The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
No scientific consensus on GMO safety
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Field-Evolved Resistance to Bt Maize by Western Corn Rootworm
Gassmann, A. J., Petzold-Maxwell, J. L., Keweshan, R. S., & Dunbar, M. W. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022629 · Cited by 666 · cited 1×
“to Bt toxins has emerged in target pests [42], and problems with secondary (non-target) pests have been noted, for example, in Bt cotton in China [43,44].”
A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Cotton and Maize on Nontarget Invertebrates
Marvier, M., McCreedy, C., Regetz, J., & Kareiva, P. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1139208 · Cited by 445
Séralini, G.-E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., Hennequin, D., & de Vendômois, J. S. (2014) · Environmental Sciences Europe · doi:10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5 · Cited by 299
Self-citationA literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants
Domingo, J. L., & Giné Bordonaba, J. (2011) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003 · Cited by 272
Snell, C., Bernheim, A., Bergé, J.-B., Kuntz, M., Pascal, G., Paris, A., & Ricroch, A. E. (2012) · Food and Chemical Toxicology · doi:10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048 · Cited by 234 · cited 1×
“While the review authors dismissed these findings as not biologically significant [9], the interpretation of these differences is the subject of continuing scientific debate [8,10-12] and no consensus exists on the topic.”
Results of a 13 week safety assurance study with rats fed grain from glyphosate tolerant corn
Hammond, B., Dudek, R., Lemen, J., & Nemeth, M. (2004) · Food and Chemical Toxicology · doi:10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.013 · Cited by 124
Malatesta, M., Caporaloni, C., Gavaudan, S., Rocchi, M. B. L., Serafini, S., Tiberi, C., & Gazzanelli, G. (2002) · Cell Structure and Function · doi:10.1247/csf.27.173 · Cited by 112
Kılıç, A., & Akay, M. T. (2008) · Food and Chemical Toxicology · doi:10.1016/j.fct.2007.11.016 · Cited by 98
Results of a 90-day safety assurance study with rats fed grain from corn borer-protected corn
Hammond, B. G., Dudek, R., Lemen, J. K., & Nemeth, M. A. (2006) · Food and Chemical Toxicology · doi:10.1016/j.fct.2006.01.003 · Cited by 85
Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements
Séralini, G.-E., Mesnage, R., Clair, E., Gress, S., de Vendômois, J. S., & Cellier, D. (2011) · Environmental Sciences Europe · doi:10.1186/2190-4715-23-10 · Cited by 82
Cited by
Consumer Perception of Genetically Modified Organisms and Sources of Information
Wunderlich, S., & Gatto, K. A. (2015) · Advances in Nutrition · doi:10.3945/an.115.008870 · Cited by 299
Textured Vegetable Proteins (TVP): Future Foods Standing on Their Merits as Meat Alternatives
Baune, M.-C., Terjung, N., Tülbek, M. Ç., & Boukid, F. (2022) · Future Foods · doi:10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100181 · Cited by 124
Metadata
- Authors
- Hilbeck, A., Binimelis, R., Defarge, N., Steinbrecher, R., Székács, A., Wickson, F., Antoniou, M., Bereano, P. L., Clark, E. A., Hansen, M., Novotny, E., Heinemann, J., Meyer, H., Shiva, V., & Wynne, B.
- Venue
- Environmental Sciences Europe
- Published
- 2015-01-24
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2190-4715 (ISSN-L)
- 2190-4707
- OpenAlex
- W2123182718
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 25.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: No scientific consensus on GMO safety. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1
- The paper
- Hilbeck, A., Binimelis, R., Defarge, N., Steinbrecher, R., Székács, A., Wickson, F., Antoniou, M., Bereano, P. L., Clark, E. A., Hansen, M., Novotny, E., Heinemann, J., Meyer, H., Shiva, V., & Wynne, B. (2015). No scientific consensus on GMO safety. Environmental Sciences Europe. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
