GLP Infographic: International science organizations on crop biotech safety

| August 27, 2013

Many anti-GMO activists and even some mainstream commentators claim there is a “debate” over the safety of genetically modified crops and foods. That is not the case. The bans that have been imposed in some countries on GMO crops or foods are political; they were voted in by politicians over the objections of independent international science organizations.

Every major scientific body and regulatory agency in the world has reviewed the research about GMOs and openly declared crop biotechnology and the foods currently available for sale to be safe. GM crops are as safe–and in the case of nutrtionally enhanced varieties, such as Golden Rice, healthier–than conventional and organic crops. The consensus over the health and safety is as strong as the consensus that we are undergoing human induced climate change, vaccines are beneficial and not harmful and evolution is a fact.

Last month we posted our first ever Genetic Literacy Project infographic: “10 Reasons why we need crop biotechnology”.

We now have the latest GLP infographic: “International science organizations on crop biotechnology safety.”

GLP Science and GMOs
Click the image above to access a full-size PDF of the infographic.

157 thoughts on “GLP Infographic: International science organizations on crop biotech safety”

  1. BS. This is an advertisement, similar the “Corn syrup is healthier than sugar” or “Milk is a good substitute for water during/after workouts” commercials. BS. BS. BS. Go back to marketing school and practice before trying to push this crap on the internet. Here in the digital aether; we have LARGE eyes with very thin wool above them.

    • This is not an advertisement, because it is based on evidence and not opinion. Did you even read the DIRECT QUOTES from organisations like the WHO, AMA and AAAS?

      • You believe and trust who you want Mr. “Totally NOT a paid Spokesperson”, but for me the ‘evidence’ has indeed been muddied by both sides. Whether this ‘propo-graphic’ is true or not; the fact remains that whoever is behind it has a vested interest in seeing GE crops move forward unhindered. This interest calls their motives into question.

        Also, where did all the bees go?

        • The scientists behind these statements are independent and not affiliated with corporations.The statements represent the views of the world’s top independent minds based on hundreds of studies, including many by universities and government agenices.

          • I would love to read these hundreds of studies, but that is beside the point. In fact you have missed the point entirely.

            My issue is not with the science, it’s with splashy, PR firm-fronted, fake news/science ‘websites’ such as this one, parading propaganda like it was proper journalism. This was linked directly from what I would LIKE to call a reliable and credible news source.

            Who signs your checks Mr. Entine? Or are you doing this all out of the kindness of your heart and your love for your fellow, nutrient stricken man?

          • Actually, the GLP is based at George Mason University and is funded entirely by independent foundations. This is the antithesis of a flashy PR site…all the people who work on this site are either young scientists or science journalists. Many people contribute voluntarily to the site. (If you were actually engaged in these issues, you could write as well…we accept journalistic contributions from everywhere).I am doing this because I care about science and have been actively writing about these issues for more than 25 years. The GLP is run on a shoestring budget. And for what it matters, I’ve won 20 international journalism awards and written 7 books, 3 on genetics. You seem very cynical and directionless and angry… that’s a sad place for someone to be–someone with no ideals or passion for constructive change or dialogue.

          • You call them ‘independent foundations’ i call them DuPont and/or Monsanto. I may indeed be direction-less, but I feel that’s a whole hell-of-a lot better than going in the wrong direction.

            You don’t have to prove anything to me, except it seems you do. Sadly you haven’t yet. Go home and practice.

          • Not trying to prove anything…just setting the record straight. Actually the foundations are Templeton and Searle–no connection at all to biotechnology. They are well known for funding thoughtful science educational projects, which is why they back the Genetic Literacy Project. I do hope you get your life back on track.

          • For someone who is neither pro- nor anti- GMO, you seem to have reacted very defensively to my comments. So much so that you’ve resorted to a very low tactic: personal character attack. I’m not angry, cynical, direction-less, passion-less, or ideal-less. I’m fed up, and do you know why? Because someone IS lying to us ‘angry’ folks are the exact you were hired to convince, correct?

          • No connection to biotechnology, Jon? Really?
            The Searle Freedom Trust was founded by Daniel Searle, CEO of his great grandfather’s firm, G. D. Searle & Co, creators of aspartame.
            His final act as CEO was to sell the company for $2.7 Billion to (drumroll please) Monsanto, arguably the biggest biotechnology firm on the planet.

          • Oh, and it’s rude and an internet faux-pas to edit your comments AFTER someone has responded to them. (except perhaps to remove a typo, which is not what you did)

          • I went to some trouble to find the “infographic” because the first link didn’t work – I was expecting something really interesting with some scientific content, mapping out the ecological and economic landscape around GM technology, and addressing some of the very real and very interesting scientific nd political questions around it.

            I got a load of old recycled quotes from “scientific bodies” about consensus. Not info, and the graphics were terrible. This is from a University?


          • It’s a legitimate question – who pays for your work at the foundation?

            Also, with the greatest respect (which I have no doubt you deserve) – how do you know that your appointment itself was not guided a political agenda of which you know nothing? (That is to say you may have been chosen for the position precisely because of your approach to the GM industry – nothing sinister, just a common or garden conspiracy theory!)

          • You will note that the organizations cited are the most prestigious independent science organizations in the world.

            I thing Entine (as myself) is motivated by fostering progress for humanity. Delusional people are scaring people against technology. And that is harming people.

          • do you really want to read these studies?? I doubt it, they are out there, he provided you an easy to use link. You can also use this tool called google as long as you know how to look for a scientific publication and not wack websites like (, and many others that sound appealing to mothers and such, they are riddled with misinformation). do you have issue with websites exploiting misinformation and completely inaccurate science, cause I can tell you where to go, I have ran into plenty. As a scientist, it is almost instinctual to try and eradicate this mis information, its instinctual to try and teach, but some ppl won’t take the time to learn it. It is really easy to find this information, all these studies you are crying for. Give it a try, learn something.

          • Yes, these scientists are stating their opinion. They probably are not as independent as you suggest, as their funding generally comes from industry. The real genetically-modified problem however, arises from the indisputable fact that -reality is infinitely complex-. Science has no way to adequately-exhaustively test the safety of GM products in the face of this indisputable infinite complexity. And, just as in GM products, there are plenty of organic creations that -can be made- by nature that are deadly poisons and ecological disasters. So, in the final analysis, these statements about the safety of GM products are nothing more than guess work presaging an outcome that is impossible to divine. Consumers are being asked to consume GM products, in effect to be the testing ground for genetically-modified experiments. And these scientists noted here, are willing to let the consumer take the risk that something of the infinite complexity of reality that genetically modified teases, is not going to turn out to be harmful.

