Исследования безопасности генетически модифицированных организмов (Russian Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Исследования безопасности генетически модифицированных организмов" in Russian language version.

refsWebsite

Global rank Russian rank

60web.archive.org

1^st place

15webcitation.org

24^th place

2^nd place

12nih.gov

4^th place

6^th place

11doi.org

2^nd place

3^rd place

7europa.eu

68^th place

107^th place

6biosafety.ru

low place

5wikipedia.org

low place

4thelancet.com

2,393^rd place

1,504^th place

3gmo.ru

low place

3who.int

195^th place

128^th place

2nap.edu

2,128^th place

3,475^th place

2newscientist.com

774^th place

875^th place

2reuters.com

49^th place

61^st place

2consultant.ru

1,001^st place

59^th place

1isaaa.org

low place

7,780^th place

1ama-assn.org

3,257^th place

2,381^st place

1fao.org

318^th place

403^rd place

1tufts.edu

155^th place

807^th place

1aaas.org

9,065^th place

low place

1loc.gov

70^th place

289^th place

1archive.org

6^th place

9^th place

1argenbio.org

low place

1msu.su

low place

1,481^st place

1orst.edu

low place

1gmopundit.blogspot.com

low place

1gmo-compass.org

low place

1mindfully.org

low place

1archive.today

14^th place

11^th place

1guardian.co.uk

197^th place

113^th place

1enveurope.com

low place

1foodstandards.gov.au

low place

1food.gov.uk

6,369^th place

low place

1monsanto.com

low place

1trv-science.ru

low place

1,462^nd place

1imdb.com

16^th place

1discovermagazine.com

3,042^nd place

2,669^th place

1archive-it.org

910^th place

1,678^th place

1huntingdon.com

low place

1harlan.com

low place

1cosmosmagazine.com

low place

1washingtonpost.com

34^th place

95^th place

1academie-sciences.fr

7,547^th place

3,467^th place

1nature.com

234^th place

157^th place

1iitp.ru

low place

1narod.ru

244^th place

22^nd place

1transcontainer.org

low place

1truthabouttrade.org

low place

1cbio.ru

low place

7,711^th place

1newizv.ru

3,806^th place

295^th place

1breakfornews.com

low place

1novayagazeta.ru

994^th place

74^th place

1tyumen.ru

low place

1bbc.co.uk

8^th place

30^th place

1rospotrebnadzor.ru

low place

794^th place

1rbc.ru

357^th place

32^nd place

1vedomosti.ru

721^st place

47^th place

1rg.ru

270^th place

20^th place

1government.ru

4,056^th place

369^th place

1kommersant.ru

176^th place

12^th place

1pravo.gov.ru

763^rd place

50^th place

aaas.org

Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods (неопр.). American Association for the Advancement of Science (20 октября 2012). — «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.» Дата обращения: 8 февраля 2016. Архивировано 7 декабря 2019 года.
Pinholster, Ginger. AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers" (неопр.). American Association for the Advancement of Science (25 октября 2012). Дата обращения: 8 февраля 2016. Архивировано 3 февраля 2016 года.

academie-sciences.fr

Avis des Académies nationales d’Agriculture, de Médecine, de Pharmacie, des Sciences, des Technologies, et Vétérinaire sur la publication récente de G.E. Séralini et al. sur la toxicité d’un OGM Communiqué de presse 19 octobre 2012 Архивировано 19 ноября 2012 года.

ama-assn.org

AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary) (неопр.). American Medical Association (январь 2001). — «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 International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications) 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])». Дата обращения: 19 марта 2016. Архивировано 2 апреля 2016 года.
Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods (неопр.). American Medical Association (2012). — «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.» Дата обращения: 19 марта 2016. Архивировано 7 сентября 2012 года.

archive-it.org

wayback.archive-it.org

Carl Zimmer on Discovery Magazine blog, The Loom. 21 September 2012 From Darwinius to GMOs: Journalists Should Not Let Themselves Be Played Архивировано 21 сентября 2012 года.

archive.org

Haslberger A. G. Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects (англ.) // Nature Biotechnology : journal. — Nature Publishing Group, 2003. — July (vol. 21, no. 7). — P. 739—741. — doi:10.1038/nbt0703-739. — PMID 12833088.. — «These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects.».

archive.today

Известия. Ру: Франкенштейн отменяется

argenbio.org

Some medical organizations, including the British Medical Association, advocate further caution based upon the precautionary principle:
Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement (неопр.). British Medical Association (март 2004). — «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."». Дата обращения: 21 марта 2016. Архивировано 29 июля 2016 года.

bbc.co.uk

news.bbc.co.uk

Эксперты ЕС оправдали «генные» мясо и молоко (рус.) (12 января 2008). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 15 апреля 2012 года.

biosafety.ru

Результат научного эксперимента: новорождённые крысята умирают от ГМ-сои (рус.). Biosafety.ru — Альянс СНГ «За Биобезопасность». Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 20 июня 2022 года.
Виктория Копейкина. Страны ЕС борются за право запрещать ГМО (рус.) (31 октября 2007). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 12 марта 2012 года.
Виктория Копейкина. Греция останется свободной от ГМО (рус.) (2 февраля 2006). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 6 июня 2022 года.
Виктория Копейкина. Зоны, свободные от ГМО в мире, основные принципы создания, современная ситуация (рус.) (6 января 2007). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 6 июня 2022 года.
Виктория Копейкина. В Испании может появиться новая зона, свободная от ГМО (рус.) (1 сентября 2008). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 6 июня 2022 года.
Виктория Копейкина. Позиция католиков разных стран по вопросам ГМО не совпадает (рус.) (1 марта 2007). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 6 июня 2022 года.

