Tuesday 24 June 2014
Controversial Seralini GMO & Roundup Study Republished



The Safe Food Foundation welcomes the vindication of Seralini’s work which raises serious issues about the safety of Roundup and GM crops and highlights deficiencies in their regulatory assessments for safety.


“This republication comes on the heals of Steve Marsh losing his case to keep his organic farm free from GM canola. Justice Martin commented that there were no safety issues with the GM canola grown. Steve Marsh has announced he is appealing the decision. We disagree with Justice Martin and find that this study is aligned with other studies that point to disruption of the normal hormonal and fertility systems in laboratory animals exposed to low levels of Roundup and GMO’s,” said Scott Kinnear today. 

More documents related to this republication can be downloaded here.


For an interview or more information

Scott Kinnear, director The Safe Food Foundation: 0419 881 729



GMOSeralini.org welcomes the the republication of the chronic toxicity study on the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup and a commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize, Monsanto’s NK603, led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini. The republication restores the study to the peer-reviewed literature so that it can be consulted and built upon by other scientists. 


The study found severe liver and kidney damage and hormonal disturbances in rats fed the GM maize and low levels of Roundup that are below those permitted in drinking water in the EU. Toxic effects were found from the GM maize tested alone, as well as from Roundup tested alone and together with the maize. Additional unexpected findings were higher rates of large tumours and mortality in most treatment groups.

The study was first published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) in September 2012[1] but was retracted by the editor-in-chief in November 2013 after a sustained campaign of criticism and defamation by pro-GMO scientists.[2]

Now the study has been republished by Environmental Sciences Europe. The republished version contains extra material addressing criticisms of the original publication. The raw data underlying the study’s findings are also published – unlike the raw data for the industry studies that underlie regulatory approvals of Roundup, which are kept secret. However, the new paper presents the same results as before and the conclusions are unchanged.

The republished study is accompanied by a separate commentary by Prof Séralini’s team describing the lobbying efforts of GMO crop supporters to force the editor of FCT to retract the original publication.

GMOSeralini.org editor Claire Robinson commented: “This study has now successfully passed no less than three rounds of rigorous peer review.

“The first was for the initial publication of the study in Food and Chemical Toxicology. It passed with only minor revisions, according to the authors.[3]

“The second review took months. It involved a non-transparent examination of Prof Séralini’s raw data by a secret panel of unnamed persons organized by the editor-in-chief of FCT, A. Wallace Hayes, in response to criticisms of the study by pro-GMO scientists.[4,5]

“In a letter to Prof Séralini, Hayes admitted that the anonymous reviewers found nothing ‘incorrect’ about the results presented. However, Hayes pointed to what he said was the ‘inconclusive’ nature of some aspects of the paper, namely the tumour and mortality observations, to justify his decision to retract the study.[6]

“The rationale given for the retraction was widely criticized by scientists as an act of censorship and a bow to the interests of the GMO industry.[7,8] Some scientists pointed out that numerous published scientific papers contain inconclusive findings, including Monsanto’s own short (90-day) study on the same GM maize, and have not been retracted.[9] The retraction was even condemned by a former member of the editorial board of FCT.[10]

“Now the study has passed a third peer review arranged by the journal that is republishing the study, Environmental Sciences Europe.[11]

Comments from scientists:

Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist based in London, commented, “Few studies would survive such intensive scrutiny by fellow scientists. The republication of the study after three expert reviews is a testament to its rigour, as well as to the integrity of the researchers.

“If anyone still doubts the quality of this study, they should simply read the republished paper. The science speaks for itself.

“If even then they refuse to accept the results, they should launch their own research study on these two toxic products that have now been in the human food and animal feed chain for many years.”

Dr Jack A Heinemann, Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics, University of Canterbury New Zealand, called the republication “an important demonstration of the resilience of the scientific community”. Dr Heinemann continued, “The first publication of these results revealed some of the viciousness that can be unleashed on researchers presenting uncomfortable findings. I applaud Environmental Sciences Europe for submitting the work to yet another round of rigorous blind peer review and then bravely standing by the process and the recommendations of its reviewers, especially after witnessing the events surrounding the first publication.

