Gmos Are They Safe Peer Reviewed Scholarly Articles

• Discussion
• Open up Admission
• Published: 24 January 2015

No scientific consensus on GMO safety

• Rosa Binimelis^i,3,
• Nicolas Defarge^1,four,five,
• Ricarda Steinbrecher^i,6,
• András Székács^i,7,
• Fern Wickson^one,iii,
• Michael Antoniou^eight,
• Philip L Bereano⁹,
• Ethel Ann Clark^ten,
• Michael Hansen¹¹,
• Eva Novotny¹²,
• Jack Heinemann^xiii,
• Hartmut Meyer¹,
• Vandana Shiva^fourteen &
• Brian Wynne^xv

Environmental Sciences Europe volume 27, Article number:4 (2015) Cite this article

• 233k Accesses

• 88 Citations

• 819 Altmetric

• Metrics details

Abstract

A broad customs of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges contempo claims of a consensus over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the following joint statement, the claimed consensus is shown to be an bogus construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of contradictory testify in the refereed literature, as documented beneath, the claim that there is now a consensus on the prophylactic of GMOs continues to exist widely and oft uncritically aired. For decades, the safety of GMOs has been a hotly controversial topic that has been much debated around the world. Published results are contradictory, in part due to the range of different research methods employed, an inadequacy of bachelor procedures, and differences in the analysis and interpretation of data. Such a lack of consensus on safety is also evidenced by the agreement of policymakers from over 160 countries - in the UN'southward Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius - to authorize careful instance-past-example cess of each GMO by national regime to decide whether the item construct satisfies the national criteria for 'safe'. Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding contained of proprietary interests. Inquiry for the public good has been farther constrained by belongings rights issues, and by denial of access to research material for researchers unwilling to sign contractual agreements with the developers, which confer unacceptable control over publication to the proprietary interests.

The joint statement developed and signed past over 300 independent researchers, and reproduced and published below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the argument concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of condom, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature.

Groundwork

Over recent years, a number of scientific research articles have been published that study disturbing results from genetically modified organism (GMO) feeding experiments with unlike mammals (e.g. rats [i], pigs [two]). In addition to the usual fierce responses, these have elicited a concerted effort by genetically modified (GM) seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists to construct claims that there is a 'scientific consensus' on GMO prophylactic [3-5] and that the debate on this topic is 'over' [six].

These claims led a broader independent community of scientists and researchers to come together as they felt compelled to develop a document that offered a balanced account of the electric current state of dissent in this field, based on published prove in the scientific literature, for both the interested public and the wider science community. The statement that was developed was and then opened up for endorsement from scientists around the world with relevant expertise and capacities to conclude on the current state of consensus/dissent and debate regarding the published evidence on the safety of GMOs.

This statement clearly demonstrates that the claimed consensus on GMO prophylactic does not be exterior of the above depicted internal circle of stakeholders. The health, environs, and agriculture authorities of most nations recognize publicly that no coating statement most the safety of all GMOs is possible and that they must be assessed on a 'instance-by-case' basis. Moreover, the claim that information technology does exist - which continues to be pushed in the above listed circles - is misleading and misrepresents or outright ignores the currently available scientific testify and the broad diversity of scientific opinions amidst scientists on this effect. The claim further encourages a climate of self-approbation that could pb to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the surround.

Science and society practise not go on on the ground of a synthetic consensus, as current knowledge is ever open to well-founded challenge and disagreement. We endorse the need for further contained scientific inquiry and informed public word on GM product safety.

Some of our objections to the merits of a scientific consensus are listed in the post-obit give-and-take. The original version endorsed by 300 scientists worldwide can exist found at the website of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Ecology Responsibility [vii].

Discussion

1. 1

   At that place is no consensus on GM nutrient safe

Regarding the safety of GM crops and foods for human being 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 prophylactic and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns'. The review too found that most studies concluding that GM foods were as safe and nutritious as those obtained past conventional breeding were 'performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are as well responsible [for] commercializing these GM plants' [8].

A split review of animal feeding studies that is often cited as showing that GM foods are rubber included studies that found significant differences in the GM-fed animals. While the review authors dismissed these findings as not biologically significant [9], the interpretation of these differences is the subject of standing scientific debate [eight,10-12] and no consensus exists on the topic.

Rigorous studies investigating the rubber of GM crops and foods would normally involve, inter alia, animal feeding studies in which ane group of animals is fed GM food and another group is fed an equivalent non-GM nutrition. Independent studies of this type are rare, just when such studies have been performed, some have revealed toxic effects or signs of toxicity in the GM-fed animals [two,viii,11-13]. The concerns raised past these studies take non 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 contempo 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 [14,15]. These official calls imply recognition of the inadequacy of the relevant existing scientific research protocols. They phone call into question the claim that existing inquiry can be deemed conclusive and the scientific argue on biosafety closed.

1. 2

   There are no epidemiological studies investigating potential effects of GM food consumption on human being health

It is oftentimes claimed that 'trillions of GM meals' have been eaten in the U.s.a. with no sick effects. However, no epidemiological studies in human populations have been carried out to constitute whether at that place are any health effects associated with GM food consumption. As GM foods and other products are not monitored or labelled subsequently release in Due north America, a major producer and consumer of GM crops, it is scientifically impossible to trace, allow lonely study, patterns of consumption and their impacts. Therefore, claims that GM foods are safe for homo health based on the experience of North American populations have no scientific basis.

1. 3

   Claims that scientific and governmental bodies endorse GMO prophylactic are exaggerated or inaccurate

Claims that there is a consensus among scientific and governmental bodies that GM foods are prophylactic, or that they are no more risky than non-GM foods [16,17], are imitation. For instance, an expert console of the Imperial Society of Canada issued a written report that was highly critical of the regulatory system for GM foods and crops in that state. The report declared that it is 'scientifically unjustifiable' to assume that GM foods are condom 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 written report included the presence of new or unexpected allergens [18].

A report by the British Medical Association concluded that with regard to the long-term effects of GM foods on man wellness and the environs, 'many unanswered questions remain' and that 'safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the footing of data currently bachelor'. The report called for more than research, especially on potential impacts on man health and the environs [19].

Moreover, the positions taken past other organizations accept frequently been highly qualified, acknowledging information gaps and potential risks, likewise as potential benefits, of GM engineering. For example, a argument by the American Medical Association's Council on Scientific discipline and Public Wellness acknowledged 'a small potential for adverse events … due mainly to horizontal factor transfer, allergenicity, and toxicity' and recommended that the current voluntary notification procedure practised in the US prior to market place release of GM crops be made mandatory [20]. It should be noted that even a 'small potential for adverse events' may plow out to be pregnant, given the widespread exposure of human being and animal populations to GM crops.

A argument by the lath of directors of the American Association for the Advocacy of Scientific discipline (AAAS) affirming the rubber of GM crops and opposing labelling [21] cannot be assumed to represent the view of AAAS members as a whole and was challenged in an open up letter past a group of 21 scientists, including many long-standing members of the AAAS [22]. This episode underlined the lack of consensus among scientists virtually GMO safe.

1. 4

   EU research project does non provide reliable evidence of GM food prophylactic

An Eu research project [23] has been cited internationally as providing evidence for GM ingather and food safe. Notwithstanding, the report based on this projection, 'A Decade of European union-Funded GMO Inquiry', 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 whatsoever single GM nutrient simply to focus on 'the development of safety assessment approaches' [24]. Merely five published animal feeding studies are referenced in the SAFOTEST section of the report, which is dedicated to GM food prophylactic [25]. None of these studies tested a commercialized GM food; none tested the GM food for long-term furnishings beyond the subchronic menstruation of 90 days; all found differences in the GM-fed animals, which in some cases were statistically significant; and none concluded on the safe of the GM food tested, let alone on the safety of GM foods in full general. Therefore, the Eu research project provides no testify for sweeping claims nigh the safety of any single GM nutrient or of GM crops in full general.

1. 5

   List of several hundred studies does non show GM food condom

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' [26] is misleading. Examination of the studies listed reveals that many do not provide evidence of GM nutrient condom and, in fact, some provide evidence of a lack of safety. For example:

• Many of the studies are non toxicological animal feeding studies of the type that tin provide useful information about health furnishings of GM food consumption. The list includes animal production studies that examine parameters of interest to the food and agronomics industry, such as milk yield and weight gain [27,28]; studies on environmental effects of GM crops; and analytical studies of the limerick or genetic makeup of the crop.

• Among the animal feeding studies and reviews of such studies in the listing, a substantial number found toxic furnishings and signs of toxicity in GM-fed animals compared with controls [29-34]. 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 fake and irresponsible.

• Many of the studies were conducted over short periods compared with the animal'southward total lifespan and cannot find long-term health furnishings [35,36].

Nosotros conclude that these studies, taken equally a whole, are misrepresented on the Internet website as they exercise not 'document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds'. Rather, some of the studies requite serious cause for concern and should be followed up past more detailed investigations over an extended flow of time.

1. half dozen

   There is no consensus on the ecology risks of GM crops

Environmental risks posed by GM crops include the effects of insecticidal Bt (a bacterial toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis engineered into crops) crops on non-target organisms and the furnishings 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 practical, allow lonely on standardized testing procedures [37]. Some reviews of the published information on Bt crops have found that they tin have adverse effects on non-target and beneficial organisms [38-41] - effects that are widely neglected in regulatory assessments and by some scientific commentators. Resistance to Bt toxins has emerged in target pests [42], and problems with secondary (non-target) pests have been noted, for instance, in Bt cotton fiber in China [43,44].

Herbicide-tolerant GM crops take proved equally controversial. Some reviews and private studies have associated them with increased herbicide employ [45,46], the rapid spread of herbicide-resistant weeds [47], and adverse health effects in homo and beast populations exposed to Roundup, the herbicide used on the majority of GM crops [48-50].

Every bit with GM food rubber, disagreement amid scientists on the environmental risks of GM crops may exist correlated with funding sources. A peer-reviewed survey of the views of 62 life scientists on the environmental risks of GM crops constitute that funding and disciplinary grooming had a meaning effect on attitudes. Scientists with manufacture funding and/or those trained in molecular biology were very likely to have a positive mental 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' mental attitude to GM crop safety and to emphasize the uncertainty and ignorance involved. The review authors concluded 'The potent effects of grooming and funding might justify certain institutional changes concerning how we organize science and how nosotros make public decisions when new technologies are to be evaluated' [51].

1. 7

   International agreements evidence 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 past 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 instance of a lack of scientific certainty [52].

Another international body, the UN's Codex Alimentarius, worked with scientific experts for 7 years to develop international guidelines for the assessment of GM foods and crops because of concerns most 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 [53].

The Cartagena Protocol and Codex share a precautionary approach to GM crops and foods, in that they agree that genetic engineering differs from conventional convenance and that safety assessments should exist required earlier GM organisms are used in food or released into the surroundings.

These agreements would never take 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 past GM crops and foods and the unresolved state of existing scientific agreement. 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 not-target organisms, indicated above. Many of these studies have, in fact, fed into the negotiation and/or implementation processes of the Cartagena Protocol and the Codex. Nosotros support the awarding of the Precautionary Principle with regard to the release and transboundary movement of GM crops and foods.

Conclusions

In the scope of this document, we tin 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; oftentimes contradictory or inconclusive; confounded past researchers' choices, assumptions, and funding sources; and, in full general, has raised more questions than it has currently answered.

Whether to continue and expand the introduction of GM crops and foods into the man food and animal feed supply, and whether the identified risks are acceptable or non, are decisions that involve socioeconomic considerations across 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 past potent scientific bear witness on the long-term safety of GM crops and foods for human and fauna health and the environment, obtained in a manner that is honest, ethical, rigorous, independent, transparent, and sufficiently diversified to recoup for bias.

Decisions on the future of our food and agriculture should not be based on misleading and misrepresentative claims by an internal circle of likeminded stakeholders that a 'scientific consensus' exists on GMO safety.

This document was subsequently opened for endorsement by scientists from around the globe in their personal (rather than institutional) capacities reflecting their personal views and based on their personal expertise. At that place is no suggestion that the views expressed in this statement represent the views or position of any institution or organization with which the individuals are affiliated. Qualifying criteria for signing the argument were deliberately selected to include scientists, physicians, social scientists, academics, and specialists in legal aspects and take chances assessment of GM crops and foods. Scientist and bookish signatories were requested to have qualifications from accredited institutions at the level of PhD or equivalent. Legal experts were requested to have at least a JD or equivalent. By December 2013, more than 300 people who met the strict qualification requirements had signed the statement. The argument was widely taken up in the media and reported in numerous outlets and testify provided therein continues to be cited widely. In a fourth dimension when there is major pressure level on the scientific discipline community from corporate and political interests, it is of utmost importance that scientists working for the public interest accept a stand against attempts to reduce and compromise the rigour of examination of new applications in favor of rapid commercialization of new and emerging technologies that are expected to generate profit and economic growth. The document continues to be open up for signature on the website of the initiating scientific system ENSSER (European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility) at www.ensser.org.

References

1. Séralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta 1000, et al. Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environ Sci Eur. 2014;26(1):1.

   Commodity  Google Scholar

2. Carman JA, Vlieger HR, Ver Steeg LJ, Sneller VE, Robinson GW, Clinch-Jones CA, et al. A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize nutrition. J Org Syst. 2013;8(1):38–54.

   Google Scholar

3. Frewin Thou. (2013). The new "is GM nutrient safe?" meme. Axis Mundi, 18 July. http://www.axismundionline.com/weblog/the-new-is-gm-food-rubber-meme/; Wikipedia (2013). Genetically modified nutrient controversies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies

4. Lynas M: GMO pigs study – more junk scientific discipline. Marklynas.org 2013, 12 June [http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-scientific discipline/]

5. Kloor K: Greens on the run in debate over genetically modified food. Bloomberg 2013, 7 January [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-07/green-activist-reverses-stance-on-genetically-modified-food.html]

6. White M: The scientific debate about GM foods is over: they're rubber. Pacific Standard Magazine 2013, 24 September [http://www.psmag.com/health/scientific-debate-gm-foods-theyre-safe-66711/]

7. European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility ENSSER [world wide web.ensser.org]

8. Domingo JL, Bordonaba JG. A literature review on the prophylactic cess of genetically modified plants. Environ Int. 2011;37:734–42.

   Article  Google Scholar

9. Snell C, Bernheim A, Bergé JB, Kuntz G, Pascal G, Paris A, et al. Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animate being feeding trials: a literature review. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012;fifty(3–iv):1134–48.

   Article  CAS  Google Scholar

10. Séralini GE, Mesnage R, Clair E, Gress S, Spiroux de Vendômois J, Cellier D. Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements. Environ Sci Eur. 2011;23:10.

    Article  Google Scholar

11. Dona A, Arvanitoyannis IS. Health risks of genetically modified foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2009;49(ii):164–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar

12. Diels J, Cunha One thousand, Manaia C, Sabugosa-Madeira B, Silva Chiliad. Association of financial or professional conflict of involvement to research outcomes on wellness risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products. Nutrient Policy. 2011;36:197–203.

    Commodity  Google Scholar

13. Séralini GE, Mesnage R, Defarge N, Gress S, Hennequin D, Clair E, et al. Answers to critics: why there is a long term toxicity due to NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide. Food Chem Toxicol. 2013;53:461–8.

    Article  Google Scholar

14. EU Food Policy: Commission and EFSA agree need for two-year GMO feeding studies. 17 December 2012

15. French Ministry of Environmental, Sustainable Development and Energy2013: Plan National de Recherche: Risques environnementaux et sanitaires liés aux OGM (Risk'OGM) 2013, 12 July [http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/APR__Risk_OGM_rel_pbch_pbj_rs2.pdf]

16. Wikipedia: Genetically modified food controversies. 2013 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies]

17. Masip G: Opinion: Don't fear GM crops, Europe! The Scientist 2013, May 28 [http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35578/championship/Opinion--Don-t-Fearfulness-GM-Crops--Europe-/]

18. Royal Society of Canada: Elements of precaution: recommendations for the regulation of nutrient biotechnology in Canada; An Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology. 2001, January [http://www.rsc.ca//files/publications/expert_panels/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf]

19. British Medical Association Board of Science and Education: Genetically modified food and wellness: a second acting statement. 2004, March [http://bit.ly/19QAHSI]

20. American Medical Clan House of Delegates: Labeling of bioengineered foods. Council on Scientific discipline and Public Wellness Report two, 2012 [http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf]

21. AAAS: Statement by the AAAS Lath of Directors on labeling of genetically modified foods. 2012, 20 October. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/media/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

22. Hunt P, Blumberg B, Bornehag CG, Collins TJ, DeFur PL, Gilbert SG, et al. Yes: food labels would let consumers make informed choices. Environmental Health News 2012 [http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2012/yes-labels-on-gm-foods]

23. European Commission: A decade of Eu-funded GMO research (2001–2010). 2010 [http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf]

24. European Commission: A decade of European union-funded GMO research (2001–2010). 2010, 128. [http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf]

25. European Commission: A decade of Eu-funded GMO enquiry (2001–2010). 2010, 157. [http://ec.europa.european union/enquiry/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf]

26. Tribe D: 600+ published safety assessments. GMOPundit blog undated [http://gmopundit.blogspot.co.u.k./p/450-published-safe-assessments.html]

27. Brouk M, Cvetkovic B, Rice DW, Smith BL, Hinds MA, Owens FN, et al. Performance of lactating dairy cows fed corn equally whole plant silage and grain produced from a genetically modified consequence DAS-59122-vii compared to a nontransgenic, near isoline control. J Dairy Sci. 2011;94:1961–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar

28. Calsamiglia S, Hernandez B, Hartnell GF, Phipps R. Effects of corn silage derived from a genetically modified diversity containing two transgenes on feed intake, milk product, and composition, and the absence of detectable transgenic dna in milk in Holstein dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2007;90:4718–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar

29. de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Int J Biol Sci. 2010;5(vii):706–26.

    Google Scholar

30. Ewen SWB, Pusztai A. Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small-scale intestine. Lancet. 1999;354:1353–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar

31. Fares NH, El-Sayed AK. Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on delta-endotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Nat Toxins. 1998;vi:219–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar

32. Kilic A, Akay MT. A three generation written report with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem Toxicol. 2008;46(3):1164–seventy.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar

33. Malatesta Chiliad, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MB, Serafini S, Tiberi C, et al. Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Funct. 2002;27:173–eighty.

    Article  Google Scholar

34. Malatesta G, Biggiogera 1000, Manuali E, Rocchi MB, Baldelli B, Gazzanelli G. Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem. 2003;47:385–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar

35. Hammond B, Dudek R, Lemen J, Nemeth M. Results of a 13 calendar week rubber assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn. Nutrient Chem Toxicol. 2004;42(6):1003–14.

    Commodity  CAS  Google Scholar

36. Hammond BG, Dudek R, Lemen J, Nemeth M. Results of a 90-24-hour interval prophylactic assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn. Nutrient Chem Toxicol. 2006;44(7):1092–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar

37. Hilbeck A, Meier M, Römbke J, Jänsch S, Teichmann H, Tappeser B. Environmental risk cess of genetically modified plants - concepts and controversies. Environ Sci Eur. 2011;23:13.

    Article  Google Scholar

38. Hilbeck A, Schmidt JEU. Another view on Bt proteins – how specific are they and what else might they practise? Biopesti Int. 2006;2(1):ane–50.

    Google Scholar

39. Székács A, Darvas B. Comparative aspects of Weep toxin usage in insect control. In: Ishaaya I, Palli SR, Horowitz AR, editors. Avant-garde Technologies for Managing Insect Pests. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2012. p. 195–230.

    Google Scholar

40. Marvier M, McCreedy C, Regetz J, Kareiva P. A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton fiber and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science. 2007;316(5830):1475–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar

41. Lang A, Vojtech E. The furnishings of pollen consumption of transgenic Bt maize on the common swallowtail, Papilio machaon L. (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). Basic Appl Ecol. 2006;vii:296–306.

    Article  Google Scholar

42. Gassmann AJ, Petzold-Maxwell JL, Keweshan RS, Dunbar MW. Field-evolved resistance to Bt maize past Western corn rootworm. PLoS I. 2011;6(7):e22629.

    Commodity  CAS  Google Scholar

43. Zhao JH, Ho P, Azadi H. Benefits of Bt cotton counterbalanced by secondary pests? Perceptions of ecological alter in China. Environ Monit Appraise. 2010;173(1–4):985–94.

    Google Scholar

44. Lu Y, Wu Thou, Jiang Y, Xia B, Li P, Feng H, et al. Mirid bug outbreaks in multiple crops correlated with wide-scale adoption of Bt cotton wool in Prc. Science. 2010;328(5982):1151–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar

45. Benbrook C. Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the US – the first sixteen years. Environ Sci Eur. 2012;24:24.