breakfornews.com

Fintan. WTO Rules Europe Must Accept GM Foods (англ.) (8 февраля 2006). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 12 марта 2012 года.

cbio.ru

Биоэтика и законы : ВОЗ призывает не опасаться ГМО (рус.). Сbio.ru — Коммерческая биотехнология (24 июня 2005). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 9 апреля 2010 года.

consultant.ru

Закон РФ «О защите прав потребителей» Архивная копия от 29 декабря 2010 на Wayback Machine ^{[уточнить]}

base.consultant.ru

Федеральный закон от 03.07.2016 N 358-ФЗ "О внесении изменений в отдельные законодательные акты Российской Федерации в части совершенствования государственного регулирования в области генно-инженерной деятельности"

cosmosmagazine.com

Elizabeth Finkel. GM corn and cancer: the Séralini affai (неопр.) (9 октября 2012). Архивировано 4 апреля 2013 года.

discovermagazine.com

blogs.discovermagazine.com

Carl Zimmer on Discovery Magazine blog, The Loom. 21 September 2012 From Darwinius to GMOs: Journalists Should Not Let Themselves Be Played Архивировано 21 сентября 2012 года.

doi.org

dx.doi.org

Key S., Ma J. K., Drake P. M. Genetically modified plants and human health (англ.) // Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine^[англ.] : journal. — 2008. — June (vol. 101, no. 6). — P. 290—298. — doi:10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372. — PMID 18515776. — PMC 2408621.. — «+pp 292-293. Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.».
Nicolia A., Manzo A., Veronesi F., Rosellini D. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research (англ.) // Critical Reviews in Biotechnology^[англ.] : journal. — 2014. — March (vol. 34, no. 1). — doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. — PMID 24041244.. — «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.».
Ronald P. Plant genetics, sustainable agriculture and global food security (англ.) // Genetics : journal. — 2011. — May (vol. 188, no. 1). — P. 11—20. — doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. — PMID 21546547. — PMC 3120150.. — «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).».
But see also:
Domingo J. L., Giné Bordonaba J. A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants (англ.) // Environment International^[англ.] : journal. — 2011. — May (vol. 37, no. 4). — P. 734—742. — 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. An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment (англ.) // Science, Technology, & Human Values^[англ.] : journal. — 2015. — Vol. 40, no. 6. — P. 883—914. — doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. Архивировано 7 февраля 2016 года.. — «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.».
And contrast:
Panchin A. Y., Tuzhikov A. I. Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons (англ.) // Critical Reviews in Biotechnology^[англ.] : journal. — 2016. — January (vol. 37, no. 2). — P. 213—217. — doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. — PMID 26767435.. — «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.».
and
Yang Y. T., Chen B. Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health (англ.) // Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture^[англ.] : journal. — 2016. — April (vol. 96, no. 6). — 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.».
A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010) (англ.). — Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union., 2010. — ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. — doi:10.2777/97784. Архивировано 13 октября 2019 года.
Haslberger A. G. Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects (англ.) // Nature Biotechnology : journal. — Nature Publishing Group, 2003. — July (vol. 21, no. 7). — P. 739—741. — doi:10.1038/nbt0703-739. — PMID 12833088.. — «These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects.».
Séralini G. E., Cellier D., de Vendomois J. S. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity (англ.) // Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.^[англ.] : journal. — 2007. — May (vol. 52, no. 4). — P. 596—602. — doi:10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5. — PMID 17356802.
EFSA review of statistical analyses conducted for the assessment of the MON 863 90-day rat feeding study (англ.) // EFSA Journal : journal. — Vol. 5, no. 6. — doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2007.19r.
Séralini G. E., Clair E., Mesnage R., Gress S., Defarge N., Malatesta M., Hennequin D., de Vendômois J. S. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (англ.) // Food Chem. Toxicol.^[англ.] : journal. — 2012. — September (vol. 50, no. 11). — P. 4221—4231. — doi:10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005. — PMID 22999595.
Poison postures (англ.) // Nature. — 2012. — September (vol. 489, no. 7417). — P. 474. — doi:10.1038/489474a. — PMID 23025010.
Panchin A. Y., Tuzhikov A. I. Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons. (англ.) // Critical reviews in biotechnology. — 2016. — P. 1—5. — doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. — PMID 26767435.

enveurope.com

Seralini GE et al (2011) Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements Архивная копия от 13 октября 2012 на Wayback Machine Environmental Sciences Europe 23:10

europa.eu

ec.europa.eu

A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010) (англ.). — Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union., 2010. — ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. — doi:10.2777/97784. Архивировано 13 октября 2019 года.
European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation; Directorate E — Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food; Unit E2 — Biotechnologies (2010) (неопр.). Дата обращения: 28 апреля 2020. Архивировано 13 октября 2019 года.
REGULATION (EC) No 1829/2003 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed Архивировано 20 января 2014 года.: Section 2. Lablling. Article 12 Scope:"2. This Section shall not apply to foods containing material which contains, consists of or is produced from GMOs in a proportion no higher than 0,9 percent of the food ingredients considered individually or food consisting of a single ingredient, provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable."

efsa.europa.eu

Statement of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on the analysis of data from a 90-day rat feeding study with MON 863 maize アーカイブされたコピー (неопр.). Дата обращения: 22 июля 2013. Архивировано 25 октября 2014 года.
EFSA Minutes of the 55th Plenary Meeting of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms Held on 27–28 January 2010 IN Parma, Italy, Annex 1, Vendemois et al 2009 (неопр.). European Food Safety Authority report. Дата обращения: 11 ноября 2010. Архивировано 21 марта 2013 года.