            Are there adequate standards to test genetically modified products? The infinite complexity of the problem would indicate there can be no so such standard established.

            GM problems will arise. They already have arisen.

          • All farming systems present challenges, or as you say “problems”. How do they compare. For example, organic farming is not as successful at killing pests, so yields are lower. It also leads to far more health related problems, with hundreds of people dying every year from tainted organic foods while not one health related incident has been caused by GM foods. So by your logic, we should shut down organic farming?

            From a pure risk point of view, GM farming is far less risky than conventional/organic/mutagenic breeding, all of which create hundreds of proteins, and often novel ones, all of which go untested while GM usually changes one gene, which is monitored and tested.

            The statements that GM is “safe” are not “opinions”–they are factual statements based on hundreds of studies and the fact the process of GM technology is understood and monitored. That’s based on the scientific method of empirical research and weight of evidence. You’re argument–“GM foods are safe is only an opinion”–is the exact same rhetorical technique used by creationists who deny evolution.

          • The “scientific” preponderance of evidence rule you seem to rely on is wholly subject to both fraud and skewing from inadequate trial samples and observational deficiencies. Additionally, no amount of evidence is enough to overcome the infinite complexity of reality, which is the final arbiter of truth in every instance.

            Organic farming is a method of food production that has been in use on this planet for thousands of years. Of course there are examples where food crops have poisoned consumers. However in comparison, genetic engineering as it is being practiced in that lab has been on this planet for a very short period of time. The dangers are obviously colossal. An entirely new conduit through which serious problems can arise has been opened up.

            Reality, and no less especially biological reality, is infinitely complex. The genetic engineering tools being used have not been gauged yet (and cannot conclusively be gauged) as to their potential to harm in this infinitely complex reality we all both share and require for survival and some manageable habitability.

            Genetic engineering -on the other hand- is not at all about necessity. Genetic engineering is all about fame and fortune.

            So, the argument that genetic engineering should be allowed to continue, willy-nilly, is an argument for the rights of some to profit and become famous, at the risk of consumers -who are almost entirely unconscious of the risks involved.

            I don’t endorse it. After all, what is the rush here? What could be the necessity requiring such a gamble? And who has taken it upon themselves to make that arbitrary call? Upon whose license have these infamous decisions been decided?

            We are not scientific gods. When problems arise, we have no power to reverse the finality of their sorry outcome. The infinitely complex reality we all share undeniably suffers, just as it has suffered due to Fukushima, and a host of other scientific errors.

            FYI, you are wholly mistaken to equate my reasoning with Creationism.

          • You keep going back to creationist type reasoning and conspiratorial thinking. Yes, all 1000+ studies studies, more than 300 by independent scientists and/or government funded, are fraudulent is the meme pushed by anti-science groups. If you want to believe that, you are welcome to believe, but that’s not science….it’s religion. As for organic, it’s bizarre to think that a ruby red grapefruit created in a laboratory over 6 years, mostly by subjecting it to radioactive bombardment, which shatters the genome and creates novel new proteins,and not testing it, is then called organic and therefore by your view “safe” while precisely modifying one gene and testing it extensively over 5-7 years is not safe. Again, that’s religious thinking, not science. And btw, the organic industry is one of the wealthiest, capitalist enterprises in our food system today, with profit margins far exceeding conventional your condemnation of GMOs on the grounds that it’s about “fame and fortune” is just juvenile. So, engineering Golden Rice, which will save a million or more lives a year, and save many millions more from going blind is a bad thing while organic agriculture is the bees knees? So creating nuts, like peanuts, that are allergy free is only about fame and fortune; no one would be helped there! So creating nutritionally enhanced cassava–all about fame and fortune, non one’s helped there. Grains that require less pesticides, which otherwise would cause ecological damage? No help there! You are concerned person. I hope you will take your energy and take a genetics 101 course so you will better understand the technology that you so grossly misrepresent. I understand you have strong religious convictions but the ideas you are floating are not grounded in science..they are faith and fear based. If you reject mainstream science, and empirical evidence, and weight of evidence studies and the world’s top independent science organizations, you are left—only faith. And that would put us back into the 19th century….when food cost 40% of our budget and hunger was a fact of life for 2/3 of the world.

          • You keep trying to put words on my page that I have not expressed. There is no logic in this sort of approach. You are simply saying I said something I didn’t say, and then you disprove something I didn’t say, something that neither of us believe. I have also specifically denied being a Creationist, but you keep accusing me of being a Creationist. Your retort is inane.

            This is what I said.

            I have said, reality is infinitely complex. You refuse to deal head-on with this sure reality. This is a categorically true statement. Reality is infinitely complex.

            Your excuse, to get around the problem of the infinite complexity of reality, is a long list of studies you cite, each of which on the face of the overwhelming problem of the infinite complexity of reality are completely defeated as insufficient to rule out the obvious fact that genetic engineering is a huge knowledge-based gamble that might very well cause irreparable harm to both individuals and the habitable environment, if it hasn’t already caused such harm.

            Address this issue, or I will assume you are insincere. And do not try and tell me you have found the scientific-genius-solution to all the world’s problems in genetic engineering. That is not a logical statement. It is merely puffing.

          • Saying that “reality is infinitely complex” is a meaningless statement. That is a version of the precautionary notion–don’t do anything because you cannot be sure of every specific consequence. By that measure, let’s shut down organic agriculture…which uses hundreds of pesticides that haven’t been tested (as you must know, ‘natural’ pesticides and chemicals are no safer and are often less safe than ‘synthetic’ ones, which are actually tested and evaluated for safety. Science is evidence based. It rises or falls on empirical evidence. The evidence shows quite clearly–based on independent evaluations by scientists who have zero connection to industry–that GMO crops and foods are as safer or safer, and as healthy or nutritionally healthier, than conventional and organic crops and foods. If you don’t subscribe to empirical evidence, that’s fine, but don’t pretend you are evidence, based–you views are religious–based on belief, and not empirical evidence.

          • Jon, you keep coming back the the statement about some religiosity mirage in your thinking. Your arguments are frivolous in that regard.

            Your statement/argument that science is evidence based, still does not address the infinite complexity of reality. It is merely a restatement of your previous assertion that the preponderance of the evidence is to be given sway. I have said, there is no dire need to explore this dangerous technology. GM is purely fame and profit driven. GM has not arisen out of necessity.

