调查显示，88%的美国科学促进会的成员（科学工作者）认为食用转基因食品是安全的，而只有37％的公众这样认为。也的确有科学家认为食用转基因食品不安全，他们占11%，与88%相比，是明显的少数。科学家有不同的看法是正常的，看法一致反而令人怀疑。
相比而言，只有87%的科学家认为环球变暖是人类活动的结果。
大家知道，美国科学促进会是最大的科学团体，著名的“科学”杂志就是该组织出版的。
刚刚看到这样一个帖子，说
“2015年1月，300位科学界业内人士签署联合声明，《No scientific consensus on GMO safety》。声明发表在Environmental Sciences Europe (2015) 27:4。”
我孤陋寡闻，没注意到这个消息。在我的印象里，目前已经批准上市的转基因食品的安全性当然是有共识的，大量的实验结果也支持这一点。
我赶紧看了一眼这篇文章，不幸的是读文章前注意到这个杂志：Environmental Sciences Europe
这是个什么样的杂志呢？
原来这是一个反转基因的杂志。那篇有名Séralini转基因玉米有毒的文章被撤稿以后，找不到发表的杂志，最后就发表在这个杂志上。
这个杂志的影响因子是多少呢？新杂志，还没有影响因子呢。计算下来，应该是0.55。在210个环境科学杂志中占190位。影响因最高的医学方面的杂志是New England Journal of Medicine， 为51.6。说句实话，我到目前为止还不好意思把文章发在影响因子这样低的杂志上。
水平不高没关系，但不能有偏见。有人统计了该杂志发表的有关转基因的文章，多数是反对转基因的 （文章名单附后）。
“No scientific consensus on GMO safety”这篇文章发在这样一个有偏见的杂志上，让人怀疑这篇文章可能就如同Séralini的转基因玉米有毒的文章一样，实在是找不到第二家杂志发表。在数以百计的杂志中，两篇著名的反转文章都发在了同一个水平不高的杂志上，由此可以了解科学专业界的共识。
话说回来，是不是转基因植物都安全呢，当然不能这样说。转基因产品须逐一分析。抗除草剂的技术导致除草剂滥用可能是个问题。同样，制造出有毒的转基因植物也不是不可能的，可是这样的产品哪里有市场呢，卖给本拉登？
如果反对转基因的人对特定的转基因产品有疑问，这是合理的质疑。若对转基因技术一概反对，我觉得这就不是基于事实，而是基于信仰/信条/迷信了。这样就没有讨论的意义。
其实转基因真的不是我最感兴趣的话题，这篇“No scientific consensus on GMO safety”的文章就不看了吧，睡觉要紧。
资讯来源：
Scientific consensus on GMO safety stronger than for global warming
Examining Environmental Sciences Europe, journal that republished Séralini study
GMO papers in Environmental Sciences Europe
Environmental Sciences Europe was established in 1989 as "Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung (German for Environmental Science and Pollution Research)", but changed to its current name in 2011. It has no impact factor.
It has published 22 articles dealing with GMOs. 15 are from authors opposed to GMOs (some papers have a quite aggressive tone) or members of anti-GMO organizations, or with financial links to anti-GMO lobbies. 2 papers have no obvious anti-GMO bias and 2 are replies to biased articles published in the journal. 3 articles are co-authored by a member of the editorial board, with no obvious anti-GMO bias, but indicating that the editorial board is aware of issues surrounding GMOs and should have identified the biased nature of most articles published in the journal on GMOs.
The journal claims to be peer-reviewed.
Papers published by authors linked to anti-GMO organizations (sometimes under the affiliation of such organizations)
CRIIGEN:
Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements
Gilles-Eric Séralini, Robin Mesnage, Emilie Clair, Steeve Gress, Joël Spiroux de Vendômois and Dominique Cellier
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10
GenØk:
The German ban on GM maize MON810: scientifically justified or unjustified?
Thomas Bøhn, Raul Primicerio and Terje Traavik
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/22
TestBiotech:
Cultivation-independent establishment of genetically engineered plants in natural populations: current evidence and implications for EU regulation
Andreas Bauer-Panskus, Broder Breckling, Sylvia Hamberger and Christoph Then
http://www.enveurope.com/content/25/1/34
ENSSER:
Systemic risks of genetically modified crops: the need for new approaches to risk assessment
Hartmut Meyer
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/7
Rat feeding studies with genetically modified maize - a comparative evaluation of applied methods and risk assessment standards
Hartmut Meyer and Angelika Hilbeck
http://www.enveurope.com/content/25/1/33
A controversy re-visited: Is the coccinellid Adalia bipunctata adversely affected by Bt toxins?
Angelika Hilbeck, Joanna M McMillan, Matthias Meier, Anna Humbel, Juanita Schläpfer-Miller and Miluse Trtikova
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/10
Underlying reasons of the controversy over adverse effects of Bt toxins on lady beetle and lacewing larvae
Angelika Hilbeck, Matthias Meier and Miluse Trtikova
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/9
Scrutinizing the current practice of the environmental risk assessment of GM maize applications for cultivation in the EU
Marion Dolezel, Marianne Miklau, Angelika Hilbeck, Mathias Otto, Michael Eckerstorfer, Andreas Heissenberger, Beatrix Tappeser and Helmut Gaugitsch
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/33
Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants - concepts and controversies
Angelika Hilbeck, Matthias Meier, Jörg Römbke, Stephan Jänsch, Hanka Teichmann and Beatrix Tappeser
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/13
Farmer’s choice of seeds in four EU countries under different levels of GM crop adoption
Angelika Hilbeck, Tamara Lebrecht, Raphaela Vogel, Jack A Heinemann and Rosa Binimelis
http://www.enveurope.com/content/25/1/12
Other papers linked to ‘green’ organizations
Surveying the occurrence of subspontaneous glyphosate-tolerant genetically engineered Brassica napus L. (Brassicaceae) along Swiss railways
Nicola Schoenenberger and Luigi D’Andrea
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/23
The project was partially funded by AWEL, Section of Biological security of the Canton Zurich, the Fondation pour une Terre Humaine, and by Greenpeace Switzerland.
Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. -- the first sixteen years
Charles M Benbrook
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24
Funding to support the development of the model was provided by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Consumers Union, UCS, and The Organic Center.
Others papers with anti-GMO biases:
The booklet "Genetically modified crops" published from the German Research Foundation, does not meet the given claim
Friedhelm Taube, Michael Krawinkel, Andreas Susenbeth and Werner Theobald
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/1
“We conclude that the evaluation of GMO's in agriculture primarily from a crop breeding perspective is lacking crucial positions…”.
European Union and German law on co-existence: Individualisation of a systemic problem
Gerd Winter and Sarah Stoppe-Ramadan
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/28
This paper asks for tougher laws on GMOs.
From risk assessment to in-context trajectory evaluation - GMOs and their social implications
Vincenzo Pavone, Joanna Goven and Riccardo Guarino
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/3
“the lack of long-term studies, further aggravated by current methodological deficiencies, prevent risk assessment from considering not only how GMOs affect the environmental context but also, and most importantly, the way people live in, and interact with, this context.”
List of references biased towards anti-GMO and postmodernist authors
Papers co-authored by a member of the editorial board
(no obvious bias, but a obvious lack of critical views on biased articles published in the journal)
Implications of GMO cultivation and monitoring-series
Gunther Schmidt and Winfried Schröder
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/2
“Considerable scientific work has to be done to solve the remaining open questions”.
This article is an editorial on the GMLS conferences, which invite anti-GMO authors, which does not identify their biased nature.
Overview of principles and implementations to deal with spatial issues in monitoring environmental effects of genetically modified organisms
Winfried Schröder and Gunther Schmidt
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/6
Cultivation of GMO in Germany: support of monitoring and coexistence issues by WebGIS technology
Lukas Kleppin, Gunther Schmidt and Winfried Schröder
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/4
Other unbiased articles
Setup, efforts and practical experiences of a monitoring program for genetically modified plants - an Austrian case study for oilseed rape and maize
Kathrin Pascher, Dietmar Moser, Stefan Dullinger, Leopold Sachslehner,Patrick Gros, Norbert Sauberer, Andreas Traxler, Georg Grabherr and Thomas Frank
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/12
Consequences of isolation distances on the allocation of GM maize fields in agricultural landscapes of Germany
Ulrich Stachow, Claudia Bethwell, Angelika Wurbs and Frieder Graef
http://www.enveurope.com/content/25/1/24
Replies to biased articles
A reply to Hilbeck’s parallel science:
Putative effects of Cry1Ab to larvae of Adalia bipunctata - reply to Hilbeck et al. (2012)
Jörg Romeis, Fernando Álvarez-Alfageme and Franz Bigler
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/18
Response to the criticism by Taube et al. in ESE 23:1, 2011, on the booklet "Green Genetic Engineering" published by the German Research Foundation (DFG)
Inge Broer, Christian Jung, Frank Ordon, Matin Qaim, Barbara Reinhold-Hurek,Uwe Sonnewald and Andreas von Tiedemann
