Editor in Chief of Food and Chemical Toxicology answers questions on retraction

Flawed scientific studies block progress and sow confusion

Research in crop science in recent years has advanced at an unprecedented rate, and the intermingling of old and new crop breeding technologies has made the term "genetically modified" - and its variant, Genetically Modified Organism, or "GMO" - virtually obsolete. A kind of pseudo-category, it is primarily used pejoratively to refer to the use of the newest, most precise, most predictable, molecular genetic techniques. Prodigious amounts of time, effort and care have been expended to ensure that crops developed for commercialization using molecular techniques are safe, and that new traits are beneficial. Â Yet, despite these advances, some skepticism persists about them, partly due to the publication of fraudulent, poorly designed, and biased studies by a few "rogue scientists" whose intention is to contaminate the scientific literature and sow mistrust about molecular genetic modification among regulators and the public. We discuss how such flawed studies make it to publication and how the scientific community can combat such disinformation.

Conversion messages and attitude change: Strong arguments, not costly signals

A conversion narrative recounts the process that led the speaker to reject one belief for a different, usually incompatible, alternative. However, researchers know little about whether, when, and, if so, how such messages affect audience attitudes about controversial science. Using a general US population-sample experiment, we assessed the attitudinal impact of three versions of a statement by Mark Lynas, an environmental activist who converted from opposing to championing genetically modified crops. Participants were exposed to (1) a one-sided pro-genetically modified message by Lynas, (2) a two-sided pro-genetically modified message in which Lynas indicates but does not detail his conversion, or (3) a two-sided pro-genetically modified message in which Lynas explains the process that prompted his conversion. We find that his conversion messages influenced attitudes by way of perceived argument strength, but not speaker credibility. This finding implies such messages induce greater elaboration, which may lead to durable attitudes that predict behavior.

Safety assessment of GM plants: An updated review of the scientific literature

In a wide revision of the literature conducted in 2000, I noted that the information in scientific journals on the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods in general, and GM plants in particular, was scarce. Of course, it was not sufficient to guarantee that the consumption of these products should not mean risks for the health of the consumers. Because of the scientific interest in GM organisms (GMOs), as well as the great concern that the consumption of GM foods/plants has raised in a number of countries, I conducted two subsequent revisions (2007 and 2011) on the adverse/toxic effects of GM plants. In the present review, I have updated the information on the potential adverse health effects of GM plants consumed as food and/or feed. With only a few exceptions, the reported studies in the last six years show rather similar conclusions; that is to say, the assessed GM soybeans, rice, corn/maize and wheat would be as safe as the parental species of these plants. However, in spite of the notable increase in the available information, studies on the long-term health effects of GM plants, including tests of mutagenicity, teratogenicity and carcinogenicity seem to be still clearly necessary.

Retraction of a study on genetically modified corn: Expert investigations should speak louder during controversies over safety

Over the past few years, genetically modified organisms (GMO) have gradually become more familiar after numerous reports of problems with GMO safety, such as genetically modified (GM) potatoes disrupting immunity, GM corn inducing tumors, and GM rice being fed to unwitting Chinese children. Every time, these reports cause panic among the population and lead to objections to GMO in various fora. After each incident, the scientific community has delivered its academic appraisal and refuted rumors through slow and cautious investigations and evaluations. Unfortunately, during each event media outlets quickly scare the public about food safety and ignore the ensuing comments from scientists. Although scientists have investigated each GMO crisis and reached scientific and rational conclusions, they have less ability to disseminate information than the media, so the public is not promptly informed of their rational and objective viewpoints as experts. Thus, scientists need greater ability to disseminate information from scientific investigations and evaluations in order to correct the intemperate reporting by attention-seeking media.

Evaluation of carcinogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate, drawing on tumor incidence data from fourteen chronic/carcinogenicity rodent studies

Abstract Glyphosate, an herbicidal derivative of the amino acid glycine, was introduced to agriculture in the 1970s. Glyphosate targets and blocks a plant metabolic pathway not found in animals, the shikimate pathway, required for the synthesis of aromatic amino acids in plants. After almost forty years of commercial use, and multiple regulatory approvals including toxicology evaluations, literature reviews, and numerous human health risk assessments, the clear and consistent conclusions are that glyphosate is of low toxicological concern, and no concerns exist with respect to glyphosate use and cancer in humans. This manuscript discusses the basis for these conclusions. Most toxicological studies informing regulatory evaluations are of commercial interest and are proprietary in nature. Given the widespread attention to this molecule, the authors gained access to carcinogenicity data submitted to regulatory agencies and present overviews of each study, followed by a weight of evidence evaluation of tumor incidence data. Fourteen carcinogenicity studies (nine rat and five mouse) are evaluated for their individual reliability, and select neoplasms are identified for further evaluation across the data base. The original tumor incidence data from study reports are presented in the online data supplement. There was no evidence of a carcinogenic effect related to glyphosate treatment. The lack of a plausible mechanism, along with published epidemiology studies, which fail to demonstrate clear, statistically significant, unbiased and non-confounded associations between glyphosate and cancer of any single etiology, and a compelling weight of evidence, support the conclusion that glyphosate does not present concern with respect to carcinogenic potential in humans.

Conflicts of interests, confidentiality and censorship in health risk assessment: the example of an herbicide and a GMO

We have studied the long-term toxicity of a Roundup-tolerant GM maize (NK603) and a whole Roundup pesticide formulation at environmentally relevant levels from 0.1 ppb. Our study was first published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) on 19 September, 2012. The first wave of criticisms arrived within a week, mostly from plant biologists without experience in toxicology. We answered all these criticisms. The debate then encompassed scientific arguments and a wave of ad hominem and potentially libellous comments appeared in different journals by authors having serious yet undisclosed conflicts of interests. At the same time, FCT acquired as its new assistant editor for biotechnology a former employee of Monsanto after he sent a letter to FCT to complain about our study. This is in particular why FCT asked for a post-hoc analysis of our raw data. On 19 November, 2013, the editor-in-chief requested the retraction of our study while recognizing that the data were not incorrect and that there was no misconduct and no fraud or intentional misinterpretation in our complete raw data - an unusual or even unprecedented action in scientific publishing. The editor argued that no conclusions could be drawn because we studied 10 rats per group over 2 years, because they were Sprague Dawley rats, and because the data were inconclusive on cancer. Yet this was known at the time of submission of our study. Our study was however never attended to be a carcinogenicity study. We never used the word 'cancer' in our paper. The present opinion is a summary of the debate resulting in this retraction, as it is a historic example of conflicts of interest in the scientific assessments of products commercialized worldwide. We also show that the decision to retract cannot be rationalized on any discernible scientific or ethical grounds. Censorship of research into health risks undermines the value and the credibility of science; thus, we republish our paper.