General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEuropean Network of Scientists isssue statement: No scientific consensus on GMO safety
http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/....
1. There is no consensus on GM food safety
2. There are no epidemiological studies investigating potential effects of GM food consumption on human health
3. Claims that scientific and governmental bodies endorse GMO safety are exaggerated or inaccurate
4. EU research project does not provide reliable evidence of GM food safety
5. List of several hundred studies does not show GM food safety
6. There is no consensus on the environmental risks of GM crops
7. International agreements show widespread recognition of risks posed by GM foods and crops
...
Conclusion
In the scope of this document, we 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, often contradictory or inconclusive, confounded by researchers choices, assumptions, and funding sources, and in general, has raised more questions than it has currently answered.
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. They should, however, 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.
Decisions on the future of our food and agriculture should not be based on misleading and misrepresentative claims that a scientific consensus exists on GMO safety.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)as well.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts).
MineralMan
(147,299 posts)This is not a highly-recognized organization, I'm afraid. Rather, it is an advocacy organization.
They may be right, but that's far from certain. Agreement with the conclusions of an advocacy organization is not evidence of much of anything, really. It's just agreement with an advocacy organization.
That's all we really know about this organization.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)1. Michael Antoniou, PhD, Gene Expression and Therapy Group, School of Medicine, Kings College London, UK
2. Arnaud Apoteker, PhD in Applied Biology and physicochemistry, Belgium
3.Elena Avarez-Buylla, PhD, Professor of Molecular Genetics, Development and Evolution of Plants, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Mexico
And so on...
http://www.ensser.org/fileadmin/user_upload/First_signatories_to_the_statement_no_scientific_consensus_on_GMO_safety_131022.pdf
MineralMan
(147,299 posts)just their numbers and the nature of the organization.
That said, I don't know any of them, with regard to their reputations in their field. So, all I have is the PhD after their names on which to base my assessment of their credibility.
Maybe you're more familiar with these folks than I am.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)MineralMan
(147,299 posts)They vary in their qualifications, though.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)on that information, posting the link and the snip.
You should try it.
jimlup
(8,002 posts)I'm a Ph.D. physicist but I don't speak alphabet soup. While I figured it out it actually took me awhile. Please use the unabbreviated version at least once with the ensuing abbreviation in parenthesis.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)jimlup
(8,002 posts)Yeah I get frustrated with the Alphabet soup world sometimes...
The information itself is interesting to me though. Thanks...
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)GMO debate here in Belgium is very current, and I contribute to it. Can use this
The 2nd on the list, Arnaud Apoteker, has a funny name since Apoteker is dutch for Pharmacist, so I was thinking hmm could be a fake name. Went to check, he campaigns against GMOs for the European Greens in Parliament, so legit.
Thanks again!
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Berlum
(7,044 posts)Big Ag, Inc., Big Gene, Inc. and Big Chem, Inc. have been performing a massive OCCULT experiment -- with unpredictable results -- on human beings who have not given their consent, and who have not even been accorded the basic respect of being told that they are EXperimental subjects.
Their Mutant chemicalized foodlike "products" will have consequences.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)And they are the same whackjobs who say GMO foodlike crapola should remain OCCULTLY unlabeled. What does that tell you?
KoKo
(84,711 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)must be against science proven facts such as climate change. To be against frankenfoods is woo.
The science experiment that is altering food is dangerous at best. Then we are told we can feed the world with all these new advances, when that is not the problem and everyone knows it. Drugs that have been tested a thousand times more than GMOs create harmful side effects because organisms are complex and we understand so little about how the body works. We are already seeing the effects of altered wheat in the skyrocketing of celiac, Crohn's, and other digestive diseases. We are seeing the altering of hormones from super-estrogenic soy. How much collateral damage is acceptable?
If it's so great label it. If it's so healthful, test and prove it.