A translated and updated version of Wackes Seppi's* original article, at Imposteurs blog.
Early Media Hype, Late
Publication...
Gilles-Éric Séralini's team have
produced a new “study,” entitled “Major pesticides are more
toxic to human cells than their declared active principles »
[1]. They purported to have demonstrated that formulated pesticides
were several hundred time more toxic than the corresponding active
principles. As customary, the article challenged the regulatory
procedures: “In conclusion, our results challenge the relevance
of the ADI [Acceptable Daily Intake], because it is calculated
today from the toxicity of the AP alone in vivo. An “adjuvant
factor” of at least a reduction by 100 can be applied to the
present calculation of the ADI if this is confirmed by other studies
in vivo.” A reduction factor of 100! Pulled out of their hats,
just like that!
The “study” has now been published
in Biomed Research International, a journal from the Hindawi
group. The paper was accepted on 11 December 2013, and it took some
seven weeks before it was provisionally published in a remote place
of Hindawi's website. But, as soon as this was done, the
media campaign was launched by Mr. Séralini with the complacent
assistance of the Agence France Presse (AFP) [2]; it included
the inescapable Mayday! Mayday! of an organisation which
thrives on the fear of pesticides, Générations Futures [3].
It took another month or so before the
paper was published in final form.
The fact is that, having learned of the
(then forthcoming) publication of the paper, Prof. Ralf Reski
from the University of Freiburg-im-Breisgau tendered a much
publicized resignation from his position as editor of Biomed
Research International. He did not mince his words in his
e-mail: “I do not want to be connected to a journal that
provides [Séralini] a forum for such kind of agitation” [4].
Prof. Reski stated that he is not
a toxicologist but found it difficult to claim an importance for
whole organisms from a study on cell cultures. Further, he found
political claims in that paper that were not covered by the results
of that study. He argued that after the retracted “rat study” any
of Mr. Séralini's papers should be scrutinized with extra care
and that the sequence of events (a mere six weeks between submission
and acceptance of the paper and a handling editor at the journal
obviously not well established in the scientific community) was
enough to make him suspicious [5].
The message was well received by the
publisher. According to a tweet from Prof. Reski, they thanked
him for his feedback and “promised to look closer at this one”
[6]
But, now that the paper is published,
many onlookers who can boast common sense (that is sufficient to form
an opinion on the paper) will have to conclude that their
expectations were not met.
To keep it short, the research is
flawed in many respects. It reproduces in large measure the protocol
of an earlier work, “Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis
and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic and placental cells”,
2008, extending it to nine pesticides [7]. That work had been
scrutinized and heavily criticized by the French Agence française
de sécurité sanitaire des aliments (AFSSA), a predecessor of
today's ANSES [8]. The authors of the new paper chose to
ignore the criticism levelled at the methodology underpinning the
previous one and at the conclusions. The paper is also a mix of
(pseudo)science and political manifesto. Even the title –
something one would expect to see on a tabloid's front page – is
objectionable.
Harassment by Industry
The provisional paper was only
accessible with difficulty, and the media did not really bite into
the hype. It therefore, unsurprisingly, did not prompt the same
outcry as the previous, infamous and now retracted paper, “Longterm toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerantgenetically modified maize”. There were nevertheless some
damning comments [4].
Prof. Michael Coleman, a toxicologist
at Aston University in Birmingham, United Kingdom, considered that
“there are issues in terms of its design and execution, as well
as its overall tone," adding: “Anything is toxic
in high concentration, the question is whether the toxicity is
relevant to the levels of the agents we are ingesting. This paper
does not seem to address this issue at all.” Prof. Martin
van den Berg, a toxicologist at the Utrecht University, the
Netherlands, said: “The endpoints observed are so general that
we could probably find the same kind of toxicity with lemon juice or
grapefruit extract.”
Mr. Séralini replied: “I
recognize the remarks of industry in that.”
That industry is assuredly not the one
which financed his work!
No Conflicts of Interest? Really?
At this point we should mention that
the provisional version of the paper had no conflict of interests
statement. We flagged this on the Imposteurs website [9],
venturing that our previous criticism might have borne some fruit
[10].
Alas! The final version states: “The
authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the
publication of this paper.”
For any rational mind, this implies
conflicts of interests in areas other than publication. Such a
statement is no real improvement over past no-conflict declarations,
not being straightforward.
