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 ID: 70700
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "DISCUSSION Open Access No scientific con..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
safetyofallGMOsispossibleandthattheymustbe assessedona case-by-case basis.Moreover,theclaimthat itdoesexist-whichcontinuestobepushedintheabove listedcircles-ismisleadingandmisrepresentsoroutright ignoresthecurrentlyavailablescientificevidenceandthe broaddiversityofscientificopinionsamongscientistson thisissue.Theclaimfurtherencouragesaclimateof complacencythatcouldleadtoalackofregulatoryand scientificrigourandappropriatecaution,potentially endangeringthehealthofhumans,animals,andthe environment. Scienceandsocietydonotproceedonthebasisofa constructedconsensus,ascurrentknowledgeisalways opentowell-foundedchallengeanddisagreement.We endorsetheneedforfurtherindependentscientific inquiryandinformedpublicdiscussiononGMproduct safety. Someofourobjectionstotheclaimofascientific consensusarelistedinthefollowingdiscussion.The originalversionendorsedby300scientistsworldwide canbefoundatthewebsiteoftheEuropeanNetworkof ScientistsforSocialandEnvironmentalResponsibility[7]. Discussion 1 ThereisnoconsensusonGMfoodsafety RegardingthesafetyofGMcropsandfoodsforhuman andanimalhealth,acomprehensivereviewofanimal feedingstudiesofGMcropsfound Anequilibriuminthe number[of]researchgroupssuggesting,onthebasisof theirstudies,thatanumberofvarietiesofGMproducts (mainlymaizeandsoybeans)areassafeandnutritiousas therespectiveconventionalnon-GMplant,andthoserais- ingstillseriousconcerns .Thereviewalsofoundthatmost studiesconcludingthatGMfoodswereassafeandnutri- tiousasthoseobtainedbyconventionalbreedingwere performedbybiotechnologycompaniesorassociates, whicharealsoresponsible[for]commercializingthese GMplants [8]. Aseparatereviewofanimalfeedingstudiesthatis oftencitedasshowingthatGMfoodsaresafeincluded studiesthatfoundsignificantdifferencesintheGM-fed animals.Whilethereviewauthorsdismissedthesefind- ingsasnotbiologicallysignificant[9],theinterpretation ofthesedifferencesisthesubjectofcontinuingscientific debate[8,10-12]andnoconsensusexistsonthetopic. RigorousstudiesinvestigatingthesafetyofGMcrops andfoodswouldnormallyinvolve, interalia ,animal feedingstudiesinwhichonegroupofanimalsisfedGM foodandanothergroupisfedanequivalentnon-GM diet.Independentstudiesofthistypearerare,butwhen suchstudieshavebeenperformed,somehaverevealed toxiceffectsorsignsoftoxicityintheGM-fedanimals [2,8,11-13].Theconcernsraisedbythesestudieshave notbeenfollowedupbytargetedresearchthatcould confirmorrefutetheinitialfindings. ThelackofscientificconsensusonthesafetyofGM foodsandcropsisunderlinedbytherecentresearch callsoftheEuropeanUnionandtheFrenchgovernment toinvestigatethelong-termhealthimpactsofGMfood consumptioninthelightofuncertaintiesraisedbyani- malfeedingstudies[14,15].Theseofficialcallsimply recognitionoftheinadequacyoftherelevantexisting scientificresearchprotocols.Theycallintoquestionthe claimthatexistingresearchcanbedeemedconclusive andthescientificdebateonbiosafetyclosed. 2 Therearenoepidemiologicalstudiesinvestigating potentialeffectsofGMfoodconsumptiononhuman health Itisoftenclaimedthat trillionsofGMmeals have beeneatenintheUSwithnoilleffects.However,no epidemiologicalstudiesinhumanpopulationshave beencarriedouttoestablishwhetherthereareany healtheffectsassociatedwithGMfoodconsumption. AsGMfoodsandotherproductsarenotmonitoredor labelledafterreleaseinNorthAmerica,amajorproducer andconsumerofGMcrops,itisscientificallyimpossible totrace,letalonestudy,patternsofconsumptionand theirimpacts.Therefore,claimsthatGMfoodsaresafe forhumanhealthbasedontheexperienceofNorth Americanpopulationshavenoscientificbasis. 