Editorial

A recent article by Seralini et al. (Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 50, Issue 11, November 2012, Pages 4221–4231) has caused media interest and some controversy. The authors have claimed that in rats genetically modified (GM) maize grown with a herbicide to which it is resistant causes serious adverse health effects.

There has been considerable correspondence in relation to this paper, and substantial concerns have been expressed about the design, conduct and interpretation of the studies reported. We acknowledge that the Food and Chemical Toxicology Editors have encouraged letters to the journal about the article and will publish correspondence in due course. In our view there is no doubt that the article, the study it describes, and the conclusions drawn, are seriously flawed; a view that is consistent with the opinions expressed forcefully by the European Food Standards Agency (EFSA) (EFSA press release, 2012 – http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121004.htm)

There is no value in rehearsing again the specific concerns that have been raised about the Seralini paper. We do comment though that it is unfortunate the impact that papers such as this can have in the media when the science is flawed. It reflects badly on science in general, and toxicology in particular.

There are many in the UK, and in Europe, that remain concerned, or at least confused, about the potential health risks that may be associated with food, or other products, derived from GM crops. The current debate about the merits or otherwise of the views expressed by Seralini et al. will certainly fuel further uncertainty, and for no good reason.

What lessons are to be learned from this? The concerns expressed by EFSA focused on the serious deficiencies in design, conduct and methodology of the work reported by Seralini et al.; their view being, correctly, that valid conclusions cannot be drawn from this study.

Science will always vary in quality, and opinions will inevitably differ with regard to interpretation and relevance, but that debate should be based on consideration of data generated by the use of rigorous experimental design and conduct. It is not always easy to prevent sub-standard research being carried out, but it should be possible through the peer and editorial review process to prevent it being published by recognised journals in the scientific literature.

Science is judged by output, and one very important measure of that – within and beyond the research community – is publication in the scientific literature. The standard of that literature, the confidence with which it is viewed, and ultimately the reputation of science, is driven by the quality of the peer review process.

The debate about this particular paper provides a cautionary message that maintenance of high standards in the scientific literature is in the hands of researchers and we must ensure the peer review process is rigorous and fair. This is not an indictment of those who reviewed the paper that prompted this discussion; there is no doubt that on occasion we are all culpable, and have missed important areas of concern in manuscripts that we have reviewed. The point is that this is a timely reminder that the peer review process is important and that we each have a responsibility to ensure that the exacting standards required for investigations to be of value are maintained.

Dr Tim Gant & Dr Heather Wallace

Officers of the British Toxicology Society

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Royal Society of Chemistry or the wider membership of the British Toxicology Society.

---