This is an English translation of the French science academies’ statement on problems with the Séralini et al. study of health impacts of GM corn and Roundup herbicide on rat health. More background on Dot Earth: http://j.mp/dotseralini The statement in French: http://www.academie-sciences.fr/presse/communique/avis_1012.pdf

1. The French science academies’ statement on problems with the Séralini et al. study of
health impacts of GM corn and Roundup herbicide on rat health, translated (via U.S.
embassy in Paris). Related Dot Earth post.
Given the media coverage around this issue and its impact on the public opinion, the
Academies decided to jointly publish a review covering several aspects: scientific,
societal, and ethical, and including recommendations.
- Science aspects: the Academies would like to point several severe flaws of the
article:
Statistics and methodology: in the case of the Seralini 2-year study, a
significantly higher number of animals should have been used as
recommended by guidelines, of in the specific case of a total number of
200, a lower number of groups would have allowed to answer specific
questions, such as (1) can the studied GMO have a toxic or tumorigenic
impact on its own? (2) can Roundup have a toxic or tumorigenic impact
on its own? (3) is there a specific impact of the combination of the 2
products? The use of small size groups of 10 animals cannot answer the
specific questions. There is no significant difference between the groups,
according to the results presented. Saying that animals fed with GM corn
present more tumors than those receiving conventional corn has no
statistical value. This finding on its own should have suspended the
analysis of the contents of this article, which cannot establish any toxicity.
Tumorigenesis: the words “cancer” and “cancerogenesis” do not appear in
Seralini’s article, but the word “tumor” that is used is confusing because
everyone thinks of cancer and this is the word that the media have taken
over. The analysis of longevity rather than mortality is not satisfactory
due to the statistical methodology. Considering any death occurring after
the average survival as “natural” is not acceptable. The choice of the
strain of Sprague-Dawley is particularly unfortunate with regard to
tumorigenesis. This rat strain has a high rate of spontaneous tumors,
which shows that there is a specific genetic predisposition field in these
rats and also that the statistical analysis must focus on a high number of
rats (which has not been done in Séralini’s experiments).
Other: feed composition is not detailed, there is no dose/effect relation, the
presentation of methods and results is very short.
- Societal impact of the article:
The orchestration of the reputation of a scientist or of a team is a serious
misconduct when it helps to spread to the general public fears not based
on any established conclusion. Consumers not having sufficient
information, this results in increased fears of GMOs spread by
1

2. “catastrophic” media. This is particularly serious for people who consume
large quantities of GMOs, as in South Africa. This is also very harmful to
other countries where both use and research on GMOs may be questioned.
- Ethical aspects:
Orchestrated media coverage around work without strong conclusion
poses a major ethical problem: that of the authors who have seen fit to
organize a high scale communication campaign around these works, a
process which appears to be motivated more by ideology than by the
quality or relevance of the data obtained, and that of the journal that has
agreed to publish data that appear very fragile on many aspects, if only
statistics. The conditions of distribution to the press, which was unable to
be informed in advance and therefore which had not no opportunity to
comment with full knowledge of the facts, are not acceptable.
Assuming that Séralini was convinced of the quality of his work and the
accuracy of his conclusions, his duty was to warn as early as 2011 the
highest health authorities of the country to draw their attention to the very
serious danger of Roundup and the NK603 GMO for the
population. Withholding this information is a serious professional
misconduct on his part and on all those who were aware of the results.
As for the conflicts of interest of which G.E. Seralini continuously accuses
all scientists of all kinds, one can wonder about the absence of such
conflicts of interest for himself and those around him given their
environmental commitment and financial support they received from
retailers groups advertising the absence of GMOs in the food products
they sell to customers.
- Questions about the publication of the article in Food and Chemical Toxicology
On can wonder how such a scientifically weak article could be accepted.
Failures unanimously identified in the work design are such that it is quite
surprising that the peer review of a scientific journal of good reputation
has accepted its publication. In any event, in science, publication by itself
does not establish the proof of a scientific fact. It is the opinion of the
scientific community, peers, after publication, independent confirmation
of the results and integrating them in a wider data that all support one
another, which will allow to pass from experiment to science facts.
2

3. - Conclusions and recommendations:
It appears that the media and political hype caused by the disclosure of the
results of Séralini is not based on results as indisputable as they should
have been compared to the consequences of media coverage they lead to.
Two responsibilities are clear. First, that of the journal that should have
never accepted this article, and this is serious because the expertise of the
article by journals serves as initial assessment by peers. Second, that of
Séralini for having orchestrated an advance media exposure based on
questionable results not bringing any start of proof.
In terms of health, it is necessary firstly to reassure the population and
confirm statements already given on the low quality of the article. The
issues raised need to be studied by reputable researchers, not suspected of
conflict of interest, and funded under public control. Broadcast media have
widely reported shocking images that could only strike the viewers. They
contributed to fuel totally irrational fears since the results presented are
not valid science.
To limit such abuse, the six Academies recommend the establishment
within the Chairman of the Supreme Audiovisual Council (CSA) a "High
Level Committee on Science and Technology." The mission of the High
Committee would draw the attention of the Chairperson of the CSA on the
media coverage of scientific work questioning knowledge shared by the
vast majority of the scientific community without officials in television or
radios be previously sure of their validity, while the dissemination of
which could be later be "false news" will and unduly influenced deeply the
French, sometimes irreversibly.
3