Scientists Declare No Consensus on GMO Safety

[swineflu]

"A group of 93 scientists from all over the world deplore the disinformation over the safety of GMOs and expose the lack of empirical and scientific evidence on which the false claims of “consensus” on safety are being made

The number of signatories has increased to 230 by 30 October, among them, Dr Belinda Martineau, who helped commercialise the world’s first GM food, the Flav Savr tomato.

As scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a “scientific consensus” on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is “over”.

We feel compelled to issue this statement because the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist. The claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue. Moreover, the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.

Science and society do not proceed on the basis of a constructed consensus, as current knowledge is always open to well-founded challenge and disagreement. We endorse the need for further independent scientific inquiry and informed public discussion on GM product safety and urge GM proponents to do the same."

1. Luigi de Andrea, PhD, Expert in Biosafety Issues, Switzerland
2. Michael Antoniou, PhD, Gene Expression and Therapy Group, School of Medicine, King’s College London, UK
3. Arnaud Apoteker, PhD, Belgium
4. Elena Avarez-Buylla, PhD, Professor of Molecular Genetics, Development and Evolution of Plants, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Mexico
5. Carlos H. Avila-Bello, PhD,Professor of Ethnobotany and Agricultural Sciences, University of Veracruz, Mexico
6. Susan Bardocz, PhD DSc, Professor, UK
7. Narciso Barrera Bassols, PhD, Professor of Geography, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Mexico
8. Fiorella Belpoggi, PhD, Cesare Malto ni Cancer Research Center, Italy
9. Charles Benbrook, PhD, Research Professor, Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, Washington State University Pullmann, USA
10. Philip Bereano, JD, Professor Emeritus, University of Washington / Vice-President Washington Biotechnology Action Council, USA
11. Pushpa Bhargava, PhD, Founding Director Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad / Padma Bhushan Award 1986, India
12. Rosa Binimelis, PhD, Board Member ENSSER, Norway
13. Eckart Boege, PhD, Professor Emeritus, National Institute of Anthropology and History, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Mexico
14. Tom Børsen, PhD, Associate Professor, Denmark
15. Gianluca Brunori, PhD, Professor, Italy
16. Marcello Buiatti, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Italy
17. Andres Carrasco, MD, Molecular Embryology Laboratory, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
18. Bert Christie, PhD PAg, Research Scientist in Agriculture and Agri-Food, retired, Canada
19. E. Ann Clark, PhD, Associate Professor, University of Guelph, retired, Canada
20. Joe Cummins, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Genetics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
21. Béla Darvas, PhD, Professor, Hungary
22. John Day, MD, Physician, USA
23. James M. Diamond, MD, American Academy of Pediatrics, USA
24. Richard Doherty, MD, Professor Emeritus, University of Rochester, USA
25. Paul Dorfman, PhD, UK
26. Steven M. Druker, JD, Executive Director, Alliance for Bio-Integrity, USA
27. Alejandro Espinosa, PhD, Professor of Genetics, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP), Mexico
28. John Fagan, PhD, Earth Open Source, UK
29. Eric A. Goewie, D.Eng, Professor, Entomologist, The Netherlands
30. Andrew Paul Gutierrez, PhD, Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley, USA
31. Michael Hansen, PhD, USA
32. Jack Heinemann, PhD, Professor of Biosafety, New Zealand
33. Hans Rudolf Herren, PhD, Founder and President Biovision Foundation / Right Livelihood Award 2013 / World Food Prize 1995, Switzerland
34. Angelika Hilbeck, PhD, Chair of ENSSER, Switzerland
35. Mae-Wan Ho, PhD, Geneticist, Biosafety Expert, Quantum Biologist, Institute of Science in Society, UK
36. Frieder Hofmann, Ecology Office (Ökologie Büro), Germany
37. C. Vyvyan Howard, PhD, Professor, Nano Systems Biology, Centre for Molecular Bioscience, University of Ulster / Medically qualified toxicopathologist, Ireland
38. Don Huber, PhD, Professor Emeritus, USA
39. Ketil Hylland, PhD, Professor of Toxicology and Integrative Biology, Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Norway
