
The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracts the article "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize," which was published in this journal in November 2012. This retraction comes after a thorough and time-consuming analysis of the published article and the data it reports, along with an investigation into the peer-review behind the article. The Editor in-Chief deferred making any public statements regarding this article until this investigation was complete, and the authors were notified of the findings.
Very shortly after the publication of this article, the journal received Letters to the Editor expressing concerns about the validity of the findings it described, the proper use of animals, and even allegations of fraud. Many of these letters called upon the editors of the journal to retract the paper. According to the journal's standard practice, these letters, as well as the letters in support of the findings, were published along with a response from the authors.[1] Due to the nature of the concerns raised about this paper, the Editor-in-Chief examined all aspects of the peer-review process and requested permission from the corresponding author to review the raw data. The request to view raw data is not often made; however, it is in accordance with the journal's policy that authors of submitted manuscripts must be willing to provide the original data if so requested.[2] The corresponding author agreed and supplied all material that was requested by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief wishes to acknowledge the co-operation of the corresponding author in this matter, and commends him for his commitment to the scientific process.
Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. However, there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected. 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. A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups.
--------------------------------------------------
1. Please see Food and Chemical Toxicology, 53 (1), pp. 440-483, for all Letters to the Editor and the response.
2. http://www.elsevier.com/journals/food-and-chemical-toxicology/0278-6915/guide-for-authors#8101
[ http://www.elsevier.com/journals/food-and-chemical-toxicology/0278-6915/guide-for-authors ]
Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology. The peer-review process is not perfect, but it does work. The journal is committed to getting the peer-review process right, and at times, expediency might be sacrificed for being as thorough as possible. The time-consuming nature is, at times, required in fairness to both the authors and readers. Likewise, the Letters to the Editor, both pro and con, serve as a post-publication peer-review. The back and forth between the readers and the author has a useful and valuable place in our scientific dialog.
The Editor-in-Chief again commends the corresponding author for his willingness and openness in participating in this dialog. The retraction is only on the inconclusiveness of this one paper. The journal's editorial policy will continue to review all manuscripts no matter how controversial they may be. The editorial board will continue to use this case as a reminder to be as diligent as possible in the peer-review process.
About Elsevier
Elsevier is a world-leading provider of scientific, technical and medical information products and services. The company works in partnership with the global science and health communities to publish more than 2,000 journals, including The Lancet and Cell, and close to 20,000 book titles, including major reference works from Mosby and Saunders. Elsevier's online solutions include ScienceDirect, Scopus, SciVal, Reaxys, ClinicalKey and Mosby's Suite, which enhance the productivity of science and health professionals, helping research and health care institutions deliver better outcomes more cost-effectively.
A global business headquartered in Amsterdam, Elsevier employs 7,000 people worldwide. The company is part of Reed Elsevier Group PLC, a world leading provider of professional information solutions in the Science, Medical, Legal and Risk and Business sectors, which is jointly owned by Reed Elsevier PLC and Reed Elsevier NV. The ticker symbols are REN (Euronext Amsterdam), REL (London Stock Exchange), RUK and ENL (New York Stock Exchange).
Source: Food and Chemical Toxicology Journal Statement
RE: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize
Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 50, Issue 11, November 2012, Pages 4221-4231 Gilles-Eric Séralini, Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnage, Steeve Gress, Nicolas Defarge, Manuela Malatesta, Didier Hennequin, Joël Spiroux de Vendômois
Since the publication of the above paper by Séralini et al., the Editors and the Publisher of Food and Chemical Toxicology have received many questions from members of the Scientific community.
In the light of these comments, the Editors and Publisher wish to make clear that the normal thorough peer review process was applied to the Seralini et al. paper. The paper was published after being objectively and anonymously peer reviewed, with a series of revisions made by the authors and the corrected paper then accepted by the Editor.
Post-publication members of the scientific community have challenged the paper, citing serious concerns about the study design, data presentation and related issues.
In responding to these criticisms, the Editors have encouraged those people with concerns to write formally to the Editor-in-Chief, so that that their views can be publicly aired. These letters and a response from Seralini et al. will shortly be published in the Journal.
Separately, the Editors and the Publisher, Elsevier, will be considering these criticisms. We are continually reviewing our peer review processes to ensure that the journal accepts the right papers with the appropriate levels of rigor and attention to detail. If we conclude that changes need to be made to the peer review process, that will be communicated openly to readers of the journal.
Food and Chemical Toxicology deals with issues that are often controversial and where there are strong views held both within and beyond science. Preserving editorial independence and a robust peer review system in this process is obviously crucial. Here as elsewhere, Elsevier, as publisher of Food and Chemical Toxicology, both helps to facilitate the peer review process and upholds the principle of independent editorial decision making.
Source: Fundacion Antama
La revista ‘Food and Chemical’, que publicó el estudio de Séralini sobre riesgos del consumo de maíz MG, exige su retirada
En septiembre de 2012 la revista científica ‘Food and Chemical’ publicó un estudio del francés Gilles-Eric Séralini en el que se apuntaban serios riesgos de salud por el consumo de maíz modificado genéticamente. El informe fue fuertemente criticado por la comunidad científica desde que vio la luz al contener inexactitudes metodológicas que mostraban evidencias de búsqueda de resultados predefinidos. Tras un exhaustivo análisis, la propia Autoridad Europea de Seguridad Alimentaria (EFSA) rechazó el estudio por contener un diseño y un análisis incorrecto que no valida sus conclusiones. Y ahora le ha llegado el turno a la misma revista que publicó el informe, que reconoce no ser válido científicamente y exige su retirada.
El editor de ‘Food and Chemical’, Wallace Hayes, ha enviado una carta pública a Gilles-Eric Séralini en la que pide que se retracte del informe ya que es un estudio que contiene agujeros negros que la comunidad científica y la EFSA detectaron en su momento. En la carta reconoce que los expertos ya tuvieron dudas sobre su calidad científica pero que pese a ello lo publicaron. “Este estudio no era apto para su publicación, en este caso el proceso de revisión por otros científicos no funcionó correctamente”, reconoce.
En la carta se pide al francés que retire el artículo, si no lo hace la revista se retractará de su publicación. ‘Food and Chemical’ reconoce que no se pueden sacar conclusiones de este estudio ya que se vale de una cepa de ratas propensas a desarrollar tumores y además usa una muestra insuficiente (10 ratas) como para asociar los resultados con el consumo de maíz modificado genéticamente.
Descarga de la carta original en la que ‘Food and Chemical’ se retracta de su publicación. Más información en la revista Nature. Todo sobre el polémico informe en este especial temático.
Topics
Species
