Food Safety - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 605

academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/ ). He was well aware that the
media would broadcast this exciting story and it that it would elevate fears of transgenic
crops. He deliberately manipulated the media.
Numerous critiques by scientific societies, research institutes, regulatory bodies, and
groups of scientists have pointed out the flaws in the Séralini study (see for example
commentary at: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-efsa-report-
conclusion-that-seralini-study-conclusions-were-not-supported-by-data/ and http://
www.eb-central.org/images/uploads/EFBStatement.pdf) . Several of these critiques
have been published in the peer-reviewed literature; see for example a review by Arjó
et al. (2013). The criticism of Séralini's study goes beyond a recitation of deficiencies
such as too few animals in control groups, the inappropriate use of a strain of rats that
is very tumor-prone, and the fact that there are no statistically significant differences
in the results observed for test and control animals—a fact that Séralini himself freely
admits. The criticism also points out that in his fervor to discredit modern biotechnol-
ogy, Séralini may have committed scientific misconduct. He has refused to release the
raw data on which his conclusions were based and he failed to cite other similar stud-
ies that did not support his conclusions.15 In fact, he claimed no such studies had been
previously performed, whereas a recent review that would have been available to the
Séralini team presented a lengthy compendium of published similar long-term studies
(Snell et al., 2012). Withholding data or selective citation is scientific misconduct. The
mistreatment of animals described in the study violated animal welfare guidelines and is
a violation of ethical practice.
The impact of the study was immediate and widespread as noted by Arjó et al. (2013):
Within hours, the news had been blogged and tweeted more than 1.5 million times. Lurid
photos of tumor-ridden rats appeared on websites and in newspapers around the world,
while larger-than-life images of the rats were broadcast across the USA on the popular
television show Dr. Oz . Activists destroyed a GM soybean consignment at the port of
Lorient, France, in order to denounce the presence in the food chain of a product they
considered to be toxic (Vargas 2012). The Russian Federation and Kazakhstan banned
imports of the maize variety used in the study, Peru imposed a 10-year moratorium on
GM crops (Bernhardt 2012) and Kenya banned all imports of GM food (Owino 2012).
The EU may repeat the Séralini studies to corroborate or disprove them. The EU also
is considering requiring that long-term animal studies (WFS) be made mandatory in
the premarket testing of all transgenic crops.
The peer-review process of vetting new science is not perfect. As noted in the preced-
ing paragraphs, a few other flawed studies claiming harmful effects of transgenic crops
have slipped through the peer-review process. Although the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) guidelines clearly require journals to retract flawed papers, and papers in
which scientific misconduct or ethics violations have occurred, the Journal of Food and
Chemical Toxicology (JSFT) has not retracted their acceptance of the Séralini paper.16
Widespread protests of scientists in response to Séralini's flawed paper and unethi-
cal behavior have contributed to some journalists expressing their objection to being
manipulated. The media often reacts to controversies by assuming that the truth lies