How to evaluate GMO feeding studies


The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

Proper experimental design is the foundation of any scientific publication. However, a study is not so easy to plan, particularly when it includes methods that are expensive or that use tools that are hard to find. . .

Studies that involve animals are especially complex, since you cannot “redo” a failed experiment as easily as you can with in vitro or in silico assays. Criticisms by reviewers and editors can seldom be addressed during the peer review process: if an editor or reviewer identifies a flaw in an animal feeding study, it often cannot be redone due to resource constraints. . .

Poorly designed GMO feeding studies abound, quite possibly due to these difficulties in performing any animal feeding study. Such studies are often used by people who claim GMO are dangerous. It can be difficult to determine if a study has been properly designed and performed. We’ve put together a list to help you navigate through the messy world of GMO feeding studies.


Read full, original post: GMO Feeding Studies

Access open access pdf of Biology Fortified’s infographic by Layla Katiraee and Anastasia Bodnar here: GMO Feeding Studies Infographic

  • Farmer with a Dell

    Flawed animal feeding studies do have value, however. They sustain anxious anti-GMO cranks with hope while awaiting the outcome of those fabled long term human feeding studies that will decide the matter once and for all ;>)

  • Loren Eaton

    Right FWAD, half baked studies with scary pictures that can be characterized as preliminary are more valuable to the tin foil hat crowd than properly conducted studies that don’t support the narrative. The problem is that the half baked ones get served anyway.