Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "إنكار" in Arabic language version.
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.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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."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 (PDF) on
(from original report by AMA: )
|archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help). Retrieved August 30, 2019. 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."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2016-04-02. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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."نسخة مؤرشفة" (PDF). مؤرشف من الأصل في 2016-07-29. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
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.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link){{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link){{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)…the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is scientifically conclusive.
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."نسخة مؤرشفة" (PDF). مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-12-16. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
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.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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)."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-10-21. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link){{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-11-12. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-03-26. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link){{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link){{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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)."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-01-09. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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."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 (PDF) on
(from original report by AMA: )
|archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help). Retrieved August 30, 2019. 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."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2016-04-02. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link){{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-11-18. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link){{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)…the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is scientifically conclusive.
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."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-11-12. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link){{استشهاد ويب}}: روابط خارجية في |عنوان={{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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."نسخة مؤرشفة" (PDF). مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-12-16. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
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.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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)."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-10-21. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-03-26. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link){{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-01-09. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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."نسخة مؤرشفة" (PDF). مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-12-16. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
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.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link){{استشهاد بدورية محكمة}}: الاستشهاد بدورية محكمة يطلب |دورية محكمة= (مساعدة)…the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is scientifically conclusive.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link){{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link){{استشهاد ويب}}: روابط خارجية في |عنوان=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."نسخة مؤرشفة" (PDF). مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-12-16. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
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.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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)."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-01-09. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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)."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-10-21. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link){{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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."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 (PDF) on
(from original report by AMA: )
|archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help). Retrieved August 30, 2019. 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."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2016-04-02. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-11-18. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-11-12. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-10-31. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
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.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-03-26. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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."نسخة مؤرشفة" (PDF). مؤرشف من الأصل في 2016-07-29. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
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.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-01-09. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link){{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link){{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link){{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)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."نسخة مؤرشفة". مؤرشف من الأصل في 2019-10-31. اطلع عليه بتاريخ 2019-11-29.
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.
{{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link){{استشهاد ويب}}: صيانة الاستشهاد: BOT: original URL status unknown (link)