Activists claim that without long-term studies, GMOs cannot be considered safe: What does science say?

There have been more than a thousand studies, most of them by independent researchers, documenting the safety of GMOs. More than 270 independent global science oversight agencies–most recently the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM)—have issued statements underscoring the safety of GM technology.

But still, more than a year after the 20-member NASEM panel’s comprehensive report confirmed that foods with genetically engineered ingredients are as safe as organic and other conventionally bred foods, dedicated anti-GMO activists remain unconvinced.

The opponents are familiar voices, fighting the battle against farming technology for more than a decade. Long-time critics Michael Hansen of Consumer Reports hyped the potential of ‘unknown’ and ‘unique’ dangers of allergens that could be created–the kind that might not be known unless regulators required long-term, multi-generational studies, he claimed. In fact, after more than 20 years of the consumption of billions of meals by humans and animals, there has not been one case of an unusual allergen identified in an approved food. Experts say there is no scientific or logical basis to believe that foods grown with one or two genes having been precisely tweaked and mapped would pose more allergenic problems that conventional and organic foods created with hundreds or thousands of genes of unknown origin, often created using radiation or chemicals (mutagenesis).

The UK Soil Association, a pro organic group that has opposed biotechnology and many technological advances in agricultural for decades, was more explicit in raising the specter that we have not studied GMO food effects for a long enough time, writing:

The report highlights there have been no long studies which have directly addressed the human health impact of GM food consumption.

In its web attack dossier on GMO foods, the London-based anti-technology group Earth Open Source devoted an entire section to what it said were the “myth” of GMO safety, repeating the claim that “Few long term studies have been carried out.”

[NOTE: Read Genetic Literacy Project Biotech Gallery profile of Earth Open Source here]

Claims of ‘No long term studies’ has been the fall-back cry of advocacy groups for years. It’s a meme repeated almost word for word throughout the anti-GMO online community, particularly by labeling groups and organic food companies attempting to stigmatize conventional foods.

“Because GMOs are still a new science, there have been no long-term studies to substantiate their exact effect on our health” claims the natural products company Aunt Millies. Label GMOs states, “Few long-term studies have been carried out”.

In the wake of the Academies report, it’s one of the few claims left that haven’t been directly addressed.

What are the facts?

Simply said, the claims of ‘no long term studies’ is inaccurate. Almost all science research is done on animals, and there is a long and growing history of dozens of long term studies on the potential impact of genetically modified ingredients.

A few years ago, the science website Skeptic Ink carried a summary listing dozens of long-term safety studies. The GENERA database, found at the independent Biology Fortified site, lists more than three-dozen examples of multi-year studies.  A review of 24 of these by Snell et. al found: “Results…do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed.” The authors concluded: “The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.”

Here is a partial list of dozens of studies longer than 90 days (more here) on GMOs–none of which has shown serious safety issues:

  • Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review: We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). … The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.
  • A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation: This study was designed to evaluate the effects of transgenic corn on the rats that were fed through three generations with either GM corn or its conventional counterpart. Tissue samples of stomach, duodenum, liver and kidney were obtained for histopathological examinations. … No statistically significant differences were found in relative organ weights of rats within groups but there were some minimal histopathological changes in liver and kidney.
  • Effects of long-term feeding of genetically modified corn (event MON810) on the performance of lactating dairy cows: A long-term study over 25 months was conducted to evaluate the effects of genetically modified corn on performance of lactating dairy cows. Thirty-six dairy cows were assigned to two feeding groups and fed with diets based on whole-crop silage, kernels and whole-crop cobs from Bt-corn (Bt-MON810) or its isogenic not genetically modified counterpart (CON) as main components. … Milk yield (23.8 and 29.0 kg/cow per day in the first and the second lactation of the trial) was not affected by dietary treatment. There were no consistent effects of feeding MON810 or its isogenic CON on milk composition or body condition. Thus, the present long-term study demonstrated the compositional and nutritional equivalence of Bt-MON810 and its isogenic CON.
  • Organic and Genetically Modified Soybean Diets: Consequences in Growth and in Hematological Indicators of Aged Rats: There was an organic soy group (OG), a genetically modified soy group (GG), and a control group (CG). All animals received water and diet ad libitum for 455 days. At the end of this period, the weight of the GG group was the same as that of the OG, and both were higher than CG. Protein intake was similar for the OG and GG, which  were significantly lower (p<0.0005) than the CG. The growth rate (GR) of the rats, albumin levels, and total levels of serum protein were comparable for all groups.  Hematocrit (p<0.04) and hemoglobin (p<0.03) for the OG and GG were less than the CG. Although the OG and GG demonstrated reduced hematocrit and hemoglobin, both types of soy were utilized in a way similar to casein. This result suggests that the protein quality of soy is parallel to the standard protein casein in terms of growth promotion but not hematological indicators.
  • Histochemical and morpho-metrical study of mouse intestine epithelium after a long term diet containing genetically modified soybean: In this study, we investigated the duodenum and colon of mice fed on genetically modified (GM) soybean during their whole life span (1–24 months) by focusing our attention on the histological and ultrastructural characteristics of the epithelium, the histochemical pattern of goblet cell mucins, and the growth profile of the coliform population. Our results demonstrate that controls and GM-soybean fed mice are similarly affected by ageing. Moreover, the GM soybean-containing diet does not induce structural alterations in duodenal and colonic epithelium or in coliform population, even after a long term intake. On the other hand, the histochemical approach revealed significant diet-related changes in mucin amounts in the duodenum. In particular, the percentage of villous area occupied by acidic and sulpho-mucin granules decreased from controls to GM-fed animals, whereas neutral mucins did not change.

