Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Journal retracts genetically modified corn study that found tumor risk in rats [View all]proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)4. FYI.
http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/news/150
No scientific consensus on GMO safety
Scientists release statement saying public is being misled
Press release, Earth Open Source, Monday 21 October 2013
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 governments 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.
<>
Notes
Summary of the statement, No scientific consensus on GMO safety:
No scientific consensus on GMO safety
Scientists release statement saying public is being misled
Press release, Earth Open Source, Monday 21 October 2013
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 governments 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.
<>
Notes
1. http://www.ensser.org/media/0513/
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.
More: http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/search?searchword=horizontal%20transfer&searchphrase=all
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
64 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Journal retracts genetically modified corn study that found tumor risk in rats [View all]
Archae
Nov 2013
OP
I remember asking my microbiology instructor if GMO crops are dangerous to humans
darkangel218
Nov 2013
#1
I think everything should be labeled with how its made and where its from and whats in it.
7962
Nov 2013
#24
Many studies of biotech food suggest problems more widespread than the role of glycophosphate.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2013
#21
If the combination of mutation plant DNA with our DNA is not the cause of concern, than what it is?
darkangel218
Nov 2013
#31
All creatures of biology use the easiest and quickest routes to acquire building blocks for growth
nolabels
Dec 2013
#56
GM WATCH Press Release: Journal retraction of Séralini study is illicit, unscientific, and unethical
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2013
#3
Don't miss this documenting the tremendous support garnered by the study among many scientists.
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2013
#7
Study: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Linked to Cancer, Autism, Parkinson's
CountAllVotes
Nov 2013
#11
It says there are synergistic effects, things don't in general have single causes.
bemildred
Nov 2013
#20
Finally. Can't believe it was published to start with. Junk 'science' at it worst
idwiyo
Nov 2013
#18
Shrugging ain't enough, as GMOs are in at least 8 classes of food and now the "creators" of GMO fish
drynberg
Nov 2013
#29
MUST READ. Bottom, retraction letter; top, gmwatch press release (irrefutably measured/reasonable).
proverbialwisdom
Nov 2013
#36
To be honest I am more interested in what the science says but hey if it floats your boat
cstanleytech
Nov 2013
#40
Transparency is bad? If that's what you really think, it's s a glaring blindspot in judgement.
proverbialwisdom
Dec 2013
#47