CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Séralini affair

retracted study led by Gilles-Éric Séralini

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionAug 13, 2026
Entity authorityQ3259062 ↗
Source-derived summary

The Séralini affair was the controversy surrounding the publication, retraction, and republication of a journal article by French molecular biologist Gilles-Éric Séralini. First published by Food and Chemical Toxicology in September 2012, the article presented a two-year feeding study in rats, and reported an increase in tumors among rats fed genetically modified corn and the herbicide RoundUp. Scientists and regulatory agencies subsequently concluded that the study's design was flawed and its findings unsubstantiated. A chief criticism was that each part of the study had too few rats to obtain statistically useful data, particularly because the strain of rat used, Sprague Dawley, develops tumors at a high rate over its lifetime.

The publicity surrounding the initial publication of the article also attracted criticism, with science writer Declan Butler calling it "a tightly orchestrated media offensive". As part of a news embargo, Séralini required journalists to sign an unusual confidentiality agreement in exchange for advance access to the article, prohibiting them from conferring with other scientists before the press conference announcing publication. At the press conference, Séralini emphasized the study's potential cancer implications, and photographs from the article of treated rats with large tumors were widely circulated by the media. The French Society of Toxicologic Pathology pointed out that, because such tumors are commonly found in older rats, the inclusion in the article of those images from treated rats, without also showing control rats, was misleading. Séralini also released a book and documentary film about the study in conjunction with the press conference.

Following widespread criticism by scientists, Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the paper in November 2013 after the authors refused to withdraw it.

Editorial summary

“Séralini affair” enters the record as retracted study led by Gilles-Éric Séralini. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Séralini, affair and retracted can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA dependable orientation record for establishing vocabulary, names and a first evidence trail. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2012, 2013—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Séralini, affair and retracted.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Séralini affair” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Séralini, affair and retracted provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 13, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q3259062. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2012 and 2013.

Critical limits

A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Séralini affair”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Séralini affair primary sources, Séralini affair archive and Séralini research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Séralini affair”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Séralini affair” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.