Repeal of Genetic Engineering Ban Policies

WHEREAS national science academies of the U.S., Britain, Germany, France, China, India, Brazil, and Mexico, Third World Academy, World Health Organization, International Council for Science, European Academies Science Advisory Council, Health Canada, U.S. National Research Council, American Medical Association, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Society of Toxicology, Washington State Academy of Sciences, American Society for Cell Biology, American Society of Plant Biologists, Scientific American magazine, Science magazine, European Commission’s review of 130 studies across 25 years from 500 independent research groups, an Italian review of 1783 studies, and 600 peer-reviewed papers have concluded that genetically engineered foods are safely regulated;

WHEREAS bioengineered organisms from anthocyanin-rich purple tomatoes to vitamin A-rich golden rice have no universal biochemical traits distinct from products developed through thousands of years of traditional breeding;

WHEREAS peer-reviewed literature over a 20-year timeframe found bioengineered Bt contributing to biodiversity through decreased insecticide usage in northern China (Nature, 2012), with similar findings from a Landes Bioscience review of 155 papers (Carpenter, 2011), and a Nature Biotechnology review of 49 peer-reviewed journals surveying farmers of 12 countries, finding the greatest bioengineering benefits for developing world farmers (Carpenter, 2010);

WHEREAS dissenting papers identifying health harms in animals have methodological errors such as missing hypotheses, testing of specific products like NK603 instead of the engineering process, or retraction like with the Food and Chemical Toxicology journal to the 2012 Seralini study;

WHEREAS national science academies of the U.S., Britain, Germany, France, China, India, Brazil, and Mexico, Third World Academy, World Health Organization, International Council for Science, European Academies Science Advisory Council, Health Canada, U.S. National Research Council, American Medical Association, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Society of Toxicology, Washington State Academy of Sciences, American Society for Cell Biology, American Society of Plant Biologists, Scientific American magazine, Science magazine, European Commission’s review of 130 studies across 25 years from 500 independent research groups, an Italian review of 1783 studies, and 600 peer-reviewed papers have concluded that genetically engineered foods are safely regulated;

WHEREAS bioengineered organisms from anthocyanin-rich purple tomatoes to vitamin A-rich golden rice have no universal biochemical traits distinct from products developed through thousands of years of traditional breeding;

WHEREAS peer-reviewed literature over a 20-year timeframe found bioengineered Bt contributing to biodiversity through decreased insecticide usage in northern China (Nature, 2012), with similar findings from a Landes Bioscience review of 155 papers (Carpenter, 2011), and a Nature Biotechnology review of 49 peer-reviewed journals surveying farmers of 12 countries, finding the greatest bioengineering benefits for developing world farmers (Carpenter, 2010);

WHEREAS dissenting papers identifying health harms in animals have methodological errors such as missing hypotheses, testing of specific products like NK603 instead of the engineering process, or retraction like with the Food and Chemical Toxicology journal to the 2012 Seralini study;