“This study has arguably prevailed through the most comprehensive and independent review process to which any scientific study on GMOs has ever been subjected.

“The work provides important new knowledge that must be taken into account by the community that evaluates and reports upon the risks of genetically modified organisms, indeed upon all sources of pesticide in our food and feed chains. In time these findings must be verified by repetition or challenged by superior experimentation. In my view, nothing constructive for risk assessment or promotion of GM biotechnology has been achieved by attempting to expunge these data from the public record.”


1. Seralini GE et al, 2012. RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem Toxicol 50:4221-4231.

2. http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/science/item/164-smelling-a-corporate-rat

3. http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/16/journal-editor-defends-retraction-of-gmo-rats-study-while-authors-reveal-some-of-papers-history/

4. www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/statement#.U6XBuagoyBA ; Hayes AW (2013). Letter to Professor GE Séralini. 19 Nov. Available at: http://www.gmwatch.org/files/Letter_AWHayes_GES.pdf

5. http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/science/item/164-smelling-a-corporate-rat

6. Hayes AW (2013). Letter to Professor GE Séralini. 19 Nov. Available at:http://www.gmwatch.org/files/Letter_AWHayes_GES.pdf

7. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jan/08/science-food-health/ ; Also see article beginning:http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/Statement#.U6YDUKgoyBA

8. http://www.ensser.org/democratising-science-decision-making/ensser-comments-on-the-retraction-of-the-seralini-et-al-2012-study/

9. http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/retraction-intro#.U6gKv6gowsk ;http://www.endsciencecensorship.org/en/page/retraction-double-standards#.U6gLPKgowsk

10. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691514000039

11. http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14  http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13

For an interview or more information

Scott Kinnear, director The Safe Food Foundation: 0419 881 729 

1 Comment

  • Serene July 13, 2014 at 1:27 am

    Dear Safe Food Foundation,

    I am an admirer of all the work that you do and your support for Steve Marsh.

    I do have a few suggestions/concerns in relation to his case and I would appreciate clarification if I have made some incorrect assumptions. I am also happy to offer my assistance, legally or otherwise, to his cause:

    1- My understanding is that while there was contamination of his land, that the contamination has been isolated and dealt with. Steve’s land is no longer contaminated.
    2- Despite Steve’s land not being contaminated anymore, NASAA has denied him organic certification based on the fact that the land had been previously contaminated. I am wanting to locate the policy/regulation that would deny Marsh certification based on contamination that had been isolated and dealt with. Is it the mere perceived risk of contamination that makes NASAA deny him certification. I think that is very inflexible and unrealistic.
    3- Of-course it is preposterous to suggest as the judge erroneously did that GMO is safe, however, that is not necessary to the decision as the question is did Baxter employ negligent methods in harvesting his crop. The answer is clearly No. The problem is that there are no proper legislative and regulatory frameworks that clearly define how organic and GMO based farming can co-exist. In the absence of that, what laws can be applied in the Court to provide a remedy? The place where this needs to play out is not the Court but public policy.
    4- The claim is only for $80,000 and nothing is claimed as damage to the land itself. I am certain that more money has been spent on legal and other costs. The courts are pathetic places in my experience and a claim for compensation would hardly redefine or reshape the rules.
    5- Has Baxter been approached about the methods applied for havesting his crops, perhaps there can be an out of court negotiation? That would be far more effective in swaying public opinion and redefining the co-existence between GMO and organic farming practices. The adversarial method is not going to redefine things.
    6- NASAA is making a lot of assumptions I think in relation
    7- I can’t understand why Slater and Gordon would take a course of action that would seek a personal negligence claim of $80,000. Perhaps an action against Government for failure of administrative process.

    A lot more to say.

    My number is 0425754299.



Leave a Comment