GMO science denialists? ENSSER challenges WHO, National Academy of Sciences on GM safety

Last October, food writer Michael Pollan actively promoted a European advocacy group making the dubious case that genetically modified foods are dangerous to eat.Screen Shot 2014-05-27 at 12.07.53 PM

Scientists and science journalists just shook their heads in bewilderment. Pollan had just tweeted a news release issued by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, better known by its acronym. ENSSER certainly has an impressive sounding title, but that disguises a questionable agenda, say scientists—one that Pollan and other journalists are certainly acquainted with.

For those not in the know, ENSSER is an organization with an ideology. It has a mission statement that purports to promote “critical thinking fora (sic) scientists” and a commitment to rectify the “negative impacts of new technologies and their products.” On biotechnology, its members believe—this is faith and not science—that the debate over GMOs is over, that they are harmful and should be banned or restricted out of existence. While ENSSER is widely quoted by activists, its profile among mainstream scientists and journalists—with a handful of exceptions—has been miniscule.

The last year has seen a sea change in the views of the chattering classes about GMOs. While the debate over labeling rages in various states and in the cyberspace driven media, concerns about whether GMO foods might pose health hazards has receded among the intelligentsia.

Two years ago, for example, anti-GMO campaigners, led by ENSSER, hyped the now infamous rat cancer study study by French scientist Gilles-Erich Séralini that purported to link GMO corn to cancer. While the best journalists immediately reported on the flaws in the study, activist writers were quick to play the fear card.Screen Shot 2014-05-27 at 12.09.11 PM

The controversial Séralini study sparked an immediate furor among independent scientists, including those who support the labeling of GM foods but found his research sloppy and poorly documented. Scientists have often responded forcefully after the release of poorly constructed studies. What was unusual that time was that they were joined by disgusted science journalists, who traditionally have given activists, foodies and NGOs a free pass on this issue. The study was ultimately retracted last November because of its alleged scientific dubiousness and expunged from the science record.

Over the past two years, a stream of articles have buttressed the growing sense that GM opponents have become, in the words of Discover blogger Keith Kloor writing in Slate, “the climate skeptics of the Left.” We’ve reached an intellectual tipping point on this controversy. Almost every prominent liberal journalism outlet, from the New York Times to Scientific American to The Atlantic, has prominently featured an article contrasting the growing disconnect between scientists who view GMOs as safe and popular fears hyped by some foodie heroes and organic activists.

Which brings us back to ENSSER. It was established in 2009 before many “liberals” embraced opposition to GMOs as a litmus test issue. The organization has not aggressively encouraged science education. Rather it has focused on organizing media events and tours to promote controversial research by Séralini and other researchers who claim to have identified health dangers. It appears their goal is to bypass the science establishment and talk directly to legislators and consumers with an emotional relationship to food and an antipathy to technology.

ENSSER’s strategy has gotten some traction in Europe, where public fears have prompted some governments to ignore the science consensus among their own agencies. Its profile jumped last fall with the release of the October statement claiming support from 93 signators (the number has since grown to more than 300):

As scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a “scientific consensus” on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is “over”. We feel compelled to issue this statement because the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist.

The declaration became a sensation in anti-GMO conspiracy circles after heavy promotion by Pollan, the Organic Consumers Association, anti-GMO groups and anti-establishment junkies like Alex Jones.Screen Shot 2014-05-26 at 6.03.51 PM

Related article:  Herbicide-resistant crops can exacerbate 'superweeds' but new GM versions can help control problem

Of course for those familiar with the research on crop biotechnology, the consensus on the safety of GMOs is as strong or stronger than the rejection of Creationism. The ENSSER statement echoes the ongoing campaign to deny the fact of human-induced climate change. But even climate change deniers have done a better than assembling a few hundred motley supporters. More than 31,000 scientists are said to have signed a petition claiming there is “no convincing scientific evidence” for global warming—attracting some of the same fringe conspiracy-promoting activists that campaign against GMOs.Screen Shot 2014-05-26 at 8.20.01 PM

How do the views of mainstream scientists stack up against ENSSER’s claims? A 2013 paper by independent researchers in Italy noted there have been 1783 studies on safety and health issues related to GMOs over the last ten years alone, including many publicly funded, confirming the consensus in support of the safety of GMOs.