eur-lex.europa.eu

REGULATION (EC) No 1830/2003 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC of 22 September 2003 Архивная копия от 27 июля 2019 на Wayback Machine: Article 7 "Amendment of Directive 2001/18/EC": "3. For products intended for direct processing, paragraph 1 shall not apply to traces of authorised GMOs in a proportion no higher than 0,9 % or lower thresholds establishedunder the provisions of Article 30(2), provided that thesetraces are adventitious or technically unavoidable."

europa.eu

Traceability and labelling of GMOs Архивная копия от 30 мая 2013 на Wayback Machine // Summaries of EU legislation: "GMO adventitious presence threshold: All food or feed products, including those intended directly for processing are subject to the labelling obligation when they consist, contain or are made from GMOs. Only traces of GMOs may be exempt from this obligation if they do not exceed the threshold of 0.9 % and if their presence is adventitious and technically unavoidable."

fao.org

State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops (неопр.). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2004). — «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).» Дата обращения: 8 февраля 2016. Архивировано 9 января 2019 года.

food.gov.uk

Opinion relating to the deposition of 15 December 2009 by the Member of Parliament, François Grosdidier, as to the conclusions of the study entitled "A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health" (неопр.). English translation of French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee document. Дата обращения: 11 ноября 2010. Архивировано 21 марта 2013 года.

foodstandards.gov.au

FSANZ response to de Vendomois et al. (2009), A comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health, Int. J. Biol. Sci. 5 (7): 706—726 Архивная копия от 29 марта 2011 на Wayback Machine

gmo-compass.org

Denise G. Brake, Donald P. Evenson. «A generational study of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans on mouse fetal, postnatal, pubertal and adult testicular development» Brake, Evenson, South Dakota State University, 2004. (англ.) (.pdf). Food and Chemical Toxicology (4 августа 2003). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 12 марта 2012 года.

gmo.ru

«Хроническое употребление трансгенной сои, устойчивой к глифосату, не влияет на здоровье крыс.» (рус.) Gmo.Ru (16 февраля 2008). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано из оригинала 8 сентября 2013 года.
Генно-модифицированная соя и безопасность для здоровья (англ.) // Nature Biotechnology. — Nature Publishing Group, 2007. — No. 25(9). Архивировано 8 июня 2010 года. (Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009)
Генетически Модифицированные организмы > Дисквалификация, глобализация и ГМ хлопок (рус.) (28 декабря 2007). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано из оригинала 6 марта 2016 года.

gmopundit.blogspot.com

GMO Pundit a.k.a. David Tribe: 300 published safety assessments on GM foods and feeds (неопр.). Дата обращения: 17 июля 2010. Архивировано 9 сентября 2009 года.

government.ru

О переносе срока введения в действие государственной регистрации генно-инженерно-модифицированных организмов (неопр.). government.ru. Дата обращения: 14 июня 2016. Архивировано 9 августа 2016 года.

guardian.co.uk

Randerson J. (2008). Arpad Pusztai: Biological divide Архивная копия от 18 марта 2013 на Wayback Machine. The Guardian.

harlan.com

Sprague Dawley (неопр.). Harlan. Дата обращения: 26 октября 2012. Архивировано 4 апреля 2013 года.

huntingdon.com

Mortality and In-Life Patterns in Sprague-Dawley (неопр.). Huntingdon Life Sciences. Дата обращения: 26 октября 2012. Архивировано 4 апреля 2013 года.

iitp.ru

Александр Панчин: «В работах „о вреде ГМО“ обнаружены множественные ошибки» (рус.) (пресс-релиз). Институт проблем передачи информации имени А. А. Харкевича РАН (20 января 2016). Дата обращения: 2 февраля 2016. Архивировано 24 января 2016 года.

imdb.com

Tous cobayes? (2012) - IMDb (неопр.). IMDB. IMDB.com. Архивировано 4 апреля 2013 года.

isaaa.org

AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary) (неопр.). American Medical Association (январь 2001). — «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 International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications) 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])». Дата обращения: 19 марта 2016. Архивировано 2 апреля 2016 года.
Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods (неопр.). American Medical Association (2012). — «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.» Дата обращения: 19 марта 2016. Архивировано 7 сентября 2012 года.

kommersant.ru

Кабмин отложил введение госрегистрации ГМО в России на 3 года // Коммерсантъ. Архивировано 17 июня 2016 года.

loc.gov

Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion (неопр.). Library of Congress (9 июня 2015). — «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.» Дата обращения: 8 февраля 2016. Архивировано 27 марта 2020 года.

mindfully.org

Ermakova I. Influence of genetically modified soya on the birth-weight and survival of rat pups // Proceedings «Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants and Risk Assessment». — 2006. — С. 41—48. Архивировано 24 марта 2013 года. (Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009)

monsanto.com

Monsanto Response: de Vendomois (Seralini) et al. 2009 Архивная копия от 10 апреля 2010 на Wayback Machine

msu.su

chem.msu.su

Кузнецов В. В., Куликов А. М. Генетически модифицированные организмы и полученные из них продукты: реальные и потенциальные риски // Российский химический журнал. — 2005. — Т. XLIX, № 4. — С. 70—83. Архивировано 18 октября 2012 года. (Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009)

nap.edu

United States Institute of Medicine and United States National Research Council|National Research Council (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies Press. Free full-text Архивная копия от 21 октября 2014 на Wayback Machine. National Academies Press. pp R9-10: "In contrast to adverse health effects that have been associated with some traditional food production methods, similar serious health effects have not been identified as a result of genetic engineering techniques used in food production. This may be because developers of bioengineered organisms perform extensive compositional analyses to determine that each phenotype is desirable and to ensure that unintended changes have not occurred in key components of food."
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects (неопр.) 149. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US) (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.» Дата обращения: 19 мая 2016. Архивировано 25 августа 2019 года.

