GMO 응답

GMO Answers
GMO 응답
GMO Answers logo.png
소유자크롭라이프 인터내셔널
URLgmoanswers.com
시작됨2013년 7월; 8년 전(2013-07)
현재 상태온라인.

GMO Answers는 2013년 7월 농업생명공학 업계가 미국 식량 공급에 있는 농작물에서 유전자변형생물(GMO)을 둘러싼 공론화에 참여하기 위해 발족한 전방 그룹이다.[1]

당시 생명공학정보협의회(Council for Biological Information)의 캐슬린 엔라이트 상무는 GMO가 GMO 라벨 부착에 반대하는 것이 아니라 소비자들에게 GMO에 대한 정확한 정보를 제공하기 위해 만들어진 것이라고 말했다. 그렇게 하지는 않았지만 이제 문을 열고 정보를 제공하겠다"[1]고 말했다.

GMO 반대 운동가들은 GMO가 GMO와 GMO 라벨링의 안전에 관한 논쟁의 격화에 영향을 미치기 위해 종자 생명공학 업계의 홍보책이라고 특징지었다.[1] 허핑턴포스트는 130쪽 분량의 케추움 PR 내부문건을 통해 GMO 어답스 출시를 논의한 내용을 '회의론'을 불러일으킨다는 전략으로 보도했다. 케첨의 내부 문서도 워싱턴포스트 칼럼니스트 타마르 해스펠은 물론 모틀리 바보와 폴리티코와 '관계의 발전'에 대해 논의했다. [2]

배경

GMO의 안전성은 미국 식품 공급망에서 사용되는 식품 생산 기술에 관한 "가장 눈에 잘 띄고 논쟁적인" 공개 토론으로 묘사되어 왔다.[3] 2013년 1월 뉴욕타임스 여론조사에서 응답자의 93%가 GMO나 유전자 조작 성분을 함유한 식품을 확인해야 한다고 답했다.[4] 퓨 리서치 센터는 1,480명의 미국인을 대상으로 설문조사를 실시했고 그 결과는 미국인의 3분의 1 이상이 유전자 변형 식품이 건강에 위험을 준다고 믿는다는 것을 보여주었다. 이 조사는 "GM 식품은 비GM 식품보다 건강을 위해 __"라고 말했다. 응답자의 39%는 "더 나빠졌다"고 답했고, 48%는 "더 좋다"고 답했으며, 10%는 "더 좋다"고 답했고, 3%는 질문에 대답하지 않았다. 이 자료는 평균적인 미국인들이 GM 식품이 건강에 더 나쁘다고 생각하는 경향이 여전히 있다는 것을 보여준다.[5] 오클라호마 주립대학교 농업경제학과에 의한 여론 조사에 의하면 응답자의 80% 이상이 유전자 변형 식품의 의무 라벨을 지지했지만, 같은 수의 응답자들은 DNA가 함유된 식품 라벨을 지지했다.[6]

현재 GM 작물에서 파생된 가용 식품은 재래식 식품보다 인간의 건강에 더 큰 위험을 주지는 않지만,[11][12][13][14][15] 각각의 GM 식품은 도입 전에 사례별로 시험할 필요가 있다는[7][8][9][10] 과학적 공감대가 있다.[16][17][18] 그럼에도 불구하고, 일반 대중들은 유전자 조작 식품이 안전하다고 생각하는 과학자들보다 훨씬 덜하다.[19][20][21][22] GM 식품의 법적, 규제적 상태는 국가별로 다르며, 일부 국가는 금지 또는 제한하고, 다른 국가는 규제 정도가 크게 다른 것을 허용한다.[23][24][25][26]

GMO 라벨링 법률

식품 생산과 관련한 투명성에 대한 소비자의 관심이 증가하면서 미국 전역의 GMO 라벨링 이니셔티브가 몇몇 주에서 생겨났다.[27][28][29][30] 2012년과 2013년에는 캘리포니아주와[31] 워싱턴주에서 GMO 표기가 무산됐다.[32] 또한 2013년 12월, 코네티컷주는 미국에서 GMO 라벨링 법안을 제정한 첫 주가 되었으며,[33] 한 달 후 메인주가 그 뒤를 이었다.[34] 코네티컷과 메인 주의 법안들은 인접해 있는 북동부 주들의 어떤 조합도 그 규제가 발효되기 위해서는 비슷한 법을 채택해야 한다고 요구했다.[34]

2013년 8월, 사이언티픽 아메리칸 사설은 유전자 변형 식품에 대한 의무적인 라벨 부착을 "나쁜 생각"[28]이라고 말했다.