            My point is, and has been stated already, GM crops are brand new. The whole process and the conduit for genetic change is brand new. The whole, incomplete scientific knowledge set of genetically modified is brand new too. No one can predict the repercussions of unleashing such a knowledge set on humanity.

            Because the process is so different from anything that has ever been tried before, and the variables for change are so great, the evidence-based arguments you are making, only substantiate the fact that GM has been developed at a huge risk to humanity with little, or no concern for these sure and overwhelmingly obvious dangers. Why? Because the dangers were not assessed, and could not possibly have been assessed in the first instances of GM crop modifications.

            Human beings have been the guinea pigs in this genetic engineering onslaught. The environment has been the laboratory and petri dish used for testing genetically modified crops. Everyone has read how these genetic modifications do not stay put on the farm. They do not even stay put in one variant of a single species of plant.

            As for my distrust of empirical evidence, you are right. I see nothing final in science as it is practiced on the planet today. There are better ways of approaching problems and better ways of arriving at the truth, long before the irreversible scientific calamities that have and will occur again take hold.

            What you are advocating is an immoral, unsustainable, and absurdly illogical science for the sake of wealth and fame, regardless the consequences for either humanity or the individual. Some science should not be explored. This is one. The danger is too great.

            Your arguments are not sincere. Your arguments are not even close to being sincere. You argue at a level of sophomoric rhetoric. You are thus seemingly content to act like a shill for GM industry. You are doing more harm than good for your cause.

            There is no genius behind what you are advocating. There is no genius behind the science of GM. It’s all about fame and fortune. GM is not about solving the world’s problems, any more than clean, safe nuclear energy is about solving the problems surrounding energy consumption.

            If not then, then what is the final result of this GM insurgency in our environment? Where does the world end up fifty years from now, if GM is unleashed in a more wholesale fashion than it has already been unleashed?

            I do not think you are even sincere enough to admit or recognize you do not know and you really do not have a clue what the future will bring. What you are arguing for is no less sinister than the same arguments that were made for clean, safe nuclear energy.

            You do realize that there are GM scientists who are creating biological weapons. Are you defending their insidious creations too?

            Your logic is flawed. You take a buckshot approach to logic throwing out as many unconnected facts as you can in an effort to scatter blast away at the target of truth. Not one of a million monkeys at typewriters will ever write the great American novel.

            Truth is not arrived at with such a buckshot approach. To be logical, one starts in one place and proceeds forward slowly, always re-checking previous statements to make sure no inconsistencies have arisen.

            This is where to start. 1) Reality is infinitely complex. 2) Life is good enough given the alternative. 3) The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.

            These three statements are all categorical truths.

            The final statement precludes someone like yourself deciding that he has conquered the infinite complexity of reality, that he can make something better than life as it exists, and that he has the right to roll the genetic engineering dice at the peril of everyone else, including every person who will arrive here on this planet after we are all gone.

            You seem to be proclaiming yourself a god of some sort. And I don’t buy it. I have never bought such arguments.

          • You’ve gone off the rails. Adding and subtracting genes is not new. It’s been going on for thousands of years. The clear difference between modern technology and selective breeding is that you move fewer genes–usually just one–and the changes are tested extensively. You really do not understand genetics 101. This “infinite complexity” obsession is absurd…again, it’s totally meaningless, you can chant it all you want but it adds nothing to the debate. You don’t understand nor acknowledge the scientific method…that means you are opting for a religio-faith based view of the world. I’m not willing to condemn millions of people to hunger and malnutrition over superstitious fears. Go for it. I’ll stick to science.

          • Sorry Jon, it is you and your GM experimenters who are likely condemning millions to starve. Crop failures are already occurring due to genetically engineered crops. These are well documented.

            As for your vote that the infinite complexity of reality is meaningless, you’re obviously just an uneducated science-buff ideologue. One more time, (the fifth) your aspersions about religiosity are manic. They reflect your own beam-me-up-Scotty religious-like obsession with science as the savior of mankind. You and Richard Dawkins, right?

            Mankind lived for a long time before there was this organized empirical religion that is ever more commonly being referred to as science. The credibility of science is no longer sacrosanct. Welcome to the 21st Century, Jon.

            And your kind of science just isn’t logical at all, anyway. Your kind of science requires a blind belief in the (phony) supremacy of something you refer to as the scientific method.

            You and all the other mindless Star Trek fans in the world, who think you are going to space to rule the cosmos are completely delusional, and I do mean -completely delusional-.

            What you are doing here on this blog is part and parcel of the so-called scientific method you want everyone to endorse, blindly. You are spreading the scientific gospel. And the scientific gospel about GM is as big, if not bigger fraud than the scientific gospel about clean, safe nuclear energy.

            And finally, according to your call, everyone who does not believe in the fantasy future you subscribe to is a religious zealot. You make me laugh with this argument. I have no religion whatsoever.

            Wake up. You are the zealot. GM will not save the world. GM was never intended to save the world. GM is about fame and fortune. GM is about organized empirical research concerning how to make another explosive change, good, or more likely bad.

            There is no intrinsically laudable goal in GM. These people who are GM engineers are not philanthropists. More GM scientists are bio-weapons engineers than philanthropists.

            And the risks they are taking are being made with wagers that will be paid for by every human being on the planet, now and in the future. Who licensed these GM scientists to make such a gamble? Who?

            Another thing you fail to take into account with your so-called scientific methods is, I live on this planet too. And a lot of other people who are sick of watching science destroy the habitability of the planet also live here.

            I, like others, say, NO. Forget it. You have no inherent right to perform GM experiments that HAVE ANY POSSIBILITY of further destroying the habitability of the planet. Fukushima was hopefully the last straw for your fanatical ilk.

          • I’ll let the millions of people who would directly benefit from Golden Rice, among many cutting edge nutritionally enhanced grains developed by non-profit foundations and government groups that they are making bio-weapons. Let them eat precaution. You already have blood on your hands.

          • “The scientific method, which you decry, helps us make sense of empirical
            evidence, but it is only a process. It is self-correcting, and can
            always be superseded by new data–unlike your religious position. It is
            the antithesis of arrogance.”

            This entirely abstract thing you call “empirical evidence” only comes about due to the wanton destruction of the habitat by your so-called “scientific process”, which is little more than trial and error using the habitat as a crucible. The recklessness of science is inherently illogical.

