La definición de consenso científico y el debate cambiante sobre la seguridad de los OGM
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24197/djcsrp94Palabras clave:
controversia científica; organismos genéticamente modificados; OGM; seguridad alimentaria; sociología de la cienciaResumen
Algunas personas tienen una actitud negativa hacia los alimentos derivados de organismos modificados genéticamente (OGM). La comunidad científica ve a los OGM de forma más positiva debido a la evidencia que demuestra que no tienen efectos negativos. El debate ha pasado de la evidencia científica a lo que los científicos dicen sobre la evidencia. Al examinar otros consensos científicos, se puede situar el estado actual del debate sobre los OGM en la línea de tiempo entre la especulación y el acuerdo. Existe un retraso entre la formación de un consenso científico y su mayor aceptación por parte del público, y el OGM debate se encuentra en esa etapa intermedia.
Descargas
Referencias
American Association for the Advancement of Science (2012). Statement by the AAAS board of directors on labeling of genetically modified foods. American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://www.aaas.org/news/statement-aaas-board-directors-labeling-genetically-modified-foods Accessed 20 Jan 2021
Bility, M. T., Agarwal, Y., Ho, S., Castronova, I., Beatty, C., Biradar, S., et al. (2020). WITHDRAWN: Can Traditional Chinese Medicine provide insights into controlling the COVID-19 pandemic: Serpentinization-induced lithospheric long-wavelength magnetic anomalies in Proterozoic bedrocks in a weakened geomagnetic field mediate the aberrant transformation of biogenic molecules in COVID-19 via magnetic catalysis. Science of The Total Environment, 142830, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142830.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020). May 2019 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Resource document. United States Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm Accessed 20 Jan 2021
Chassy, B., Tribe, D., Brookes, G., & Kershen, D. (2014). Organic marketing report. Academics Review. http://academicsreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Academics-Review_Organic-Marketing-Report1.pdf Accessed 20 Jan 2021
Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R. L., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E. W., et al. (2016). Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4), 048002, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.
Crisp, A., Boschetti, C., Perry, M., Tunnacliffe, A., & Micklem, G. (2015). Expression of multiple horizontally acquired genes is a hallmark of both vertebrate and invertebrate genomes. Genome Biology, 16(1), 50, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-015-0607-3.
de Vendômois, J. S., Cellier, D., Vélot, C., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., & Séralini, G.-E. (2010). Debate on GMOs health risks after statistical findings in regulatory tests. International journal of biological sciences, 6(6), 590-598, https://doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.6.590.
Eggertson, L. (2010). Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 182(4), E199-E200, https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-3179.
Entine, J., & Wendel, J. (2013). 2000+ reasons why GMOs are safe to eat and environmentally sustainable. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/10/14/2000-reasons-why-gmos-are-safe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/ Accessed 20 Jan 2021
Finger, R., El Benni, N., Kaphengst, T., Evans, C., Herbert, S., Lehmann, B., et al. (2011). A meta analysis on farm-level costs and benefits of GM crops. Sustainability, 3(5), 743-762, https://doi.org/10.3390/su3050743.
Frewer, L. J., van der Lans, I. A., Fischer, A. R., Reinders, M. J., Menozzi, D., Zhang, X., et al. (2013). Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification–a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 30(2), 142-152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2013.01.003.
Garcia, J. M., & Teixeira, P. (2017). Organic versus conventional food: A comparison regarding food safety. Food Reviews International, 33(4), 424-446, https://doi.org/10.1080/87559129.2016.1196490.
Hamilton, L. C. (2016). Public awareness of the scientific consensus on climate. Sage Open, 6(4), 2158244016676296.
Hilbeck, A., Binimelis, R., Defarge, N., Steinbrecher, R., Székács, A., Wickson, F., et al. (2015). No scientific consensus on GMO safety. Environmental Sciences Europe, 27(1), 1-6, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1.
Hunt, P. (2014). Yes: Food Labels Would Let Consumers Make Informed Choices - Scientists from AAAS. Environmental Health News. https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/yes-food-labels-would-let-consumers-make-informed-choices-scientists-aaas Accessed 20 Jan 2021
Kamiya, J. (2016). Activists: GMOs and Pesticides Cause Homosexuality. Hawai’i Free Press. http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Articles-Main/ID/17666/Activists-GMOs-and-Pesticides-Cause-Homosexuality Accessed 20 Jan 2021
Kirshenbaum, S., & Buhler, D. (2017). Americans are confused about food and unsure where to turn for answers, study shows. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/americans-are-confused-about-food-and-unsure-where-to-turn-for-answers-survey-shows-82124 Accessed 20 Jan 2021
Klümper, W., & Qaim, M. (2014). A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PloS one, 9(11), e111629, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629.
Krimsky, S. (2015). An illusory consensus behind GMO health assessment. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40(6), 883-914, https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915598381.
Magkos, F., Arvaniti, F., & Zampelas, A. (2003). Putting the safety of organic food into perspective. Nutrition Research Reviews, 16(2), 211-222, https://doi.org/10.1079/NRR200361.