미국과학진흥협회, 세계보건기구, 그리고 예외적으로 경계하는 유럽연합은 GMO가 다른 음식들만큼 안전하다는 것에 동의한다. 미국 식품의약국(FDA)은 시중에 유통 중인 모든 GMO를 대상으로 독성 또는 알레르기 유발성 여부를 검사했다. 그들은 그렇지 않다.

미국 식품 제조업체의 GMO 라벨링 이니셔티브

2013년, 몇몇 미국 식품 생산업체들은 식료품 소매업체 홀푸드 마켓,[35] 레스토랑 체인인 치포틀 멕시코 그릴,[36] 그리고 아이스크림 제조업체인 벤앤제리스를 포함한 자사 제품에 GMO의 존재를 표시하거나 공개할 계획을 발표했다.[37][38] General Mills, Inc.는 GMO가 없는 오리지널 치어리오스를 2013년 말에 제조하기 시작했다고 2014년 1월 발표했다.[39]

GMOAnswers.com

2013년 7월 종자생명공학 산업과 농경 협력사들은 "소비자 단체와 활동가들 사이에서 유전자 변형 식품에 대한 증가하는 반대와 싸우기 위해 GMOAnswers.com 웹사이트를 개설했다.[1][40][41]

또한 2013년 7월 듀폰의 농업부문인 듀폰트 파이오니어(DuPont Pionaler)의 폴 쉬클러 사장은 반 GMO 이해관계가 인터넷과 소셜미디어 채널을 효과적으로 활용하여 그들의 메시지를 전파했으며 종자생명공학 산업은 인터넷과 소셜미디어 채널을 유사한 효과로 채용하려고 노력했다고 말했다. …시간이 지나면 공통의 이해가 될 것 같소."[40]

