3
been shown as a resul o he consumpion o GM oods by he general populaion in he counries where hey have been approved.”
19
GMO aciviss cherry-picked his quoe, however, omiting he preceding ex: “Differen GM organisms include differen genes insered in differen ways. This means ha individual GM oods and heir saey should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and ha
it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods”
(emphasis added).
20
Bioech advocaes also poin o he American Medical Asso-ciaion (AMA), offering a parial quoe rom an AMA council repor — no official AMA policy — which was designed o ad-dress GMO labeling, no GMO saey.
21
The quoe, like ha o he NAS and he WHO, cies he lack o documened adverse effecs on human healh rom GMOs,
22
bu, once again, GMO advocaes chose o misrepresen he AMA council repor’s ull saemen, which acknowledges he poenial or adverse effecs and he need or mandaory, pre-marke saey assess-mens.
23
The inal, official AMA policy — adoped by he organizaion’s governing body in 2012 — does no include he quoe used by he GMO-consensus campaign, and i acually noes poenial saey issues wih GMOs
and explicily recom-mends ways o improve saey assessmens, including he “developmen and validaion o addiional echniques or he deecion and/or assessmen o uninended effecs.”
24
The American Associaion or he Advancemen o Science (AAAS) is cied as par o he “consensus” on GMO saey, bu he acs are less clear. In 2012, he AAAS Board o Direcors, a ha ime led by Nina Fedoroff, a leading GMO advocae who has signiican ies o he bioechnology indusry, issued a saemen abou GMO labeling, no GMO saey.
25
The saemen appears o have been writen wih alking poins rom he GMO-consensus campaign, including erroneously saing ha he AMA, he WHO, he NAS, he Royal Sociey “and every oher respeced organizaion ha has examined he evidence” have “come o he same conclusion” ha GMO ood is as sae as non-GMO ood.
26
Such a dubious sae-men grossly misrepresens he scieniic communiy — and he views o many AAAS members, a leas 20 o whom came orward o condemn he AAAS policy agains GMO labeling.
27
The AAAS has never issued an official policy on GMO saey.
28
Pro-GMO aciviss poin o “seven o he world’s academies o sciences” as par o he “consensus” based on a cherry-picked quoe rom a repor ha is nearly 15 years old.
29
Tha repor, auhored in par by he NAS and he Royal Sociey o London, does no sae or conclude ha GMOs are sae, and explicily noes “he possibiliy o long-erm adverse effecs” on human healh, he “virual absence o daa” on he risks o GMO gene low and ha GMOs’ “acual effecs on he environmen and on biological diversiy is sill very sparse.”
30
The repor explic-ily noed ha here was “no consensus” on environmenal impacs o GMOs.
31
The GMO-consensus campaign cies he European Commis-sion (EC) as par o he “consensus” based on a single quoe rom a repor ha he EC issued, which was edied o make i appear more avorable: i was changed rom saying ha GMOs are “no
per se
more risky han e.g. convenional plan breeding echnologies” o “…no more risky han..
.
.”
32
And, as many scieniss have poined ou, his EC repor was no a deiniive review o GMO saey, looking only a ive eeding sudies on GMOs, or example — none o which presened