There are also focusing on human effects too much, there is no telling what gmo do to the ecosystem. Gmo crops are cross pollinating genuine crops which in turn destroys them and the land they grow on, ask the organic farmers in the states growing near gmo farms if there crops are ok and not affected by this frankenfood.
O i did and it listed most of the article being written by an inhouse scientific board of members from alot of pharma companies and sun systems, im still looking for the links to these "50 authoritative independent scientific assessments"(sounds like the use of big words to make them sound official) as there is none heres the source page on the article http://www.greenfacts.org/en/gmo/about-gmo.htm where do you see the 50 sources? Are u really trying to ignore those indigenous people in those videos giving there lives to protest so people like you will see what they went through? And stop assuming i hate corporation as i do not, but monsanto is a evil company period and really weak on your part to bring up tin foil hats nice distraction keep ignoring the facts and reading your company sponsored newspaper.
The scientific evidence concerning the environmental and health impacts of genetic engineering is still emerging. This chapter briefly summarizes the current state of scientific knowledge on the potential health and environmental risks (Box 17) associated with genetic engineering in food and agriculture, followed by a discussion of the role of international standard-setting bodies in harmonizing risk analysis procedures for these products (Box 18). The scientific evidence presented in this chapter relies largely on a recent report from the International Council for Science (ICSU, 2003 - referred to hereafter as ICSU). The ICSU report draws on 50 independent scientific assessments carried out by authoritative groups in different parts of the world, including the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission, the European Commission, the OECD and the national science academies of many countries such as Australia, Brazil, China, France, India, the United Kingdom and the United States. In addition, this chapter draws on recent scientific evaluations from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2003 - referred to hereafter as Nuffield Council), the United Kingdom GM Science Review Panel (2003 - referred to hereafter as GM Science Review Panel) and the Royal Society (2003 - referred to hereafter as Royal Society) that were not available when the ICSU report was prepared. There is a substantial degree of consensus within the scientific community on many of the major safety questions concerning transgenic products, but scientists disagree on some issues, and gaps in knowledge remain.
The sources are all listed there. I wouldn't say that any of those are "in-house"