By Daniel Norero

Last Update: June 19, 2017.

Currently there is a social and political controversy about the safety of foods produced from genetically modified (GM) crops, however, in the scientific community there is no dispute or controversy regarding the safety of these technology. To date, more than 3000 scientific studies [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] have assessed the safety of these crops in terms of human health and environmental impact. These studies, together with several reviews performed on a case by case from regulatory agencies around the world, have enabled a solid and clear scientific consensus: GM crops have no more risk than those that have been developed by conventional breeding techniques.

In addition, there is also extensive literature that compiles the socioeconomic and environmental benefits that transgenic crops have reported in 2 decades of commercialization [9,10].

This document brings together the public statements of technical and scientific institutions that adhere to this consensus. I made an update based on this document from ChileBio that initially included 40 official documents representing about 190 institutions – the document from ChileBio was subsequently updated in 2017 with the institutions and statements attached here.

The update shows that 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize the safety of GM crops and their potential benefits. Interestingly a large part of these institutions are located in Europe, the continent that has put more obstacles to the commercialization of these crops. On the other hand, the countries with most organizations in favor of GM crops are United Kingdom (33), United States (25), Italy (23), Spain (16) and Germany (11).

Actualmente existe a nivel social y político una polémica en torno a la seguridad de los alimentos transgénicos, los cuales han sido producidos a partir de cultivos genéticamente modificados (GM), sin embargo, a nivel científico no existe polémica o controversia respecto a la seguridad de esta tecnología. A la fecha, más de 3000 estudios científicos [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] que han evaluado la seguridad de estos cultivos a nivel de salud humana e impacto ambiental, y estos, junto a diversas revisiones caso por caso de agencias regulatorias alrededor del mundo, han permitido establecer un consenso científico sólido y claro: los cultivos GM no presentan mayor riesgo que los que han sido desarrollados por técnicas de mejoramiento convencional.

Además, también existe amplia bibliografía que recopila los beneficios socioeconómicos y ambientales que los cultivos transgénicos han reportado en 2 décadas de comercialización [9,10].

El presente documento reúne a las instituciones técnicas y científicas que a través de declaraciones públicas adhieren a este consenso. He hecho una actualización utilizando como base un documento de ChileBio que incluye 40 documentos oficiales que representan a aproximadamente 190 instituciones – el documento de ChileBio fue posteriormente actualizado con las instituciones y declaraciones adjuntas aquí.

La actualización arrojó una cifra de 284 instituciones científicas y organizaciones que reconocen la seguridad de los cultivos GM y sus potenciales beneficios. Curiosamente la mayor cantidad de estas instituciones se ubican en Europa, el continente que más obstáculos ha puesto a la comercialización de estos cultivos. Por otro lado, los países que cuentan con mayor cantidad de organizaciones a favor de los cultivos GM son el Reino Unido (33), Estados Unidos (25), Italia (23), España (16) y Alemania (11).

Africa

Asia

Europe

Latin America

North America

Oceania

International Organizations

Africa (14)



Asia (5)

Philippines National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) Filipino Scientists in Support of Biotechnology (2001)



Europe (89)

Czech Republic Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic White Book: Genetically Modified Crops (2009)

France French Academy of Agriculture Conclusions du groupe de réflexion et de proposition de l’Academie d’Agriculture de France sur les Plantes Génétiquement Modifiées (2012)

European Union European Commission A Decade of EU Funded GMO Research (2010)

European Union European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) Planting the future: opportunities and challenges for using crop genetic improvement technologies for sustainable agriculture (2013)

* In this table the academies of Germany are 10, in the case of United Kingdom there are 33 institutions; 22 institutions from Italy, 14 from Spain, and 3 from France.

* The European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) currently has 29 members: one representative each from the 25 national science academies of EU member states, the Academia Europaea, ALLEA, and also representatives of the Norwegian and Swiss national academies of sciences.

Latin America (9)

Continent REDBIO (600 scientists from 21 countries) Viña del Mar Declaration: RedBio participants express support for agrobiotechnology (2007)

* The source is an interview where is mentioned the support of “Brazilian Association of Nutrition” to biofortified GM crops. A public statement should be corroborated.

North America (28)

Canada Canadian Cancer Society Food Issues: Genetically modified foods (2016)

USA Genetics Society of America Assessing Benefits and Risks of Genetically Modified Organisms (2001)

USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Questions & Answers on Food from Genetically Engineered Plants (2015)

USA Entomological Society of America ESA Position Statement on Transgenic Insect-Resistant Crops (2001)

USA American Cancer Society Common questions about diet and cancer: Genetically modified foods (2016)

USA American Veterinary Medical Association AVMA supports safety of GMO and GE foods (2017)

* The American Dietetic Association (ADA) has become The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND). While the above statement reflected the ADA’s position the president of AND has stated that AND is currently neutral and has no position on GMOs.

