Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > No scientific consensus on GMO safety

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

No scientific consensus on GMO safety

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

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

In: Environmental Sciences Europe, Vol. 27, 4, 24.01.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

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, BE 2015, 'No scientific consensus on GMO safety', Environmental Sciences Europe, vol. 27, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

APA

Hilbeck, A., Binimelis, R., Defarge, N., Steinbrecher, R., Székács, A., Wickson, F., Antoniou, M., Bereano, P. L., Clark, E. A., Hansen, M., Novotny, E., Heinemann, J., Meyer, H., Shiva, V., & Wynne, B. E. (2015). No scientific consensus on GMO safety. Environmental Sciences Europe, 27, [4]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

Vancouver

Hilbeck A, Binimelis R, Defarge N, Steinbrecher R, Székács A, Wickson F et al. No scientific consensus on GMO safety. Environmental Sciences Europe. 2015 Jan 24;27. 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

Author

Hilbeck, Angelika ; Binimelis, Rosa ; Defarge, Nicolas ; Steinbrecher, Ricarda ; Székács, András ; Wickson, Fern ; Antoniou, Michael ; Bereano, Philip L. ; Clark, Ethel Ann ; Hansen, Michael ; Novotny, Eva ; Heinemann, Jack ; Meyer, Hartmut ; Shiva, Vandana ; Wynne, Brian Edward. / No scientific consensus on GMO safety. In: Environmental Sciences Europe. 2015 ; Vol. 27.

Bibtex

@article{8fee738dd1e341ff9520b561d64686d8,
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{\textquoteright}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 {\textquoteleft}safe{\textquoteright}. 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 Andr{\'a}s 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 Wynne, {Brian Edward}",
year = "2015",
month = jan,
day = "24",
doi = "10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
journal = "Environmental Sciences Europe",
issn = "2195-4194",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - No scientific consensus on GMO safety

AU - Hilbeck, Angelika

AU - Binimelis, Rosa

AU - Defarge, Nicolas

AU - Steinbrecher, Ricarda

AU - Székács, András

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 Edward

PY - 2015/1/24

Y1 - 2015/1/24

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.

U2 - 10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

DO - 10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1

M3 - Journal article

VL - 27

JO - Environmental Sciences Europe

JF - Environmental Sciences Europe

SN - 2195-4194

M1 - 4

ER -