narod.ru

macroevolution.narod.ru

Марков А. В. Горизонтальный перенос генов и эволюция (рус.) (13 ноября 2008). — Доклад в Институте Общей Генетики. Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 12 марта 2012 года.

nature.com

Study linking GM maize to rat tumours is retracted (неопр.). Дата обращения: 30 ноября 2013. Архивировано 14 августа 2014 года.

newizv.ru

Ольга Горелик. Оправдательный приговор - Экологи протестуют против оценок ВОЗ, признавшей трансгены безвредными для здоровья (рус.). www.newizv.ru — Новые известия (28 июня 2005). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 12 марта 2012 года.

newscientist.com

Conventional crop breeding may be more harmful than GM (англ.). newscientist.com. Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 12 марта 2012 года.
MacKenzie, Deborah (19 September 2012) Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned Архивная копия от 26 июня 2015 на Wayback Machine New Scientist. Retrieved 26 September 2012

nih.gov

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Key S., Ma J. K., Drake P. M. Genetically modified plants and human health (англ.) // Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine^[англ.] : journal. — 2008. — June (vol. 101, no. 6). — P. 290—298. — doi:10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372. — PMID 18515776. — PMC 2408621.. — «+pp 292-293. Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.».
Nicolia A., Manzo A., Veronesi F., Rosellini D. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research (англ.) // Critical Reviews in Biotechnology^[англ.] : journal. — 2014. — March (vol. 34, no. 1). — doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. — PMID 24041244.. — «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.».
Ronald P. Plant genetics, sustainable agriculture and global food security (англ.) // Genetics : journal. — 2011. — May (vol. 188, no. 1). — P. 11—20. — doi:10.1534/genetics.111.128553. — PMID 21546547. — PMC 3120150.. — «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).».
But see also:
Domingo J. L., Giné Bordonaba J. A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants (англ.) // Environment International^[англ.] : journal. — 2011. — May (vol. 37, no. 4). — P. 734—742. — 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. An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment (англ.) // Science, Technology, & Human Values^[англ.] : journal. — 2015. — Vol. 40, no. 6. — P. 883—914. — doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. Архивировано 7 февраля 2016 года.. — «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.».
And contrast:
Panchin A. Y., Tuzhikov A. I. Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons (англ.) // Critical Reviews in Biotechnology^[англ.] : journal. — 2016. — January (vol. 37, no. 2). — P. 213—217. — doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. — PMID 26767435.. — «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.».
and
Yang Y. T., Chen B. Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health (англ.) // Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture^[англ.] : journal. — 2016. — April (vol. 96, no. 6). — 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.».
Haslberger A. G. Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects (англ.) // Nature Biotechnology : journal. — Nature Publishing Group, 2003. — July (vol. 21, no. 7). — P. 739—741. — doi:10.1038/nbt0703-739. — PMID 12833088.. — «These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects.».
Key S, Ma JK, Drake PM. Genetically modified plants and human health // J R Soc Med. — 2008. — Т. 101, № 6. — С. 290—298. Архивировано 29 июня 2017 года.
Séralini G. E., Cellier D., de Vendomois J. S. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity (англ.) // Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.^[англ.] : journal. — 2007. — May (vol. 52, no. 4). — P. 596—602. — doi:10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5. — PMID 17356802.
de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. (2009) A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Архивная копия от 20 сентября 2017 на Wayback Machine Int J Biol Sci. 10;5(7):706-26.
Séralini G. E., Clair E., Mesnage R., Gress S., Defarge N., Malatesta M., Hennequin D., de Vendômois J. S. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (англ.) // Food Chem. Toxicol.^[англ.] : journal. — 2012. — September (vol. 50, no. 11). — P. 4221—4231. — doi:10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005. — PMID 22999595.
Poison postures (англ.) // Nature. — 2012. — September (vol. 489, no. 7417). — P. 474. — doi:10.1038/489474a. — PMID 23025010.
Panchin AY Toxicity of Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize is not supported by statistical tests Архивная копия от 21 марта 2017 на Wayback Machine//Food Chem Toxicol. 2013 Mar;53:475
Panchin A. Y., Tuzhikov A. I. Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons. (англ.) // Critical reviews in biotechnology. — 2016. — P. 1—5. — doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. — PMID 26767435.

novayagazeta.ru

old.novayagazeta.ru

Александр Панчин. Война против ГМО будет проиграна (рус.) (недоступная ссылка — история). Новая газета (21 марта 2008). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009.

orst.edu

extoxnet.orst.edu

Toxicologists Label GM Foods Safe (англ.). extoxnet.orst.edu (15 апреля 2002). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 12 марта 2012 года.

pravo.gov.ru

publication.pravo.gov.ru

Официальное опубликование Федерального закона от 03.07.2016 № 358-ФЗ "О внесении изменений в отдельные законодательные акты Российской Федерации в части совершенствования государственного регулирования в области генно-инженерной деятельности" (неопр.). Дата обращения: 16 июня 2017. Архивировано 26 мая 2017 года.

