Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
that no health harms attributed to genetic engineering have
been documented, nor are they expected to arise. Most other
health and scientific organizations agree, including
•AmericanAssociationfortheAdvancementofScience
•AmericanMedicalAssociation
•FoodStandardsAustraliaandNewZealand
•FrenchAcademyofScience
•RoyalSocietyofMedicine
•EuropeanCommission
•Union of German Academies of Sciences and
Humanities
•Sevenotheracademiesofscience(Brazil,China,India,
Mexico, Third World Academy of Sciences, Royal Society
(United Kingdom), and the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States)
•WorldHealthOrganization
As mentioned previously, when one consults prestigious
scientific organizations they generally testify that GM foods
are safe, but there are some individual scientists who dis-
sent. Earth Open Source published a topic in 2012 arguing
that GM food is unsafe, and listed the many animal-feeding
trials as evidence. It contains alarming sentences: “Mice fed
GM soy showed disturbed liver pancreas and testes func-
tion....Old and young mice fed GM
Bt
maize showed a
marked disturbance in immune system cells in biochemical
activity. . . . Female sheep fed
Bt
GM maize over three genera-
tions showed disturbances in the functioning of the digestive
system.” These are real effects observed in real studies, so why
did the National Academy of Sciences say GMOs are safe?
In any study investigating the impact of a certain food
source on animals, animal health will vary across groups for
reasons other than the feed. Even the most scientific trials
contain an element of randomness. For example, for any two
groups of almost identical mice, one group will be healthier