Mesnage, R., Defarge, N., Rocque, L.-M., Spiroux de Vendômois, J., & Séralini, G.-E. (2015). Laboratory Rodent Diets Contain Toxic Levels of Environmental Contaminants: Implications for Regulatory Tests. PloS one, 10(7), e0128429, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128429.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The, P. G. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
Mollers, M., Boxman, I. L. A., Vennema, H., Slegers-Fitz-James, I. A., Brandwagt, D., Friesema, I. H., et al. (2018). Successful Use of Advertisement Pictures to Assist Recall in a Food-Borne Hepatitis A Outbreak in The Netherlands, 2017. Food and Environmental Virology, 10(3), 272-277, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12560-018-9347-3.
Nicolia, A., Manzo, A., Veronesi, F., & Rosellini, D. (2014). An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 34(1), 77-88, https://doi.org/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595.
Nordlee, J. A., Taylor, S. L., Townsend, J. A., Thomas, L. A., & Bush, R. K. (1996). Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans. New England Journal of Medicine, 334(11), 688-692, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199603143341103.
Norero, D. (2017). More than 280 scientific and technical institutions support the safety of GM crops. Si Quiero Transgenicos. http://www.siquierotransgenicos.cl/2015/06/13/more-than-240-organizations-and-scientific-institutions-support-the-safety-of-gm-crops/ Accessed 20 Jan 2021
Panchin, A. Y., & Tuzhikov, A. I. (2017). Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 37(2), 213-217, https://doi.org/10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684.
Parascandola, M., & Xiao, L. (2019). Tobacco and the lung cancer epidemic in China. Translational lung cancer research, 8(Suppl 1), S21-S30, https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr.2019.03.12.
Pellegrino, E., Bedini, S., Nuti, M., & Ercoli, L. (2018). Impact of genetically engineered maize on agronomic, environmental and toxicological traits: a meta-analysis of 21 years of field data. Scientific reports, 8(1), 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21284-2.
Porterfield, A. (2016). Amish use GMOs, pesticides yet cancer rates remain very low. Genetic Literacy Project. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/05/23/amish-use-gmos-pesticides-yet-cancer-rates-remain-low/ Accessed 20 Jan 2021
Proctor, R. N. (2012). The history of the discovery of the cigarette–lung cancer link: evidentiary traditions, corporate denial, global toll. Tobacco control, 21(2), 87-91, https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050338.
Richmond, T. (2021). Wisconsin pharmacist tried to destroy coronavirus vaccine doses because he believed it would mutate people’s DNA, according to court documents. Chicago Tribune. https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-wisconsin-pharmacist-arrested-vaccine-20210104-xcahprxb2na3nngsz562zw3rle-story.html Accessed 20 Jan 2021
Roberts, R. J. (2018). The Nobel Laureates’ Campaign Supporting GMOs. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 3(2), 61-65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2017.12.006.
Séralini, G.-E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., et al. (2014a). Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerantgenetically modified maize. Environmental Sciences Europe, 26(1), 14, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5.
Séralini, G.-E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., et al. (2014b). Retraction notice to “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize”[Food Chem. Toxicol. 50 (2012) 4221–4231]. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 63, 244, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2013.11.047.
Snell, C., Bernheim, A., Bergé, J.-B., Kuntz, M., Pascal, G., Paris, A., et al. (2012). Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50(3-4), 1134-1148, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048.
Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking (1964). Smoking and health: Report of the advisory committee to the surgeon general of the Public Health Service (Vol. 1103). Washington D.C.: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service. https://www.unav.edu/documents/16089811/16155256/Smoking+and+Health+the+Surgeon+General+Report+1964.pdf. Accessed 20 January 2021.
Tagliabue, G. (2016). The necessary “GMO” denialism and scientific consensus. Journal of Science Communication, 15(4), Y01, https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15040401.
The PLOS ONE Staff (2015). Correction: Laboratory Rodent Diets Contain Toxic Levels of Environmental Contaminants: Implications for Regulatory Tests. PloS one, 10(8), e0135542, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135542.
Twardowski, T., & Małyska, A. (2015). Uninformed and disinformed society and the GMO market. Trends in Biotechnology, 33(1), 1-3, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2014.11.006.
UNESCO (2015). UNESCO Science Report: Towards 2030. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Publishing. 794p. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000235406 Accessed 25 October 2024.
Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., Malik, M., et al. (1998). RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 351(9103), 637-641, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0.
Warda, M., & Han, J. (2008). Retracted: Mitochondria, the missing link between body and soul: Proteomic prospective evidence. [10.1002/pmic.200700695]. Proteomics, 8(3), I-XXIII, https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.200700695.
White, M. (2013). The scientific debate about GM foods is over: they’re safe. Pacific Standard Magazine, 24. https://psmag.com/social-justice/scientific-debate-gm-foods-theyre-safe-66711 Accessed 20 Jan 2021.
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Matan Shelomi
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Todos los trabajos publicados en la revista Sociología y Tecnociencia se distribuyen bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0).
Los autores continúan como propietarios de sus trabajos, y pueden volver a publicar sus artículos en otro medio sin tener que solicitar autorización, siempre y cuando indiquen que el trabajo fue publicado originariamente en la revista Sociología y Tecnociencia.