rbc.ru

top.rbc.ru

Россия ввела обязательную маркировку ГМ-продуктов Архивная копия от 24 апреля 2014 на Wayback Machine // РБК, 2007

reuters.com

UPDATE 3-Study on Monsanto GM corn concerns draws scepticism. Reuters. 19 сентября 2012. Архивировано 13 октября 2015. Дата обращения: 29 сентября 2017.
French agency says Monsanto GMO maize safe: report (англ.) (11 февраля 2009). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 12 марта 2012 года.

rg.ru

Постановление Правительства Российской Федерации от 23 сентября 2013 г. № 839 Архивная копия от 9 декабря 2021 на Wayback Machine «О государственной регистрации генно-инженерно-модифицированных организмов, предназначенных для выпуска в окружающую среду, а также продукции, полученной с применением таких организмов или содержащей такие организмы»

rospotrebnadzor.ru

25.rospotrebnadzor.ru

Об итогах надзора за пищевыми продуктами, содержащими ГМО за 4 квартал 2012 года Архивная копия от 24 апреля 2014 на Wayback Machine // РПН

thelancet.com

Ewen S.M., Pusztai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing lectin on rat small intestine (англ.) // The Lancet. — Elsevier, 1999. — Vol. 353. — P. 1353—1354. Архивировано 15 апреля 2010 года. (Дата обращения: 30 мая 2010)
Allan Mowat. GM food debate (англ.). — The Lancet, 13 November 1999. — Vol. 354, iss. 9191. — P. 1725. Архивировано 12 февраля 2013 года. (Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009)
Carl B Feldbaum. GM food debate (англ.). — The Lancet, 13 November 1999. — Vol. 354, iss. 9191. — P. 1729. Архивировано 20 ноября 2010 года. (Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009)
Anthony J FitzGerald, Robert A Goodlad, Nicholas A Wright. GM food debate (англ.). — The Lancet, 13 November 1999. — Vol. 354, iss. 9191. — P. 1725 — 1726. Архивировано 10 февраля 2013 года. (Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009)

transcontainer.org

TransContainer (неопр.). Дата обращения: 30 июня 2022. Архивировано 21 ноября 2008 года.

truthabouttrade.org

Truth About Trade & Technology. Modified Food's Moment? (англ.) (недоступная ссылка — история). truthabouttrade.org (25 февраля 2009). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009.

trv-science.ru

Руслана Радчук. Мнимые угрозы ГМО Архивная копия от 5 июля 2014 на Wayback Machine // ТрВ № 116, c. 6

tufts.edu

But see also:
Domingo J. L., Giné Bordonaba J. A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants (англ.) // Environment International^[англ.] : journal. — 2011. — May (vol. 37, no. 4). — P. 734—742. — 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. An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment (англ.) // Science, Technology, & Human Values^[англ.] : journal. — 2015. — Vol. 40, no. 6. — P. 883—914. — doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. Архивировано 7 февраля 2016 года.. — «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.».
And contrast:
Panchin A. Y., Tuzhikov A. I. Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons (англ.) // Critical Reviews in Biotechnology^[англ.] : journal. — 2016. — January (vol. 37, no. 2). — P. 213—217. — doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. — PMID 26767435.. — «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.».
and
Yang Y. T., Chen B. Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health (англ.) // Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture^[англ.] : journal. — 2016. — April (vol. 96, no. 6). — 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.».

tyumen.ru

Ирина Власова. Американским пациентам сделают козу (рус.) (11 февраля 2009). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано из оригинала 7 августа 2012 года.

vedomosti.ru

Российское правительство разрешило регистрировать семена генно-модифицированных растений. Ведомости. 9 декабря 2013 Архивная копия от 2 февраля 2014 на Wayback Machine

washingtonpost.com

Tim Carman for the Washington Post. Posted at 07:30 PM ET, 19 September 2012. French scientists question safety of GM corn [3] Архивная копия от 5 января 2022 на Wayback Machine