3 Claimsthatscientificandgovernmentalbodiesendorse GMOsafetyareexaggeratedorinaccurate Claimsthatthereisaconsensusamongscientificand governmentalbodiesthatGMfoodsaresafe,orthat theyarenomoreriskythannon-GMfoods[16,17],are false.Forinstance,anexpertpaneloftheRoyalSociety ofCanadaissuedareportthatwashighlycriticalofthe regulatorysystemforGMfoodsandcropsinthatcoun- try.Thereportdeclaredthatitis scientificallyunjustifi- able topresumethatGMfoodsaresafewithoutrigorous scientifictestingandthatthe defaultprediction forevery GMfoodshouldbethattheintroductionofanewgene willcause unanticipatedchanges intheexpressionof othergenes,thepatternofproteinsproduced,and/or metabolicactivities.Possibleoutcomesofthesechanges identifiedinthereportincludedthepresenceofnewor unexpectedallergens[18]. AreportbytheBritishMedicalAssociationcon- cludedthatwithregardtothelong-termeffectsofGM foodsonhumanhealthandtheenvironment, manyun- answeredquestionsremain andthat safetyconcerns cannot,asyet,bedismissedcompletelyonthebasisof Hilbeck etal.EnvironmentalSciencesEurope (2015) 27:4 Page2of6 informationcurrentlyavailable .Thereportcalledfor moreresearch,especiallyonpotentialimpactsonhuman healthandtheenvironment[19]. Moreover,thepositionstakenbyotherorganizations havefrequentlybeenhighlyqualified,acknowledging datagapsandpotentialrisks,aswellaspotentialbene- fits,ofGMtechnology.Forexample,astatementbythe AmericanMedicalAssociation sCouncilonScienceand PublicHealthacknowledged asmallpotentialforadverse events duemainlytohorizontalgenetransfer,allergen- icity,andtoxicity andrecommendedthatthecurrent voluntarynotificationprocedurepractisedintheUSprior tomarketreleaseofGMcropsbemademandatory[20].It shouldbenotedthatevena smallpotentialforadverse events mayturnouttobesignificant,giventhewidespread exposureofhumanandanimalpopulationstoGMcrops. AstatementbytheboardofdirectorsoftheAmerican AssociationfortheAdvancementofScience(AAAS) affirmingthesafetyofGMcropsandopposinglabelling [21]cannotbeassumedtorepresenttheviewofAAAS membersasawholeandwaschallengedinanopenletter byagroupof21scientists,includingmanylong-standing membersoftheAAAS[22].Thisepisodeunderlinedthe lackofconsensusamongscientistsaboutGMOsafety. 4 EUresearchprojectdoesnotprovidereliableevidence ofGMfoodsafety AnEUresearchproject[23]hasbeencitedinter- nationallyasprovidingevidenceforGMcropandfood safety.However,thereportbasedonthisproject, A DecadeofEU-FundedGMOResearch ,presentsnodata thatcouldprovidesuchevidencefromlong-termfeeding studiesinanimals. Indeed,theprojectwasnotdesignedtotestthesafetyof anysingleGMfoodbuttofocuson thedevelopmentof safetyassessmentapproaches [24].Onlyfivepublished animalfeedingstudiesarereferencedintheSAFOTEST sectionofthereport,whichisdedicatedtoGMfood safety[25].Noneofthesestudiestestedacommercialized GMfood;nonetestedtheGMfoodforlong-termeffects beyondthesubchronicperiodof90days;allfounddiffer- encesintheGM-fedanimals,whichinsomecaseswere statisticallysignificant;andnoneconcludedonthesafety oftheGMfoodtested,letaloneonthesafetyofGMfoods ingeneral.Therefore,theEUresearchprojectprovidesno evidenceforsweepingclaimsaboutthesafetyofanysingle GMfoodorofGMcropsingeneral. 5 ListofseveralhundredstudiesdoesnotshowGMfood safety AfrequentlycitedclaimpublishedonanInternetweb- sitethatseveralhundredstudies documentthegeneral safetyandnutritionalwholesomenessofGMfoodsand feeds [26]ismisleading.Examinationofthestudies listedrevealsthatmanydonotprovideevidenceofGM foodsafetyand,infact,someprovideevidenceofalack ofsafety.Forexample: Manyofthestudiesarenottoxicologicalanimal feedingstudiesofthetypethatcanprovideuseful informationabouthealtheffectsofGMfood consumption.Thelistincludesanimalproduction studiesthatexamineparametersofinteresttothe foodandagricultureindustry,suchasmilkyieldand weightgain[ 27 , 28 ];studiesonenvironmentaleffects