(more here)

Food safety studies are done on animals

The anti-GMO activists often add a twist to their criticism: Some concede long term animal studies but then add the caveat that there have been no long-term studies on humans. They are correct that there have not been human clinical trials on GMOs. This is not out of the ordinary. No existing food or ingredient, GMO or otherwise, has been the subject of extended multi-year human clinical trials. IT would be unethical. Humans are also very poor experimental subjects: we age and reproduce slowly, and our genetic diversity and predisposition to diseases like cancer and arthritis during aging would confound experimental results.

Related article:  Senate Agricultural Committee will hear testimony Oct. 21 on GMO labeling bill

Animal trials provide the best proxy for human experimentation. There is broad and global agreement in the science community that animal studies are the ethical way to assesses potential dangers to humans. Animal testing falls into two categories: controlled trials and monitoring experiments. Controlled studies are clinical trials in which animals are assigned to two groups used for comparison purposes. Other variables such as housing and exposure to other animals can be controlled. Monitoring trials look at livestock which have been fed GMO crops and assess the health of these animals, either in vivo or through data analysis. Where possible, reference will be made to a control group of animals fed a comparable non-GM diet.

Anti-GMO activists claim, anecdotally, that animals eating GMO grain and feed have been beset by problems. Anti-GMO crusader Jeffrey Smith, on his personal website, the Institute for Responsible Technology, lists more than a dozen cases in which he claims animals fed GMOs exhibited abnormal conditions, including cancer and early death. He also references his own self-published book, and anecdotal evidence that pigs fed GM feed turned sterile or had false pregnancies and sheep that grazed on BT cotton plants often died.

“Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods shows adverse or unexplained effects,” he writes. “But we were not supposed to know about these problems…the biotech industry works overtime to try to hide them.”

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine — a quack alternative medicine group that rejects GMOs and believes that vaccines are dangerous — claims, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.

Is there any basis to these allegations? After all, globally, food-producing animals consume 70 percent to 90 percent of genetically engineered crop biomass, mostly corn and soybean. In the United States alone, animal agriculture produces over 9 billion food-producing animals annually, and more than 95 percent of these animals consume feed containing GE ingredients, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The numbers are similar in large GMO producing countries with a large agricultural sector, such as Brazil and Argentina. Europe, which generally shuns GMO food in human markets, feeds most of its livestock GMO based feed.

Estimates of the numbers of meals consumed by feed animals since the introduction of GM crops 18 years ago would number well into the trillions. By common sense alone, if GE feed were causing unusual problems among livestock, farmers would have noticed. Dead and sick animals would literally litter farms around the world. Yet there are no anecdotal reports of such mass health problems.

Historic Van Eenennaam animal feeding story

But we don’t need to depend on anecdotes to address these concerns. A comprehensive monitoring study published in the Journal of Animal Science, by animal genomics expert Alison Van Eenennaam and assistant Amy Young at the University of California-Davis investigated the impact of GM feed on livestock. The study looked at data about animal health over a 29-year time period — both before and after the introduction of GM feed in 1996.

They conclude that data from 100 billion animals over 29 years ‘did not reveal unfavorable or perturbed trends in livestock health and productivity’. The study also concluded that there is no evidence of genetically modified material in milk or eggs from animals fed GM food: ‘Studies have been conducted with a variety of food-producing animals including sheep, goats, pigs, chickens, quail, cattle, water buffalo, rabbits and fish fed different GE crop varieties. The results have consistently revealed that the performance and health of GE-fed animals were comparable with those fed… non-GE lines and commercial varieties’.

The study received widespread media exposure spurred by an article by GLP’s Jon Entine in Forbes,  “The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks to a New Trillion-Meal Study.” GM skeptics jumped on the Van Eenennaam study and the Entine report. GMWatch issued a searing rebuttal, “ Why Jon Entine’s ‘trillion meal study’ won’t save us from GMO dangers.”

Anti-GM campaigners questioned the validity of monitoring studies in the absence of controlled trials, stating that “Van Eenennaam and Young’s data do not represent a controlled study”. Critics also denounced the study on the basis of being “short-term in relation to the animal’s natural lifespan” and therefore “not able to reveal long-term ill health effects, which take time to show up”.