            You say it is “self-correcting”. These supposed self-corrections do not, and have no way to get over the logical hump of the infinite complexity of reality. The scientific process is both inherently corruptible (given human nature) and intrinsically destructive (given humanity’s dependence upon the one-off reality that we all share).

            Hence, there is nothing self-correcting about science. Science is suicidal.

            Science has never made a machine that does not break down. However now, with GM, science is modifying biological organisms that will continue reproduction regardless whether they serve humanity’s needs or not. Once these modified genes escape into the wild, there is no recalling them. There is no possible way to gauge the efficacy of this sort of approach. It is however easy enough to understand that GM represents a huge and untenable gamble given the longer history of scientific discovery.

            My point is, it’s a huge gamble. Neither you nor any body of “scientific” perps have the right to assume such a gamble is going to benefit humanity. Science does not approach the scientific process looking to benefit humanity. The scientific process is geared toward one thing, creating explosive change so someone can claim genius-ness and seek fortunes made of either some new product, or addressing the new harm caused by the failure of such a product.

            I too have written a book, several in fact. One is entitled, A Critique of Pure Science. Another is, The New Epistemology of Morality and Truth. The former discusses the shortcomings of science, all science in general. The latter discusses free will, secular morality, the moral imperative and a new knowledge set called, Categorical Knowledge.

            Categorical Knowledge is a new knowledge set built upon new rules of logic that account for categorical truths and that have in part arisen out of the lessons learned from the so called triumph of empirical knowledge. Categorical Knowledge lauds over empirical knowledge, even more thoroughly that you ever imagined science could laud over superstition.

            What you are talking about when you speak of “nutritionally enhanced GMO grains and foods being developed by non-profit foundations and government groups” are talking points of an industry bent on running potentially destructive scientific trials on humanity.

            What I am talking about are the unintentional and harmful byproducts of the scientific process that will result from the process of these trials, and the immoral choice it is to conduct such trials on the human population and the environment.

            I still see no sincerity in your arguments. You insist on labeling me as some sort of religious fruitcake.

            And for my part, I honestly don’t think you are being logical in your approach. You insist on ignoring and calling meaningless truths that are so obviously true, and have great bearing in any discussion concerning something like GM.

            I know GM has great potential. What I question is, what is going to be the cost of going after this golden fleece? And, who has the right to decide to take the risk?

            Lacking sincerity as you do, I do not believe you represent anyone who can claim such a right.

          • Tonto really does not understand a thing about science. It is likely that not a single scientific book has passed through him. You dont understand how science works. You dont understand scientific conclusions. And you dont want to listen/read. El Tonto es muy tonto.

          • You need to study a little. Genetic modifications are not a “new” thing to science or agriculture for that matter. I do not care to explain as I think Jon is correct in telling you to take some course if you are going to try and argue with ppl that really do know more about the subject then you, or argue scientifically. I get your point about “infinite complexity, ” yes nothing is one hundred percent, even GMO, organic or conventional agriculture. You can’t pick and chose when to employ your ideological thoughts of the certainty of life, in that sense I can see why Jon kept up with the creationist point.

          • … And that is why you have top scientists in the whole world working on the issue. And after decades of work the conclusion is clear: SAFE.

          • They don’t seem to be safe for the rats that were tested. Oh yeah, that report was pulled for no good reason.

          • There was a good reason, actually. You’d know it if you looked at the evidence before spouting off about it. The good reason was that it was a fraudulent study (these sorts of things are generally frowned upon in science, contrary to your apparent belief). And that, aside from vague feelings of unease and an unwarranted sense of superiority, is all that those who propagandize against genetic modification have.

            You hold up ten studies against two thousand, and you explain the discrepancy away with accusations of conspiracy and corruption. You justify your argument like a delusional mental patient. Meanwhile, you fail to acknowledge that the driving force behind the anti-GMO movement is frequently the same as any other: profit. Businesses like Stonybrook, Natural Grocers, and so on, spread misinformation and take legal action against their direct competitors not out of the goodness of their hearts, and certainly not based on any good evidence, but in order to turn a bigger profit by obtaining a larger share of the market. That you on the anti-science hysteria brigade so frequently accuse scientists and authors of the very crime your benefactors are committing should be, in the least, embarrassing. An experience I am sure you would be familiar with if you had any shame.

          • So I didn’t look at any evidence before spouting off about it? Your insults and condescension expose your own limitations. Just attack, don’t worry about the facts, right? Disqus must be pretty proud of you.
            Saying the driving force behind the non-gmo movement is profit and spreading misinformation… can you hear what you’re saying? Monsanto is the most litigious entity in the ag business, continually suing farmers and even states in an arrogant attempt to push their own profit agenda. It’s for profits, period, as no gmo food is better tasting or healthier. I know it and you know it.
            And who is spreading misinformation? Who spent millions on deceptive ads to kill gmo-labeling campaigns last month -the tooth fairie? You’re not worth responding to. Anti-science belongs in your camp pal, where paid “experts” squeeze out fake report after fake report, and anyone who casts a shadow of doubt on gmo foods is run out of town. Your bs position is being exposed at every turn. Disqus is a good example of arrogantly spreading misinformation. A worthless site. And it’s not fooling anyone who is looking for the truth. You are loose with your words and wrong with your information, not surprising for one who hides behind the name DeadInHell.
            Don’t respond back. I’m done with you.

          • I think Tonto has it right. To say gm farming is less risky and that not one health related incident has been caused by gm foods made me check to make sure I wasn’t on the onion’s website by mistake. Your information is so obviously biased.

          • According to Tonto, all those top scientists in the world are corrupt and fools, publishing guess work. No wonder why he calls himself Tonto… which means Fool in Spanish.

          • Your statement is a gross overreach of facts, with no science backing your claim. My point – as well as Alan851603’s – is that although there is no proof that GE crops cause any harm (CCD, Cancer, etc), there is also no proof that they don’t, and screaming your head off to the contrary only emboldens others to doubt your claim. My issue is not with GE crops in particular, it’s with big agra hiring people like Mr. Entine to try to ramrod their for-profit ideas down our collective throat. OPEN YOUR EYES FIRST before you try to tell me what you see.

          • International science organizations are not in the business of making declarative statements based on “no proof”. You are simply wrong. The international consensus, based on hundreds of studies and trillions of meals containing GMOs, that not so much as a sniffle has been linked to their consumption. If you cannot believe in basic science, there is no hope for a rational discussion of these issues. FYI, the GLP is totally independent and receives no money from industry or corporations.

