A study into the effects of genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides that sparked massive controversy when it was first released in 2012 has been republished.

The study, by University of Caen Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team, was the first to examine the effects of feeding GM organisms to animals throughout their entire lifetime; Séralini found that rats fed on GMOs and exposed to tiny amounts of the herbicide glyphosate, which many GM crops are engineered to tolerate, led to an increased risk of the animals suffering damage to their kidneys and livers, and developing tumours.

Concentrations of glyphosate given to rats in the study were below levels permitted in EU drinking water.

In November last year, the study was retracted by the journal in which it was initially published. Séralini maintained that his study design was more rigorous than the GM industry studies which risk assessors often accept uncritically. He suggested the journal's new editor – a former Monsanto employee – was responsible for the retraction.

Although EU risk assessment body EFSA refused to back the study, the watchdog ceded that Séralini had identified a gap in testing for GM crops and a large number of widely respected scientists rallied to the Caen professor's cause, claiming he has been the victim of an agri-business backed smear campaign.

This week, the study was republished by journal Environmental Sciences Europe. The republished version contains extra material addressing criticisms the original publication attracted.

Séralini's team said they welcomed news of the republication of their study on Tuesday, adding, "The republication restores the study to the peer-reviewed literature so that it can be consulted and built upon by other scientists."

They added, "The raw data underlying the study's findings are also published – unlike the raw data for the industry studies that underlie regulatory approvals of Roundup [glyphosate], which are kept secret."

Team member Claire Robinson commented, "This study has now successfully passed no less than three rounds of rigorous peer review. The first was for the initial publication of the study in Food and Chemical Toxicology. It passed with only minor revisions, according to the authors. The second review took months. It involved a non-transparent examination of Prof Séralini's raw data by a secret panel of unnamed persons organized by the editor-in-chief of FCT, A. Wallace Hayes, in response to criticisms of the study by pro-GMO scientists."

Robinson continued, "The rationale given for the retraction was widely criticized by scientists as an act of censorship and a bow to the interests of the GMO industry. Some scientists pointed out that numerous published scientific papers contain inconclusive findings, including Monsanto's own short (90-day) study on the same GM maize, and have not been retracted. The retraction was even condemned by a former member of the editorial board of FCT."

Dr Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist at King's College London, who has produced reports for Earth Open Source, and contested industry claims that a consensus exists on the safety and usefulness of GM crops, commented, "Few studies would survive such intensive scrutiny by fellow scientists. The republication of the study after three expert reviews is a testament to its rigour, as well as to the integrity of the researchers."