What Independent Scientists Think Of GM Crops

Genetic Modification

• Lack of public accountability in the GM science community
• Lack of independent, disinterested (English language note - disinterested means not interested for reasons of personal gain - it does not mean uninterested) scientific research into, and assessment of, the hazards of GM
• Partisan attitude of regulatory and other public information bodies, which appear more intent on spreading corporate propaganda than providing crucial information
• Pervasive commercial and political conflicts of interests in both research and development and regulation of GM Suppression and vilification of scientists who try to convey research information to the public that is deemed to harm the industry
• Persistent denial and dismissal of extensive scientific evidence on the hazards of GM to health and the environment by proponents of genetic modification and by supposedly disinterested advisory and regulatory bodies. (English language note - disinterested means not interested for reasons of personal gain - it does not mean uninterested)
• Continuing claims of GM benefits by the biotech corporations, and repetitions of these claims by the scientific establishment, in the face of extensive evidence that GM has failed both in the field and in the laboratory
• Reluctance to recognize that the corporate funding of academic research in GM is already in decline, and that the biotechnology multinationals (and their shareholders) as well as investment consultants are now questioning the wisdom of the 'GM enterprise'
• Attacks on, and summary dismissal of, extensive evidence pointing to the benefits of various sustainable agricultural approaches for health and the environment, as well as for food security and social well-being of farmers and their local communities.

You can read an executive summary or download the full 136 page report.

Links

Back to Food & GM introduction

Nov 04