CSIRO chief says GM research needs to be more transparent
The Chief Executive of Australia’s leading science agency, the CSIRO, has warned that scientists and food producers must first earn community trust if scientific developments in plant genetics are to improve health and support global food supply.
In a statement published today, the CSIRO’s Chief Executive Megan Clark said there is a gap between the concerns of the community and the knowledge of scientists around genetic research.
Ms Clark said, “We recognise that the modification of genes in plants causes concern in sections of the community. However, we also know that many people will be comfortable with genetic modification in food products if they can be assured they are beneficial for human health and safe for the environment.
“We research the genes of plants to improve human health outcomes, increase the take-up of nutrients from soil, improve yields and provide resistance to plant diseases. Our genetic modification research generally involves turning off genes, changing the timing of the expression of some genes or inserting genes from different plants.
“When it comes to our food supply, the world’s population could reach 9 billion by 2050 and the global challenge is to produce 70 per cent more food in the next 40 years. To meet that food demand we need to increase our agricultural yields and increase the efficiency of how plants take up nutrients. It means growing plants that use less water to produce the same output and improving resistance to disease and pests.
“Across the very extensive and prolonged use worldwide, there has been no evidence of harm to human health associated with the use of GM technology. In Australia we’ve been growing and consuming GM products for at least 15 years with GM cotton and carnations grown commercially since 1996 and GM canola since 2008,” Ms Clark said.
There is no proof that GM foods are safe to eat. The companies that own and control the patents on GM can and do restrict testing.
A review looking at Conflict of Interest has found that where at least one of the researchers was connected to the GM industry, 100% of peer reviewed studies made a favourable GM safety finding (Diels 2011).
The latest review of GM safety studies noted their limited number, that most reporting favourable findings had been conducted by the GM companies, and that the debate remains undecided at all levels. (Domingo 2010).
Furthermore the extensive research into how to feed the growing world population shows agroecological agriculture and improved storage, transport and waste reduction, not GM, is the future.
GM is a failed, unwanted and potentially dangerous technology that has no place on our plates or in our fields.
It is disappointing when one reads that the CEO of the CSIRO is promoting the well-versed mantra that GM crops are safe, totally ignoring the growing evidence of independant findings which show concerning health and safety problems from the ingestion of GM foods.
The assumption that GM foods have not caused harm is based on which studies? There are none, and to suggest their safety on no studies is ignorant and dangerous.
If studies were not done on the effects of smoking and the consequent results such as lung and mouth cancers would we still be saying that smoking is safe? After all this was the message that we were told by industry, medical sectors and government bodies for years. We now know that they were wrong. May they not also be wrong about the safety of GM foods?