A group of world scientists have released a statement saying there is no scientific consensus that GMOs are safe.
1. No scientific consensus on GMO safety - press release, Earth Open Source
2. Scientists' statement: No scientific consensus on GMO safety
---
---
1. No scientific consensus on GMO safety
Scientists release statement saying public is being misled
Press release, Earth Open Source, Monday 21 October 2013
http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/news/150
There
is no scientific consensus that genetically modified foods and crops
are safe, according to a statement released today by an international
group of over 85 scientists, academics and physicians.[1]
The
statement comes in response to recent claims from the GM industry and
some scientists and commentators that there is a “scientific consensus”
that GM foods and crops are safe for human and animal health and the
environment. The statement calls such claims “misleading” and states,
“The claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist.”
Commenting
on the statement, one of the signatories, Professor Brian Wynne,
associate director and co-principal investigator from 2002-2012 of the
UK ESRC Centre for the Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, Cesagen,
Lancaster University, said: “There is no consensus amongst scientific
researchers over the health or environmental safety of GM crops and
foods, and it is misleading and irresponsible for anyone to claim that
there is. Many salient questions remain open, while more are being
discovered and reported by independent scientists in the international
scientific literature. Indeed some key public interest questions
revealed by such research have been left neglected for years by the huge
imbalance in research funding, against thorough biosafety research and
in favour of the commercial-scientific promotion of this technology.”
Another
signatory, Professor C. Vyvyan Howard, a medically qualified
toxicopathologist based at the University of Ulster, said: “A
substantial number of studies suggest that GM crops and foods can be
toxic or allergenic, and that they can have adverse impacts on
beneficial and non-target organisms. It is often claimed that millions
of Americans eat GM foods with no ill effects. But as the US has no GMO
labelling and no epidemiological studies have been carried out, there is
no way of knowing whether the rising rates of chronic diseases seen in
that country have anything to do with GM food consumption or not.
Therefore this claim has no scientific basis.”
A third signatory
to the statement, Andy Stirling, professor of science and technology
policy at Sussex University and member of the UK government’s GM Science
Review Panel, said: “The main reason some multinationals prefer GM
technologies over the many alternatives is that GM offers more lucrative
ways to control intellectual property and global supply chains. To
sideline open discussion of these issues, related interests are now
trying to deny the many uncertainties and suppress scientific diversity.
This undermines democratic debate – and science itself.”
The
scientists’ statement was released by the European Network of Scientists
for Social and Environmental Responsibility in the week after the World
Food Prize was awarded to employees of the GM seed giants Monsanto and
Syngenta and UK environment secretary Owen Paterson branded opponents of
GM foods as “wicked”.
Signatories of the statement include
prominent and respected scientists, including Dr Hans Herren, a former
winner of the World Food Prize and an Alternative Nobel Prize laureate,
and Dr Pushpa Bhargava, known as the father of modern biotechnology in
India.
Claire Robinson, research director at Earth Open Source
commented, “The joint statement and comments of the senior scientists
and academics make clear those who claim there is a scientific consensus
over GMO safety are really engaged in a partisan bid to shut down
debate.
“We have to ask why these people are so desperate to
prevent further exploration of an issue that is of immense significance
for the future of our food and agriculture. We actually need not less
but more public debate on the impacts of this technology, particularly
given the proven effective alternatives that are being sidelined in the
rush to promote GM.”
ENDS
Notes
1.
http://www.ensser.org/media/
---
Summary of the statement, “No scientific consensus on GMO safety”:
1. There is no scientific consensus that GM crops and foods are safe for human and animal health.
2.
A peer-reviewed review of safety studies on GM crops and foods found
about an equal number of research groups raising concerns about GMO
safety as groups concluding safety. However, most researchers concluding
safety were affiliated with biotechnology companies that stood to
profit from commercializing the GM crop concerned.
3. A review
that is often cited to show GM crops and foods are safe in fact includes
studies that raised concerns. Scientists disagree about the
interpretation of these findings.
4. No epidemiological studies
have been carried out to find out if GM crops are affecting human
health, so claims that millions of Americans eat GM foods with no ill
effects have no scientific basis.
5. There is no scientific
consensus on the safety of GM crops for the environment. Studies have
associated GM herbicide-tolerant crops with increased herbicide use and
GM insecticidal crops with unexpected toxic impacts on non-target
organisms.
6. A survey among scientists showed that those who
received funding from biotech companies were more likely to believe GM
crops were safe for the environment, whereas independent scientists were
more likely to emphasize uncertainties.
7. Although some
scientific bodies have made broadly supportive statements about GM over
the years, these often contain significant caveats, call for better
regulation, and draw attention to the risks as well as the potential
benefits of GMOs. A statement by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) claiming GMO safety was challenged by 21
scientists, including long-standing members of the AAAS.
8.
International agreements such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
exist because experts worldwide believe that a strongly precautionary
attitude is justified in the case of GMOs. Concerns about risks are
well-founded, as can be seen by the often complex, contradictory, and
inconclusive findings of safety studies on GMOs.
---
---
2. Statement: No scientific consensus on GMO safety
ENSSER, 21 Oct 2013
http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/
[References at link above]
As
scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines
relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects
of genetically modified organisms (GMOs),[1] we strongly reject claims
by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists
that there is a “scientific consensus” on GMO safety[2] [3] [4] and
that the debate on this topic is “over”.[5]
We feel compelled to
issue this statement because the claimed consensus on GMO safety does
not exist. The claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents
the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of
opinion among scientists on this issue. Moreover, the claim encourages a
climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and
scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the
health of humans, animals, and the environment.
Science and
society do not proceed on the basis of a constructed consensus, as
current knowledge is always open to well-founded challenge and
disagreement. We endorse the need for further independent scientific
inquiry and informed public discussion on GM product safety and urge GM
proponents to do the same.
Some of our objections to the claim of scientific consensus are listed below.
1. There is no consensus on GM food safety
Regarding
the safety of GM crops and foods for human and animal health, a
comprehensive review of animal feeding studies of GM crops found “An
equilibrium in the number [of] research groups suggesting, on the basis
of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly
maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective
conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns”.
The review also found that most studies concluding that GM foods were as
safe and nutritious as those obtained by conventional breeding were
“performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also
responsible [for] commercializing these GM plants”.[6]
A separate
review of animal feeding studies that is often cited as showing that GM
foods are safe included studies that found significant differences in
the GM-fed animals. While the review authors dismissed these findings as
not biologically significant,[7] the interpretation of these
differences is the subject of continuing scientific debate[8] [9] [10]
[11] and no consensus exists on the topic.
Rigorous studies
investigating the safety of GM crops and foods would normally involve
animal feeding studies in which one group of animals is fed GM food and
another group is fed an equivalent non-GM diet. Independent studies of
this type are rare, but when such studies have been performed, some have
revealed toxic effects or signs of toxicity in the GM-fed animals.[12]
[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] The concerns raised by these studies have not
been followed up by targeted research that could confirm or refute the
initial findings.
The lack of scientific consensus on the safety
of GM foods and crops is underlined by the recent research calls of the
European Union and the French government to investigate the long-term
health impacts of GM food consumption in the light of uncertainties
raised by animal feeding studies.[18] [19] These official calls imply
recognition of the inadequacy of the relevant existing scientific
research protocols. They call into question the claim that existing
research can be deemed conclusive and the scientific debate on biosafety
closed.
2. There are no epidemiological studies investigating potential effects of GM food consumption on human health
It
is often claimed that “trillions of GM meals” have been eaten in the US
with no ill effects. However, no epidemiological studies in human
populations have been carried out to establish whether there are any
health effects associated with GM food consumption. As GM foods are not
labelled in North America, a major producer and consumer of GM crops, it
is scientifically impossible to trace, let alone study, patterns of
consumption and their impacts. Therefore, claims that GM foods are safe
for human health based on the experience of North American populations
have no scientific basis.
3. Claims that scientific and governmental bodies endorse GMO safety are exaggerated or inaccurate
Claims
that there is a consensus among scientific and governmental bodies that
GM foods are safe, or that they are no more risky than non-GM
foods,[20] [21] are false.
