Paper warning of dangers of GM corn retracted

Back in September of last year, a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology linked the genetically modified corn NK603 to adverse health effects in rats. Although previous long term studies had shown no ill-effects of a diet of GM crops, these two year long study disturbingly showed higher rate of cancer and reduced lifespan of rats fed on NK603 in comparison to the control groups. Publication of these findings led to further public fear and confusion over the actual risk of GM crops.

At the time, many scientists questioned the reliability of the paper "Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize". Cited were issues with the methodology, very low statistical significance linked to small sample size and, significantly, that the strain of rats used in the study (known as Sprague-Dawley rats) are incredibly susceptible to the spontaneous growth of tumors as they age. The $1.4 million study was also plagued with accusations of bias, with conflicts of interests on both the sides of its supporters and those who petitioned for its removal from the journal.

NK603 is resistant to the herbicide glyphosate
and approved for human consumption

On the 28th November 2013 however, the journal announced the redaction of the paper, following analysis of the data and an investigation into the peer-review process it went through. In a press conference, Corinne Lepage, a Member of the European Parliament and a founding member of one of the funding bodies behind the paper, explained that the retraction of the paper "will not make these questions [about the safety of GM crops] disappear".

It is entirely necessary that further studies into the possible risks of GM crops (and the benefits that they generate too) are carried out. However it is vital that these are performed with the best scientific rigor, to prevent further confusion for the public and embarrassment to those working in these fields.

Removal of the paper is unlikely to dampen the public concern over GM crops that its initial publication generated. Like the now decades-old vaccine scares, the general media finds it much easier to promote scare stories involving small, unreliable (or, in some terrible cases, fabricated) data than to rationally and delicately explain finding to the lay-person. This means that it is on the shoulders of the scientific community to ethically and without bias report real findings in such a way that any rational person is able to determine their reliability for themselves.