The authors have acknowledged “the
Regional Council of Low Normandy for Robin Mesnage fellowship and the
Charles Leopold Mayer (FPH) and Denis Guichard Foundations, together
with CRIIGEN, for structural support. They are equally thankful to
Malongo, Lea Nature, and the JMG Foundation for their help.”
What do “structural support” and “help” mean?
For those who are not familiar with French circumstances, the two
first-named foundations are heavily loaded, ideologically, and the
two companies are in the organic and fairtrade business.
And Meanwhile, the Petitions...
Meanwhile, two petitions in support of
the Séralini team stagger on. They are hilarious for normally
formatted minds...
“Retracting Séralini
Study Violates Science and Ethics” [11]
At the time of writing, the petition
launched on the Institute of Science in Society website soon
after the retraction of the rats paper, at the end of November 2013,
has reached 1215 signatures by scientists and people purporting to be
scientists, and 3526 by lay people. “Retracting Séralini Study
Violates Science and Ethics”, it says. How bombastic! The
retraction is also “censorship of scientific research,
knowledge, and understanding, an abuse of science striking at the
very heart of science and democracy, and science for the public
good.” No less...
And, in support of the retraction of
the retraction, the authors of the petition explain: “Elsevier
is already notorious for having published 6 fake journals sponsored
by unnamed pharmaceutical companies made to look like peer reviewed
medical journals.” There are obviously better ways to convince
an interlocutor than publicizing its turpitudes!
The signatories also pledge to boycott
Elsevier. The publisher must be shivering with fear!
Among the “scientist” signatories
are M. Robin Mesnage, a co-author of the retracted paper;
Mr. Christian Vélot, a long-time anti-GM campaigner and member
of the scientific council of CRIIGEN (which played a pivotal role in
the “study”), whose steadfast support should be noted (without
any irony, other friends of Mr. Séralini are ducking out) ;
and the famous “ecofeminist” Vandana Shiva who describes herself
as “Ph D Quantum physics winner of Right Livelihood award
numerous other prizes honorary degrees from numerous universities
worldwide, Director of Navdanya, New Delhi, India” [12].
It is only fair for Mr. Séralini
and colleagues, who published papers on plant extracts protecting
human cells against xenobiotic effects, particularly from
glyphosate-based herbicides [10], to receive the support of medical
practitioners, some in quackery. For instance Robert Abbruzzese “D
C Chiropractor Nutrition Wellness Educator, Abbruzzese Wellness,
Briarcliff Manor, United States,” or Douglas Amell, “B Sc
N D , Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors, Moose Jaw
Saskatchewan, Canada.”
The “scientists” section is also
little bothered by credentials. The top part of the alphabetical
list includes Elizabeth Alfieri, “I have been studying
independently for 30 years , concerned citizen, Rochester, United
States,” Mike Arthur, “i dont want to eat gmo,
United States”, or Walter Ashton, “TEXTILES, Leyland,
United Kingdom.”
Mr. Jeffrey Smith, bragging as
“[t]he leading consumer advocate promoting healthier non GMO
choices Jeffrey Smith s meticulous research documents how biotech
companies continue to mislead legislators and safety officials to put
the health of society at risk and the environment in peril ,
Institute for Responsible Technology, Iowa, United States,” at
least had the decency to sign as a “non-scientist”.
Some celebrities, as famous as Bruce
Banner, aka the Incredible Hulk [13], or as mysterious as Cain Abel,
“Biology, CNRS, Paris, France,” also gave their
blessing.
But rest assured: following an alleged
cyber-attack, “We have put in extra checks and our many friends
are reporting them to us.”
“Retraction of Séralini
GMO study is attack on scientific integrity” [14]
Another petition was launched on an ad
hoc website, endsciencecensorship, on 29 January 2014,
purportedly by a group of “concerned citizens and scientists.”
How should we understand this? Aren't the scientists also citizens?
Nitpicking apart, the “about” page of the site states that the
editor of the website is Ms. Claire Robinson who also runs
GMWatch.org and GMOSeralini.org, and contributes to
EarthOpenSource.org. Welcome information; potential
signatories can thus learn with whom they would rub elbows.
The list of the 41 first petitioners
includes some prominent names of the anti-GM movement; it includes
Mr. Christian Vélot [15]. Some of the following names are also
quite interesting. The counter is now at 140, ticking rather slowly.
