There is no scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified foods and crops, according to a statement released today by an international group of more than 90 scientists, academics and physicians.
The statement comes in response to recent claims from the GM industry and some scientists, journalists, and commentators that there is a “scientific consensus” that GM foods and crops were generally found safe for human and animal health and the environment. The statement calls these claims “misleading”, adding, “This claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist.”
“Such claims may place human and environmental health at undue risk and create an atmosphere of complacency,” states Dr. Angelika Hilbeck, chairperson of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) and one of the signatories. “The statement draws attention to the diversity of opinion over GMOs in the scientific community and the often contradictory or inconclusive findings of studies on GMO safety. These include toxic effects on laboratory animals fed GM foods, increased pesticide use from GM crop cultivation, and the unexpected impacts of Bt insecticidal crops on beneficial and non-target organisms,” Dr Hilbeck continues.
In spite of this nuanced and complex picture, a group of like-minded people makes sweeping claims that GM crops and foods are safe. In reality, many unanswered questions remain and in some cases there is serious cause for concern.
Prof C. Vyvyan Howard, a medically qualified toxicopathologist based at the University of Ulster and a signatory to the statement, said: “A substantial number of studies suggest that GM crops and foods can be toxic or allergenic. It is often claimed that millions of Americans eat GM foods with no ill effects. But as the US has no GMO labeling 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.”
The signatories to the statement call for the compliance to the precautionary approach to GM crops and foods internationally agreed upon in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and UN’s Codex Alimentarius.
Commenting on the statement, one of the signatories, Prof Ernst-Ulrich von Weizsacker, Co-Chair of the International Resource Panel (UNEP) and Co-President of The Club of Rome, said: “The future of food and agriculture is one of the great challenges of humankind of the 21 century. The claim of scientific consensus on GMO safety is misleading and misrepresents diverse and inconclusive scientific evidence. The full range of scientific research needs to be taken into account, in open, transparent and honest debates which involve the broader society, when decisions of global concern are being made. This is a responsibility of scientists and science.”
Another signatory to the statement, Prof 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: “It is misleading and irresponsible for anyone to claim that there is a consensus on these important issues. Many salient questions remain open, while more are being discovered and reported by independent scientists in the international scientific literature. Indeed answering of some key public interest questions based on 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 the technology.”
This statement is released by ENSSER the week after the World Food Prize was awarded to employees of the GM seed giants Monsanto and Syngenta. This award has provoked outrage worldwide and stands in stark contrast to recent rulings in several countries restricting or banning the field release or commercialisation of certain GM crops. These include 9 countries in Europe and Mexico, but also developing countries like Bangladesh, Philippines, India where an indefinite moratorium on field release trials was recommended by the Technical Expert Committee of the Supreme Court unless certain conditions are met including proper safety testing.
Furthermore, GMO approvals are under legal challenge in Argentina and Brazil due to questions over the scientific basis of approvals. Most if not all of them underline the lack of proof of safety and insufficient testing.
Signatories of the statement include prominent and respected scientists, including Dr Hans Herren, a former winner of the World Food Prize and this year’s Alternative Nobel Prize laureate, and Dr Pushpa Bhargava, known as the father of modern biotechnology in India.
What’s dangerous and absurd is the claim that GM crops are essential (maybe only to the owners of the patents?). Africa is a case in point: there is little need for expensive and untried solutions there; traditional systems are sufficient. Vested interests have no place in world food production or in true science.
How well is that (Africa) going so far? The truth is probably (as usual) somewhere between the absolute positions that people are so fond of. There will be some Frankenfoods just as there were Frankendrugs and Frankenpoliticians. There will also be clear winners like the ‘wheel’, ‘fire’ and ‘electricity’.
Thanks to these experts for speaking up despite the intimidation practiced by the GM industry and its pro-GM warriors against those who disagree with them. There is now sufficient independent evidence from peer-reviewed and published research to conclude that some varieties of genetically manipulated soy, corn and canola harm experimental animals, and maybe also the people who unwittingly eat GM ingredients. The GM industry’s blanket opposition to the full and honest labelling of GM food products strongly suggests that they are hiding risks and hazards. Our regulators are pathetically weak and unscientific in their assessments of GM food ingredients, though they have no established record of safe use, as the ENSSER scientists confirm.
A small cartel of agribusiness and food corporations – Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont, Bayer and BASF – now owns most global seed and agrichemical supply chains, controlling industrial food production. This domination and their disinformation about genetic manipulation are not in the public interest. As oil and phosphates deplete over the next 50 years, arable land and water become scarcer, and the climate changes, a transition to agro-ecology is necessary. That should be the focus of public policy, not GM crops to prop up present production models which cannot survive resource depletion and environmental change. The United Nations’ models for a transition to agro-ecological systems should be incorporated into government policy and implemented. They include the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). See: www.unep.org/dewa/Assessments/Ecosystems/IAASTD/tabid/105853/Default.aspx and the UNCTAD Trade and Environment Review 2013, “Make Agriculture Truly Sustainable Now for Food Security in a Changing climate” See: unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=666) Thanks again to these brave and independent experts for denouncing false claims that GM crops and foods are safe and sustainable when much evidence shows they are not.
Well said Bob!
GMO’s have no place in our society. Look at all the gastrointestinal problems people are having, this includes many infants that I know. Look at all the people with stomach and esophageal cancers. I have been a nurse for 30 years and am disgusted at what passes as o.k for human consumption.