Pesticides and food: It’s not a black and white issue

Special 6-part series starting on

FIRST ARTICLE: Has pesticide use decreased over the last 40 years?

Anti-GMO Activism and Its Impact on Food Security

| | December 4, 2014

Kevin M. Folta, PhD, Professor and Chairman, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida

Click here to download a PDF version of this story.


Science should drive public policy and the public’s understanding of the strengths and limitations of GM crop and food advances. Activists have dismissed the opinions of the world’s leading scientists to undermine public trust in the benefits of GM crops and foods containing ingredients from them. Holding activists accountable for increased regulatory costs and public policy proposals that limit innovation in the public and private sector is vital to ensuring that millions of consumers can realize the crop, environmental and nutritional benefits offered by GM technology.

• Activists dismissal of science to oppose GM technology negatively impacts the public discussion and the regulatory environment.
• Activists limit the ability of lawmakers to develop sound policy that fosters technology innovations.
• Activists ignore credible scientists and foster distrust of safe food-system technology and innovations that can improve nutrition and environmental sustainability.
• Public acceptance of beneficial food technology is undermined in an environment where activists lead the public discussion while ignoring sound science.
• Holding activists accountable will foster an environment that advances research and development in the field of GM food and crop science.


“Food is a personal and cultural topic. It is the stuff on the table in front of us, it is the sustenance we present to our families and dearest friends. For these reasons it is a ripe topic on which to manufacture fear.”

One of the hallmarks of an anti‐intellectual movement is the promotion of ideas and philosophies that run counter to accepted scientific consensus. The movement against biotechnology has much in common with movements that oppose vaccines, deny climate science or contend evolution is a myth. Biotech opponents often ignore sound science and credible scientists, and instead rely on low‐quality data, spread misinformation, appeal to fear, and present an addiction to logical fallacy.

Critics of GMOs (for this report, “transgenic,” “genetically modified,” “GM” and “GMO” are synonymous) wage aggressive campaigns against existing technologies that have demonstrated to be advantageous to the farmer, the environment, the consumer, and the poor locked in nutritional deficit. Biotech opponents exploit the human desire to avoid risk, impeding progress in using transgenic technology as a tool to improve the human condition.

Science Denial in the GM Realm

“The non‐scientific vilification of sound technology is the foundation of the anti‐GMO movement.”

Anti-GMO activists rely on information that does not reflect research by independent scientists in high-impact, peer-reviewed journals. Each year there are hundreds of scholarly papers that reinforce the utility, efficacy and safety of transgenic technologies that rarely receive attention from mainstream media, despite the fact that these reports must pass rigorous peer review before they are assimilated into scientific literature. Yet activists frequently revisit and quote from the same handful of low quality, non-reproducible studies, ignoring the abundance of reliable, independent GM information available.

One example in November 2013 is headlined, “GMOs linked to gluten disorders plaguing 18 million Americans –report” [1]. The article offered no data or references to research. The claims originated by Jeffrey Smith, a popular anti-GMO crusader with no scientific credentials, and his interview with a chiropractor. None of what was reported was actual research; there was no “link” to actual research. The article reflected the opinion of a non‐scientist. Yet it was widely distributed and read around the world. News outlets often mistake speculation as science. Bold headlines capture attention and sensationalism fuels the news cycle, permitting unsupported scientific claims that transform into headlines. These unfound claims are picked up by news outlets and propagate quickly. Social media spreads these claims even further, even among otherwise credible outlets.

Blaming New Technology for Historical Problems

“The most troubling part of this false blame is that less attention is paid to the discovery of the actual causes.”

Weed and insect resistance have been cited as significant drawbacks stemming from adoption of GM technology. The activist hyperbole speaks of “superweeds.” Yet they are hardly “super”; they are resistant to one herbicide, a challenge facing modern agriculture for decades preceding the introduction of GM crops.

