August 21, 2014

Nearly 300 Scientists and Experts Agree GMOs not Proven Safe

pin it button Nearly 300 Scientists and Experts Agree GMOs not Proven Safe

organic labeling vs. GMO labeling Nearly 300 Scientists and Experts Agree GMOs not Proven Safe

 

297 scientists and experts agree GMOs not proven safe

by The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER)

Press Release

*EU chief scientist Anne Glover’s backing for GM condemned as “irresponsible”

*Independent researchers work double shift to address “red flags” on GMO safety

The number of scientists and experts who have signed a joint statement[1] saying that GM foods have not been proven safe and that existing research raises concerns has climbed to 297 since the statement was released on 21 October.

Dr Angelika Hilbeck, chair of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), which published the statement, said, “We’re surprised and pleased by the strong support for the statement. It seems to have tapped into a deep concern in the global scientific community that the name of science is being misused to make misleading claims about the safety of GM technology.”

The statement indirectly challenges claims by EU chief science adviser Anne Glover that there is no evidence that GM foods are any riskier than non-GM foods.[2]

Dr Rosa Binimelis Adell, board member of ENSSER, said, “It seems that Anne Glover chooses to listen to one side of the scientific community only – the circle of GMO producers and their allied scientists – and ignores the other. Thus she is giving biased advice to the EU Commission. For a science adviser, this is irresponsible and unethical.”

New signatories to the statement include Dr Sheldon Krimsky, professor of urban and environmental policy and planning at Tufts University and adjunct professor in the department of public health and family medicine at the Tufts School of Medicine. Dr Krimsky said:

“As a GMO crop skeptic, I have a more nuanced view of adverse consequences than uncritical proponents. Adverse consequences of GMO crops are not restricted to keeling over dead after eating genetically adulterated unlabelled food (GAUF). My concerns include subtle changes in nutritional quality or mycotoxins, increasing food allergens, unsustainable farming practices, dependency on chemical inputs, lack of transparency in evaluating food quality and safety, and the transformation of farming practices into a modern form of serfdom, where the seed is intellectual property leased by the farmer.

“To demonstrate the safety of GMO products, one must begin by assuming that they can be harmful, and carry out sensitive tests that are capable of detecting harm. As with other technologies like aeronautics and nuclear power, those who manufacture the products must not be the definitive source of safety data. Because rigorous safety testing has not happened with GMO crops, I remain skeptical.”

Another signatory, Dr Margarida Silva, biologist and professor at the Portuguese Catholic University, said, “Even if researchers did largely agree on GMO safety, that doesn’t make them correct. To paraphrase Albert Einstein, it only takes one study to prove a whole theory wrong – no matter how many scientists believed in it.

“In addition, research has been mostly financed by the very companies that depend on positive outcomes for their business, and we now know that where money flows, influence grows. The few independent academics left must work double shift to address the vast array of unanswered questions and red flags that keep piling up.”

A third signatory, Dr Raul Montenegro, biologist at the University of Cordoba, Argentina, said:

“Usually, analysis of GMO safety fails to consider four main issues. One: GMO plants, seeds and byproducts contain not only residues of commercial chemical pesticides, but also insecticidal proteins produced by the plant, like the Bt toxin Cry1Ab. Two: each commercial pesticide contains a cocktail of chemicals that undergo chemical changes within pesticide containers, when mixed with other pesticides, and when released in the environment. Three: In GMO agriculture each crop cycle begins with a higher background level of commercial pesticides and insecticidal proteins accumulated in agricultural soil, people’s homes and gardens, and exposed people. Four: GMO agriculture adds unwanted biodiversity (GMO genes) in countries having less and less natural biodiversity as a consequence of deforestation, pesticides, GMO insecticidal proteins and uncontrolled flux of engineered genomes.

“Countries as Argentina and Brazil are paradises for GMO agriculture because their governments have not established monitoring systems for disease and deaths from all causes, along with monitoring of the accumulation of residues of pesticides and GMO insecticidal proteins in exposed people and the environment, and variation of natural biodiversity indexes. If these monitoring systems were in place, it would be possible to measure the effects of GMO agriculture. As things stand, the governments of these countries deny that there is a problem even in the face of numerous reports from the people who are affected and the doctors who must treat them.”

Notes

[1] http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

[2] www.euractiv.com/science-policymaking/eu-chief-scientist-unethical-use-interview-530692

Read the Full Story here.

new organic grower Nearly 300 Scientists and Experts Agree GMOs not Proven Safe

Free Shipping Available for this book on sustainable gardening!

0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

China Blocks U.S. Pork Imports Due to Banned Animal Drug

China Blocks U.S. Pork Imports Due to Banned Animal Drug

Pin It

Ractopamine is a controversial animal drug that is banned in 160 countries, but not the United States. China is now refusing to allow several pork processing plants in the U.S. to import their meats which they say have tested positive for ractopamine.

Russian Officials Approve Fines for Individuals and Businesses Failing to Label GMOs

Russian Officials Approve Fines for Individuals and Businesses Failing to Label GMOs

Pin It

While the heavily funded Biotech industry along with major processed food companies in the U.S. continue to oppose any form of labeling requirements to allow consumers information on whether or not a product contains genetically modified ingredients, Russia is moving in the opposite direction, and now approving fines for failing to warn consumers that their products contain genetically modified ingredients.

Is Monsanto’s ‘Cure’ For World Hunger Cursing The Global Food Supply?

Is Monsanto’s ‘Cure’ For World Hunger Cursing The Global Food Supply?

Pin It

What if the very GM agricultural system that Monsanto claims will help to solve the problem of world hunger depends on a chemical that kills the very pollinator upon which approximately 70% of world’s food supply now depends?

A new study published in the Journal of Experimental Biology titled, “Effects of field-realistic doses of glyphosate on honeybee appetitive behavior,” establishes a link between the world’s most popular herbicide – aka Roundup – and the dramatic decline in honeybee populations in North American and Europe that lead to the coining of the term ‘colony collapse disorder.’

‘Right to Farm’ is Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Only Protects Corporate Ag

‘Right to Farm’ is Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Only Protects Corporate Ag

Pin It

On August 5, 2014, Missouri voters will decide on whether to pass Constitutional Amendment #1, also known as the “Right to Farm Amendment” (aka the “Right to Harm” amendment).

While the right to farm is something everyone should support, Amendment One serves as a bio-tech/concentrated animal feeding operation protection act–doing little to help the family farm. Supporters of the amendment include Monsanto, Cargill, Missouri Farm Bureau, Missouri Corn Growers, Missouri Cattleman’s Association, and Missouri Pork Association–all entities working to further the interests of industrial agriculture.

Help defeat this amendment in Monsanto’s home state!

USDA Doesn’t Need Submachine Guns – Disarm the Bureaucrats

USDA Doesn’t Need Submachine Guns – Disarm the Bureaucrats

Pin It

The recent solicitation by USDA for submachine guns raised concern among farmers and local food consumers. Why would an agency tasked with regulating agriculture in our country need such weapons?

Answer: It shouldn’t. Will you help stop this by urging your Congressman to support the Regulatory Agency Demilitarization Act, HR 4934?

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!