          • ALL of those studies are of finite length in terms of time – none are designed to pick up multigenerational effects in humans – use of pigs mice and chickens is regarded as an effective proxy because our genetic makeup is similar. Thats fine, I have no quarrel with the science so far.

            But to take the existing body of evidence as the state of knowledge and not extend the range and deepen undestanding, that’s not science – it’s faith.

            Are you a scientist, or a religious zealot, Jon?

          • again…EVERYTHING has a risk in this life, it is delusional to think about no risk. I’m a third world country citizen and had a chance to OPEN my mind and dig deep into what are GE crops, the science not the scandal propaganda. Science is a wonderful tool to support that this technology has it’s risks and those can be managed.

            Seriously try to act smarter and…READ some more: (easy level)




            Just to start being more smart! BTW, totally laugh about how extreme ecologists always think you are been payed by Monsanto or similar! I WISH i was paid for this! It is just science dedication to eradicate IGNORANCE!

          • Wow! your comments “try to act smarter” and “start being more smart” says a lot. The industry must be proud to have you on board.

          • wish I receive a dollar for every science defense I make…In Bolivia I would be millionaire by now. Still that only shows how ignorant are some people.

          • There are 1000+ studies proving that they don’t cause harm, you and Alan whatever are ignoring all the research and evidence. Just because you don’t want to put in the work to researching it, doesn’t mean you should scream about no proof. Don’t be lazy if you care as you seem to about this important issue.

          • You know, saying that X amount of studies PROVE that GMO’s do not cause harm is ignorant of the very process of the scientific method. It is consensus. Also, if there is no information whatsoever (not regarding the harm that they could cause, that must mean that Dr. Arpad Pusztai dimply did not exist? And he must not be one of the world’s most respected authorities on animal feeding studies. The blatant attempts to discredit him, by a “respected scientific body” by the way, and the multiple reversals on their reasoning for discrediting his research are enlightening as to the true nature of the biotechnology industry, as contradicted by so many for lack of awareness. Besides, this man’s integrity and studies have been confirmed as valid by dozens of independent scientists in multiple countries, so to say that there is no shred of evidence indicating any harm from GMO’s whatsoever is ignorant, fallacious, and likely manipulative. I find it hard to believe that any who are so well-versed and personally involved with the field could not be aware of this man’s research. If science is so developed and GMO’s have been proven to be so undeniably safe, this would require putting complete unerring faith in the same process and institutions that, assuming they are completely unbiased and genuine, managed to approve a great number of drugs that have been recalled from the market for causing a great many deaths and many more serious health complications. Attention to Vioxx for causing heart attacks and Baycol for rhabdomiolysis. That is in the case of a pharmaceutical drug ingested alone, not genetic manipulation which is unarguably more complex. This sounds like the kind of authority that I would choose to put total faith in with the food supply of the human race. Clearly these scientific methods have no room for error or missing debilitating side-effects.

          • You write about Pustzai: “this man’s integrity and studies have been confirmed as valid by dozens of independent scientis ts in mu ltiple countries.” That’s factually not true. There is not one other study that has confirmed his resuults. Secondly, his study focuses on a GM potato that is not approved, so it’s irrelevant. Thirdly, his study is widely regarded by mainstream as terribly flawed. A panel of experts, the Royal Society and food-safety scientists in regulatory agencies around the world, all have concluded that the study does not demonstrate that the GM potatoes were unsafe in any way. Two separate expert panels reviewed this research and concluded that both the experimental design and conduct of the experiments were fatally flawed, and that no scientific conclusion should be drawn from the work (Royal Society 1999; Fedoroff and Brown 2004). Smith fails to tell us this. When The Lancetpublished the work, editors there published a critical analysis in the same issue (Kuiper 1999). Two separate expert panels reviewed this research and concluded that both the experimental design and conduct of the experiments were fatally flawed, and that no scientific conclusion should be drawn from the work (Royal Society 1999; Fedoroff and Brown 2004). Smith fails to tell us this. When The Lancetpublished the work, editors there published a critical analysis in the same issue (Kuiper 1999). The diets were protein-deficient and different groups of rats received different diets. Some rats were fed raw potatoes – raw potatoes are toxic to rats and might cause disturbances to gastrointestinal cells. Three different varieties of potatoes were fed to the three different groups of rats (Royal Society 1999).


            Ewen SW and Pusztai A (1999). Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressingGalanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354 :1353-1354.

            Fedoroff NV, and Brown NM (2004). Chapter 9 Poisoned rats or poisoned wells in Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist’s View of Genetically Modified Foods, Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C.

            Kuiper HA, Noteborn HPJM , and Peijnenburg ACM (1999).Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods.

          • I don’t believe you understand how evidence works. Claims require evidence. If you claim that something is harmful, you need to provide evidence to suggest that it is. If after decades of research and thousands of studies no evidence of harm exists, we can safely conclude that your claim is unsubstantiated. That IS the proof. Proof that genetic modification is not the boogeyman that you believe it is. That is how proof works.

            You cannot ban whatever you dislike based on the hypothetical possibility of it being harmful – even though it isn’t. That is absurd. There must be some actual evidence to suggest harm. And you have none. The world is not required to indulge your fantasy just because it has become dear to your heart.

        • Sorry Don, but you and a handful of your fellow crackpots do not constitute a dissention in the ranks of scientific consensus.

          A delusional man may want to “debate” the idea that the world is round, but that doesn’t mean there is debate among the scientific community about the likelihood of a flat earth.

          • So you believe that gmo’s are safe, and I’m the crackpot right?

            Enjoy your selective “scientific” reading.


        • Of course you do, even though the Earth has been cooling for 15 years. Science was good enough for you when it was saying it was warming but now that science says otherwise, it must be a lie. Kinda like the science behind GMO, all scientific studies show no harm yet you refuse to believe.

          • Global cooling/warming… Whatever you call it; we ARE pumping billions of tons of carbon into the air, acidifying our lakes/rivers/oceans, and drastically altering the make-up of the planet. I’m not anti-science at all, I’m anti-BS propaganda from big-agra apologists such as those who run this site. (This would be a lot more apparent if you could read ALL the posts I made on this page, not just the ones that Mr. Entine had a good response to.) Cheers.