외부 링크

참조

  1. ^ a b c d Pollack, Andrew (2013-07-28). "Seeking Support, Biotech Food Companies Pledge Transparency". New York Times. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
  2. ^ Thacker, Paul. "An Inside Look At How Monsanto, A PR Firm And A Reporter Give Readers A Warped View Of Science Dogged for years by bad press, Monsanto hit reboot with Ketchum". HuffPost. Retrieved 29 December 2019.
  3. ^ Haspel, Tamar. "GMO labeling: Is the fight worth it?". Retrieved 19 June 2014.
  4. ^ Kopicki, Allison (2013-07-27). "Strong Support for Labeling Modified Foods". New York Times. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
  5. ^ "The New Food Fights: U.S. Public Divides Over Food Science". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. 2016-12-01. Retrieved 2018-08-30.
  6. ^ Somin, Ilya (17 January 2015). "Over 80 percent of Americans support "mandatory labels on foods containing DNA"". Washington Post. Retrieved 6 March 2018.
  7. ^ Nicolia, Alessandro; Manzo, Alberto; Veronesi, Fabio; Rosellini, Daniele (2013). "An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research" (PDF). Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 34 (1): 77–88. doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. PMID 24041244. S2CID 9836802. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-09-17. Retrieved 2018-03-06. 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.
  8. ^ "State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 8 February 2016. Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants – mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape – without any observed adverse effects (ICSU).
  9. ^ Ronald, Pamela (5 May 2011). "Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security". Genetics. 188 (1): 11–20. doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. PMC 3120150. PMID 21546547. There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010).
  10. ^ 그러나 다음 항목을 참조하십시오.
    Domingo, José L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Giné (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants" (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734–42. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423. 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.
    Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40 (6): 883–914. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. S2CID 40855100. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-02-07. Retrieved 2018-03-06. 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.
    그리고 대비:
    Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (14 January 2016). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 37 (2): 213–217. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. ISSN 0738-8551. PMID 26767435. S2CID 11786594. 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.
    그리고
    Yang, Y.T.; Chen, B. (2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96 (6): 1851–55. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID 26536836. 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.
  11. ^ "Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods" (PDF). American Association for the Advancement of Science. 20 October 2012. Retrieved 8 February 2016. The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.
    Pinholster, Ginger (25 October 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"". American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved 8 February 2016.
  12. ^ A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010) (PDF). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union. 2010. doi:10.2777/97784. ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. Retrieved 8 February 2016.
  13. ^ "AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary)". American Medical Association. January 2001. Retrieved 19 March 2016. A report issued by the scientific council of the American Medical Association (AMA) says that no long-term health effects have been detected from the use of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods, and that these foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from online summary prepared by ISAAA)" "Crops and foods produced using recombinant DNA techniques have been available for fewer than 10 years and no long-term effects have been detected to date. These foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from original report by AMA: [1]) {{cite web}}: 외부 링크 위치 quote= (도움말)
    "Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods" (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Archived from the original on 7 September 2012. Retrieved 19 March 2016. 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.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint : bot : 원본 URL 상태 미상(링크)
  14. ^ "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion". Library of Congress. 9 June 2015. Retrieved 8 February 2016. Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US's approach to regulating GMOs.
  15. ^ Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US). 2016. p. 149. Retrieved 19 May 2016. Overall finding on purported adverse effects on human health of foods derived from GE crops: On the basis of detailed examination of comparisons of currently commercialized GE with non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods, and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts.
  16. ^ "Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods". World Health Organization. Retrieved 8 February 2016. Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.
    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.
  17. ^ Haslberger, Alexander G. (2003). "Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects". Nature Biotechnology. 21 (7): 739–41. doi:10.1038/nbt0703-739. PMID 12833088. S2CID 2533628. These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects.
  18. ^ 영국 의료협회를 포함한 일부 의료단체는 예방원칙에 근거한 추가적인 주의를 주장한다.
    "Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement" (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved 21 March 2016. 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 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.
  19. ^ Funk, Cary; Rainie, Lee (29 January 2015). "Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 24 February 2016. The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points.
  20. ^ Marris, Claire (2001). "Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths". EMBO Reports. 2 (7): 545–48. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kve142. PMC 1083956. PMID 11463731.
  21. ^ Final Report of the PABE research project (December 2001). "Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe". Commission of European Communities. Retrieved 24 February 2016.
  22. ^ Scott, Sydney E.; Inbar, Yoel; Rozin, Paul (2016). "Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States" (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 11 (3): 315–24. doi:10.1177/1745691615621275. PMID 27217243. S2CID 261060.
  23. ^ "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms". Library of Congress. 9 June 2015. Retrieved 24 February 2016.
  24. ^ Bashshur, Ramona (February 2013). "FDA and Regulation of GMOs". American Bar Association. Retrieved 24 February 2016.
  25. ^ Sifferlin, Alexandra (3 October 2015). "Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs". Time.
  26. ^ Lynch, Diahanna; Vogel, David (5 April 2001). "The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics". Council on Foreign Relations. Archived from the original on 29 September 2016. Retrieved 24 February 2016.
  27. ^ Parker, Laura (2014-01-13). "The GMO Labeling Battle Is Heating Up—Here's Why". National Geographic. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
  28. ^ a b The Editors. "Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea". Scientific American. Retrieved 19 June 2014. {{cite web}}: last1= 일반 이름 포함(도움말)
  29. ^ Bauers, Sandy (2013-11-10). "GreenSpace: Pa., N.J. new fronts in food-label fight". Philly.com. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
  30. ^ Hopkinson, Jenny. "The battle lines on food labeling". POLITICO. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
  31. ^ Sifferlin, Alexandra. "California Fails to Pass GM Foods Labeling Initiative". Time. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
  32. ^ Weise, Elizabeth. "Washington state voters reject labeling of GMO foods". USA Today. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
  33. ^ Reilly, Genevieve (2013-12-12). "Malloy signs state GMO labeling law in Fairfield". Connecticut Post. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
  34. ^ a b Wilson, Reid. "Maine becomes second state to require GMO labels". Washington Post. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
  35. ^ Robb, Walter. "Whole Foods Market commits to full GMO transparency". Whole Foods Market. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
  36. ^ Knowles, David. "Chipotle becomes first U.S. restaurant chain to try and rid menu of GMO foods". New York Daily News. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
  37. ^ Velasco, Schuyler (2013-06-03). "Ben & Jerry's ingredients won't include GMOs, company says". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
  38. ^ "Our Position on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)". Ben & Jerry's. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
  39. ^ Gasparro, Annie. "General Mills Starts Making Some Cheerios Without GMOs". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
  40. ^ a b Gillam, Carey (2013-07-29). "'GMO Answers' Website Launched By Monsanto, DuPont, More". Huffington Post. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
  41. ^ Gustin, Georgina. "Monsanto, other biotech companies, launch website to answer GMO-related questions". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved 19 June 2014.