The So-Called Scientific "Consensus": Why the Debate on GMO Safety is Not Over
|Views: 275
|Likes: 1
Published by Food and Water Watch
Biotechnology seed companies are using their substantial resources to broadcast the myth of a "scientific consensus" on the safety of GMOs.
Biotechnology seed companies are using their substantial resources to broadcast the myth of a "scientific consensus" on the safety of GMOs.
More info:
Availability:
See more
See less
B
iotechnology seed companies, aided by advocates from academia and the blogosphere, are using their substantial resources to broadcast the myth of a
asserting that the data is in and the debate is over. This public relations campaign, helped along by industry front groups, has caught the attention of some of the most
akin to climate change deniers, out of step with science.
1
However, unlike climae change, a subjec on which climae scieniss almos universally agree, here is no general agreemen on GMO saey. And whereas he climae change debae reers o clear, succinc posiions — wheher he earh is warming and wheher his is caused by human aciviy — he GMO saey debae encompasses dozens i no hundreds o saey quesions relaed o environmenal risks and human and animal healh concerns. GMO advocaes presen he “consensus” as reerring o a variey o vague hemes, such as he “general saey and nu-riional wholesomeness o GM [geneically modiied] oods and eeds,” “crop bioechnology saey” or simply “saey,” making i oally unclear wha aspec o saey he consensus covers.
2
GMO saey is a ar more complicaed issue han he bioech indusry presens, and mos scieniic bodies weighing in on he subjec, including many cied by GMO advocaes as par o he “consensus,” openly acknowledge unaddressed saey consideraions and gaps in he exising body o saey re-search. Ye he GMO-consensus campaign is misrepresening he views o a variey o scieniic organizaions by cherry-picking and ediing quoes, aking saemens ou o conex and incorrecly atribuing he opinions o individuals o scieniic bodies ha hey do no represen. As hundreds o independen scieniss now come orward o condemn he GMO-consensus campaign — explicily saying ha here is “no consensus” on he saey o GMOs
3
— i’s ime o knock down he hree roten pillars supporing he so-called “consensus.”
The bioech indusry and is advocaes and deenders re-quenly asser some variaion o he claim ha here is “a consensus opinion o all he major scieniic bodies” on he
THE SO-CALLED
SCIENTIFIC “CONSENSUS”:
Why the Debate on GMO Safety Is Not Over
2
saey o GMOs.
4
Bioech corporaions and indusry-riendly academics, wriers and ron groups generally cie he same “scieniic bodies,” using he same misleading quoes and alk-ing poins.
5
The “scieniic bodies” ha purporedly are par o he “con-sensus” are ew in number and are by no means represena-ive o he enire scieniic communiy. They have no signed on o a speciic “consensus” saemen nor have hey, in mos cases, acually developed policy posiions on he subjec. By and large, he GMO-consensus campaign has misquoed or misrepresened hese scieniic bodies o alsely asser ha hey are par o a “consensus” on GMO saey. For example, he GMO-consensus campaign poins o he Royal Sociey o Medicine and he Royal Sociey o London as par o he scieniic “consensus,” based on quoes rom indi-viduals who are no ormal represenaives o hese groups.
6
Neiher organizaion has an official policy on GMO saey.
7
Speciically, he GMO-consensus campaign assers ha he Royal Sociey o Medicine suppors he “consensus” based on a single, cherry-picked quoe rom a review aricle ha happened o be published in a journal run by he Sociey, bu which does no relec he official hinking or posiion o he organizaion.
8
This aricle no more represens he views o he Royal Sociey o Medicine han does he response leter ha he journal published, which criicized he aricle or acual inaccuracy and a lack o supporing daa.
9
Meanwhile, he Royal Sociey o London is said o be par o he “consensus” based on excerped ex rom a newspaper aricle abou he Royal Sociey, no a quoe or policy posiion rom he Sociey isel.
10
Noably, his aricle acually ocused on he Sociey’s decision o call or sricer saey esing o GMOs, asking or more deailed guidelines o assess wheher geneically engineered crops may “lead o unprediced harm-ul changes in he nuriional saus o oods.”
11
Bioech advocaes cie he Naional Academies o Science (NAS) as par o he “consensus,” quoing he organizaion as saying, “To dae more han 98 million acres o geneically modiied crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence o human healh problems associaed wih he ingesion o hese crops or resuling producs have been ideniied,”
12
bu ailing o add he res o he quoe, which dramaically changes he meaning: “bu concerns have been raised abou he poenial or ransgenic ood producs o cause allergic reacions or produce oxic compounds. In addiion, concree inormaion on he effecs o ransgenic plans on he environmen and on biological diversiy is sill sparse.”
13
The NAS has no official posiion on he saey o GMOs and, in ac, iniiaed a new sudy o GMOs in 2014 o invesigae, among oher hings, saey issues, clearly indicaing ha he debae on saey is no over.
14
The NAS has cied saey con-cerns wih GMOs or many years, including poenial unin-ended consequences associaed wih gene manipulaion; he poenial or geneic engineering echniques o raise “oxici-ies, allergies, nurien deiciencies and imbalances”; negaive effecs on beneicial, non-arge species; and he inadequacy o curren regulaory saey reviews.
15
These concerns came rom repors ha were produced a a ime when bioech companies like Monsano and DuPon and he Bioechnology Indusry Organizaion, a rade associaion, sa on high-level Naional Research Council boards,
16
and heir inluence may have weakened he language and conclusions. The NAS has also explicily called or pos-marke surveil-lance and epidemiological sudies,
17
which would be needed o documen possible adverse healh effecs associaed wih cerain GMOs. This recommendaion echoes a call rom he larger scieniic communiy, which noes ha here has never been an epidemiological sudy o adverse effecs on human healh, in par because GMOs are no labeled in places like Norh America, where many o he world’s GMOs are culi-vaed and consumed.
18
Bioech advocaes have also misrepresened he views o he World Healh Organizaion (WHO) by using a parial quoe similar o ha o he NAS: “No effecs on human healh have
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