          • For what it matters, and despite your rudeness, we do agree that there is human induced global warming and that it is destructive. The rejection of the health and safety facts around crop biotechnology is no different than the rejection of the facts around the certainty of global warming. If you want to sound like a juvenile and call me a “big-agra apologist” for endorsing the scientific conclusions of the World Health Organization, AAAS, NAS, German Academy of Sciences, the EU, the European Food Safety Authority and every major science organization in the world, then so be it…that’s a huge number of mainstream scientists who, by your definition, our “big-agra apologists.’

          • Yeah, seems y’all have been writing a good number of checks these days. Hope it works out in the end for you.

          • Who are you to decide which science is Propaganda and which is not? If you agree with the results I guess it is legit, if you do not then it is BS?

          • I made one post, I would not call that very vigorous. And what do you mean by blindly? Did you look at the research? I did.

          • That guy seems to be right about you (not so smarter afterall), you can’t only “believe” science when it suites your ideology.

          • Dude, global warming is a real thing. Just because the Earth “has been cooling for 15 years” doesn’t disprove the fact that since the industrial revolution the planet’s overall yearly temperature has been rising. Also, notice how I put what you said in quotation marks, because it’s not true.

          • “Dude”, what are we, in high school? I never said the global warming was not happening. In fact I said the earth warms and cools all the time. I did however misspeak about the cooling, I meant to say the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years. Wires just got crossed.

    • Actually, chocolate milk is the best after a workout. As long as it’s skim, though, the fat gets in the way of rehydration. And yes, it’s better than water.

  2. You notices there aren’t any people’s names to go with the quotes.

    And “no effects have been shown” is not the same as “there is no effect” it just means there isn’t a conclusive study yet that says there is effect.

    People used to stand in front of x-rays for half an hour for those old time human body videos and no effects had been shown back then. Doesn’t mean it was a good idea.

    A large amount of science is corporate sponsored. Where’s the profit for a corporate to sponsor a study that results in showing that real product is healthier than their modified product?

    • There are no names attached because these organizations as a whole endorse the findings. You appear to not understand how scientists discuss science. No responsible scientist would ever use such a term as “there is no effect”. They have unanimously determined that crop biotechnology of approved foods does not lead to any effects not also found in using both conventional and organics. In some respects, GM foods are superior, for example the products that offer nutritional enhancements or involve the use of less pesticides. None of the organizations is linked to corporations—they are independent.

    • french fries have acrylamyds, and there might be an effect: Cancer. Every single thing we do in life has a risk factor. To think and live under the illusion nothing has a risk is to be ignorant.

      • That’s unhelpful – We’ve done and are doing a job on elimination of carcinogens but yes there are still risks.

        Hundreds of millions of healthy person-years have been added to human lives by cutting out tobacco and taking lead out of petrol. Are you saying these actions were pointless?

        I turned down the toaster the other day to avoid burning the toast. Am I paranoid or simply taking a sensible precaution? What is your (preferably considered) judgement on that?

    • You will note that the organizations cited are the most prestigious independent science organizations in the world. The quotes are accurate. You may not like what the world’s top independent scientists have concluded because you emotionally feel differently, but the science is what it is. GMO foods and crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods.

      • The quotes may be
        accurate, but your conclusions from them are fallacious. “Safe” is a social judgment about the acceptability of risk. No country performs the sort of risk assessments of GE foods and crops internationally sanctioned by either the Codex Alimentarius or the Cartagena Protocol. The absence of evidence of harm is NOT the same as evidence of lack of harm, although the industry and its apologists try to confuse the two. “Don’t look, don’t find” has been the general practice. Labeling or regulation for social or cultural reasons is common in our societies–eg, “hallal, ” “kosher,” country of origin,” etc. where the food products are usually chemically identical to the unlabeled ones. Science is not the only legitimate basis for public policy.

        • Except that the science bodies actually reviewed hundreds of independent studies, and considered those done by independent, non industry sources. You have no factual basis for stating that they did not review the evidence. Present a coherent argument or make a substance based post. As for labeling, you have made a great case for voluntary labels (eg: Kosher), which is exactly what the science community supports. Suggest you read this month’s Scientific American editor’s statement on that very issue. Science may not be the ONLY basis for public policy you are correct; however hysteria and misinformation have no appropriate place in public policy. You may not like what the science says–heck 60% of Americans’ would vote to ban the teaching of evolution based on most polls–but science findings are not open to popular vote. These scientists who issued these statements said nothing about policy; they were stating state of the art evidence based conclusions. You can’t handle the truth.

          • There have not been “hundreds” of independent (how defined?) studies. Oh how I wish there were!. I never said the societies didn’t review the evidence; I know the evidence is based on faulty research design and reasoning as to what the outcomes mean. And many of those association statements have been taken out of context,BTW. Country of origin is not voluntary; and try voluntarily labeling some thing as kosher which doesn’t follow the govt’s regulations (all non–science based). In the marketplace our system allows prejudices to be unchallenged (if people don’t want to buy Russian goods to protest Putin’s homophobia that is just fine). Teaching standards (eg about evolution vs creationism) are completely different–high externalities, social policy decisions.

          • Sigh…there have been about 1000 studies on the health and safety of GMO crops and foods. About 675 of them are posted at the Genera database at The database will be searchable by this fall and more studies added. About one third are totally independent; another third were independently run but mandatorily funded by industry as required by regulators. Another third are industry. All three subsets agree. The reason there is an international consensus is because there is no serious disagreement between independent and industry studies. You may be resistant to understanding or accepting the science but the issue as settled as is the fact of evolution.

      • I scanned the article for “Lies” as you put it. I found different viewpoints, but nothing serious enough to label as a Lie in my view – maybe I didn’t read it properly, I’m a bit busy to plough through all that stuff.

        Jon, You write well and seem to have a lot of knowledge around the GM rollout and its political context – but you don’t seem to address the science directly –

        You signed off the article as “Jon Entine, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, is a senior fellow at the Center for Health & Risk Communication and STATS(Statistical Assessment Service) at George Mason University.

        Are you a statistician Jon, and if so, how would I go about finding studies which attempt to find associations between GM and falling Cancer rates?

        The reason I’m asking is that some months ago I came across the assertion in Forbes Magazine that a huge natural experiment is going on on the US population, and that there were no ill effects. As you must realise, that is is a very unscientific position, but it does raise an interesting point in relation to the role of statistics in the debate.