web.archive.org

AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary) (неопр.). American Medical Association (январь 2001). — «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 International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications) 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])». Дата обращения: 19 марта 2016. Архивировано 2 апреля 2016 года.
Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods (неопр.). American Medical Association (2012). — «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.» Дата обращения: 19 марта 2016. Архивировано 7 сентября 2012 года.
United States Institute of Medicine and United States National Research Council|National Research Council (2004). Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. National Academies Press. Free full-text Архивная копия от 21 октября 2014 на Wayback Machine. National Academies Press. pp R9-10: "In contrast to adverse health effects that have been associated with some traditional food production methods, similar serious health effects have not been identified as a result of genetic engineering techniques used in food production. This may be because developers of bioengineered organisms perform extensive compositional analyses to determine that each phenotype is desirable and to ensure that unintended changes have not occurred in key components of food."
State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops (неопр.). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2004). — «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).» Дата обращения: 8 февраля 2016. Архивировано 9 января 2019 года.
But see also:
Domingo J. L., Giné Bordonaba J. A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants (англ.) // Environment International^[англ.] : journal. — 2011. — May (vol. 37, no. 4). — P. 734—742. — 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. An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment (англ.) // Science, Technology, & Human Values^[англ.] : journal. — 2015. — Vol. 40, no. 6. — P. 883—914. — doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. Архивировано 7 февраля 2016 года.. — «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.».
And contrast:
Panchin A. Y., Tuzhikov A. I. Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons (англ.) // Critical Reviews in Biotechnology^[англ.] : journal. — 2016. — January (vol. 37, no. 2). — P. 213—217. — doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. — PMID 26767435.. — «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.».
and
Yang Y. T., Chen B. Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health (англ.) // Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture^[англ.] : journal. — 2016. — April (vol. 96, no. 6). — 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.».
Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods (неопр.). American Association for the Advancement of Science (20 октября 2012). — «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.» Дата обращения: 8 февраля 2016. Архивировано 7 декабря 2019 года.
Pinholster, Ginger. AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers" (неопр.). American Association for the Advancement of Science (25 октября 2012). Дата обращения: 8 февраля 2016. Архивировано 3 февраля 2016 года.
A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010) (англ.). — Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union., 2010. — ISBN 978-92-79-16344-9. — doi:10.2777/97784. Архивировано 13 октября 2019 года.
Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion (неопр.). Library of Congress (9 июня 2015). — «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.» Дата обращения: 8 февраля 2016. Архивировано 27 марта 2020 года.
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects (неопр.) 149. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US) (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.» Дата обращения: 19 мая 2016. Архивировано 25 августа 2019 года.
Часто задаваемые вопросы по генетически модифицированным продуктам питания (неопр.). Всемирная организация здравоохранения. Дата обращения: 18 ноября 2019. Архивировано 21 октября 2019 года.
Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods (неопр.). World Health Organization. — «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.» Дата обращения: 8 февраля 2016. Архивировано 10 мая 2020 года.
Some medical organizations, including the British Medical Association, advocate further caution based upon the precautionary principle:
Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement (неопр.). British Medical Association (март 2004). — «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."». Дата обращения: 21 марта 2016. Архивировано 29 июля 2016 года.
European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation; Directorate E — Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food; Unit E2 — Biotechnologies (2010) (неопр.). Дата обращения: 28 апреля 2020. Архивировано 13 октября 2019 года.
Кузнецов В. В., Куликов А. М. Генетически модифицированные организмы и полученные из них продукты: реальные и потенциальные риски // Российский химический журнал. — 2005. — Т. XLIX, № 4. — С. 70—83. Архивировано 18 октября 2012 года. (Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009)
Key S, Ma JK, Drake PM. Genetically modified plants and human health // J R Soc Med. — 2008. — Т. 101, № 6. — С. 290—298. Архивировано 29 июня 2017 года.
GMO Pundit a.k.a. David Tribe: 300 published safety assessments on GM foods and feeds (неопр.). Дата обращения: 17 июля 2010. Архивировано 9 сентября 2009 года.
«Хроническое употребление трансгенной сои, устойчивой к глифосату, не влияет на здоровье крыс.» (рус.) Gmo.Ru (16 февраля 2008). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано из оригинала 8 сентября 2013 года.
Ermakova I. Influence of genetically modified soya on the birth-weight and survival of rat pups // Proceedings «Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants and Risk Assessment». — 2006. — С. 41—48. Архивировано 24 марта 2013 года. (Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009)
Результат научного эксперимента: новорождённые крысята умирают от ГМ-сои (рус.). Biosafety.ru — Альянс СНГ «За Биобезопасность». Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 20 июня 2022 года.
Генно-модифицированная соя и безопасность для здоровья (англ.) // Nature Biotechnology. — Nature Publishing Group, 2007. — No. 25(9). Архивировано 8 июня 2010 года. (Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009)
Randerson J. (2008). Arpad Pusztai: Biological divide Архивная копия от 18 марта 2013 на Wayback Machine. The Guardian.
Ewen S.M., Pusztai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing lectin on rat small intestine (англ.) // The Lancet. — Elsevier, 1999. — Vol. 353. — P. 1353—1354. Архивировано 15 апреля 2010 года. (Дата обращения: 30 мая 2010)
Allan Mowat. GM food debate (англ.). — The Lancet, 13 November 1999. — Vol. 354, iss. 9191. — P. 1725. Архивировано 12 февраля 2013 года. (Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009)
Carl B Feldbaum. GM food debate (англ.). — The Lancet, 13 November 1999. — Vol. 354, iss. 9191. — P. 1729. Архивировано 20 ноября 2010 года. (Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009)
Anthony J FitzGerald, Robert A Goodlad, Nicholas A Wright. GM food debate (англ.). — The Lancet, 13 November 1999. — Vol. 354, iss. 9191. — P. 1725 — 1726. Архивировано 10 февраля 2013 года. (Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009)