ofGMcrops;andanalyticalstudiesofthe compositionorgeneticmakeupofthecrop. Amongtheanimalfeedingstudiesandreviewsof suchstudiesinthelist,asubstantialnumberfound toxiceffectsandsignsoftoxicityinGM-fedanimals comparedwithcontrols[ 29 - 34 ].Concernsraisedby thesestudieshavenotbeensatisfactorilyaddressed andtheclaimthatthebodyofresearchshowsa consensusoverthesafetyofGMcropsandfoodsis falseandirresponsible. Manyofthestudieswereconductedovershort periodscomparedwiththeanimal stotallifespan andcannotdetectlong-termhealtheffects[ 35 , 36 ]. Weconcludethatthesestudies,takenasawhole,are misrepresentedontheInternetwebsiteastheydonot documentthegeneralsafetyandnutritionalwholesome- nessofGMfoodsandfeeds .Rather,someofthestudies giveseriouscauseforconcernandshouldbefollowed upbymoredetailedinvestigationsoveranextended periodoftime. 6 Thereisnoconsensusontheenvironmentalrisksof GMcrops EnvironmentalrisksposedbyGMcropsincludethe effectsofinsecticidalBt(abacterialtoxinfrom Bacillus thuringiensis engineeredintocrops)cropsonnon-target organismsandtheeffectsoftheherbicidesusedintan- demwithherbicide-tolerantGMcrops. AswithGMfoodsafety,noscientificconsensusexists regardingtheenvironmentalrisksofGMcrops.Are- viewofenvironmentalriskassessmentapproachesfor GMcropsidentifiedshortcomingsintheprocedures usedandfound noconsensus globallyonthemethod- ologiesthatshouldbeapplied,letaloneonstandardized testingprocedures[37].Somereviewsofthepublished dataonBtcropshavefoundthattheycanhaveadverse effectsonnon-targetandbeneficialorganisms[38-41]- effectsthatarewidelyneglectedinregulatoryassess- mentsandbysomescientificcommentators.Resistance Hilbeck etal.EnvironmentalSciencesEurope (2015) 27:4 Page3of6 toBttoxinshasemergedintargetpests[42],andprob- lemswithsecondary(non-target)pestshavebeennoted, forexample,inBtcottoninChina[43,44]. Herbicide-tolerantGMcropshaveprovedequallycon- troversial.Somereviewsandindividualstudieshaveasso- ciatedthemwithincreasedherbicideuse[45,46],therapid spreadofherbicide-resistantweeds[47],andadverse healtheffectsinhumanandanimalpopulationsexposed toRoundup,theherbicideusedonthemajorityofGM crops[48-50]. AswithGMfoodsafety,disagreementamongscien- tistsontheenvironmentalrisksofGMcropsmaybe correlatedwithfundingsources.Apeer-reviewedsurvey oftheviewsof62lifescientistsontheenvironmental risksofGMcropsfoundthatfundinganddisciplinary traininghadasignificanteffectonattitudes.Scientists withindustryfundingand/orthosetrainedinmolecular biologywereverylikelytohaveapositiveattitudeto GMcropsandtoholdthattheydonotrepresentany uniquerisks,whilepublicly-fundedscientistsworking independentlyofGMcropdevelopercompaniesand/or thosetrainedinecologyweremorelikelytoholda moderatelynegative attitudetoGMcropsafetyandto emphasizetheuncertaintyandignoranceinvolved.The reviewauthorsconcluded Thestrongeffectsoftrain- ingandfundingmightjustifycertaininstitutionalchanges concerninghowweorganizescienceandhowwe makepublicdecisionswhennewtechnologiesareto beevaluated [51]. 7 Internationalagreementsshowwidespreadrecognition ofrisksposedbyGMfoodsandcrops TheCartagenaProtocolonBiosafetywasnegotiated overmanyyearsandimplementedin2003.TheCartagena Protocolisaninternationalagreementratifiedby166gov- ernmentsworldwidethatseekstoprotectbiologicaldiver- sityfromtherisksposedbyGMtechnology.Itembodies thePrecautionaryPrincipleinthatitallowssignatory statestotakeprecautionarymeasurestoprotectthem- selvesagainstthreatsofdamagefromGMcropsand foods,evenincaseofalackofscientificcertainty[52]. Anotherinternationalbody,theUN sCodexAlimentar- ius,workedwithscientificexpertsfor7yearstodevelop internationalguidelinesfortheassessmentofGMfoods andcropsbecauseofconcernsabouttheriskstheypose. TheseguidelineswereadoptedbytheCodexAlimentarius Commission,ofwhichover160nationsaremembers, includingmajorGMcropproducerssuchastheUnited