| 词条 | GMO Answers |
| 释义 |
| logo_size = 100px | logo_alt = | logo_caption = | screenshot = | collapsetext = | background = | screenshot_size = | screenshot_alt = | caption = | content_license = | programming_language = | owner = Council for Biotechnology Information | author = | editor = | launch_date = {{start date and age|2013|July|df=no}} | revenue = | alexa = | ip = | current_status = Online | footnotes = }}GMO Answers launched by the agricultural biotechnology industry in July 2013 to answer consumers' questions about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in crops in the U.S. food supply.[1] GMO Answers was created in part to respond to public concern about the safety of GMOs.[1] GMO Answers "expert resources" include conventional and organic farmers, agribusiness experts, scientists, academics, medical doctors and nutritionists, and "company experts" from founding members of the Council for Biotechnology Information, which funds the initiative.[2] Founding members include BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto Company and Syngenta.[4] Cathleen Enright, then executive director of Council for Biotechnology Information, said GMO Answers was not specifically created to advocate against GMO labeling, but rather to provide accurate information about GMOs to consumers: "We have been accused of purposely hiding information. We haven't done that but now we will open the doors and provide information."[1] Anti-GMO activists characterized GMO Answers as a public relations ploy by the seed biotech industry to influence an intensifying debate concerning the safety of GMOs and GMO labeling.[1] BackgroundThe safety of GMOs has been described as the "most visible and contentious" public debate regarding food production technologies used in the U.S. food supply chain.[3] In a January 2013 New York Times poll, 93 percent of respondents said that foods containing GMOs or genetically engineered ingredients should be identified.[4] The Pew Research Center conducted a survey of 1,480 Americans and the results showed that over a third of Americans believe genetically modified food poses health risks. The survey made the statement, "GM foods are ___ for health than non-GM foods." 39% of the respondents responded "worse", 48% responded, no better or no worse, 10% responded better, leaving 3% of respondents that didn't answer the question. The data shows there is still a tendency for the average American to believe GM food is worse for health.[5] Polls by the Oklahoma State University Department of Agricultural Economics have shown that over 80 percent of respondents supported mandatory labels of genetically modified food, but the same number supported labels for food containing DNA.[6] There is a scientific consensus[7][8][9][10] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[11][12][13][14][15] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[16][17][18] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[19][20][21][22] The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[23][24][25][26] GMO labeling legislationGrowing consumer interest in transparency regarding food production has given rise to GMO labeling initiatives across the U.S. in several states.[27][28][29][30] In 2012 and 2013, GMO labeling ballot initiatives were defeated in California[31] and Washington state.[32] Also in December 2013, Connecticut became the first state in the U.S. to enact GMO labeling legislation,[33] followed by Maine a month later.[34] The Connecticut and Maine bills required that any combination of contiguous Northeast states totaling at least 20 million residents must adopt similar laws in order for the regulations to take effect.[34] In August 2013, a Scientific American editorial called mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods a "bad idea":[28] {{quote|The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization and the exceptionally vigilant European Union agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods ... The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has tested all the GMOs on the market to determine whether they are toxic or allergenic. They are not.}}GMO labeling initiatives by U.S. food producersIn 2013, several U.S. food producers announced plans to label or disclose the presence of GMOs in their products, including grocery retailer Whole Foods Market,[35] restaurant chain Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,[36] and ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's.[37][38] In January 2014, General Mills, Inc. announced that it began manufacturing GMO-free original Cheerios in late 2013.[39] GMOAnswers.comIn July 2013, the seed biotech industry and its partners in farming and agriculture launched the GMOAnswers.com website "to combat mounting opposition to genetically modified foods among consumer groups and activists."[1][40] GMO Answers' stated goal is to "make information about GMOs in food and agriculture easier to access and understand."[41] Cathleen Enright, then executive director of Council for Biotechnology Information, said, "Clearly we've not been in the conversation. With the elevation of the GMO conversation nationally, we identified the need last year to get into the game."[42] Also in July 2013, Paul Schickler, president of DuPont Pioneer, the agricultural unit of DuPont, said anti-GMO interests had used the Internet effectively to disseminate their message, and that the seed biotech industry sought to employ the Internet and social media channels to similar effect: "[GMOAnswers.com] is an effort to increase the dialogue ... Over time I think we'll come to a common understanding."[40] Robert Fraley, executive vice president and chief technology officer for Monsanto, said the company has been "focused on giving technology and tools to farmers to improve their productivity and yield and we haven't spent nearly the time we have needed to on talking to consumers and talking to social media."[43] The GMOAnswers.com website, which invites visitors to submit questions about GMOs, includes browsable questions and answers; an "Explore the Basics" section; studies and articles by biotechnology experts; and data about countries that certify genetically-modified products. According to GMO Answers, "more than 100 experts have contributed to this site including conventional and organic farmers, agribusiness experts, scientists, academics, medical doctors and nutritionists," as well as "company experts" from the founding members of the Council for Biotechnology Information, which funds GMO Answers.[2] The following sampling of questions have been posted and answered on GMOAnswers.com:[44]
Core principlesGMO Answers cites five core principles to which members and partners of GMO Answers have committed:[45]
Founding membersGMO Answers is funded by the Council for Biotechnology Information, which includes [https://agriculture.basf.com/us/en.html BASF], [https://www.cropscience.bayer.com/en Bayer CropScience], DowDupont (now Corteva), [https://monsanto.com/ Monsanto Company], and [https://www.syngenta.com/ Syngenta].[46][47] Supporting partnersSupporting partners of GMO Answers include the American Council on Science and Health, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Seed Trade Association, American Soybean Association, American Sugarbeet Growers Association, Ohio AgriBusiness Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, South Dakota Agri-Business Association, and the U.S. Beet Sugar Association.[46] ControversyIn July 2013, Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, released a statement regarding GMO Answers that read, in part:[48] {{quote|More claims from the biotech industry about the safety of genetic engineering are not a replacement for the clear labeling that consumers are demanding.}}In August 2013, Andrew Kimbrell, executive director at the Center for Food Safety, issued a statement regarding GMO Answers. It read, in part:[49] {{quote|Instead of responding to legitimate consumer concerns about the safety of these products, the industry has created a charade of transparency on their new website, innocuously named 'GMO Answers' ... Whenever their products are scrutinized and called into question, the agrichemical industry consistently turns to bigger and better PR rather than addressing the real issues at hand.}}External links
References1. ^1 2 3 4 {{cite news|last1=Pollack|first1=Andrew|title=Seeking Support, Biotech Food Companies Pledge Transparency|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/business/seeking-support-biotech-food-companies-pledge-transparency.html|newspaper=New York Times|accessdate=19 June 2014|date=2013-07-28}} 2. ^1 {{cite web|title=Experts|url=http://gmoanswers.com/experts|publisher=GMO Answers|accessdate=19 June 2014}} 3. ^{{cite web|last1=Haspel|first1=Tamar|title=GMO labeling: Is the fight worth it?|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/gmo-labeling-is-the-fight-worth-it/2014/01/13/f7fa1352-7728-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html|accessdate=19 June 2014}} 4. ^{{cite news|last1=Kopicki|first1=Allison|title=Strong Support for Labeling Modified Foods|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/science/strong-support-for-labeling-modified-foods.html|newspaper=New York Times|accessdate=19 June 2014|date=2013-07-27}} 5. ^{{Cite news|url=http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/12/01/the-new-food-fights/|title=The New Food Fights: U.S. Public Divides Over Food Science|date=2016-12-01|work=Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech|access-date=2018-08-30|language=en-US}} 6. ^{{cite web|last1=Somin|first1=Ilya|title=Over 80 percent of Americans support "mandatory labels on foods containing DNA"|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/17/over-80-percent-of-americans-support-mandatory-labels-on-foods-containing-dna/|website=Washington Post|accessdate=6 March 2018|date=17 January 2015}} 7. ^{{Cite journal|url=http://www.agrobio.org/bfiles/fckimg/Nicolia%202013.pdf|title=An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research|first1=Alessandro|last1=Nicolia|first2=Alberto|last2=Manzo|first3=Fabio|last3=Veronesi|first4=Daniele|last4=Rosellini|journal=Critical Reviews in Biotechnology|date=2013|pages=77–88|doi=10.3109/07388551.2013.823595|quote="We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops. The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns."|pmid=24041244|volume=34|issue=1}} {{Cite journal|url=http://gaiapresse.ca/images/nouvelles/28563.pdf|title=A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants|first1=José L.|last1=Domingo|first2=Jordi Giné|last2=Bordonaba|journal=Environment International|date=2011|volume=37|issue=4|pages=734–42|doi=10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003|quote="In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies."|pmid=21296423}} {{Cite journal|url=http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PDF/Illusory%20Consensus%20GMOs.PDF|title=An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment|first=Sheldon|last=Krimsky|journal=Science, Technology, & Human Values|pages=883–914|doi=10.1177/0162243915598381|date=2015|quote=I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.|volume=40|issue=6}} And contrast: {{Cite journal|title=Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons|first1=Alexander Y.|last1=Panchin|first2=Alexander I.|last2=Tuzhikov|journal=Critical Reviews in Biotechnology|volume=37|issue=2|date=14 January 2016|issn=0738-8551|doi=10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684|quote=Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm. The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.|pmid=26767435|pages=213–217}} and {{Cite journal|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Governing+GMOs+in+the+USA%3A+Science%2C+law+and+public+health|title=Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health|first1=Y.T.|last1=Yang|first2=B.|last2=Chen|journal=Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture|volume=96|issue=6|pages=1851–55|date=2016|doi=10.1002/jsfa.7523|quote="It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011). Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food ... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date. Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome."|pmid=26536836}} {{Cite web|url=http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-directors-legally-mandating-gm-food-labels-could-%E2%80%9Cmislead-and-falsely-alarm|title=AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"|first=Ginger|last=Pinholster|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science|date=25 October 2012|accessdate=8 February 2016}} {{Cite web|url=http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf |title=Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods |publisher=American Medical Association |date=2012 |accessdate=19 March 2016 |quote=Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature. |deadurl=bot: unknown |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120907023039/http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf |archivedate=7 September 2012 |df=dmy }} GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods."}} {{Cite web|url=http://www.argenbio.org/adc/uploads/pdf/bma.pdf|title=Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement|publisher=British Medical Association|date=March 2004|accessdate=21 March 2016|quote="In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available. When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis. Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects. The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit."}} 4 : Agricultural organizations based in the United States|Organizations established in 2013|Industry trade groups based in the United States|Genetically modified organisms in agriculture |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。