    Article  Google Scholar

46. Heinemann JA, Massaro M, Coray DS, Agapito-Tenfen SZ, Wen JD. Sustainability and innovation in staple ingather production in the U.s.a. Midwest. Int J Agric Sustainability. 2013;12:71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar

47. Powles SB. Evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds around the world: lessons to be learnt. Pest Manag Sci. 2008;64:360–5.

    Commodity  CAS  Google Scholar

48. Székács A, Darvas B: Forty years with glyphosate. Herbicides - properties, synthesis and command of weeds. Hasaneen MN, InTech. 2012

49. Benedetti D, Nunes E, Sarmento M, Porto C, dos Santos CEI, Dias JF, et al. Genetic impairment in soybean workers exposed to pesticides: evaluation with the comet and buccal micronucleus cytome assays. Mutat Res. 2013;752(i–2):28–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar

50. Lopez SL, Aiassa D, Benitez-Leite Due south, Lajmanovich R, Manas F, Poletta Yard, et al. 2012: Pesticides used in South American GMO-based agriculture: a review of their effects on humans and brute models. Advances in Molecular Toxicology. Fishbein JC, Heilman JM. New York, Elsevier 2012, 6: 41–75.

51. Kvakkestad Five, Gillund F, Kjolberg KA, Vatn A. Scientists perspectives on the deliberate release of GM crops. Environ Values. 2007;16(ane):79–104.

    Article  Google Scholar

52. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity 2000 [http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/text/]

53. Codex Alimentarius: Foods derived from modern biotechnology. 2d ed. World Health Organization/Nutrient and Agriculture Organization of the United nations 2000 [ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/Publications/Booklets/Biotech/Biotech_2009e.pdf]

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

1. European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER Board/Secretariat), Marienstrasse xix/20, 10117, Berlin, Germany

   Angelika Hilbeck, Rosa Binimelis, Nicolas Defarge, Ricarda Steinbrecher, András Székács, Fern Wickson & Hartmut Meyer

2. Plant of Integrative Biology, Swiss Federal Constitute of Technology Zurich, Universitätstrasse 16, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland

   Angelika Hilbeck

3. GenØk Eye for Biosafety, Forskningsparken, Lead 6418, , 9294, Tromsø, Norway

   Rosa Binimelis & Fern Wickson

4. Comité de Recherche et d'Information Indépendantes sur le génie Génétique CRIIGEN, 40 rue Monceau, 75008, Paris, French republic

   Nicolas Defarge

5. University of Caen, Institute of Biology IBFA and Network on Risks, Quality and Sustainable Environment MRSH, Esplanade de la Paix, 14032, Caen, French republic

   Nicolas Defarge

6. EcoNexus, Oxford, OX4 9BS, UK

   Ricarda Steinbrecher

7. Central Environmental and Nutrient Science Inquiry Institute, POB 393, , H-1537, Budapest, Republic of hungary

   András Székács

8. Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Kinesthesia of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London, SE1 9RT, UK

   Michael Antoniou

9. Technology and Public Policy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 98195, Usa

   Philip 50 Bereano

10. Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, K0K iii K0, Warkworth, Ontario, Canada

    Ethel Ann Clark

11. Consumers Union, 101 Truman Artery, Yonkers, NY, 10703, USA

    Michael Hansen

12. Clare Hall, University of Cambridge, Herschel Road, Cambridge, CB3 9AL, United kingdom

    Eva Novotny

13. Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, Schoolhouse of Biological Sciences, Academy of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Jack Heinemann

14. Navdanya Hauz Khas, New Delhi, 110016, Republic of india

    Vandana Shiva

15. Centre for the Report of Ecology Change, CSEC, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

    Brian Wynne

Corresponding writer

Correspondence to Angelika Hilbeck.

Additional data

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

All authors contributed equally to the writing of the document. All authors read and canonical the final manuscript.

Authors' information

EAC is retired.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/iv.0), which permits utilise, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, every bit long every bit yous give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Artistic Commons license, and betoken if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hilbeck, A., Binimelis, R., Defarge, N. et al. No scientific consensus on GMO safety. Environ Sci Eur 27, 4 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-one

Download commendation

• Received: 01 October 2014

• Accepted: 19 December 2014

• Published: 24 Jan 2015

• DOI : https://doi.org/x.1186/s12302-014-0034-one

Keywords

• Genetically Change
• Genetically Modify Crop
• Genetically Modify Food
• Genetically Modify Organism
• Scientific Consensus

luubeenter.blogspot.com

Source: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

Share this post