40. Jonathan Latham, PhD, Executive Director, The Bioscience Resource Project, USA
41. Enrique Leff, PhD, Professor of Environmental Sociology and Economics, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Mexico
42. Carlo Leifert, PhD, Research Development Professor for Ecological Agriculture, University of Newcastle, UK
43. Deborah Letourneau, PhD, Professor of Environmental Studies, USA
44. Les Levidow, PhD, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Technology, Open University, UK
45. Robert Mann, PhD, Senior Lecturer in Biochemistry and in Environmental Studies, University of Auckland, retired, NZ
46. Jan Diek van Mansvelt, DSc, retired, The Netherlands
47. Lyla Mehta, PhD, Fellow in Development Studies, UK
48. Leonardo Melgarejo,Agricultural Engineer, Brasil
49. Martha Mertens, PhD, Institute for Biodiversity Network, Germany
50. Hartmut Meyer, PhD, Member of ENSSER, Germany
51. Erik Millstone, PhD, Professor of Science and Technology Policy, University of Sussex, UK
52. Rubens Onofre Nodari, PhD, Professor, Brazil
53. Eva Novotny, PhD, University of Cambridge, retired, UK
54. Leon Olive, PhD, Professor of Philosophy, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Mexico
55. Mathias Otto, PhD, Biologist, Member of ENSSER, Germany
56. Thibaud d' Oultremont, PhD, Modeling and Simulation of Water and Land Ecosystems, Belgium
57. Jean-Michel Panoff, PhD, France
58. Bas Pedroli, PhD, Associate Professor, Land Use Planning Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
59. Ivette Perfecto, PhD, Professor of Natural Resources and Environment, USA
60. Michel Pimbert, PhD, Centre for Agroecology and Food Security, Coventry University, UK
61. Alma Piñeyro, PhD, Postdoctoral Researcher in Plant Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, USA
62. Luigi Ponti, PhD, Research associate, Italy
63. Arpad Pusztai, PhD, Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, UK
64. Paulo Cezar Mendes Ramos, PhD, Environmental Analysist, Chico Mendes Biodiversity Conversation Institute/ Member of the National Biosafety Technical Commission, Brasil
65. Leda Raptis, PhD, Professor, Cancer Researcher, Canada
66. Irina Rodriguez de la Flor, JD, Health Defense Organization, Spain
67. Suman Sahai, PhD, Gene Campaign, India
68. Peter Saunders, PhD, Professor Emeritus in Applied Mathematics, King’s College London / Co-Director Institute of Science in Society, UK
69. David Schubert, PhD, USA
70. Gilles-Eric Seralini, PhD, President of the Scientific Council of the Comité de Recherche etd'Information Indépendantes sur le génie GENétique (CRIIGEN), France
71. José -Antonio Serratos-Hernández, PhD, Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México (UACM), Mexico
72. Vandana Shiva, PhD, Navdanya /Research Foundation for Science Technology and Ecology,India
73. Av Singh, PhD PAg, Just Us! Centre for Small Farms, Canada
74. Eva Sirinathsinghji, PhD, Molecular Biologist, Institute of Science in Society, UK
75. Gerald Smith, PhD, Professor Emeritus, USA
76. Ricarda A. Steinbrecher, PhD, biologist and molecular geneticist, Director EcoNexus, UK
77. Mark Stemen, PhD, Associate Professor,
USA
78. Andy Stirling, PhD, Professor of Science and Technology Policy, UK
79. Peter Stonehouse, PhD, Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University
of Guelph, retired, The Netherlands
80. Beatrix Tappeser, PhD, Board Member Federation of German S
cientists, Germany
81. Antonio Turrent, PhD, Professor in Agricultural Science, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones
Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP), Mexico
82. John Vandermeer, PhD, Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University
of Michigan, USA
83. Christian Vélot, PhD, France
84. Henk Verhoog, PhD, The Netherlands
85. Hermann Waibel, PhD, Professor, Germany
86. Tom Wakeford, PhD, Senior Research Fellow, Interdisciplinary Social Sciences in Health, University of Edinburgh, UK
87.Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, PhD, Professor, Co-Chair International Resource Panel of the UN Environmental Programme / Co-President The Club of Rome, Germany
88. David S. Williams, PhD, Professor, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
89. Peter R. Wills, PhD, Professor, Department of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
90. Allison Wilson, PhD, USA
91. Madeleen Winkler, MD, General practitioner, The Netherlands
92. Brian Wynne, PhD, Professor of Science Studies, Lancaster University, UK
93. José Luis Yela, PhD, Professor, Entomologist,Spain

[Rukentuts]

This is a pure example of argument from authority.

[swineflu]

This is a pure example of argument from authority.

argument from a learned authority

[Rukentuts]

argument from a learned authority

From the link:

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include[2][3] any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence.[4]

That would be you.

[wowsucks]

This is a pure example of argument from authority.

"Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not an argument for establishing facts."

It has nothing to do with this particular declaration because nobody's trying to establish facts, they're merely saying there's no consensus on GMOs safety, if there was they would not be signing this letter. Somebody is in denial

[Rukentuts]

"Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not an argument for establishing facts."

It has nothing to do with this particular declaration because nobody's trying to establish facts, they're merely saying there's no consensus on GMOs safety, if there was they would not be signing this letter. Somebody is in denial

You're assuming from perceived position of authority alone that these people are even qualified to give scientific views on the subject.

[Eviscero]

This is a pure example of argument from authority.

"We feel compelled to issue this statement because the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist."

How is this argument from authority?

Some group claims there exists a consensus in the scientific community and, here, members of the scientific community provide evidence refuting this claim.

Now, if I said,

"A majority of scientists believe GMO are not harmful and scientists should be trusted on this subject, therefore GMOs are not harmful," then I would be engaging in a fallacious argument of authority.

[Zecora]

I expect this is taken from here?

It is one thing is if a scientist researching petrochemical reactions speaks up about the biosafety of GMO food, you can probably disregard that. But this lists include a lot of people who work in agriculture, biosafety and genetics. What is the point of having highly educated people if you're going to disregard the statements they make about their field of expertise?

This list should make people think again before they swallow the Monsanto propaganda about GMO's being safe, without more research.

[Eviscero]

You're assuming from perceived position of authority alone that these people are even qualified to give scientific views on the subject.

It's perfectly clear what you THINK is being said. That doesn't make it true. Stop being argumentative and stop letting your bias cloud your vision. This has nothing to do with whether or not you, me, or the OP believe GMOs are safe and even less to do with what form of argument is being used to reach those conclusions. Read the quote for what it is, not for what you think it relates to or how it makes you feel.

[wowsucks]

You're assuming from perceived position of authority alone that these people are even qualified to give scientific views on the subject.

Biologists and molecular geneticists, bio safety experts, professors in their field from all over the world seem pretty qualified to me, not less qualified than any other expert on that matter.

[Zecora]

Right, an the overwhelming majority of PhDs on that list aren't PhDs in a field where they can speak to GMO as an expert. Their opinions hold no more weight on the issue than some random poster on the internet. That is why I chuckle when I see similar arguments from people who are certain human intervnetion is behind our modest change in climate over 100 years. They can't replicate the models the experts use, let alone have the basic understanding of climate, but assert their opinion to be correct just because others with higher education than theirs shares their opinion.

Who on that list would you say is not qualified to talk about GMO's? Do not forget that genetics is a field that touch upon a WIDE variety of scientific fields.
Keep in mind also that they haven't actually issued any statements as to the safety of GMO's, just on the lack of a consensus. This is basically a call for more research, especially independant research, which is something I can't really understand anyone having trouble with. Surely you support more knowledge?

[Rukentuts]

Biologists and molecular geneticists, bio safety experts, professors in their field from all over the world seem pretty qualified to me, not less qualified than any other expert on that matter.

This is why appeals to authority are fallacious. Ignorant masses will accept "trust me, I'm a doctor" over actual evidence, when the latter is what is actually compelling.

