A group of independent scientists has challenged assertions that there is a consensus on the safety and usefulness of genetically modified (GM) crops. Over 300 experts signed a statement, which was published on Saturday (24th January).  

image expired

The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) published the statement in peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe this week, as attention returned to the issue of GM, following recent EU voting to allow licensing decisions on GM crops to be made by individual member state governments.

The UK government has already suggested it will act to approve GM crops, as suitable varieties become available on the European market. This has troubled many farmers – including organic producers – who worry that there won't be adequate provisions in place to protect conventional or organic crops from contamination, and as confusion remains over who will be liable if contamination of crops does occur.

Reacting to the EU decision earlier this month, Soil Association policy director Peter Melchett said, "The EU proposal fails to require countries to ensure that any GM crops grown will not contaminate GM free farms, nor to ensure that the cost of any contamination will fall on the shoulders of the GM companies who own the patented products, not on farmers or food businesses that suffer from pollution.

"The rights of farmers who do not wish to grow GM crops, particularly in England are therefore under threat by this proposal."

Though the British government is fiercely pro-GM, the devolved national governments of Scotland and Wales have both stated their opposition to the divisive technology.

No scientific consensus on crops' efficacy or safety

On Thursday, the ESSNER scientists restated their position that a supposed consensus on the safety of genetically modified crops is "An artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora."

The scientists stated that "Published results [from studies of GM crops] 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." They said this alone shows that there is nothing like a consensus on the broad and polarising issue, and point to UN biosafety guidelines as further evidence to support their position.

Signatories to the ENSSER statement added, "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."

The signatories stressed that they are not seeking to claim either that GM crops are safe or that they are unsafe, but instead wish to warn that debate and objective analysis of the controversial crops is in danger of being derailed.

The ENSSER statement was first published in 2013, in response to claims from the GM industry and supportive scientists and commentators that there is a "scientific consensus" that GM foods and crops are safe for human and animal health and the environment. The statement rejects these claims "misleading."

That year at the Oxford Farming Conference, former environmentalist and pro-GM commentator Mark Lynas had said "the GM debate is over – we no longer need to debate whether [GM crops are] safe."

Nicolas Defarge, a co-author of the ENSSER statement, commented on its reissue, "Progress in science occurs through controversial debate involving scientific arguments. Our statement, peer-reviewed and published in the open access literature, is now one of them. The debate about the health effects of the long-term consumption of GMOs and of the residues of pesticides they contain is ongoing. It can only be solved by further studies using accurate protocols enabling the investigation of long-term effects.

"These must be published in open access journals with the raw data being made available and not kept secret. We should bear in mind that the studies performed by industry to support the release of GMOs on the market are usually not peer-reviewed at the time the GMO is commercialized."

Another co-author to the statement, Jack Heinemann, Professor of Genetics and Molecular Biology at the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, added, "Public confidence in GMOs will not increase as long as some scientists try to keep the public and other scientists from asking legitimate questions about their safety, efficacy and value. Even if all questions about existing GM plants were answered tomorrow, that would not mean that future products should be exempt from questioning and thorough testing.

"Instead of shouting, 'Don't look here, we have a consensus already', we should address the cause of public mistrust. This is best done by embracing open discussions of GMOs informed from a variety of points of view, acknowledging and including the true diversity of scientific opinions."

Costa Rica: GM approvals unconstitutional

Elsewhere this week, Costa Rica's Supreme Court declared the national GM approval process to be "unconstitutional."

Chief Justice Gilbert Armijo Sancho ruled that Costa Rica's approval process went against freedom of information legislation, after complaints from anti-GM activists brought the matter to the court's attention.