by 
Controversial research which linked genetically modified (GM) corn to cancer and premature death in rats has been retracted with a food safety journal following the study’s authors refused to withdraw the paper.
The study, which was originally published by the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology 14 months ago, claimed rodents acquired tumors and experienced multiple organ failures after eating and enjoying GM corn produced by St. Louis-based Monsanto.
The study “described rats that for 2 years were exposed to herbicide-tainted water and fed an unlimited diet of Roundup-resistant maize, a kind of corn genetically modified to resist herbicide and marketed through the agribusiness giant Monsanto,” TheStar.com science and technology reporter Kate Allen explained. She added the researchers “claimed most of the female GM-fed rats grew massive mammary tumors which the males suffered from liver damage; all died more quickly than animals fed a non-GM diet.”
Lead author Gilles-Eric Seralini from the University of Caen defended his team’s research, calling it the most detailed analysis of the subject ever completed. However, criticism from the study began to mount last November as over 700 other scientists signed an online petition demanding the authors fully disclose all information pertaining to their research.
In fact, inside a letter to the journal’s editor Maurice Moloney, then the head of the Rothamsted Research agricultural study group, detractors called the paper “seriously deficient in its design, its execution and its conclusions” and said it was “appalling” that the “respected” journal would publish the study. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) echoed these sentiments, claiming there were “serious defects” in the design and methodology of Seralini’s study.
On Thursday, the editors from the journal issued a statement announcing the study had been retracted following “a thorough and time-consuming analysis of the published article and also the data it reports, with an investigation into the peer-review behind the content.” They continued to report the character of the concerns raised concerning the research prompted Food and Chemical Toxicology Editor-in-Chief A. Wallace Hayes to examine the raw data from the research.
“The request to see raw data is seldom made; however, it’s in accordance with the journal’s policy that authors of submitted manuscripts should be prepared to provide the original data if that’s the case requested,” the publication said. While their review uncovered “no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation” of that data, it did find “legitimate reason to be concerned regarding both the quantity of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected.”
According to Andrew Pollack from the New York Times, the review ultimately determined the study results were “inconclusive” and didn’t meet the journal’s standards for publication. The choice to retract the paper came after the authors refused to voluntarily withdraw it, added Nature.com’s Barbara Casassus.
Study co-author and physician Jo?l Spiroux de Vend?mois, who’s even the president from the Paris-based Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), told Casassus that the retraction was “a public-health scandal” which their paper was put through more scrutiny than other published research.
Supporters from the study’s findings also note among the journal’s editors, Richard Goodman, used to be utilized by Monsanto C though he denies being involved in the publication’s decision to retract the paper. “Food and Chemical Toxicology inquired about to become an associate editor in January 2013 due to my extensive experience in the region, after I were not impressed with the Sralini study,” he told Nature. “But I didn’t review the data in the Sralini study, nor did I have anything to do with the determination the paper ought to be withdrawn from or retained through the journal.”