For instance, an expert panel of the
Royal Society of Canada issued a report that was highly critical of the
regulatory system for GM foods and crops in that country. The report
declared that it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GM
foods are safe without rigorous scientific testing and that the “default
prediction” for every GM food should be that the introduction of a new
gene will cause “unanticipated changes” in the expression of other
genes, the pattern of proteins produced, and/or metabolic activities.
Possible outcomes of these changes identified in the report included the
presence of new or unexpected allergens.[22]
A report by the
British Medical Association concluded that with regard to the long-term
effects of GM foods on human health and the environment, “many
unanswered questions remain” and that “safety concerns cannot, as yet,
be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently
available”. The report called for more research, especially on potential
impacts on human health and the environment.[23]
Moreover, the
positions taken by other organizations have frequently been highly
qualified, acknowledging data gaps and potential risks, as well as
potential benefits, of GM technology. For example, a statement by the
American Medical Association’s Council on Science and Public Health
acknowledged “a small potential for adverse events … due mainly to
horizontal gene transfer, allergenicity, and toxicity” and recommended
that the current voluntary notification procedure practised in the US
prior to market release of GM crops be made mandatory.[24] It should be
noted that even a “small potential for adverse events” may turn out to
be significant, given the widespread exposure of human and animal
populations to GM crops.
A statement by the board of directors of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
affirming the safety of GM crops and opposing labelling[25] cannot be
assumed to represent the view of AAAS members as a whole and was
challenged in an open letter by a group of 21 scientists, including many
long-standing members of the AAAS.[26] This episode underlined the lack
of consensus among scientists about GMO safety.
4. EU research project does not provide reliable evidence of GM food safety
An
EU research project[27] has been cited internationally as providing
evidence for GM crop and food safety. However, the report based on this
project, “A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research”, presents no data that
could provide such evidence, from long-term feeding studies in animals.
Indeed,
the project was not designed to test the safety of any single GM food,
but to focus on “the development of safety assessment approaches”.[28]
Only five published animal feeding studies are referenced in the
SAFOTEST section of the report, which is dedicated to GM food
safety.[29] None of these studies tested a commercialised GM food; none
tested the GM food for long-term effects beyond the subchronic period of
90 days; all found differences in the GM-fed animals, which in some
cases were statistically significant; and none concluded on the safety
of the GM food tested, let alone on the safety of GM foods in general.
Therefore the EU research project provides no evidence for sweeping
claims about the safety of any single GM food or of GM crops in general.
5. List of several hundred studies does not show GM food safety
A
frequently cited claim published on an Internet website that several
hundred studies “document the general safety and nutritional
wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds”[30] is misleading. Examination of
the studies listed reveals that many do not provide evidence of GM food
safety and, in fact, some provide evidence of a lack of safety. For
example:
**Many of the studies are not toxicological animal
feeding studies of the type that can provide useful information about
health effects of GM food consumption. The list includes animal
production studies that examine parameters of interest to the food and
agriculture industry, such as milk yield and weight gain;[31] [32]
studies on environmental effects of GM crops; and analytical studies of
the composition or genetic makeup of the crop.
**Among the animal
feeding studies and reviews of such studies in the list, a substantial
number found toxic effects and signs of toxicity in GM-fed animals
compared with controls.[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Concerns raised by
these studies have not been satisfactorily addressed and the claim that
the body of research shows a consensus over the safety of GM crops and
foods is false and irresponsible.
**Many of the studies were
conducted over short periods compared with the animal’s total lifespan
and cannot detect long-term health effects.[39] [40]
We conclude
that these studies, taken as a whole, are misrepresented on the Internet
website as they do not “document the general safety and nutritional
wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds”. Rather, some of the studies give
serious cause for concern and should be followed up by more detailed
investigations over an extended period of time.
6. There is no consensus on the environmental risks of GM crops
Environmental
risks posed by GM crops include the effects of Bt insecticidal crops on
non-target organisms and effects of the herbicides used in tandem with
herbicide-tolerant GM crops.