More than 100 of the world’s independent science bodies—including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association and every major science oversight group in Europe and across the developed and developing world—have by now issued summary statements that foods made from genetically modified crops are as safe as conventional or organic varieties—and often times are safer because they undergo extensive evaluations for approval.

To those familiar with the science of GMOs and the health and safety testing record, the ENSSER statement read like farce. Few of the ENSSER signees are considered prominent in crop biotechnology. The list includes sociologists, heads of NGOs, local physicians, lawyers, businessmen, philosophers and committed anti-GMO activist-scientists Doug Gurian-Sherman at the Union of Concerned Scientists and Michael Hansen with Consumers Report—a ‘Who’s Who’ of anti-biotechnology campaigners. Nicolas Defarge, co-author of Séralini’s now retracted paper, who along with Séralini was a signee of this statement, is ENSSER’s Deputy Chairman.

While ENSSER is considered a fringe organization by most scientists, it does get traction among its target audience: scientifically ‘soft’ consumers, liberal activists and in universities. It can also rely on one reliable resource to spread anti-GMO views: Reuters. Carey Gillam, the news services’ crop biotechnology reporter, who is widely known for her anti-GMO bias, almost always references a ‘lack of consensus’ about GMO safety.

“Last October,” Gillam wrote in early May in an article on Vermont’s passage of a GMO labeling law, “a group of 93 international scientists said there was a lack of empirical and scientific evidence to support what they said were false claims by the biotech industry about a “consensus” on safety. It said more independent research is needed and studies showing safety tend to be funded and backed by the biotech industry.”

Gillam could have quoted the views of the National Academy of Sciences or the World Health Organization or the European Commission, instead of a fringe collection of NGOs and activist scientists, but that would have put a far different slant on her “objective” coverage. That’s how organizations like ENSSER get their message out.

Follow @JonEntine on Twitter

Jon Entine, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, is a senior fellow at the Center for Health & Risk Communication and STATS (Statistical Assessment Service) at George Mason University.

18 thoughts on “GMO science denialists? ENSSER challenges WHO, National Academy of Sciences on GM safety”

  1. Jon, . By referring to Pollan as a journalist. You have either erred or good journalism is a declining skill. Also you used a bad word in a discussion with an individual claiming to be a David Smith. While I understand your frustration. You are better than that. Please do not allow this type of individual to anger you like this. Because those types know they are grasping at nonexistent straws. Their goals are twofold. 1. Keep spreading ignorance. 2. Frustrate folks and cause stress related health problems. Do not let them succeed. Thanks

  2. Jon, how do you recommend those of us, that are also in trenches fighting science and bio technology handle folks using Pollan or ENSSER (other than linking to this article)?

    Months ago, my local NPR station’s midday show, featured Jeffery Smith. Even though I was put on hold within the first 3 min of the show, my question was never moved to the top of the queue. How can we get a show like that to have you or another person that can speak for the science and not the hype?

  3. I have some questions. If GMO plants are not a problem, why are the insects and butterflies that eat from corn tassles dying? If GMO includes corn that contains pesticides to kill corn borers, why is that not a problem for consumers who are going to eat that corn? If corn and soy are genetically modified to withstand greater use of pesticides, that does indicate that more pesticides are being used on them, with the results that other life forms in the area are affected…like birds and small animals. As I understand it, pesticide use is considered to be having a serious impact on native bird populations in the US. And, what was the length of studies done with research animals testing GMO products? One generation? Two generations? And were the research facilities under the direction of companies producing GMO crops? Simply to state that GMOs are approved by x, y and z, does not tell members of the public about the processes whereby these decisions were determined. With something as important as our basic foods, I think that sort of information should be a part of any public information on GMOs.

    • Insects and butterflies are not dying from eating corn tassles. The main pesticide being used is one of the least toxic available, far less toxic than many used by organic farmers—not carcinogenic and biodegradable–very sustainable. The introduction of GM Bt crops–with Bt the exact same ‘natural’ pesticide used by organic farmers–has resulted in part in a 90% reduction in the use of insecticides over past 18 according to the USDA’s latest report on this, in March. Overall, the introduction of GM crops has resulted in a sizable reduction in the overall toxicity of pesticides being used, as it’s resulted in the substitution of less toxic pesticides for more toxic ones even as overall volume has gone up. There is no evidence of any harm to birds or animals–certainly less harm than many more toxic pesticides used by some organic farmers in some situations. There have been more than 2500 studies done, more than 1000 of them totally independent, including more than 300 financed by the European Union, and no harm has ever been found over more than 20 years of research. The approval process for GMOs is more strict than for any other food process ever in history. Foods with genetically modified ingredients are safer than conventional or organic foods which have not been tested.

    • there are NO epidemiological studies on human beings and long term health – presumably we are relying on the body’s ability to repair itself from any ‘attacks’ by these mutagenic agents on the body.

  4. Main question is, why are farmers forced to use GM seeds? Why does Monsanto care so much if farmers save their (farmer’s seeds) seeds to reuse the following year? I would also like to know the answers to laurelladesborough’s questions. How long were the subjects studied for and are they still being monitored? Even if something is safe, is it beneficial for our health?

    • Monsanto cares if farmers save seeds because it helps secure a more constant profit stream for them.

      However, no farmer is “forced” to use GM seeds. They have a choice to buy seed from whomever they want, and they have the choice to read and sign the contract with terms from whomever they purchased from.

      • What about the other questions in the comments on this page? Are GM foods healthier than non GM? What studies have been done to prove this? How long are the subjects studied for, generations?

  5. You, Genetic Illiteracy Project, are certainly nothing like a scientist.

    ENSSER, on the other hand, is comprised of people who not bound by groupthink to agree with your shrill claims of “Consensus!” They are a voice of dissent in science, and therefore invaluable.

    Jack Heinemann, Professor of Genetics and Molecular Biology at the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, said: “Public confidence in GMOs will not increase as long as some scientists try to keep the public and other scientists from asking legitimate questions about their safety, efficacy and value. Even if all questions about existing GM plants were answered tomorrow, that would not mean that future products should be exempt from questioning and thorough testing. Instead of shouting, ‘Don’t look here, we have a consensus already’, we should address the cause of public mistrust. This is best done by embracing open discussions of GMOs informed from a variety of points of view, acknowledging and including the true diversity of scientific opinions.”

    • When one has confirmation bias, as you certainly appear to have, one can cherry-pick and defend all kinds of unscientific woo from organizations like ENSSER, and can dismiss with a haughty and arrogant wave of the hand the legit studies that have been done. Your choice what you read. Your choice what you choose to believe.

        • Of course you do. You support Seralini and this biased organization. I’ll stick to my many years of open-minded curiosity and scientific research about biotech and farming, and you can stick to what ever you want.
          My suggestion? Stay away from GE foods. Stick with organic and non-GMO certified. Clearly labeled for you,and you won’t have to think for yourself.

          • You’re also an anti-vaxxer, I see. Stay away from vaccines also. Of course, you better keep your kids away from mine.
            And keep reading the pseudoscience sites. It will keep you amused for many hours. Perhaps this particular site is not the best place for you to post your anti-science anti-GE activist views, but that is your choice.

          • I doubt that you could even give an accurate description of what a pro-vaccine, pro-science industry skeptic (like me) is. Because “anti-vaccine”, “anti-vaxxer”, “baby-killer”, and “keep your kids away from mine” are the only things people like you understand when anyone questions the paradigm you wholeheartedly espouse.

            Take a flying leap.

          • Ya got that right, dude! Leapin’ right into science ….re-read the article about the anti-GE biases of the people involved with ENSSER. Look at the evidence listed of hundreds of agencies and thousands of studies supporting the safety of GE. And then leap ….either into your comfortable but stagnant pool of faith and bias, or into science. Your choice.
            Oh, are you a baby-killer? I hadn’t seen that. Please don’t kill babies. That’s not nice.

Leave a Comment

News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend