A broad community of independent scientific researchers and scholars challenges recent claims of a consensus over the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the following joint statement, the claimed consensus is shown to be an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated through diverse fora. Irrespective of contradictory evidence in the refereed literature, as documented below, the claim that there is now a consensus on the safety of GMOs continues to be widely and often uncritically aired. For decades, the safety of GMOs has been a hotly controversial topic that has been much debated around the world. Published results are contradictory, in part due to the range of different research methods employed, an inadequacy of available procedures, and differences in the analysis and interpretation of data. Such a lack of consensus on safety is also evidenced by the agreement of policymakers from over 160 countries-in the UN's Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and the Guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius-to authorize careful case-by-case assessment of each GMO by national authorities to determine whether the particular construct satisfies the national criteria for 'safe'. Rigorous assessment of GMO safety has been hampered by the lack of funding independent of proprietary interests. Research for the public good has been further constrained by property rights issues, and by denial of access to research material for researchers unwilling to sign contractual agreements with the developers, which confer unacceptable control over publication to the proprietary interests. The joint statement developed and signed by over 300 independent researchers, and reproduced and published below, does not assert that GMOs are unsafe or safe. Rather, the statement concludes that the scarcity and contradictory nature of the scientific evidence published to date prevents conclusive claims of safety, or of lack of safety, of GMOs. Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature.
Underestimation of the pivotal role played by managed and native insect pollinators is a key constraint to the sustainability of contemporary agricultural practices. The economic value of such insects to pollination, seed set, and fruit formation greatly outweighs that suggested by more conventional indices, such as the value of honey and wax produced by honeybees. Although the European honeybee has been widely regarded as the single most important pollinating species, the increasing spread of trachael and Varroa mites and Africanized bees threatens the distribution and magnitude of traditional honeybeekeeping enterprises in North America. A number of other bee and insect pollinators, such as orchard bees, bumblebees, and squash bees, which are not affected by either the mites or the Africanized bees, are considered as likely candidates for management and use in commercial agriculture. An additional role can be played by native or wild pollinators, provided that attention is given to curtailing of population losses caused by both inadvertent insecticide poisoning and habitat destruction. To ensure a reliable source of pollinators, both managed and native, a more comprehensive strategy for management of crop pollination is needed. Elements of this strategy include an increased understanding of the biology and ecology of pollinating insects, as well as providing appropriate nesting habitat, and ensuring the availability of alternative sources°f 'forage 99 to sustain populations when the target crops are not in bloom. Examples are discussed to illustrate how private initiatives and changes to public policy can enhance pollinator habitat, and ultimately, agricultural productivity.
Before release into commerce, genetically engineered organisms are first assessed for possible risks, including risks to the environment. The present paper first identifies the environmental risks recognized by regulators, and reviews the parameters considered predictive of risk. Recent field-scale studies suggest opportunities for improvement of the environmental risk assessment process. Risks unique to genetically engineered crops -if any -could pertain to the specific traits chosen for commercialization and to unintended trait expression caused by the process of transgene insertion itself. Both the standard against which to compare genetically engineered traits and the scale of exposure need to be considered when assessing environmental impact. Evidence of environmental risk in the recognized areas of weediness on agricultural land, invasiveness of unmanaged systems, and non-target impacts from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) maize is presented. Targeted, statistically sound, rigorously conducted, multi-trophic studies analogous to the Field Scale Evaluation trials recently completed in the UK are needed to clarify the many questions which remain unanswered.
Clark, E. A. 1998. Landscape variables affecting livestock impacts on water quality in the humid temperature zone. Can. J. Plant Sci. 78: [181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190]. The potential for impact by grazing livestock on unprotected watercourses may vary with climate, with landscape level factors including the landform within which the pasture is located, with the biophysical characteristics of the watercourse itself, and with pasture and grazing management practices. Policies seeking to implement cost-effective measures to protect downstream water quality need to acknowledge large-scale as well as small-scale processes which can moderate or exacerbate potential sources of pollution. Applied and scholarly evidence suggest that unrestricted livestock access accounts for a relatively modest share of watercourse pollution in humid temperate regions, as compared with such watershed-specific factors as leaking septic tanks and confinement feeding systems. A wide variety of evidence suggests that the degree of compatibility of grazing livestock with a healthy riparian ecosystem should be viewed as an hypothesis that is testable on a site-specific basis. Greater understanding of the factors causal to livestock behavior in, and impact on, watercourses may help to better focus preventative and remediation efforts by both producers and policymakers.Key words: Riparian ecosystem; beef cattle; pasture fertility; soil and water conservation Clarke, E. A. 1998. Influence des variables paysagères modulant les incidences du bétail sur la qualité de l'eau dans la zone tempérée humide. Can. J. Plant Sci. 78: 181-190. Les incidences de la mise à l'herbe des bestiaux le long des voies d'eau non protégées peuvent varier selon le climat, selon les caractères du paysage, notamment, le modelé du terrain dans lequel les bêtes broutent et selon les propriétés biophysiques de la voie d'eau ainsi que sur les modalités de conduite du couvert herbage et de la paissance. Les politiques visant à mettre en place des mesures rentables de protection de la qualité de l'eau en aval doivent prendre en compte les macro et micro mécanismes susceptibles de modérer ou au contraire d'exacerber les sources éventuelles de pollution. Les épreuves, tant au niveau de l'application qu'au niveau expérimental, portent à croire que l'accès sans restriction aux animaux de ferme ne représente qu'une partie relativement modeste de la pollution des voies d'eau dans les régions à climat tempéré humide en regard des sources de pollution plus ponctuelles comme les fuites de fosses septiques et les parcs d'engraissement. Un vaste éventail de preuves suggère que la compatibilité du pâturage avec un écosystème de rivage sain doit être abordée comme une hypothèse à vérifier au cas par cas. Une meilleure compréhension des facteurs déterminant du comportement des animaux de ferme et de leurs impacts sur les voies d'eau devrait permettre aux producteurs comme aux décideurs de mieux cerner les mesures préventives et curatives possibles.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.