As with GM food safety, no
scientific consensus exists regarding the environmental risks of GM
crops. A review of environmental risk assessment approaches for GM crops
identified shortcomings in the procedures used and found “no consensus”
globally on the methodologies that should be applied, let alone on
standardized testing procedures.[41]
Some reviews of the
published data on Bt crops have found that they can have adverse effects
on non-target and beneficial organisms[42] [43] [44] [45] – effects
that are widely neglected in regulatory assessments and by some
scientific commentators. Resistance to Bt toxins has emerged in target
pests,[46] and problems with secondary (non-target) pests have been
noted, for example, in Bt cotton in China.[47] [48]
Herbicide-tolerant
GM crops have proved equally controversial. Some reviews and individual
studies have associated them with increased herbicide use,[49] [50] the
rapid spread of herbicide-resistant weeds,[51] and adverse health
effects in human and animal populations exposed to Roundup, the
herbicide used on the majority of GM crops.[52] [53] [54]
As with
GM food safety, disagreement among scientists on the environmental
risks of GM crops may be correlated with funding sources. A
peer-reviewed survey of the views of 62 life scientists on the
environmental risks of GM crops found that funding and disciplinary
training had a significant effect on attitudes. Scientists with industry
funding and/or those trained in molecular biology were very likely to
have a positive attitude to GM crops and to hold that they do not
represent any unique risks, while publicly-funded scientists working
independently of GM crop developer companies and/or those trained in
ecology were more likely to hold a “moderately negative” attitude to GM
crop safety and to emphasize the uncertainty and ignorance involved. The
review authors concluded, “The strong effects of training and funding
might justify certain institutional changes concerning how we organize
science and how we make public decisions when new technologies are to be
evaluated.”[55]
7. International agreements show widespread recognition of risks posed by GM foods and crops
The
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was negotiated over many years and
implemented in 2003. The Cartagena Protocol is an international
agreement ratified by 166 governments worldwide that seeks to protect
biological diversity from the risks posed by GM technology. It embodies
the Precautionary Principle in that it allows signatory states to take
precautionary measures to protect themselves against threats of damage
from GM crops and foods, even in case of a lack of scientific
certainty.[56]
Another international body, the UN's Codex
Alimentarius, worked with scientific experts for seven years to develop
international guidelines for the assessment of GM foods and crops,
because of concerns about the risks they pose. These guidelines were
adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, of which over 160 nations
are members, including major GM crop producers such as the United
States.[57]
The Cartagena Protocol and Codex share a
precautionary approach to GM crops and foods, in that they agree that
genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding and that safety
assessments should be required before GM organisms are used in food or
released into the environment.
These agreements would never have
been negotiated, and the implementation processes elaborating how such
safety assessments should be conducted would not currently be happening,
without widespread international recognition of the risks posed by GM
crops and foods and the unresolved state of existing scientific
understanding.
Concerns about risks are well-founded, as has been
demonstrated by studies on some GM crops and foods that have shown
adverse effects on animal health and non-target organisms, indicated
above. Many of these studies have, in fact, fed into the negotiation
and/or implementation processes of the Cartagena Protocol and Codex. We
support the application of the Precautionary Principle with regard to
the release and transboundary movement of GM crops and foods.
Conclusion
In
the scope of this document, we can only highlight a few examples to
illustrate that the totality of scientific research outcomes in the
field of GM crop safety is nuanced, complex, often contradictory or
inconclusive, confounded by researchers’ choices, assumptions, and
funding sources, and in general, has raised more questions than it has
currently answered.
Whether to continue and expand the
introduction of GM crops and foods into the human food and animal feed
supply, and whether the identified risks are acceptable or not, are
decisions that involve socioeconomic considerations beyond the scope of a
narrow scientific debate and the currently unresolved biosafety
research agendas. These decisions must therefore involve the broader
society. They should, however, be supported by strong scientific
evidence on the long-term safety of GM crops and foods for human and
animal health and the environment, obtained in a manner that is honest,
ethical, rigorous, independent, transparent, and sufficiently
diversified to compensate for bias.
Decisions on the future of
our food and agriculture should not be based on misleading and
misrepresentative claims that a “scientific consensus” exists on GMO
safety.
