This is a response to Hector Valenzuela’s community voice, entitled: “The Science Behind Hawaii Island Bill 113”.

I disagree with Hector on this topic but I suspect we otherwise have much in common. However, he is arguing that we should fear GM food, and some of his statements need to be disputed.

He incorrectly says: “No scientific consensus exists about the safety of GM crops.”

Here is a graphic illustrating scientific consensus. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world’s largest (more than 125,000 members) and most prestigious scientific society, issued the following statement:

“The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”

While no one should claim anything is absolutely safe, scientists overwhelmingly agree that transgenic plants are as safe as their nontransgenic counterparts, and the AAAS statement above is clearly one of consensus. Hector is correct to point out dissent, but the dissenting scientists don’t hold the consensus.

The AAAS statement on labeling GM foods reiterates their statement on safety, and refutes the studies that claim harm by GM foods.

His statement that no consensus exists is followed by a link to a letter (from the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility) which in turn links to references that for the most part cannot be followed. Of the links that can be followed, most claim that GMO foods are safe, like this one.

Their statement also disqualifies most of the scientific literature on this topic because they claim it is supported by industry funding, yet the widely disputed Seralini and Carman studies are cited.

While those papers cannot be accessed through that letter, I am familiar with those publications. The Seralini study used far too small a sample size for the rats used, and the Carman study differentiated moderate and severe inflammation in a way that favored a provocative conclusion.

His statement that “many of the cited studies actually show harm” is likewise provocative, and should have included references.

He states: “The claim that no one has been harmed from consuming GM crops, repeatedly made by industry and by support academics, is false, ludicrous and irresponsible—as NO epidemiological studies have been conducted on humans …”

He seems to be claiming someone has been harmed.

He got my attention, but when I clicked through the link, it was a video of him talking. As epidemiological studies generally analyze disease in populations, the lack of a study may be because nobody has linked a disease to GM food.

I find it implausible that nobody, especially the GM skeptics, has looked for such a link.

Hector incorrectly says that, “Claims that new GM varieties are necessary in Hawaii to ‘save’ a crop from future pests are unfounded and undocumented.”

The transgenic Rainbow papaya saved the papaya industry on the Big Island.

Undocumented? That phenomenon was the subject of the award-winning PBS documentary “Harvest of Fear” in 2004. The papaya industry is still important on the Big Island, but Bill 113 is hurting it.

Finally, I am probably in general agreement with Hector that we need to decrease the use of herbicide-tolerant crops, but that is a separate issue from transgenic papaya, Bt corn and Bill 113. I look forward to having that conversation someday.

About the author: Michael Shintaku is a professor of Plant Pathology at the UH-Hilo College of Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Management. (He is expressing his own opinions, not his employer’s.)

Community Voices aims to encourage broad discussion on many topics of community interest. It’s kind of a cross between Letters to the Editor and op-eds. This is your space to talk about important issues or interesting people who are making a difference in our world. Columns generally run about 800 words (yes, they can be shorter or longer) and we need a photo of the author and a bio. We welcome video commentary and other multimedia formats. Send to news@civilbeat.com.