275 global science organizations affirm consensus for GMO food and crop safety


Currently there is a social and political controversy about the safety of of foods produced from genetically modified (GM) crops, however, in the scientific community there is no dispute or controversy regarding the safety of GM crops. To date, more than 2,000 scientific studies have assessed the safety of these crops in terms of human health and environmental impact. These studies together with several reviews performed on a case by case from regulatory agencies around the world, have enabled a solid and clear scientific consensus: GM crops have no more risk than those that have been developed by conventional breeding techniques.

The update shows that more than 275 scientific institutions and organizations recognize the safety of GM crops and their potential benefits. Interestingly a large part of these institutions are located in Europe, the continent that has put more obstacles to the commercialization of these crops. The countries with most organizations in favor of GM crops are Italy (23), United States (20), Spain (16) and Germany (11).

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: More than 240 organizations and scientific institutions support the safety of GM crops

  • Synchronicity_Gratitude

    Please point our ANY controlled, long-term human trial studies for eating GMO foods. I’m not aware of ANY. Also point out any long-term controlled studies for environmental impact. I’m not aware of any of those as well; only short-term studies that are not scientifically conclusive about what they are testing…

    • Science teacher

      Unclear what you’re asking for. What would such a study look like? What would a control group look like? Should other means of seed production (such as mutagenesis) also be “tested” for long-term safety, since this method alters thousands of genes randomly with unpredictable outcomes and no oversight? Or organic pesticides?

      Until your question is less confused, you won’t be able to ascertain the validity of anything you read, either from the scientists (re-read the article) or the kook activists.

    • 90 days studies are “long term” studies in the life of a rat and are considered state of the art for studying toxicity. That said, there have been dozens of studies longer than 90 days, all of which have shown the same thing: no serious health concerns from eating GM foods. There is not one study longer than 90 days showing any health problems published in a major (not a pay for play scrub journal) journal that has shown any serious problems and that has been repeated. Not one. Here is an article with links to a few dozen studies longer than 90 days: http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2012/10/24/a-survey-of-long-term-gm-food-studies/ There are at least 50 more longer term studies, all showing no serious health problems. Plus there are more than 9 trillion meals feed to animals using GM grain since 1996 with not ONE food related incident. Not one. That’s a nearly 20 year study/monitoring.

      • Loren Eaton

        ‘It is irresponsible to claim that 90 day trials are sufficient’….and it is arbitrary to say that they aren’t. Back up your statement.

      • RJB

        Would you apply these same standards to crops produced using mutagenesis, and would you characterize this method of plant breeding as “forced DNA manipulation”? If not, why not?

      • Warren Lauzon

        Why are patents bad for one thing, but good for everything else – such as Apple’s several thousand patents?

    • Warren Lauzon

      What environmental impact do you think that GMO’s would have that conventional crops would not?

      • J. Randall Stewart

        Excellent question

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    How was this list compiled? Are there position statements available from each organization