States[53]. TheCartagenaProtocolandCodexshareaprecau- tionaryapproachtoGMcropsandfoods,inthatthey agreethatgeneticengineeringdiffersfromconventional breedingandthatsafetyassessmentsshouldberequired beforeGMorganismsareusedinfoodorreleasedinto theenvironment. Theseagreementswouldneverhavebeennegotiated, andtheimplementationprocesseselaboratinghowsuch safetyassessmentsshouldbeconductedwouldnotcur- rentlybehappening,withoutwidespreadinternational recognitionoftherisksposedbyGMcropsandfoods andtheunresolvedstateofexistingscientificunder- standing.Concernsaboutrisksarewellfounded,ashas beendemonstratedbystudiesonsomeGMcropsand foodsthathaveshownadverseeffectsonanimalhealth andnon-targetorganisms,indicatedabove.Manyofthese studieshave,infact,fedintothenegotiationand/orimple- mentationprocessesoftheCartagenaProtocolandthe Codex.WesupporttheapplicationofthePrecautionary Principlewithregardtothereleaseandtransboundary movementofGMcropsandfoods. Conclusions Inthescopeofthisdocument,wecanonlyhighlightafew examplestoillustratethatthetotalityofscientificresearch outcomesinthefieldofGMcropsafetyisnuanced;com- plex;oftencontradictoryorinconclusive;confoundedby researchers choices,assumptions,andfundingsources; and,ingeneral,hasraisedmorequestionsthanithas currentlyanswered. Whethertocontinueandexpandtheintroductionof GMcropsandfoodsintothehumanfoodandanimal feedsupply,andwhethertheidentifiedrisksareaccept- ableornot,aredecisionsthatinvolvesocioeconomic considerationsbeyondthescopeofanarrowscientific debateandthecurrentlyunresolvedbiosafetyresearch agendas.Thesedecisionsmustthereforeinvolvethe broadersociety.Theyshould,however,besupportedby strongscientificevidenceonthelong-termsafetyofGM cropsandfoodsforhumanandanimalhealthandthe environment,obtainedinamannerthatishonest,eth- ical,rigorous,independent,transparent,andsufficiently diversifiedtocompensateforbias. Decisionsonthefutureofourfoodandagriculture shouldnotbebasedonmisleadingandmisrepresentative claimsbyaninternalcircleoflikemindedstakeholders thata scientificconsensus existsonGMOsafety. Thisdocumentwassubsequentlyopenedforendorse- mentbyscientistsfromaroundtheworldintheirper- sonal(ratherthaninstitut ional)capacitiesreflecting theirpersonalviewsandbasedontheirpersonalexpertise. Thereisnosuggestionthattheviewsexpressedinthis statementrepresenttheviewsorpositionofanyinstitu- tionororganizationwithwhichtheindividualsareaffili- ated.Qualifyingcriteriaforsigningthestatementwere deliberatelyselectedtoincludescientists,physicians,so- cialscientists,academics,andspecialistsinlegalaspects andriskassessmentofGMcropsandfoods.Scientistand Hilbeck etal.EnvironmentalSciencesEurope (2015) 27:4 Page4of6 academicsignatorieswererequestedtohavequalifications fromaccreditedinstitutionsatthelevelofPhDorequiva- lent.LegalexpertswererequestedtohaveatleastaJDor equivalent.ByDecember2013,morethan300peoplewho metthestrictqualificationrequirementshadsignedthe statement.Thestatementwaswidelytakenupinthe mediaandreportedinnumerousoutletsandevidence providedthereincontinuestobecitedwidely.Inatime whenthereismajorpressureonthesciencecommunity fromcorporateandpoliticalinterests,itisofutmostim- portancethatscientistsworkingforthepublicinterest takeastandagainstattemptstoreduceandcompromise therigourofexaminationofnewapplicationsinfavorof rapidcommercializationofnewandemergingtechnolo- giesthatareexpectedtogenerateprofitandeconomic growth.Thedocumentcontinuestobeopenforsignature onthewebsiteoftheinitiatingscientificorganization ENSSER(EuropeanNetworkofScientistsforSocialand EnvironmentalResponsibility)atwww.ensser.org. Competinginterests Theauthorsdeclarethattheyhavenocompetinginterests. Authors contributions Allauthorscontributedequallytothewritingofthedocument.Allauthors readandapprovedthefinalmanuscript. Authors information EACisretired. Authordetails 1 EuropeanNetworkofScientistsforSocialandEnvironmentalResponsibility (ENSSERBoard/Secretariat),Marienstrasse19/20,10117Berlin,Germany. 2 InstituteofIntegrativeBiology,SwissFederalInstituteofTechnologyZurich, Universitätstrasse16,8092Zurich,Switzerland. 3 GenØkCentreforBiosafety, Forskningsparken,PB6418,9294Tromsø,Norway. 4 ComitédeRechercheet d InformationIndépendantessurlegénieGénétiqueCRIIGEN,40rue Monceau,75008Paris,France. 5 UniversityofCaen,InstituteofBiologyIBFA andNetworkonRisks,QualityandSustainableEnvironmentMRSH, EsplanadedelaPaix,14032Caen,France. 6 EcoNexus,OxfordOX49BS,UK. 7 CentralEnvironmentalandFoodScienceResearchInstitute,POB393, H-1537Budapest,Hungary. 8 DepartmentofMedicalandMolecularGenetics, FacultyofLifeSciencesandMedicine,King sCollegeLondon,Guy sHospital, LondonSE19RT,UK. 9 TechnologyandPublicPolicy,Universityof Washington,Seattle,Washington98195,USA. 10 PlantAgriculture,University ofGuelph,K0K3K0Warkworth,Ontario,Canada. 11 ConsumersUnion,101 TrumanAvenue,Yonkers,NY10703,USA. 12 ClareHall,Universityof Cambridge,HerschelRoad,CambridgeCB39AL,UK. 13 CentreforIntegrated ResearchinBiosafety,SchoolofBiologicalSciences,UniversityofCanterbury, Christchurch,NewZealand. 14 NavdanyaHauzKhas,NewDelhi110016,India. 15 CentrefortheStudyofEnvironmentalChange,CSEC,LancasterUniversity, Lancaster,UK. Received:1October2014Accepted:19December2014 References 1.SéraliniGE,ClairE,MesnageR,GressS,DefargeN,MalatestaM,etal. Republishedstudy:long-termtoxicityofaRoundupherbicideanda Roundup-tolerantgeneticallymodifiedmaize.EnvironSciEur.2014;26(1):1. 2.CarmanJA,VliegerHR,VerSteegLJ,SnellerVE,RobinsonGW,Clinch-Jones CA,etal.Along-termtoxicologystudyonpigsfedacombinedgenetically modified(GM)soyandGMmaizediet.JOrgSyst.2013;8(1):38 54. 3.FrewinG.(2013).Thenew isGMfoodsafe? meme.AxisMundi,18July. http://www.axismundionline.com/blog/the-new-is-gm-food-safe-meme/; Wikipedia(2013).Geneticallymodifiedfoodcontroversies.http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies 4.LynasM:GMOpigsstudy morejunkscience.Marklynas.org2013,12 June[http://www.markly nas.org/2013/06/gmo-pi gs-study-more-junk- science/] 5.KloorK:Greensontherunindebateovergeneticallymodifiedfood. Bloomberg2013,7January[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-07/ green-activist-reverses-stance-on-genetically-modified-food.html] 6.WhiteM:ThescientificdebateaboutGMfoodsisover:they resafe.Pacific StandardMagazine2013,24September[http://www.psmag.com/health/ scientific-debate-gm-foods-theyre-safe-66711/] 7.EuropeanNetworkofScientistsforSocialandEnvironmentalResponsibility ENSSER[www.ensser.org] 8.DomingoJL,BordonabaJG.Aliteraturereviewonthesafetyassessmentof geneticallymodifiedplants.EnvironInt.2011;37:734 42. 9.SnellC,BernheimA,BergéJB,KuntzM,PascalG,ParisA,etal.Assessment ofthehealthimpactofGMplantdietsinlong-termandmultigenerational animalfeedingtrials:aliteraturereview.FoodChemToxicol. 2012;50(3 4):1134 48. 10.SéraliniGE,MesnageR,ClairE,GressS,SpirouxdeVendômoisJ,CellierD. Geneticallymodifiedcropssafetyassessments:presentlimitsandpossible improvements.EnvironSciEur.2011;23:10. 11.DonaA,ArvanitoyannisIS.Healthrisksofgeneticallymodifiedfoods. CritRevFoodSciNutr.2009;49(2):164 75. 12.DielsJ,CunhaM,ManaiaC,Sabugosa-MadeiraB,SilvaM.Associationof financialorprofessionalconflictofinteresttoresearchoutcomesonhealth risksornutritionalassessmentstudiesofgeneticallymodifiedproducts. FoodPolicy.2011;36:197 203. 13.SéraliniGE,MesnageR,DefargeN,GressS,HennequinD,ClairE,etal. Answerstocritics:whythereisalongtermtoxicityduetoNK603 Roundup-tolerantgeneticallymodifiedmaizeandtoaRoundupherbicide. FoodChemToxicol.2013;53:461 8. 