Much of the criticism focuses on the use of the herbicide glyphosate (the active ingredient in products such as Roundup) used in conjunction with many herbicide resistant GM crops. Farmers have been able to substitute glyphosate for chemicals with greater handling and environmental restrictions, reducing the impacts of agricultural herbicides. While the increase in acreage and number of weeds resistant to glyphosate is a legitimate problem [2], the same challenges occur in every cultivation system. The use of a single herbicide simply reveals the age-old battle between weeds and man’s attempts to control them. It is an endless arms race, and glyphosate resistance is just another example of that reality.

Many authors and activist speakers point out a suite of maladies they claim has increased in concert with the adoption of GM foods: obesity, liver disease, autism, asthma and many other chronic diseases [3]. Yet there is no evidence that demonstrates actual mechanistic links between the products and any of these disorders. The increased incidence of these health issues matches precisely the increased consumption of organic foods as well, and of course, there’s no likely connection. This common confusion of correlation with causation underlies the rhetoric within anti‐GM websites and literature. Good science seeks to connect cause and effect and move beyond simple correlation, but the anti-GM peer-reviewed scientific literature trumpets these associations that are likely not authentic. Rarely, if ever, have we seen evidence that demonstrates mechanisms linking treatment and outcomes, or dose-response relationships as is required by good science.

The most troubling part of this false blame is that less attention is directed at trying to discover the actual causes of modern disease. The real reasons for disorders mentioned by activists are likely multifactorial, meaning, for instance, that genetic predisposition is exacerbated by environmental or other stressors. While transgenic crops have never been linked to any of these diseases, it does not stop anti‐GM activists from promoting imagined associations as hard facts.

Because of the fears these campaigns generate, crops proven to resist disease, drought, flooding and many other cultural stresses are locked in laboratories worldwide. Plants with higher nutrition content and enhanced fertilizer utilization have been developed but remain unreleased. Proven solutions to production or postharvest problems, nutrition, and environmental stresses sit idle, in part, because opposition to biotechnology freezes these potentially useful technologies in place. This reality harms mostly those in developing nations.

Recognizing a Scientist from an “Expert”

“Public scientists that are experts in this area are dismissed…yet charlatans, without data, are invited to shape the scientific conversation.”

Some of the most cited anti-GMO literature is not primary research, but cherry-picked literature reviews and surveys that have not been subjected to peer scrutiny, such as GMO Myths and Truths. Other published work arrives at speculative conclusions that are not necessarily supported by data or other cited work. In addition, a new breed of journals has emerged, posing as scientifically credible sources, but sometimes publishing almost anything if the authors are willing to pay, including research that has been retracted or rejected by credible journals. These are frequently cited as “Predatory” journals, and many offer soft review and gentle editorial treatment. The retracted study of Gilles-Éric Séralini was republished without additional peer review in a low-impact open access journal [4].

Related article:  Activist groups plan to sue Germany, EU over glyphosate herbicide re-approval

Leading “experts” often cited by the anti-GM movement may be experts in some area of science, but have little scholarly expertise on transgenic crops. They use their association with credible institutions or “celebrity” status to promote books and websites espousing the dangers of GMOs. Claims linking to an individual’s website are not a substitute for credible and substantiated research and many make claims without evidence of formal training or experimentation. While charlatans, without data, are allowed to shape the scientific conversation, public scientists who are experts in the field are often dismissed by activists as agents of a conspiracy and stooges of multinational corporations. This disparity is a critical problem, as the public places their trust in those that confirm their beliefs, not those who are trained to discover scientific facts.

And then there are the pseudo‐scientific, credible‐sounding organizations that claim to speak for the broad scientific community, yet are actually activist fronts. Three such examples are the Institute for Responsible Technology, Center for Food Safety and the Environmental Working Group. Despite a lack of peer-reviewed scientific information, these groups are frequently cited by activists and even many journalists as authorities in the science of GMO. The Union of Concerned Scientists is quoted as an authority against transgenic technology, yet few consider the “Consensus of Unconcerned Scientists”—the overwhelming majority of scientists who are supportive of GM technology because they rely on data and evidence.

Discrediting Good Science

“If the data appear to support a position of GM crop safety and efficacy, they are dismissed as products of scientific malfeasance.”

Critics of GM technology claim that financial incentive and collusion guide experimental outcomes from independent scientists who secretly conspire with publishers, reviewers and editors to hide the harms of transgenic technology. Biotech critics frequently claim that independent public scientists are “bought off” or coerced by corporate entities to generate desired results and conclusions.

Much of the research on GM crops and animals is totally independent. Funding to public universities is transparent, accessible and open. Corporations sponsor a small fraction of any university’s research. University researchers are sought out to perform important work to independently verify or refute corporate research claims.

However, there is a keen desire to commercialize innovations—to get them to farms where they can do some genuine good. As a result, corporations do occasionally interact with academic, government or other industry scientists, utilizing their expertise and resources to accelerate product development. If the data appear to support a position of GM crop safety and efficacy, skeptics immediately and reflexively dismiss the data as products of scientific malfeasance. A simple question: Why would companies pay for independent verification or further testing if the results were to be fabricated and the products were to fail, or leave them with huge liabilities if there were deleterious environmental or health consequences? If results were simply fantasy, they could be generated in-house much less expensively.

The United States, which grows and consumes the most transgenic food on the planet, is also the most litigious. There is no incentive for a company (agriculture, pharmaceutical, automotive, etc.) to present a product for public use without vetting it to the extreme. Critics and proponents can agree that a central interest of corporate agriculture is generating revenue, remaining profitable, and promoting investor returns. This does not happen when products are dangerous, fail to perform, or kill customers. The specter of litigation and the pursuit of profitability are just two reasons to ensure that there will be extensive testing of product safety.

While biotechnology critics levy allegations about public scientists on the take, they excuse more egregious potential conflicts of interest among experts with whom they agree, while assuming public-sector scientists are willing to “sell-out” for a cheap grant and destroy hard-earned careers. There are profiteers in the anti-biotech movement with financial incentives, closed books and vocal opposition that provides unending job security and a place in the limelight.

Exploitation of Perceived Risk and Social Media “Groupthink”

“From chemtrails to JFK, the internet and social media provide a pipeline to communicate and spread bad information, including that around transgenic crops.”

In addition to U.S. government agencies assessing the safety of GMOs, various professional scientific and medical bodies worldwide also have evaluated the safety of GMOs. Those independent professional bodies often appoint a blue-ribbon panel of experts in the relevant fields, including genetics, medicine, nutrition, agronomy, etc., and spend as long as two years on an investigation. All such studies to date—there have been dozens issued by global science organizations—have concluded that no agriculture or food production method is risk free, whether GMO, conventional or organic, but that, on balance, GMOs are as safe, or safer, than other methods.

Collateral Damage of Anti-Science Activism

“There is a need to comprehend how these technologies serve farmers, decrease environmental impact, and can assist, if not rescue, individuals in dire need.”

The public at large, especially in affluent countries where food is abundant, needs to understand the true strengths and limitations of biotechnology within each specific application. There is a need to comprehend how these technologies can serve farmers and decrease environmental impacts. Across the world of plant biology, scientists worldwide lament the actions of activists and their effective campaigns of GMO demonization, which has limited useful innovations:

• Bt and glyphosate resistant crops are dismissed rather than improved
• Golden Rice, which can free millions from the impacts of vitamin A deficiency [5], is stalled
• Increasing regulation and associated costs limit participation of innovative small businesses, universities and government laboratories in the field
• Reliance on less useful or unproven breeding techniques are adopted without rigorous safety testing
• Crop, environmental and nutritional benefits and improvements are not realized.

At a time when the U.S. needs to emphasize science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) disciplines to maintain international competitiveness, attacks on science from the anti-GMO movement undermine public trust in credible researchers and scientists as well as our public research institutions. This environment makes it much more difficult to help the public better understand the role the scientific method can and should play in ensuring sound public policy and personal choice based on fact, rather than fear.





Kevin M. Folta is a Professor and Chairman of Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida



1. GMOs linked to gluten disorders plaguing 18 million Americans – report. In.; 2013.

2. Glyphosate resistant weeds: current status and future outlook. Outlooks in Pest Management 2005:183-187.



5. The Economic Power of Golden Rice Opposition –

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Click the link above to read the full, original article.

16 thoughts on “Anti-GMO Activism and Its Impact on Food Security”

  1. Jeff Smith cries we are in straits that are dire
    “GMO’s will kill us all, pauper to sire !”
    When he is put on the spot,
    Jeff demurs, “A scientist i am not.”
    “But a yogic flyer i am, for hire !”

  2. Richard, I can only guess that you must be from Colorado…. Check your hippocampus from time to time. As it diminishes in size, the zeolite rays coming from your eyes will shine all the more brightly.

      • I live in an urban environment in the UK that is extensively sprayed with glyphosate. We now have no biennial plants, soils being washed away, and biodiversity in massive decline. The only thing that’s changed is the increase in Roundup usage by the local council. Personally I would prefer weeds on the footpaths as I don’t want to live in an architectural drawing.
        Certified organic farmers should not be using any chemical herbicides or pesticides.

        • Organic farmers are allowed to use pesticides as long as they are on the list at OMRI. Some of these pesticides have higher toxicities than synthetic pesticides. This is all based on a belief that naturally occurring chemicals are safer than synthetic ones, which is not always true. The most deadly chemicals on earth are natural, not manmade.

          Maybe you have a problem in your urban environment with erosion due to glyphosate, but the is not in GMO fields. Roundup Ready crops have done more to increase reduced tillage and thereby reduce erosion than any innovation I have witnessed in agriculture.

  3. We are organic farmers because we believe that there is a bet way – natures way! Trying to distort nature is bound to create issues – it is just not worth the risks.

  4. Comment by W. T. Hinds on Kevin M. Folta’s
    article, “Anti-GMO Activism and Its Impact on Food Security”, at

    Dr. Folta begins his article with some apparent disdain for scientific or policy debate. He even slanders skeptical thinkers as “anti-intellectual.”

    ” One of the hallmarks of an anti‐intellectual movement is the
    promotion of ideas and philosophies that run counter to accepted
    scientific consensus. The movement against biotechnology has much in common with movements that oppose vaccines, deny climate science or contend evolution is a myth.”

    This opening paragraph is overstated, to the point where objections should be expected. Dr. Folta links opposition to GM plants to topics where academic disdain is commonplace, but unproven. As it happens, all the topics Dr. Folta identifies as worthy of ridicule are in fact actually fields of scientific contention and debate. So are the GM foods Dr. Folta touts. Therefore, I present here a few counterpoints to consider regarding his notion of “accepted scientific consensus.”

    1. Dr. Folta confuses “accepted scientific consensus” with conventional science. “Scientific consensus” is an imaginary phenomenon that attained fame with the claim that “97% of climate scientists agree with man-made global warming.” That summarization has been repeatedly
    demonstrated to be fraudulent to the core.[1] The reader should remain cautious, because ideologically driven scientists like that “97%” author aim for a pre-determined scientific conclusion. Most non-ideological scientists work within Thomas Kuhn’s “normal science” paradigm, by presuming that conventional science works well enough, for the moment.[2]

    2. Conventional science works, until it doesn’t. A recent example might be plate tectonics. This model never worked until about 1965. When I began at the University of Washington-Seattle (1961), plate tectonics was still the stuff of comedy. When I earned my Ph.D. there (1974), plate
    tectonics was “consensus.” So, do not let Dr. Folta’s snide remarks about “consensus” persuade you. Conventional science can change within a decade, especially with the death of old conventional scientists, who have both career and pension invested in the old ways.

    3. Opposition to vaccines seems somewhat outside Dr. Folta’s field of specialization (and mine too). A recent historical survey suggests that all
    is not well with conventional science associated with vaccines. That history suggests “protection by vaccines” was confounded with (or even preceded by) increasing and widely effective hygiene and public health work.[3]

    4. Dr. Folta’s point regarding “denying climate science” is clearly a mistake. Here, I understand a little about the science (MS, Meteorology; PhD, Ecology, UW-Seattle). Nobody denies climate science or climate change. Many scientists (climatologists, physicists, and so on) do deny that human activity (particularly carbon dioxide production) has been shown to be the principal actor in the recent warming (say, from 1980 – 2000). Similarly, lack of human activity (a decline of carbon dioxide production) has not been shown to be the cause of the lack of global warming since 1999. The “dose-response” testing Dr. Folta espouses in his article is seriously (entirely?) missing regarding effects of global levels of carbon dioxide. Too many physical principles oppose such single-factor conclusions, such as cycles in solar activity, earth’s orbital mechanics, semi-periodic cycles in both the Pacific and Atlantic atmospheric circulation patterns, and faulty parameterization of clouds, rainfall, soil moisture, etc., in GCMs (the term GCM refers to General Circulation Model, not Global Climate Model). When Dr. Folta slights the acceptance of climate science, he may be looking at specific political or policy endpoints, rather than actual data. Here, it is important to see that, for the past 17 years, no data exist to demonstrate global warming. The only warming that occurs is in the models, not on earth.[4]

    5. “Evolution as a myth” is a straw man Dr. Folta should be cautious to employ. Everyone knows, or should know, that microevolution occurs regularly and reversibly in many (probably all) species. A famous example is the finch population in the Galapagos Islands, some of which exhibit a changing shape of bills with changing environment. By “evolution,” Dr. Folta must mean the notion of macroevolution, wherein entire genomic sequences are supposedly altered dramatically through time, but only bit by bit each generation. Each minor alteration in genetic makeup is assumed to be useful to the species being environment. This process assumes that excruciatingly complex alterations in the gene pool occur at random. However, specific alterations are necessary for performance of the species, especially as new organs or organelles are
    created. In the end, the gene pool of the (former) species is altered radically into the (new) gene pool of the newly successful order, but without discontinuity that would lead to unsuccessful organisms. This scenario ignores the observed fact that nearly all genetic mutations (large or small) are known to be deleterious. This kind of macroevolution is indeed a myth, at the moment, because it has never been observed,
    except as an assumed correlation of change over time. In fact, as a model macroevolution cannot survive skeptical questioning, such as the source of simultaneous multi-organelle changes needed to make new biological systems. Examples such as soft-shell reptilian eggs
    changing to hard-shell bird’s eggs, or blood clotting, or the bacterial
    flagellum, all require the simultaneous appearance of many new biochemical arrays before the organ or organelle can actually work in an organism. The missing factor in macroevolution seems to be accounting for conservation or creation of information in genetic codes.[5] Without some sort of principle regarding creation of genetic information across generations, macroevolution itself looks like a myth: widely used, believed by many, invisible in history, untestable, and ultimately unscientific. How GMOs fit into such complicated and interactive biological organisms and ecosystems is completely unknown, at the moment.

    6. Therefore, until further evidence is in, I suggest we consider Genetically Modified Organisms to be unsafe until proven otherwise. Such tests have not been performed, and the owners of the patents are unwilling to pay for (or maybe even allow) the expensive and extensive public research and dose-response trials needed to demonstrate safety and nutritive effectiveness. Thus, like a walk-on candidate for the Miami
    Dolphins, GMOs are currently untested, untried, unreliable, unknown, and
    unready. This is why I and many other thoughtful people will not willingly eat the stuff. Others may choose to eat it, but insinuating GMOs into our food supplies without honest and accurate labeling is unacceptable.



    [2] Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press), (1962) 1970, especially pp. 23-42.

    [3] Suzanne Humphries, MD and Roman Bystrianyk, Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History (CreateSpace
    Independent), 2013

    [4] Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, “17 years, 3 months with no global warming” See also, discussion of climate science, conventional science, and consensus at

    [5] William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased W ithout Intelligence (Lanham MA: Rowman and Littlefield), 2002, especially pp. 125-178, 259-310.

  5. I believe in using the scientific method to advance the knowledge of DNA and to ethically create rigorous safety protocols whenever molecules with toxic side effects like pharmaceuticals and/or pesticides are created before approving them for the public.

      • A peer reviewed published study showing rats getting massive tumors from eating NK 603 corn with Roundup Ready residues indicates we should not eat NK 603 corn with Roundup, and we should not eat livestock which feeds on NK 603 corn with Roundup.

Leave a Comment

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

Send this to a friend