Equally interesting is the list of absentees... Where are for
instance the members of the European Network of Scientists for
Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER)?
The signatories claim that the “Journal
retraction of Séralini GMO study is invalid and an attack on
scientific integrity.” A study which is “pioneering”...
Well, to keep out of the scientific controversy, publishing pictures
of three rats having been kept alive beyond reason to have them grow
enormous tumours, without photo of a control, is indeed pioneering.
To challenge the retraction, the
authors cherry-picked from the convoluted writings of Dr. A. Wallace
Hayes, in particular “No definitive conclusions could be drawn
from the inconclusive data”, arguing essentially that “no
definitive conclusions” does not fit into the concept of
“findings [that] are unreliable, either as a result of
misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g.
miscalculation or experimental error)” of the COPE Guidelines
[16]. In fact, Dr. Hayes had made it (relatively) plain that
the entire paper could not stand, writing in particular: “In
conclusion, FCT has retracted this article because our thorough
investigations revealed that its methods were scientifically flawed.
The low number of animals, and the strain selected, rendered the
conclusions unreliable. No definitive conclusions could be drawn from
the inconclusive data” [17].
Whoever signs the petition thus
obliterates the clear match between COPE's reference to “experimental
error” (an example of “honest error”) and Dr. Hayes'
“methods were scientifically flawed.” And, of course, the
vastly predominant opinion of the qualified scientific community on
the (absence of) merits of the rats paper.
Other aspects of the paper are equally
questionable, if not grotesque. Maybe this is the reason for the
small number of signatories.
Bis repetita?
The retracted “Long term
toxicity...” was the stepping stone of one of the most
formidable pseudoscience-based political and media campaigns
(exclusive articles in papers, two books, two “documentaries”...).
For Food & Chemical Toxicology, it was also a means to
gain worldwide notoriety. There is reason to believe that the FCT
management procrastinated with the re-examination of the paper,
which had become unavoidable in view of the unprecedented furore,
until the ratio of benefits from media attention over drawbacks from
increasing bad reputation within the scientific community turned
negative.
Aren't we experiencing a kind of
repeat?
The editor of Biomed Research
International could not ignore that Mr. Séralini's
reputation was, to say the least, nefarious. He was warned about the
deficiencies of the paper. Comments such as those from
Profs. Coleman and van den Berg could not be taken lightly.
Yet, he chose to go ahead. Worse, we must take it from Prof. Reski's
tweets of 17 February 2014 that the publisher would welcome critiques
as letters to the editor. This begs the question whether he prefers
to sacrifice scientific relevance for notoriety.
In any event, the result is that it is
now up to the scientific community to deconstruct a political
manifesto camouflaged as a scientific paper.
__________________
* Nom de plume for a
retired agronomist and former international civil servant.
[2] See for instance:
[5]
http://www.zeit.de/wissen/2014-02/studie-wissenschaft-publikation-umstritten-genmais
Conclusions 1 and 4 read:
“1. The conclusions are
solely based upon in vitro tests on non-validated,
non-representative cellular models (in particular tumour or
transformed cells) that are directly exposed to extremely high
concentrations of substances under growing conditions that do not
respect normal physiological conditions. [...]”
“4. The authors
over-interpret their results in relation to potential consequences on
human health, in particular on the basis of an unsubstantiated in
vitro-in vivo extrapolation. [...] the concentrations used in
these tests would imply a huge exposure to glyphosate to obtain such
cytotoxic effects on humans.”
[12] There is an excellent
recension of her « Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and
Development » at:
[13] http://proactiontranshuman.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/anti-gmoers-comic-book-characters-and-the-seralini-study/
[15] That list includes a name
which a former international civil servant can only find unwelcome.
May it be recalled here that the Standards of Conduct for the
International Civil Service state:
“While their personal views remain
inviolate, international civil servants do not have the freedom of
private persons to take sides or to express their convictions
publicly on controversial matters, either individually or as members
of a group, irrespective of the medium used. This can mean that, in
certain situations, personal views should be expressed only with tact
and discretion.”
[17] http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/food-and-chemical-toxicology-editor-in-chief,-a.-wallace-hayes,-publishes-response-to-letters-to-the-editors
Other GMO Pundit Posts on CRIIGEN misadventures
***
Other GMO Pundit Posts on CRIIGEN misadventures
No comments:
Post a Comment