17 Comments

  1. blank DrGreenThumb says:

    To date there remains a dearth of evidence showing genetic modification poses any inherent risks. That does mean we should be complacent. We should improve regulatory oversight and institute clear testing guidelines for new genetically modified traits. However, we must acknowledge that the fears propagated by websites like this one have no basis in fact.

  2. blank Pressed Rat and Warthog says:

    ENSERR is a group with a political bias inherent in it’s name.

    How about picking a group that isn’t self-selected to this bias, like the EASAC, the European Academies Science Advisory Council.

    The report from EASAC, published in June 2013, warns of the “grave scientific, economic and social consequences of current European Union policy towards GM crops”, saying European countries should “rethink” their widespread rejection of the technology.

    The study came as a blow to environmentalists opposing GMOs as it received backing from the national science academies of all EU member states, plus Norway and Switzerland.

    NATIONAL SCIENCE COMMITTEES OF ALL EU member states sure sounds like a consensus to me.

    “We estimate that around 90% of the literature on which the conclusions of the report are based is on non-industry funded, peer-reviewed research,” said Sofie Vanthournout, head of the Brussels office of EASAC.

    “In this specific case, extra care was taken in order to ensure that none of the experts had strong ties with industry, although a certain level of industry connections cannot be completely excluded,” she told EurActiv, saying the report included several peer-review rounds by external experts and scientific academies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *