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

This is not only an attack on scientific freedom to publish, but also an insult to all the other scientist who should be allowed to evaluate it for themselves. What is the editor afraid of? Has pressure been brought to bear on him by a very powerful GM and chemical industry. If so, he should be ashamed to have given in to it.

Andrew Goldsworthy

This is obviously a blatant example of conflict of interest, which Elsevier need to act decisively on. If not, boycotting Elsevier is a good option.

Valentin Zhelyaskov

This deliberate attempt to delete a highly significant scientific finding from history clearly shows Elsevier's contempt for science, its failure to properly apply and satisfy the peer review process, and its adherence to commercial interests.
In other words, Elsevier is a manipulative and unreliable contributor to the scientific process and should therefore be avoided for scientific publications in the future.

Arie Taeke Veltman

I personally believe that transgenic plants are and will be very important tool to fight diseases, global poverty and climate change. But it cannot be acheived without public confidence in independent science. While I believe that some of the conclusions of the study are not supported by the data, I strongly disagree with the retraction of the paper. The paper should have not been published in its present form, but its retraction compromises the credibility of the whole peer-review process. How can the public trust scientific literature if the same article can at one point in time be worth of publications in reputable journal and after few months its found "inconclusive" and of poor quality?

Tomas Moravec