14.EUFoodPolicy:CommissionandEFSAagreeneedfortwo-yearGMO feedingstudies.17December2012 15.FrenchMinistryofEcology,SustainableDevelopmentandEnergy2013: ProgrammeNationaldeRecherche:Risquesenvironnementauxetsanitaires liésauxOGM(Risk OGM)2013,12July[http://www.developpement-durable. gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/APR__Risk_OGM_rel_pbch_pbj_rs2.pdf] 16.Wikipedia:Geneticallymodifiedfoodcontroversies.2013[http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies] 17.MasipG:Opinion:Don tfearGMcrops,Europe!TheScientist2013,May28 [http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35578/title/Opinion Don-t-Fear-GM-Crops Europe-/] 18.RoyalSocietyofCanada:Elementsofprecaution:recommendationsforthe regulationoffoodbiotechnologyinCanada;AnExpertPanelReportonthe FutureofFoodBiotechnology.2001,January[http://www.rsc.ca//files/ publications/expert_panels/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf] 19.BritishMedicalAssociationBoardofScienceandEducation:Genetically modifiedfoodandhealth:asecondinterimstatement.2004,March [http://bit.ly/19QAHSI] 20.AmericanMedicalAssociationHouseofDelegates:Labelingofbioengineered foods.CouncilonScienceandPublicHealthReport2,2012[http://www.ama- assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf] 21.AAAS:StatementbytheAAASBoardofDirectorsonlabelingofgenetically modifiedfoods.2012,20October.http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/ media/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf 22.HuntP,BlumbergB,BornehagCG,CollinsTJ,DeFurPL,GilbertSG,etal.Yes: foodlabelswouldletconsumersmakeinformedchoices.Environmental HealthNews2012[http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/ 2012/yes-labels-on-gm-foods] 23.EuropeanCommission:AdecadeofEU-fundedGMOresearch(2001 2010). 2010[http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-fun- ded_gmo_research.pdf] 24.EuropeanCommission:AdecadeofEU-fundedGMOresearch(2001 2010). 2010,128.[http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu- funded_gmo_research.pdf] 25.EuropeanCommission:AdecadeofEU-fundedGMOresearch(2001 2010). 2010,157.[http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu- funded_gmo_research.pdf] 26.TribeD:600+publishedsafetyassessments.GMOPunditblogundated [http://gmopundit.blogspot.co.uk/p/450-published-safety-assessments.html] Hilbeck etal.EnvironmentalSciencesEurope (2015) 27:4 Page5of6 27.BroukM,CvetkovicB,RiceDW,SmithBL,HindsMA,OwensFN,etal. Performanceoflactatingdairycowsfedcornaswholeplantsilageand grainproducedfromageneticallymodifiedeventDAS-59122-7compared toanontransgenic,nearisolinecontrol.JDairySci.2011;94:1961 6. 28.CalsamigliaS,HernandezB,HartnellGF,PhippsR.Effectsofcornsilage derivedfromageneticallymodifiedvarietycontainingtwotransgeneson feedintake,milkproduction,andcomposition,andtheabsenceof detectabletransgenicdeoxyribonucleicacidinmilkinHolsteindairycows. JDairySci.2007;90:4718 23. 29.deVendômoisJS,RoullierF,CellierD,SéraliniGE.Acomparisonofthe effectsofthreeGMcornvarietiesonmammalianhealth.IntJBiolSci. 2010;5(7):706 26. 30.EwenSWB,PusztaiA.Effectofdietscontaininggeneticallymodified potatoesexpressingGalanthusnivalislectinonratsmallintestine.Lancet. 1999;354:1353 4. 31.FaresNH,El-SayedAK.Finestructuralchangesintheileumofmicefedon delta-endotoxin-treatedpotatoesandtransgenicpotatoes.NatToxins. 1998;6:219 33. 32.KilicA,AkayMT.AthreegenerationstudywithgeneticallymodifiedBtcorn inrats:biochemicalandhistopathologicalinvestigation.FoodChemToxicol. 2008;46(3):1164 70. 33.MalatestaM,CaporaloniC,GavaudanS,RocchiMB,SerafiniS,TiberiC,etal. Ultrastructuralmorphometricalandimmunocytochemicalanalysesof hepatocytenucleifrommicefedongeneticallymodifiedsoybean. CellStructFunct.2002;27:173 80. 34.MalatestaM,BiggiogeraM,ManualiE,RocchiMB,BaldelliB,GazzanelliG. Finestructuralanalysesofpancreaticacinarcellnucleifrommicefedon geneticallymodifiedsoybean.EurJHistochem.2003;47:385 8. 35.HammondB,DudekR,LemenJ,NemethM.Resultsofa13weeksafety assurancestudywithratsfedgrainfromglyphosatetolerantcorn.Food ChemToxicol.2004;42(6):1003 14. 36.HammondBG,DudekR,LemenJ,NemethM.Resultsofa90-daysafety assurancestudywithratsfedgrainfromcornborer-protectedcorn. FoodChemToxicol.2006;44(7):1092 9. 37.HilbeckA,MeierM,RömbkeJ,JänschS,TeichmannH,TappeserB. Environmentalriskassessmentofgeneticallymodifiedplants-concepts andcontroversies.EnvironSciEur.2011;23:13. 38.HilbeckA,SchmidtJEU.AnotherviewonBtproteins howspecificare theyandwhatelsemighttheydo?BiopestiInt.2006;2(1):1 50. 39.SzékácsA,DarvasB.ComparativeaspectsofCrytoxinusageininsect control.In:IshaayaI,PalliSR,HorowitzAR,editors.AdvancedTechnologiesfor ManagingInsectPests.Dordrecht,Netherlands:Springer;2012.p.195 230. 40.MarvierM,McCreedyC,RegetzJ,KareivaP.Ameta-analysisofeffectsofBt cottonandmaizeonnontargetinvertebrates.Science.2007;316(5830):1475 7. 41.LangA,VojtechE.TheeffectsofpollenconsumptionoftransgenicBtmaize onthecommonswallowtail, Papiliomachaon L.(Lepidoptera,Papilionidae). BasicApplEcol.2006;7:296 306. 42.GassmannAJ,Petzold-MaxwellJL,K eweshanRS,DunbarMW.Field-evolved resistancetoBtmaizebyWesterncorn rootworm.PLoSOne.2011;6(7):e22629. 43.ZhaoJH,HoP,AzadiH.BenefitsofBtcottoncounterbalancedbysecondary pests?PerceptionsofecologicalchangeinChina.EnvironMonitAssess. 2010;173(1 4):985 94. 44.LuY,WuK,JiangY,XiaB,LiP,FengH,etal.Miridbugoutbreaksin multiplecropscorrelatedwithwide-scaleadoptionofBtcottoninChina. Science.2010;328(5982):1151 4. 45.BenbrookC.Impactsofgeneticallyengineeredcropsonpesticideusein theUS thefirstsixteenyears.EnvironSciEur.2012;24:24. 46.HeinemannJA,MassaroM,CorayDS,Agapito-TenfenSZ,WenJD.Sustainability andinnovationinstaplecropproductionintheUSMidwest.IntJAgric Sustainability.2013;12:71 88. 47.PowlesSB.Evolvedglyphosate-resistantweedsaroundtheworld:lessonsto belearnt.PestManagSci.2008;64:360 5. 48.SzékácsA,DarvasB:Fortyyearswithglyphosate.Herbicides-properties, synthesisandcontrolofweeds.HasaneenMN,InTech.2012 49.BenedettiD,NunesE,SarmentoM,PortoC,dosSantosCEI,DiasJF,etal.Genetic damageinsoybeanworkersexposedtopesticides:evaluationwiththecomet andbuccalmicronucleuscytomeassays.MutatRes.2013;752(1 2):28 33. 50.LopezSL,AiassaD,Benitez-LeiteS,LajmanovichR,ManasF,PolettaG,etal. 2012:PesticidesusedinSouthAmericanGMO-basedagriculture:areview oftheireffectsonhumansandanimalmodels.AdvancesinMolecular Toxicology.FishbeinJC,HeilmanJM.NewYork,Elsevier2012,6:41 75. 51.KvakkestadV,GillundF,KjolbergKA,VatnA.Scientistsperspectivesonthe deliberatereleaseofGMcrops.EnvironValues.2007;16(1):79 104. 52.SecretariatoftheConventiononBiologicalDiversity:CartagenaProtocolon BiosafetytotheConventiononBiologicalDiversity2000[http://bch.cbd.int/ protocol/text/] 53.CodexAlimentarius:Foodsderivedfrommodernbiotechnology.2ded. WorldHealthOrganization/FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnited Nations2000[ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/Publications/Booklets/Biotech/ Biotech_2009e.pdf] Submit your manuscript to a journal and bene t from: 7 Convenient online submission 7 Rigorous peer review 7 Immediate publication on acceptance 7 Open access: articles freely available online 7 High visibility within the eld 7 Retaining the copyright to your article Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropen.com Hilbeck etal.EnvironmentalSciencesEurope (2015) 27:4 Page6of6 DISCUSSIONOpenAccess NoscientificconsensusonGMOsafety AngelikaHilbeck 1,2* ,RosaBinimelis 1,3 ,NicolasDefarge 1,4,5 ,RicardaSteinbrecher 1,6 ,AndrásSzékács 1,7 , FernWickson 1,3 ,MichaelAntoniou 8 ,PhilipLBereano 9 ,EthelAnnClark 10 ,MichaelHansen 11 ,EvaNovotny 12 , JackHeinemann 13 ,HartmutMeyer 