[ The Seralini study has been retracted. Read the letter from the journal editor.]

An intensively promoted and controversial French study claiming to find high tumor rates and early mortality in rats fed genetically modified corn and “safe” levels of the herbicide Roundup has been dismissed in a rare joint statement from France’s six scientific academies. Here’s a link to the statement (in French). [*Here’s an English translation.] Here’s an excerpt from coverage of the academies’ statement by Agence France-Presse:

“This work does not enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn,” they said, adding bluntly that the affair helped “spread fear among the public.” The joint statement—an extremely rare event in French science—was signed by the national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies. It was sparked by research published in September that said rats fed with so-called NK603 corn and/or doses of Roundup herbicide developed tumors…. Two fast-track official investigations into the study, ordered by the government, are due to be unveiled on Monday. The academies’ statement said: “Given the numerous gaps in methods and interpretation, the data presented in this article cannot challenge previous studies which have concluded that NK603 corn is harmless from the health point of view, as are, more generally, genetically modified plants that have been authorised for consumption by animals and humans.” In withering terms, it dismissed the study as “a scientific non-event.” “Hyping the reputation of a scientist or a team is a serious misdemeanour when it helps to spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion,” the academies said.

The academies’ statement is just the latest rejection of the conclusions by the paper’s authors, led by Gilles-Eric Séralini, a scientist at the University of Caen who has long campaigned against genetically modified foods and attracted criticism for flawed science. Earlier this month the European Food Safety Authority concluded that the rat study’s statistical and methodological weaknesses precluded its being used in safety evaluations:

Conclusions cannot be drawn on the difference in tumour incidence between the treatment groups on the basis of the design, the analysis and the results as reported in the Séralini et al. (2012) publication. In particular, Séralini et al. (2012) draw conclusions on the incidence of tumours based on 10 rats per treatment per sex which is an insufficient number of animals to distinguish between specific treatment effects and chance occurrences of tumours in rats. Considering that the study as reported in the Séralini et al. (2012) publication is of inadequate design, analysis and reporting, EFSA finds that it is of insufficient scientific quality for safety assessment.

Of course despite early signals that the work was suspect, that didn’t prevent the work from being swiftly promoted by groups pressing for California’s Proposition 37, which would require the labeling of genetically modified foods (at least those not on the long list of exempted products).

I also don’t imagine that any of the organic-friendly media outlets that uncritically covered the rat results will follow up on these new developments — lending credence to Keith Kloor’s thesis that “Liberals Turn a Blind Eye to Crazy Talk on GMOs.”

This excerpt is from a report by Radio France International:

On Monday, the Higher Biotechnologies Council (HCB) and the National Agency for Food Safety (ANSES) said they saw nothing to challenge existing safety assessments for Monsanto’s NK603 corn or its Roundup weed killer. “The study provides no scientific information regarding the detection of any health risk linked to NK603 corn, whether it was treated with Roundup or not,” said the 66-member HCB, set up in 2009 to provide an independent view in such areas. “The data are insufficient to establish scientifically a causal link… or to support the conclusions or pathways suggested by the authors,” ANSES said separately. But both called for a broader investigation to guide a public left confused by the debate.

I hope that Dr. Mehmet Oz, who featured the rat study on his popular television show, will tell his viewers about the French academies’ statement. In his related blog post, he implied that only “scientists who are in support of genetically modified foods” say the research is flawed. In fact, it’s scientists who support the scientific method who are challenging this work and the hype around it. Whatever your view, pop over to his Facebook page and leave a note. I did.

[ ]