Oceania (7)

International Organizations (14)

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) The OECD Edinburgh Conference on the Scientific and Health Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods (2000)

International Society for Plant Pathology. Genetic modification for disease resistance: a position paper (2016)

International Congress on Poverty, hunger and emerging food (Catholic University of Valencia, Spain) Press: The World Congress against hunger concludes that GM doesn’t affect health (2016)

123 Nobel Prize Laureates Supporting Precision Agriculture (GMOs)** Laureates Letter Supporting Precision Agriculture (GMOs) (2017)

Asian Development Bank Agricultural Biotechnology, Poverty Reduction, and Food Security (2001)

* The document from the International Council for Science (ICSU) was signed in 2003 by 101 science academies and 27 scientific unions. ICSU currently has 31 Scientific Union Members and 121 National Scientific Members.

** The statement from Nobel prizes is included by the importance of the document, but it is not counted as an institution.

Final number

After categorizing the different institutions from Africa (14), Asia (5), Europe (89), Latin America (9), North America (28), Oceania (7) and internationals (14), a total of 166 institutions was obtained. If we add the 101 academies and 27 scientific unions that signed the document of the International Council for Science (ICSU), we get a figure of 294 institutions.

However, in the current 121 national scientific institutions that are members of ICSU, 13 already appear on the categorization by continents – the academies of sciences of Australia, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Czech Republic, France, India, Kenya, Ghana, Vatican, Mexico, UK and United States, and these academies where members of ICSU before the document was signed in 2003. Therefore, if we subtract these 13 members, we get a figure of 281 institutions.

But we must note that the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) is composed by 29 members, and 26 already appear on the categorization by continents or in the declaration of ICSU. So we must add the 3 remaining institutions (ALLEA, ‘Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts’, and the ‘Spanish Royal Academy of Sciences’) adding a final figure of 284.

In conclusion, 284 technical and scientific institutions recognize that GM crops are not riskier than those produced by conventional breeding, and/or the potential benefits of these crops.

Cifra final

Después de categorizar las diferentes instituciones de África (14), Asia (5), Europa (89), Latinoamérica (9), Norteamérica (28), Oceanía (7) e internacionales (14), se obtiene una suma de 166 instituciones. Si a esto sumamos las 101 academias y 27 uniones científicas que firmaron el documento del Consejo Internacional para la Ciencia (ICSU), obtenemos una cifra de 294 instituciones.

Sin embargo, dentro de las actuales 121 instituciones científicas nacionales que son miembro de ICSU, hay 13 que ya aparecen en la categorización por continentes (las academias de ciencias de Australia, Brasil, Camerún, Chile, República Checa, Francia, India, Kenya, Ghana, Vaticano, México, Reino Unido y Estados Unidos), y que son miembros de ICSU desde antes que se firmará el documento en el año 2003. Si restamos estos 13 miembros, la cifra queda en 281 instituciones.

Pero debemos notar que la European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) esta compuesta por 29 miembros, y 26 de estos ya aparecen en la categorización por continentes o en la declaración del ICSU. Así que debemos sumar las 3 instituciones restantes (ALLEA, Academia de Ciencias y Artes de Croacia, y la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de España), sumando una cifra final de 284 instituciones.

En conclusión, la cifra final es de 284 instituciones técnicas y científicas que reconocen que los cultivos GM no son más riesgosos que los producidos por métodos convencionales, y/o sus potenciales beneficios.

References

European Commission, 2010. A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001 – 2010). Available in: http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf Nicolia et al. (2013). An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 34 (1): 77-88 Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), 2014. “25 Jahre BMBF-Forschungsprogramme zur biologischen Sicherheitsforschung”. Available in: http://www.bmbf.de/pub/Biologische_Sicherheitsforschung.pdf Van Eenennaam et al. (2014). Prevalence and impacts of genetically engineered feedstuffs on livestock populations. Journal of Animal Science, 92 (10): 4255-4278 Information Platform for Animal Health and GM Feed (IPAFEED), 2015. Available in: http://www.ipafeed.eu/ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23395. Biology Fortified, 2014. “New resource shows half of GMO research is independent” (2014). GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas (GENERA). Available in: http://www.biofortified.org/2014/08/announcing-the-launch-of-the-genera-beta-test/ Sánchez, M. (2015). Conflict of interests and evidence base for GM crops food/feed safety research. Nature Biotechnology, 33: 135–137 Klümper W, Qaim M (2014) A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops. PLoS ONE, 9(11): e111629. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111629 GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996- 2015. Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot PG Economics Ltd, UK. Available in: http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/2017globalimpactstudy.pdf

Documentos de consulta recomendados sobre cultivos GM