    • this is perhaps the most ignorantignorant andnonsensical distortion and fabrication the anti-gmo fear and spin machine has come up with yet. The so-called Monsanto Protection Act has absolutely nothing to do with tort law. There is absolutely no remotely plausible twisted interpretation of the provision that couls Have the result you claim.

    • If the provision actually did what you claim, I would be upset as well. What it actually says is in the event a deregulation status, is revoked by a court decision and the plant reverts to regulated status, USDA is explicitly authorized to impose appropriate restrictions on its planting and use, including requirements for segregation and limitation on ultimate disposition, such as not allowing in the human food chain, including crops that that may already be in the ground during the period there was no legal impediment to doing so. The provision so blatantly misrepresented as the Monsanto Protection Act essentially codifies exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court itself in a 7-1 decision approved as a remedy for a GE crop whose deregulatory status had been temporarily revoked. So I am sure the Supreme Court appreciates your paternalism on their behalf as it appears they are so incompetent that they abdicated their constitution duties and perogatives. So in effect, the provision only gives instructions to USDA. Please point out where in the language there is language to the effect that no person shall have any recourse to the courts to advance any tort claim arising from consumption or propogation of a plant whose genetic information has been altered by modern means of genetic gene insertion or suppression. You may have to go to a site like Genetic Literacy since most of the anti-GMO sites claiming the same thing you did do not provide the language itself so you can judge for yourself. Kinda odd, since if it is that damning, you would think they would print the language in large bold faced type to be sure you did not miss it.

  3. The you go.

    You trust the scientists that tell you the Earth is burning up, but you don’t trust the scientists that tell you GMO’s are okay.

    Believe what you want, the rest of us will go on living our lives to the fullest, not caring one iota about this.

  4. “All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.”

    So can all arguments for GMOs.

    For example there has been no conclusive disassociation of rising cancer rates (for some cancers) in the US with rising level of GMO in the diet, (or falling rates for other cancers for that matter).

    In these circumstances any “scientist” who pronounces GMO as “safe” is not a scientist, he is a fool.

    If science is really to trump ideology, it seems we will have to look beyond this site and its rather poor polemics.

    • Uhmmm….cancer rates for most cancers have been going down steadily for years…so by your totally non scientific logic, the increased eating of GMOs has led to the decrease in cancer. In short, you do not have a clue about science. If you crudely reject the findings of the world’s top science bodies, you might as well go back to 18th century science. Good luck to you.

    • anybody who pronounces that GMO causes cancer or is linked to its rising level…it is a fool.

      Most US citizens consume per year more than 0,15umg of mercury through HFCS and nobody cries out loud. What about the over industrialized crap everybody buys daily? Not a single word. So your hypothesis is not supported at all.

  5. A silly little collection of quotes plucked out of thin air, from organizations that feed off each other. Some of these are effectively trade organizations reflecting the views of the scientific establishment, and others like the EC and FSANZ have been pushing GM technology for years. The quotes are about as unscientific as one can imagine — sweeping generalisations made in the full knowledge that there has not been a single GMO-related epidemiology study anywhere in the world which might give these statements some credibility. Of course no effects have been seen — because nobody has looked for them. And we all know why.

    • I’m glad that you pointed out that the World Health Organization and the Third World Academy of Science and the German Union of Scientists and the Franch Academy, and…..are all involved in any international conspiracy to subvert science and are in the pocket of Big Ag. Thanks for investigative work!

  6. The problem with this argument regarding GMO’s is that it fails to take into account WHY they are being created. I, personally, can’t wait for the day when farmer’s have to pay royalties to some big corporate conglomerate for the intellectual “property” that is now the farmer’s crops.

    I’m also concerned with all our amateur scientists claiming 100% safety, with 0 regard to generational effects that couldn’t have been studied on such a new science. 90 day studies don’t cut it on such an issue, imho.

  7. lol So the politicins banned it for political reasons, yet monsanto lobbies with billions … you expect us to believe it isnt allowed in most places because of the billions lobbied? lmao.

  8. Science is about proving what’s true through empirical evidence. The scientist doesn’t care whether a hypothesis is ultimately supported or not by the experiment; the answer either way simply brings the world closer to the truth.

    The fact that this page opens with a rant from an unnamed author about “anti-GMO activists” should therefore set everyone off right away. The supposedly science-based perspective of the creators is clearly hell-bent on convincing you that evidence exists for a single hypothesis. The authors would clearly find reason to shoot down any skepticism, and herein do so clearly based not upon the evidence itself, but by bad-mouthing their detractors as ignorant, politically or religiously motivated, or whatever.

    As much as I’ve enjoyed the stimulating debate about whether scientific proof of GMO safety truly exists or not, a more practical concern is that consumers should have the right to choose unmodified food sources if they prefer not to play Russian Roulette.

    Unfortunately big ag has padded the pockets of politicians and colleges, and has the money to lobby governments and universities silly, so you can trust neither the government nor the so-called “scientific community” at large to work in the public’s best interests.

    The egregious lack of government oversight and the appalling absence of any requirements for food producers to disclose the use of GMOs in their products is suspect in itself, and any “need” to use GMOs is a farce — the world isn’t running out of food (don’t care what Monsanto says on the matter), and I couldn’t care less if your crop yields are a little lower if you don’t use them, there’s still enough product to get to market. A little extra profit isn’t worth the risk.

    For those uneducated in the complexities of genetics, modifying microscopic gene molecules is a little like firing a shotgun at a pinhead. Some unplanned changes are likely to happen, and digestive systems evolved from millions of years of eating unmodified foods might just not like the strange new molecule they’re presented with (do some Google searches on allergic reactions to foods and the immediate relief sufferers attain by eliminating GMOs from their diets).

    Moreover, consider also that unexplained near-epidemic rates of intestinal disorders like diverticulitis in the US are virtually unheard of in other continents like Asia. Doctors shrug and make a vague reference to differences in fiber intake, but confess they really don’t have a clue.

    Interestingly, the built-in insecticide effect in GM corn works by rupturing the digestive tracts of the insects, so you’ll just have to forgive me if I don’t feel like eating something that was “designed” to do that, even if I wasn’t necessarily the species this scientific miracle was targeted to disembowel.

    Bottom line: If you truly believe GMOs are safe, fine. For those who aren’t sure, ask yourselves why you can’t simply ask your grocer whether that item on the shelf has them or not.