1 ,VandanaShiva 14 andBrianWynne 15 Abstract Abroadcommunityofindependentscientificresearchersandscholarschallengesrecentclaimsofaconsensus overthesafetyofgeneticallymodifiedorganisms(GMOs).Inthefollowingjointstatement,theclaimedconsensus isshowntobeanartificialconstructthathasbeenfalselyperpetuatedthroughdiversefora.Irrespectiveof contradictoryevidenceintherefereedliterature,asdocumentedbelow,theclaimthatthereisnowaconsensuson thesafetyofGMOscontinuestobewidelyandoftenuncriticallyaired.Fordecades,thesafetyofGMOshasbeena hotlycontroversialtopicthathasbeenmuchdebatedaroundtheworld.Publishedresultsarecontradictory,inpart duetotherangeofdifferentresearchmethodsemployed,aninadequacyofavailableprocedures,anddifferences intheanalysisandinterpretationofdata.Suchalackofconsensusonsafetyisalsoevidencedbytheagreementof policymakersfromover160countries-intheUN sCartagenaBiosafetyProtocolandtheGuidelinesofthe Codex Alimentarius -toauthorizecarefulcase-by-caseassessmentofeachGMObynationalauthoritiestodetermine whethertheparticularconstructsatisfiesthenationalcriteriafor safe .RigorousassessmentofGMOsafetyhasbeen hamperedbythelackoffundingindependentofproprietaryinterests.Researchforthepublicgoodhasbeen furtherconstrainedbypropertyrightsissues,andbydenialofaccesstoresearchmaterialforresearchersunwilling tosigncontractualagreementswiththedevelopers,whichconferunacceptablecontroloverpublicationtothe proprietaryinterests. Thejointstatementdevelopedandsignedbyover300independentresearchers,andreproducedandpublished below,doesnotassertthatGMOsareunsafeorsafe.Rather,thestatementconcludesthatthescarcityand contradictorynatureofthescientificevidencepublishedtodatepreventsconclusiveclaimsofsafety,oroflackof safety,ofGMOs.ClaimsofconsensusonthesafetyofGMOsarenotsupportedbyanobjectiveanalysisofthe refereedliterature. Background Overrecentyears,anumberofscientificresearcharticles havebeenpublishedthatreportdisturbingresultsfrom geneticallymodifiedorganism(GMO)feedingexperi- mentswithdifferentmammals(e.g.rats[1],pigs[2]).In additiontotheusualfierceresponses,thesehaveeliciteda concertedeffortbygeneticallymodified(GM)seeddevel- opersandsomescientists,commentators,andjournalists toconstructclaimsthatthereisa scientificconsensus onGMOsafety[3-5]andthatthedebateonthistopic is over [6]. Theseclaimsledabroaderindependentcommunityof scientistsandresearcherstocometogetherastheyfelt accountofthecurrentstateofdissentinthisfield,based onpublishedevidenceinthescientificliterature,forboth theinterestedpublicandthewidersciencecommunity. Thestatementthatwasdevelopedwasthenopenedupfor endorsementfromscientistsaroundtheworldwithrele- vantexpertiseandcapacitiestoconcludeonthecurrent stateofconsensus/dissentanddebateregardingthepub- lishedevidenceonthesafetyofGMOs. Thisstatementclearlydemonstratesthattheclaimed consensusonGMOsafetydoesnotexistoutsideofthe abovedepictedinternalcircleofstakeholders.Thehealth, environment,andagricultureauthoritiesofmostnations recognizepubliclythatnoblanketstatementaboutthe *Correspondence: angelika.hilbeck@ensser.org 1 EuropeanNetworkofScientistsforSocialandEnvironmentalResponsibility (ENSSERBoard/Secretariat),Marienstrasse19/20,10117Berlin,Germany 2 InstituteofIntegrativeBiology,SwissFederalInstituteofTechnologyZurich, Universitätstrasse16,8092Zurich,Switzerland Fulllistofauthorinformationisavailableattheendofthearticle ©2015Hilbecketal.;licenseeSpringer.ThisisanOpenAccessarticledistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommons AttributionLicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0),whichpermitsunrestricteduse,distribution,andreproduction inanymedium,providedtheoriginalworkisproperlycredited. Hilbeck etal.EnvironmentalSciencesEurope (2015) 27:4 DOI10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1