de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. (2009) A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Архивная копия от 20 сентября 2017 на Wayback Machine Int J Biol Sci. 10;5(7):706-26.
Seralini GE et al (2011) Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements Архивная копия от 13 октября 2012 на Wayback Machine Environmental Sciences Europe 23:10
Statement of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on the analysis of data from a 90-day rat feeding study with MON 863 maize アーカイブされたコピー (неопр.). Дата обращения: 22 июля 2013. Архивировано 25 октября 2014 года.
FSANZ response to de Vendomois et al. (2009), A comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health, Int. J. Biol. Sci. 5 (7): 706—726 Архивная копия от 29 марта 2011 на Wayback Machine
Monsanto Response: de Vendomois (Seralini) et al. 2009 Архивная копия от 10 апреля 2010 на Wayback Machine
Руслана Радчук. Мнимые угрозы ГМО Архивная копия от 5 июля 2014 на Wayback Machine // ТрВ № 116, c. 6
UPDATE 3-Study on Monsanto GM corn concerns draws scepticism. Reuters. 19 сентября 2012. Архивировано 13 октября 2015. Дата обращения: 29 сентября 2017.
Panchin AY Toxicity of Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize is not supported by statistical tests Архивная копия от 21 марта 2017 на Wayback Machine//Food Chem Toxicol. 2013 Mar;53:475
By Ben Hirschler and Kate Kelland. Reuters «Study on Monsanto GM corn concerns draws skepticism» 20 September 2012 [2]
MacKenzie, Deborah (19 September 2012) Study linking GM crops and cancer questioned Архивная копия от 26 июня 2015 на Wayback Machine New Scientist. Retrieved 26 September 2012
Tim Carman for the Washington Post. Posted at 07:30 PM ET, 19 September 2012. French scientists question safety of GM corn [3] Архивная копия от 5 января 2022 на Wayback Machine
Avis des Académies nationales d’Agriculture, de Médecine, de Pharmacie, des Sciences, des Technologies, et Vétérinaire sur la publication récente de G.E. Séralini et al. sur la toxicité d’un OGM Communiqué de presse 19 octobre 2012 Архивировано 19 ноября 2012 года.
Study linking GM maize to rat tumours is retracted (неопр.). Дата обращения: 30 ноября 2013. Архивировано 14 августа 2014 года.
Александр Панчин: «В работах „о вреде ГМО“ обнаружены множественные ошибки» (рус.) (пресс-релиз). Институт проблем передачи информации имени А. А. Харкевича РАН (20 января 2016). Дата обращения: 2 февраля 2016. Архивировано 24 января 2016 года.
TransContainer (неопр.). Дата обращения: 30 июня 2022. Архивировано 21 ноября 2008 года.
Truth About Trade & Technology. Modified Food's Moment? (англ.) (недоступная ссылка — история). truthabouttrade.org (25 февраля 2009). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009.
Всемирная организация здравоохранения. Современная биотехнология производства продуктов питания, здоровье и развитие человека: исследование на основе фактов. — 2005. — С. 37. Архивировано 1 сентября 2013 года. (Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009)
Биоэтика и законы : ВОЗ призывает не опасаться ГМО (рус.). Сbio.ru — Коммерческая биотехнология (24 июня 2005). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 9 апреля 2010 года.
Александр Панчин. Война против ГМО будет проиграна (рус.) (недоступная ссылка — история). Новая газета (21 марта 2008). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009.
Эксперты ЕС оправдали «генные» мясо и молоко (рус.) (12 января 2008). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 15 апреля 2012 года.
Виктория Копейкина. Греция останется свободной от ГМО (рус.) (2 февраля 2006). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 6 июня 2022 года.
Виктория Копейкина. Зоны, свободные от ГМО в мире, основные принципы создания, современная ситуация (рус.) (6 января 2007). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 6 июня 2022 года.
Виктория Копейкина. В Испании может появиться новая зона, свободная от ГМО (рус.) (1 сентября 2008). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 6 июня 2022 года.
REGULATION (EC) No 1829/2003 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed Архивировано 20 января 2014 года.: Section 2. Lablling. Article 12 Scope:"2. This Section shall not apply to foods containing material which contains, consists of or is produced from GMOs in a proportion no higher than 0,9 percent of the food ingredients considered individually or food consisting of a single ingredient, provided that this presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable."
REGULATION (EC) No 1830/2003 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC of 22 September 2003 Архивная копия от 27 июля 2019 на Wayback Machine: Article 7 "Amendment of Directive 2001/18/EC": "3. For products intended for direct processing, paragraph 1 shall not apply to traces of authorised GMOs in a proportion no higher than 0,9 % or lower thresholds establishedunder the provisions of Article 30(2), provided that thesetraces are adventitious or technically unavoidable."
Traceability and labelling of GMOs Архивная копия от 30 мая 2013 на Wayback Machine // Summaries of EU legislation: "GMO adventitious presence threshold: All food or feed products, including those intended directly for processing are subject to the labelling obligation when they consist, contain or are made from GMOs. Only traces of GMOs may be exempt from this obligation if they do not exceed the threshold of 0.9 % and if their presence is adventitious and technically unavoidable."
Виктория Копейкина. Позиция католиков разных стран по вопросам ГМО не совпадает (рус.) (1 марта 2007). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 6 июня 2022 года.
Генетически Модифицированные организмы > Дисквалификация, глобализация и ГМ хлопок (рус.) (28 декабря 2007). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано из оригинала 6 марта 2016 года.
Закон РФ «О защите прав потребителей» Архивная копия от 29 декабря 2010 на Wayback Machine ^{[уточнить]}
Об итогах надзора за пищевыми продуктами, содержащими ГМО за 4 квартал 2012 года Архивная копия от 24 апреля 2014 на Wayback Machine // РПН
Россия ввела обязательную маркировку ГМ-продуктов Архивная копия от 24 апреля 2014 на Wayback Machine // РБК, 2007
Российское правительство разрешило регистрировать семена генно-модифицированных растений. Ведомости. 9 декабря 2013 Архивная копия от 2 февраля 2014 на Wayback Machine
Постановление Правительства Российской Федерации от 23 сентября 2013 г. № 839 Архивная копия от 9 декабря 2021 на Wayback Machine «О государственной регистрации генно-инженерно-модифицированных организмов, предназначенных для выпуска в окружающую среду, а также продукции, полученной с применением таких организмов или содержащей такие организмы»
О переносе срока введения в действие государственной регистрации генно-инженерно-модифицированных организмов (неопр.). government.ru. Дата обращения: 14 июня 2016. Архивировано 9 августа 2016 года.
Кабмин отложил введение госрегистрации ГМО в России на 3 года // Коммерсантъ. Архивировано 17 июня 2016 года.
Официальное опубликование Федерального закона от 03.07.2016 № 358-ФЗ "О внесении изменений в отдельные законодательные акты Российской Федерации в части совершенствования государственного регулирования в области генно-инженерной деятельности" (неопр.). Дата обращения: 16 июня 2017. Архивировано 26 мая 2017 года.

