L'étude Séralini et ce qu'elle nous apprend sur la toxicologie réglementaire

Abstract

The publication of a two-year study by Professor Séralini in Food and Chemical Toxicology in September 2012 assessing the toxicity of NK603 and Roundup in rats, as much as its unanimous rejection by GM risk assessment experts and agencies such as EFSA or ANSES, reveal the work and stakes involved in demarcating the knowledge that is considered relevant in evaluating risks. The whole controversy shows that this process is, as far as GMOs are concerned, increasingly contentious. Scientists used to acting as risk assessment experts emphasize the necessary respect of historically-constructed norms and protocols, thereby defending their expertise and professionalism. They do so at the expense of those other scientists who do not traditionally engage with risk assessment: as regulatory toxicology appears to become an increasingly codified exercise and one of limited research interest, the latter become reluctant to participate in risk assessment. This situation is at the root of the current difficult reconnection of toxicity research and regulatory toxicology to design original yet valid protocols. © NSS-Dialogues, EDP Sciences 2013.