Line 4Line 4 Copyic/close/grey600play_circle_outline - material


The Seralini study has been trashed by scientists, but yet some scientists are claiming that the study is not as bad as many say. What exactly is your position on that study and what specifically about the study causes scientists to discredit it?

Submitted by: Seeking.the.Truth


Expert response from Community Manager

Moderator for

Wednesday, 06/11/2013 13:29

We believe your question is referencing a recent Natural News article reporting on the EFSA’s recent statements on the Seralini study.  Vivian Moses, Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, King's College London, recently posted an a response which addresses this topic, available here:


Additionally, Alan McHughen, Professor, UC Irvine, provides a thorough response on the Seralini, available here:


An excerpt from Alan’s response is included below:


The pictures from that study conducted by Gilles-Eric Seralini are frightening – and made for sensationalistic media coverage.  However, when teams of scientists from around the world looked at the study carefully, they found that the conclusions drawn by Seralini were not credible, that the study itself was seriously flawed and provided no new grounds for concern about GM food.


The paper was criticized by public scientific and medical societies worldwide for its faulty experimental design, statistical analysis, and interpretation and presentation of results.  Problems included the well-known fact that the strain of rats used in the study (Sprague-Dawley) are prone to develop tumors at around age two regardless of their diet; Seralini attributed the tumors to the GM corn rations, but he could as easily have shown pictures of rats fed no GM corn but still full of tumors.  Seralini’s data analysis was also unusual; the German risk assessment agency found it “impossible to comprehend.”