A peer-reviewed study (Meyer and Hilbeck, 2013)[1] concluded that double standards were used by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in evaluating the Séralini study. The authors applied the criteria EFSA used for evaluating the Séralini study to two Monsanto publications on the same NK603 maize,[2] [3] which were accepted by EFSA as proof of the maize’s safety.

The authors found that all three publications either satisfied or failed to satisfy the EFSA evaluation criteria to a comparable extent. Yet only the Séralini study was judged by EFSA as defective – and EFSA has only applied its criteria to Séralini’s study. The authors concluded that EFSA’s rejection of only one of the papers – the Séralini study – was not scientifically justified. The authors also showed that EFSA's criteria did not represent standard practice in 21 other rat feeding studies of a minimum of 12 months duration.

Looking at the broader implications of this study, only one of two possible conclusions can be drawn. Either numerous defective long-term studies conducted over the past decades must all be retracted, including studies published in FCT, or the Séralini study is as good or as bad as all the others.


[1] Meyer H and Hilbeck A (2013). Rat feeding studies with genetically modified maize – a comparative evaluation of applied methods and risk assessment standards. Environmental Sciences Europe 25(33). Online publication prior to print.

[2] Hammond B et al (2004). Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Food Chem Toxicol 42(6):1003–1014.

[3] Monsanto (2001). 13 week feeding study in rats with grain from Roundup Ready corn (NK603) preceded by a 1-week baseline food consumption determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002. St. Louis.

next page "FCT editor defends decision by misrepresenting the study?"