webcitation.org

Toxicologists Label GM Foods Safe (англ.). extoxnet.orst.edu (15 апреля 2002). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 12 марта 2012 года.
Conventional crop breeding may be more harmful than GM (англ.). newscientist.com. Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 12 марта 2012 года.
Denise G. Brake, Donald P. Evenson. «A generational study of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans on mouse fetal, postnatal, pubertal and adult testicular development» Brake, Evenson, South Dakota State University, 2004. (англ.) (.pdf). Food and Chemical Toxicology (4 августа 2003). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 12 марта 2012 года.
EFSA Minutes of the 55th Plenary Meeting of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms Held on 27–28 January 2010 IN Parma, Italy, Annex 1, Vendemois et al 2009 (неопр.). European Food Safety Authority report. Дата обращения: 11 ноября 2010. Архивировано 21 марта 2013 года.
Opinion relating to the deposition of 15 December 2009 by the Member of Parliament, François Grosdidier, as to the conclusions of the study entitled "A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health" (неопр.). English translation of French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee document. Дата обращения: 11 ноября 2010. Архивировано 21 марта 2013 года.
Tous cobayes? (2012) - IMDb (неопр.). IMDB. IMDB.com. Архивировано 4 апреля 2013 года.
Mortality and In-Life Patterns in Sprague-Dawley (неопр.). Huntingdon Life Sciences. Дата обращения: 26 октября 2012. Архивировано 4 апреля 2013 года.
Sprague Dawley (неопр.). Harlan. Дата обращения: 26 октября 2012. Архивировано 4 апреля 2013 года.
Elizabeth Finkel. GM corn and cancer: the Séralini affai (неопр.) (9 октября 2012). Архивировано 4 апреля 2013 года.
Марков А. В. Горизонтальный перенос генов и эволюция (рус.) (13 ноября 2008). — Доклад в Институте Общей Генетики. Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 12 марта 2012 года.
Ольга Горелик. Оправдательный приговор - Экологи протестуют против оценок ВОЗ, признавшей трансгены безвредными для здоровья (рус.). www.newizv.ru — Новые известия (28 июня 2005). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 12 марта 2012 года.
Fintan. WTO Rules Europe Must Accept GM Foods (англ.) (8 февраля 2006). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 12 марта 2012 года.
Ирина Власова. Американским пациентам сделают козу (рус.) (11 февраля 2009). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано из оригинала 7 августа 2012 года.
Виктория Копейкина. Страны ЕС борются за право запрещать ГМО (рус.) (31 октября 2007). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 12 марта 2012 года.
French agency says Monsanto GMO maize safe: report (англ.) (11 февраля 2009). Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009. Архивировано 12 марта 2012 года.

who.int

Часто задаваемые вопросы по генетически модифицированным продуктам питания (неопр.). Всемирная организация здравоохранения. Дата обращения: 18 ноября 2019. Архивировано 21 октября 2019 года.
Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods (неопр.). World Health Organization. — «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.» Дата обращения: 8 февраля 2016. Архивировано 10 мая 2020 года.

whqlibdoc.who.int

Всемирная организация здравоохранения. Современная биотехнология производства продуктов питания, здоровье и развитие человека: исследование на основе фактов. — 2005. — С. 37. Архивировано 1 сентября 2013 года. (Дата обращения: 5 сентября 2009)

wikipedia.org

en.wikipedia.org

Key S., Ma J. K., Drake P. M. Genetically modified plants and human health (англ.) // Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine^[англ.] : journal. — 2008. — June (vol. 101, no. 6). — P. 290—298. — doi:10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372. — PMID 18515776. — PMC 2408621.. — «+pp 292-293. Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health), despite many of the consumers coming from that most litigious of countries, the USA.».
Nicolia A., Manzo A., Veronesi F., Rosellini D. An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research (англ.) // Critical Reviews in Biotechnology^[англ.] : journal. — 2014. — March (vol. 34, no. 1). — doi:10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. — PMID 24041244.. — «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.».
But see also:
Domingo J. L., Giné Bordonaba J. A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants (англ.) // Environment International^[англ.] : journal. — 2011. — May (vol. 37, no. 4). — P. 734—742. — 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. An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment (англ.) // Science, Technology, & Human Values^[англ.] : journal. — 2015. — Vol. 40, no. 6. — P. 883—914. — doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. Архивировано 7 февраля 2016 года.. — «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.».
And contrast:
Panchin A. Y., Tuzhikov A. I. Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons (англ.) // Critical Reviews in Biotechnology^[англ.] : journal. — 2016. — January (vol. 37, no. 2). — P. 213—217. — doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. — PMID 26767435.. — «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.».
and
Yang Y. T., Chen B. Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health (англ.) // Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture^[англ.] : journal. — 2016. — April (vol. 96, no. 6). — 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.».
Séralini G. E., Cellier D., de Vendomois J. S. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity (англ.) // Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.^[англ.] : journal. — 2007. — May (vol. 52, no. 4). — P. 596—602. — doi:10.1007/s00244-006-0149-5. — PMID 17356802.
Séralini G. E., Clair E., Mesnage R., Gress S., Defarge N., Malatesta M., Hennequin D., de Vendômois J. S. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (англ.) // Food Chem. Toxicol.^[англ.] : journal. — 2012. — September (vol. 50, no. 11). — P. 4221—4231. — doi:10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005. — PMID 22999595.