Séralini affair

Séralini affair refers to a controversial sequence of events that began with the publication of a research study in September 2012 by French molecular biologist Gilles-Éric Séralini and his colleagues. The study, which appeared in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, claimed to find adverse health effects in rats fed on Monsanto's genetically modified maize (NK603) and exposed to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, including increased tumor rates and mortality. The publication of the study sparked a widespread scientific and public debate over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the use of chemical herbicides in agriculture.

Background

GMOs have been a subject of controversy since their introduction, with debates focusing on their safety for human consumption and environmental impact. Monsanto's NK603 maize is genetically modified to be resistant to Roundup, a widely used herbicide, allowing farmers to control weeds without harming the crop. The safety assessments of GMOs are typically based on studies conducted or commissioned by the biotech companies that develop them, leading to calls from some quarters for independent verification.

The Study

The Séralini study was unique in that it was a long-term (two-year) feeding trial; most previous studies had been conducted over 90 days. Séralini and his team reported that rats fed on NK603 maize or exposed to Roundup in their water showed an increased incidence of tumors, liver and kidney damage, and a higher mortality rate compared to control groups. The study's findings were accompanied by graphic images of rats with large tumors, which were widely circulated in the media.

Controversy

The publication of the Séralini study immediately sparked controversy. Critics, including many scientists and regulatory bodies, raised concerns about the study's methodology, including the choice of rat strain, which is prone to tumors; the statistical analysis; and the interpretation of the results. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and other regulatory agencies concluded that the study was of insufficient scientific quality to inform safety assessments.

In response to the criticism, the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the study in November 2013, citing concerns about the study's sample size and the conclusiveness of its findings. The retraction further fueled the controversy, with supporters of Séralini accusing the journal and the scientific community of censorship and bias in favor of the biotech industry.

Aftermath

The Séralini affair has had lasting implications for the debate over GMOs and the use of chemical herbicides. It highlighted the challenges of conducting independent research on the safety of GMOs and the influence of industry on scientific publications. In response to the controversy, some journals have adopted more stringent disclosure policies for authors and more rigorous peer review processes.

Despite the retraction, Séralini and his team republished their study in another journal, Environmental Sciences Europe, in 2014, standing by their findings. The affair has underscored the polarized nature of the GMO debate and the need for transparent, high-quality scientific research to inform public policy and consumer choices.