    • the vast majority of grocers don’t have the time to be aware of the details* of every product they stock, of course. but the labeling campaigns are not even scratching the surface of educating the public in what ‘we have a right to know’. sadly just another smokescreen for marketing.

      not that most people who fear the monolithic ‘mysteriousness’ of GMO actually have interest in details – they just want a simple binary shopping indicator. seriously, if the core premise is genuine concern over exactly what is going into and out of our living bodies, then “i don’t have the time to educate myself (or my family, or my community)”… isn’t even an imitation of an excuse, it’s a cry for irresponsibility.

      • Grocers don’t have to be aware of what they stock. It’s the manufacturers who do the labeling. It is the easiest thing to add, just google European gmo labeling and see. Labels are changed and edited regularly, so the actual cost of editing the label is near zero. So why aren’t the people here on this website who are championing the safety of all gmos in favor of it?

        • i’m not speaking for ‘the people here on this website’, but the policies i personally haven’t been in favor of are those proposing uninformative or arbitrarily applied scare-labels such as was recently proposed in Washington state (including the words “might be” and ignoring several applicable foodstuffs). but as for the cost issue, the non-gmo project and a certain phone app seem more than sufficient for “keeping concerned families informed” and will presumably expand their coverage at a similar rate with movements that rely on emotional manipulation over evidence.

  9. But wait! There’s more!

    In an effort to understand the motives of the movers behind this little propaganda machine, I did a little research and learned some interesting things:

    Jon Entine, the apparent Chief Poobah around here, isn’t a scientist or even a geneticist. He’s a former journalist (and a good one by all accounts) and now successful author, schooled in (yeah, I know) philosophy! Hmmm.

    Even more interesting — the organizational tree for the GLP connects to a group called STATS (search Google, speaks for itself) of George Mason University, which according to its own web resource touts The Searle Freedom Trust as one of his multi-million dollar donors, a trust founded by Daniel Searle, former CEO of his great grandfather’s firm G. D. Searle and Co (inventors of Aspartame), a company he sold in 1985 to none other than Monsanto for $2.7 billion.
    Yeah. Monsanto.

    Pay zero attention to any and all “scientific” arguments presented here, folks. They’re not objective, they’re probably not truthful, and they’re certainly not scientists.

    • You will note that the organizations cited are the most prestigious independent science organizations in the world. The quotes are accurate. You may not like what the world’s top independent scientists have concluded because you emotionally feel differently, but the science is what it is. GMO foods and crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods.

  10. The quotation from the Royal Society of Medicine is bogus. It is from a regular paper published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Anyone can publish a paper in that journal, the authors have nothing to do with the Royal Society of Medicine, and the quotation is not a statement from the Royal Society of Medicine. Please remove that quotation. Also, you might want to check the other quotations as well because there could be more fake quotations in your infographic. Next time check your sources unless you guys want to lose your credibility.

  11. I guess there ARE certain GMO’s that are unsafe such as Bt crops, but there are others that are genuinely promising and beneficial GMO’s such as those for vaccine creation. We need to test things out. In my opinion, there should be no debate on the safety of the whole lot of GMO’s but on individual ones instead. And politicians should do their fill by preventing opportunistic BioTech companies. Scientists should also try to get over their own opinions regardless if they are pro or con then start doing independent studies that can be accounted for, trusted and used to inform us guys in the street.

    • There is no evidence–zero–that Bt crops are in any way unsafe. The natural bacteria engineered into crops is the same pesticide used by organic farmers. Like almost all natural pesticides, they are harmful to certain target insects but are totally harmless to humans. Bt crops have been evaluated as safe by dozens of international oversight agencies, the research confirmed by more than 100 studies. There are approximately 2500 studies on GMOs, with close to have conducted independently.

  12. It is interesting, and I’m guessing not coincidental, that a link in the article written by Jon Entine entitled “2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe”, which supposedly supports a statement in the article that there exists a global scientific consensus that GMO foods are safe, links back to this pro-industry NGO with links to the American Enterprise Institute, and that Mr. Entine directs.

    In more liberal circles, this is called “the echo chamber”.

    At least one other NGO claims there is no scientific consensus that GMOs are safe.

    And recently a group of researchers has linked glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s infamous herbicide, to chronic and fatal kidney disease, on this peer-reviewed website:

    There is evidence of a conflict of interest in Mr. Entine’s work, and basically more of industry telling us their products are safe using specious claims such as “The consensus over the health and safety [of GMOs] is as strong as the consensus that we are undergoing human induced climate change.”

    A growing body of evidence suggests otherwise.

  13. I do believe that GMO’s are safe although I understand why people are upset about Mansanto, with its ‘sterile seeds’ and ending world hunger campaigns etc. But thats besides the point, and business is business. However I think the line about the scientific general consensus over human induced global warming is a load. The earth’s temperatures have never been static. This planet is dynamic, check ice cores, check solar flare records,check one of the many ice ages,etc etc. Fact: man shouldn’t pollute and we should actively conserve nature, but lets not concoct science about it.

  14. I would love love LOVE a companion piece to this, with quotes from the same organization on climate change. I can just imagine reading that to well-meaning liberals who constantly criticize conservatives for being anti-science, and then turning it around on them and showing that the same science organizations we trust on climate change say GMOs are safe; that we can be no better than conservatives are on climate change if we can’t also accept the science on GMOs.

  15. No debate over the safety of GMO garbage, and it’s political? I guess the voice of “the People” doesn’t matter at all with you clowns! All that matters is science and politics with you clowns. Even if you’re right about GMO being safe, (which you aren’t) you don’t think “the People” should have the choice between them, and science should tell us what we should eat because we’re too stupid? Get out of here.

  16. GMO foods are not banned only for political reasons. Common sense and health reasons figure in too. This article is pure propaganda. For all those supporting gmos, please eat all of them you can. As for me, no thanks.

  17. I am wondering why, if every major scientific body in the world as you say, has deemed these GM foods safe, why are they not being labeled? Can we get transparency on labeling?

    • Why do they need labels? We’ve had this discussion ad nauseam: you guys only want the labels because the label implies there is something wrong with the product. It’s not sufficient that there are labels available for non-GMO products, you want to put a scarlet letter on GMO products.

  18. Jon Entine, do you agree I have the right to know if gmos are in a food product I am considering purchasing in the US?
    From Oregon Right to Know: a full 64 countries around the world already
    have laws for GMO labeling. That includes every country in the European
    Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia, China, and more — meaning over
    40 percent of the global population can make informed decisions about
    the foods they’re buying and eating.

Leave a Comment

News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend