Why we need a ‘dispassionate’ look at GMOs

Despite myriad assurances from scientists that foods containing genetically modified ingredients are safe to eat, consumers are likely to see more and more products labeled “GMO-free” in the not-too-distant future. As happened with the explosion of gluten-free products, food companies are quick to cash in on what they believe consumers want regardless of whether it is scientifically justified.

Responding to consumer concerns about genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, in foods, as well as individual company and state actions on GMO labeling, the Department of Agriculture last month announced a voluntary certification program that food companies would pay for to have their products labeled GMO-free.

However, a review of the pros and cons of GMOs strongly suggests that the issue reflects a poor public understanding of the science behind them, along with a rebellion against the dominance of food and agricultural conglomerates. The anti-GMO movement, I’m afraid, risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What is needed is a dispassionate look at what GMOs mean and their actual and potential good, not just a fear of harmful possibilities.

≠≠≠Are there risks to GMOs that scientists have yet to consider or discover? Of course there are. Nothing in this life is risk-free, but that is not enough reason to reject valuable scientific advances.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: Fears, Not Facts, Support GMO-Free Food

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot 2025-08-25 203032
Mazzenga’s 20-year old muscles: How a still-going-strong 92-year old sprinter wins every race she enters
global warming
‘Implausible’: Top climate scientists reject worst-case scenario—soaring temperatures and fast-rising sea levels
Screenshot-2026-06-05-at-1.44.09-PM
Viewpoint: Scientists have scrapped the worst-case climate scenario. Is that proof that climate change is a hoax, as Trump claims?
Screenshot 2026-05-26 at 10.15
Viewpoint: Double standard—Why does the wellness industry get a free pass while Big Healthcare is treated as morally suspect?
Screenshot-2026-06-03-at-3.33.44-PM
Viewpoint: Vaccine deniers are attacking a life-saving Vitamin K shot for newborns that isn’t even a vaccine
Screenshot-2026-06-08-at-1.35.30-PM
Viewpoint: Social media and fake natural health propaganda fuel surge in use of mostly useless supplements
px extra strength tylenol and tylenol pm
Why ‘null-findings’ on Tylenol’s safety for pregnant women barely move the needle on countering misinformation
Screenshot-2026-06-08-at-10.19.30-AM
‘Natural’ wellness supplements linked to liver injury
ChatGPT-Image-May-28-2026-12_56_54-PM
Viewpoint: Vaccines' non-specific effects? The ‘shoddy’ Danish couple whose 'research’ inspires RFK, Jr.’s health delusion
Screen Shot at AM
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Right-wing politics bad for your health? Separating speculation from science
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-10-2026-12_57_24-PM
Viewpoint: Why gene-editing babies is moral and certain to happen
Credit: ACSH
Viewpoint: Who and what’s to blame for the surge in vaccine-preventable diseases?
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Screenshot-2026-06-05-at-2.12.30-PM
Some plants can poison you. So how did humans figure out what is safe to eat?
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.