February 2015

NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON GMO SAFETY

Contrary to the claims made by the GMO industry, over 300 scientists maintain in a peer-reviewed journal that the jury is still out on the safety of genetically modified foods and crops.

By Lim Li Ching

Third World Network Features

            In late 2013, more than 300 scientists and experts endorsed a joint statement stating that there is, as yet, no consensus on the safety of genetically modified (GM) crops and foods. The statement has been recently published in a peer-reviewed open access journal, Environmental Sciences Europe(http://www.enveurope.com/content/27/1/4/abstract). It therefore belongs to the body of open peer-reviewed scientific literature and stands as a citable publication.

            The statement was issued in response to claims by 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. A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars has therefore now challenged this claim, which has perpetuated despite the existence of contradictory evidence in the refereed literature.

            The joint statement does not assert whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevent conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are therefore not supported by an objective analysis of the literature.

            In reality, the safety of GMOs continues to be a very controversial topic that has been hotly debated around the world. While the reasons for the controversy vary, this can be also traced to the fact that published results on GMO research are contradictory, in part due to the range of different research methods employed, an inadequacy of available procedures, and differences in the analysis and interpretation of data.

            Moreover, the statement contends that claims that GM foods are safe for human health based on the experience of North American populations are not justified, as no epidemiological studies in human populations have been carried out to establish whether there are any health effects associated with GM food consumption. As GM foods and other products are not monitored or labelled after their release in North America, a major producer and consumer of GM crops, it is thus scientifically impossible to trace, let alone study, patterns of consumption and their impacts.

            On the contrary, in recent years, a number of scientific research articles have been published that report disturbing results from GMO feeding experiments with different mammals (e.g. rats and pigs). Furthermore, closer examination of several hundred studies that are claimed to “document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds” reveals that many do not actually provide evidence of GM food safety and, in fact, some provide evidence of a lack of safety. The statement therefore reiterates that concerns about the risks are well founded. It further supports the application of the Precautionary Principle with regard to the release and transboundary movement of GM crops and foods.

            The lack of consensus on safety is further evidenced by the agreement of policymakers from more than 160 countries – gathered under the umbrella of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the only international treaty to specifically regulate GMOs, and the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the joint body of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations that governs global food safety issues – to authorize careful case-by-case assessment of each GMO by national authorities, in order to evaluate whether the particular GMO satisfies the national criteria for “safe”.

            Thus, most nations publicly recognize that no blanket statement about the safety of all GMOs is possible and that instead, they must be assessed on a “case-by-case” basis. These agreements would never have been negotiated, and the implementation processes elaborating how risk assessments should be conducted would not currently be on-going, without widespread international recognition of the risks posed by GM crops and foods and the unresolved state of existing scientific understanding.

            Nonetheless, as the statement highlights, rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of research funding independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been further constrained by intellectual property issues, and by denial of access to research material for researchers unwilling to sign contractual agreements with the developers, which in turn confer unacceptable control to the developers over the publication of research results.

            The statement concludes by endorsing the need for further independent scientific inquiry and informed public discussion on GM product safety. Whether to continue and expand the introduction of GM crops and foods into the human food and animal feed supply, and whether the identified risks are acceptable or not, are decisions that involve socioeconomic considerations beyond the scope of a narrow scientific debate and the currently unresolved biosafety research agendas. These decisions must therefore involve the broader society.

            This debate should be supported by strong scientific evidence on the long-term safety of GM crops and foods for human and animal health and the environment, obtained in a manner that is honest, ethical, rigorous, independent, transparent, and sufficiently diversified to compensate for bias. Asking legitimate questions about the safety, efficacy and value of GMOs must be allowed to continue. As stated by one of the authors of the statement, this is best done by embracing open discussions of GMOs, informed from a variety of points of view, acknowledging and including the true diversity of scientific opinions. 


            The joint statement continues to be open for signature on the website of the initiating scientific organization, the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), at www.ensser.org. – Third World Network Features.

-ends-

About the author: Lim Li Ching is a researcher with Third World Network.

When reproducing this feature, please credit Third World Network Features and (if applicable) the cooperating magazine or agency involved in the article, and give the byline. Please send us cuttings. And if reproduced on the internet, please send the web link where the article appears to twnet@po.jaring.my.

4200/15