[Sinyc]

It's perfectly clear what you THINK is being said. That doesn't make it true. Stop being argumentative and stop letting your bias cloud your vision. This has nothing to do with whether or not you, me, or the OP believe GMOs are safe and even less to do with what form of argument is being used to reach those conclusions. Read the quote for what it is, not for what you think it relates to or how it makes you feel.

/endthread

[Underverse]

His argument is that there is no consensus, and because of this published dissent, that seems to be the case. I think you're reading into it too much, Rukentuts.

[Rukentuts]

His argument is that there is no consensus, and because of this published dissent, that seems to be the case. I think you're reading into it too much, Rukentuts.

Look at his past started topics and you'll see why I'm "reading too much into it".

[wowsucks]

This is why appeals to authority are fallacious. Ignorant masses will accept "trust me, I'm a doctor" over actual evidence, when the latter is what is actually compelling.

Wow, the denial is strong, let me repeat myself, they're merely saying there's no consensus on GMOs safety, if there was they would not be signing this letter. They did sign this letter and they're scientists qualified in the field, some think GMOs are safe, some think not, that means there's no consensus among scientists. Nobody's trying to establish any facts

[Zecora]

Anyone with experience in a field that connects to GMO. Since half those people don't have a field or department next to their names, just PhDs, it's safe to assume their PhDs aren't in a field related to GMO since plenty have that title. But a professor in physics or history, as at least two are on that list, while probably very intelligent, have no background in genetic engineering. Their opinions hold as much weight on the subject as anyone else who has read studies. As Rukentuts stated, their inclusion on that list is simply an appeal to authority.

In other words, you presume that they have no background in any field touching on genetics, and you do so without any actual evidence to back it up. Okay...

Anyhow, like I pointed out, this is not a statement on the safety of GMO food, but a statement of no scientific consensus existing (which is someone any scientist would be qualified to look into) and a call for more independant research into the effect of GMO.

I presume you support that?

[Underverse]

Anyone with experience in a field that connects to GMO. Since half those people don't have a field or department next to their names, just PhDs, it's safe to assume their PhDs aren't in a field related to GMO since plenty have that title. But a professor in physics or history, as at least two are on that list, while probably very intelligent, have no background in genetic engineering. Their opinions hold as much weight on the subject as anyone else who has read studies. As Rukentuts stated, their inclusion on that list is simply an appeal to authority.

There are plenty of people on that list who have background in molecular genetic or agricultural engineering.

[Zecora]

I'm all for research, conducted and explained by people who understand the field. I don't want a geneticist to do a study and then have it repeated to me by someone with a PhD in Political Science. I don't care what their opinion is on the matter, which is what happens with 99% of articles we read - the study is published and then spoonfed to the masses by some journalist who has a questionable understanding of the source material at best. Just look at the recent reports claiming Hawking said Black Holes don't exist. All he really said was that the event horizon can't keep light and other matter from escaping permanetly - eventually (after billions/trillions of years) it will escape. But that isn't exciting, so media reports that they no longer exist.

If you are in favour of more research, why are you seemingly bashing a list of scientists that also want more research?

Again, i don't see the inherent risk of eating GMO food. As others have stated, we've been genetically modifying plants since the dawn of agriculture. Adding a gene from a jelly fish isn't going to suddenly make the food toxic. Too many people watch science fiction movies and think that they're going to become spider-man or grow another limb if they eat something genetically modified.

Given your previous scepticism towards people without an education in genetics speaking up on the issue of GMO safety, I feel compelled to ask why you apparently feel qualified to speak up on the matter?

Also, genetic manipulation of plants and selective breeding is not the same. One is known to be safe and stable, the other...is not.

[Dezerte]

No consensus among these scientists, just to be clear. And some of them doesn't look like they belong there, e.g. a philosophy professor.

I'd also refer to this

As discussed above, there is a widespread perception that eating food from genetically modified crops is more risky than eating food from conventionally farmed crops. However, there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from such crops poses no greater risk than conventional food.^{[1][2][3][4][74][75][76]}