Retraction of Séralini GMO study is attack on scientific integrity

  • Reason given for retraction - "inconclusiveness" - is unprecedented and violates norms of scientific publishing
  • It is unjustifiable to retract an entire paper because it contains some “inconclusive” findings
  • Conclusive findings are rare in science
  • Attack on scientific integrity could put public health at risk
  • Study must be reinstated

We, the undersigned international scientists and experts, condemn the retraction by Dr A. Wallace Hayes, the editor-in-chief of the scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), of the pioneering study of Séralini et al. (2012) on a genetically modified (GM) maize and its associated pesticide, Roundup.

Dr Hayes, FCT, and the journal’s publisher Elsevier must reinstate the Séralini study and provide a full public apology to Professor Séralini and his team.


I am a scientist and I sign on to the statement.
Information About You

e.g. PhD

Your Contact Information
Where are You from?
Share Your Views
Sign the Statement

Withdrawal of per review article in the absence of proof of misconduct is a clear indicator of censorship. Unless editor re-instates the article all journals from this publisher should be boycotted.

Bertal H. Aktas

This censorship and restriction of research funding is one of the most serious developements and should be resisted wholeheartedly by the scientific and general community.

Frank Rowson

This is an outrageous suppression of information by, and on behalf of, the Agrochemical Corporations. Editors are using double standards in order to facilitate the publication of papers that report positive results and suppress any others that suggest complications.

Rosemary Anne Mason

There are no scientific or ethical grounds for the retraction of the Seralini et al paper.
This is a flagrant violation of scientific freedom and one can only assume the result of political intervention into the publication process.

Sheldon Krimsky

Sheldon Krimsky

This is absurd, it should not be retracted, it should be reinstated, pursue the truth.

Cory Shafer

Why should we "retract" knowledge?

Mustapha M Mustapha

This retraction is politically motivated and ignoring science that is now consolidated in many studies showing that glyphosate is a damaging substance both for human health and the environment generally.

Professor Emeritus Malcolm Hooper

Science must remain independent if it is to be relevant and must be evidence-based not results-driven. Elsevier are shooting themselves in the foot as they have lost all credibility as a science publisher and made a mockery of the peer review system.

Vivienne Laval

The retraction was totally politically motivated to the benefit of biotech corporations producing toxic glyphosate and GMOs which cause cancer and organ damage.

Bonnie Camo MD

The reason to withdraw the article has no justification.

Dr. Eduardo C Schroder

This is blatant censorship and has no place in scientific enquiry. Elsevier is caving to big pharma in the most cowardly way possible.

Peter C. Charles

Monsanto has ben blacklisting dsiagreeing scientists, does not allow research on its matriel sans their official and demands editorial/censorship rights!

Dr. Roger C. Birosel

The Seralini et al., 2012 study was conducted with rigorous methodology and the data were analyzed using sound statistical tests. There are no justifiable reasons for retracting this publication other than the fact that the results were controversial. The retraction is cause for suspicion that vested interests and biased opinions are interfering with the publication of important research that is relevant to environmental and public health.

daniela rambaldini

This study should be reinstated or studies supporting the safety of NK603 should retracted as well: they are no more conclusive.

Vincent Detours

Censorship of inconvenient studies is unconscionable. A study suggestive of harms associated with genetically modified crops billions of people and animals are exposed to compels an in-depth scientific investigation and replication, not erasure of the study.

Ena Valikov

I follow the research from Seralini Group and I consider that the retraction of their article has not any scientific fundament.

Paulo Yoshio Kageyama

Scientific papers are always inconclusive.
This smacks of politics and corrupt cover-up to protect profits.

Yvan Rioux

Denying the publication of scientific outcomes and the lack of application of the precautionary principle to innovations risks creating major food and health system collapse.

Nadia El-Hage Scialabba

What has been done re retraction of Seralini's peer-reviewed publication and defamation is outrageous. It is without precedent, and is completely unacceptable.

Richard Doherty

Withdrawal and censorship of the Seralini report is an act of complicity to conceal the flaws of a lethal technology. This is criminal behaviour.

Miguel Lovera