No scientific consensus on GMO safety

Angelika Hilbeck, Rosa Binimelis, Nicolas Defarge, Ricarda Steinbrecher, A. Székács, Fern Wickson, Michael Antoniou, Philip L. Bereano, Ethel Ann Clark, Michael Hansen, Eva Novotny, Jack Heinemann, Hartmut Meyer, Vandana Shiva, Brian Wynne

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

64 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent 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 artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often 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 available 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’s Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius - to authorize careful case-by-case assessment of each GMO by national authorities to determine whether the particular construct satisfies the national criteria for ‘safe’. Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been further constrained by property 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 by over 300 independent researchers, and reproduced and published below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature.

Original languageEnglish
JournalEnvironmental Sciences Europe
Volume27
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 1 2015

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pollution

Cite this

Hilbeck, A., Binimelis, R., Defarge, N., Steinbrecher, R., Székács, A., Wickson, F., ... Wynne, B. (2015). No scientific consensus on GMO safety. Environmental Sciences Europe, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

No scientific consensus on GMO safety. / Hilbeck, Angelika; Binimelis, Rosa; Defarge, Nicolas; Steinbrecher, Ricarda; Székács, A.; Wickson, Fern; Antoniou, Michael; Bereano, Philip L.; Clark, Ethel Ann; Hansen, Michael; Novotny, Eva; Heinemann, Jack; Meyer, Hartmut; Shiva, Vandana; Wynne, Brian.

In: Environmental Sciences Europe, Vol. 27, No. 1, 01.12.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hilbeck, A, Binimelis, R, Defarge, N, Steinbrecher, R, Székács, A, Wickson, F, Antoniou, M, Bereano, PL, Clark, EA, Hansen, M, Novotny, E, Heinemann, J, Meyer, H, Shiva, V & Wynne, B 2015, 'No scientific consensus on GMO safety', Environmental Sciences Europe, vol. 27, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1
Hilbeck A, Binimelis R, Defarge N, Steinbrecher R, Székács A, Wickson F et al. No scientific consensus on GMO safety. Environmental Sciences Europe. 2015 Dec 1;27(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1
Hilbeck, Angelika ; Binimelis, Rosa ; Defarge, Nicolas ; Steinbrecher, Ricarda ; Székács, A. ; Wickson, Fern ; Antoniou, Michael ; Bereano, Philip L. ; Clark, Ethel Ann ; Hansen, Michael ; Novotny, Eva ; Heinemann, Jack ; Meyer, Hartmut ; Shiva, Vandana ; Wynne, Brian. / No scientific consensus on GMO safety. In: Environmental Sciences Europe. 2015 ; Vol. 27, No. 1.
@article{b56c341083804f73b4e9602d7459faef,
title = "No scientific consensus on GMO safety",
abstract = "A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent 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 artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often 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 available 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’s Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius - to authorize careful case-by-case assessment of each GMO by national authorities to determine whether the particular construct satisfies the national criteria for ‘safe’. Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been further constrained by property 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 by over 300 independent researchers, and reproduced and published below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature.",
author = "Angelika Hilbeck and Rosa Binimelis and Nicolas Defarge and Ricarda Steinbrecher and A. Sz{\'e}k{\'a}cs and Fern Wickson and Michael Antoniou and Bereano, {Philip L.} and Clark, {Ethel Ann} and Michael Hansen and Eva Novotny and Jack Heinemann and Hartmut Meyer and Vandana Shiva and Brian Wynne",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
journal = "Environmental Sciences Europe",
issn = "2190-4707",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - No scientific consensus on GMO safety

AU - Hilbeck, Angelika

AU - Binimelis, Rosa

AU - Defarge, Nicolas

AU - Steinbrecher, Ricarda

AU - Székács, A.

AU - Wickson, Fern

AU - Antoniou, Michael

AU - Bereano, Philip L.

AU - Clark, Ethel Ann

AU - Hansen, Michael

AU - Novotny, Eva

AU - Heinemann, Jack

AU - Meyer, Hartmut

AU - Shiva, Vandana

AU - Wynne, Brian

PY - 2015/12/1

Y1 - 2015/12/1

N2 - A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent 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 artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often 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 available 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’s Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius - to authorize careful case-by-case assessment of each GMO by national authorities to determine whether the particular construct satisfies the national criteria for ‘safe’. Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been further constrained by property 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 by over 300 independent researchers, and reproduced and published below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature.

AB - A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent 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 artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often 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 available 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’s Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius - to authorize careful case-by-case assessment of each GMO by national authorities to determine whether the particular construct satisfies the national criteria for ‘safe’. Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been further constrained by property 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 by over 300 independent researchers, and reproduced and published below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928378128&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928378128&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

DO - 10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84928378128

VL - 27

JO - Environmental Sciences Europe

JF - Environmental Sciences Europe

SN - 2190-4707

IS - 1

ER -