The criticisms don’t hold up under scrutiny. There are in fact hundreds of studies, many of them multigenerational and long term, into the safety of GM food for livestock. One controlled study published in the Archives of Animal Nutrition, across ten generations of quails, noted that feeding the animals 50 percent GMO corn “did not significantly influence health and performance of quails nor did it affect DNA-transfer and quality of meat and eggs of quails” compared to the control group.

When GMO corn was fed to cows in another controlled study, published in Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, over 25 months, “Milk yield was not affected by dietary treatment. There were no consistent effects… on milk composition or body condition… Long-term study demonstrated the compositional and nutritional equivalence (of GMO and non-GMO feed)”.

A vast new database of studies investigating GM feed has been recently published by the Information Platform for Animals Health and Feed, an independent organization funded by the European Commission. IPAFEED provides an even more comprehensive overview of the current state of scientific knowledge in this field. The open-access database summarizes the findings from over 3,000 papers, covering three main safety aspects of animals fed GM feed: controlled trials on the effect of the feed on animal health and productivity; assessing whether the transgenic DNA in crops ends up in animal tissues; and monitoring programs. In addition, many of the studies are long term, including more than 80 studies over two years in length.

The EC’s IPAFeed database definitively puts to rest any doubt over a claimed dearth of controlled trials: 3,000 are presented. The evidence is overwhelming: no evidence has been found for adverse health effects or transgenic contamination of dairy products. For example, in 38 studies of cows fed crops genetically modified to be insect- or herbicide- resistant, no detectable transgenic DNA was found in milk.

Monitoring data spanning twenty years and relating to billions of animals worldwide fed on GM crops have not found any evidence of health hazards as a result of GM feed. A slew of controlled studies, many of them long-term, into the effects of GM feed on livestock point to the same conclusion: there is no evidence to suggest that GM feed–or the foods that humans eat–is unsafe.

Jon Entine is executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project. Follow @JonEntine on Twitter

51 thoughts on “Activists claim that without long-term studies, GMOs cannot be considered safe: What does science say?”

  1. The king has no clothes, no matter how loud his admirers yell.

    The “VAST” new IPAFeed database actually tracks study duration ( but it doesn’t allow the user to search by duration, so the aleged “80 studies over two years in length” can’t be easily located, just like in the 400+ study GENERA database. The duration of every study is plainly evident and easily tracked IF THE DATABASE CREATOR WANTS TO MAKE THAT PARAMETER SEARCHABLE. No, they want to pretend like there’s lots of long term safety studies, but they don’t want anyone looking at them closely. This is because the number of “positive” long term safety studies is paltry at best. What does exist often indicates a need for further study. Even the experts like Karl haro von Mogel end up running away when challenged to present any significant number of long term safety studies:

    There ARE some two year animal feeding studies about glysophate which have recently been released, studies which reportedly indicate that Monsanto’s flagship product causes cancer in mice and rats. Who ran those studies? MONSANTO.

    • What “two year animal feeding studies about glyphosate which have recently been released” are you talking about? You complain that getting at the facts is difficult, so how about providing some traceable facts yourself? To throw out some allegations about some mysterious studies demonstrating carcinogenic responses in mice and rats is irresponsible. Rational readers will not take that sort of bait.

      • Do a little research:
        “Anthony Samsel is an independent research scientist working internationally in the interest of public health and the environment. He is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a former scientist and consultant at Arthur D. Little, one of the world’s leading management consulting firms. Now retired, Samsel has devoted much of his independent research on Roundup’s toxicological characteristics and bioactivity. Unable to gain access to research reports and data Monsanto submitted to the EPA through FOIAs, he turned to his senator’s office, who assisted in the procurement of studies and reports he sought. Months later he received a hoard of scientific documents, over 15,000 pages worth, covering Monsanto’s complete glyphosate research.”

          • Just saying “conspiracy” might settle the issue for some, others would like to see some actual long term safety data to either back up or refute the blanket statements of the biotech industry. Until Dr Samsel publishes or Monsanto unseals these 30+ yr old “trade secrets” verifying Samsel’s account will be difficult. But despite the claim topping this page there actually is very little long term safety data available, and if Monsanto’s own documents indicate high toxicity that might explain this lack of data AND the hyperbole.

            Since their glyphosate patent expired ~15 years ago, Monsanto COULD release the data and clear this up a bit. Why not show the world how safe glyphosate really is? It certainly looks suspicious, and given their horrible track record we SHOULD be suspicious. If Samsel’s analysis is correct this is a huge scandal and a health issue of immense proportions. The EPA and the FDA should unseal the data immediately.

            Until that happens I have one very simple question: How much long term safety data is actually available for biotech products? I have tried to answer this, and despite industry propaganda to the contrary, the answer appears to be “NOT MUCH”. This safety data deficit is obvious. The GMO experts have failed to produce much of this data, and their databases are designed to hide what little there is. They assert that the GMO safety debate is over, I’d say it’s ALMOST over and their tactics show they are losing, badly.

            The public quite reasonably expects that biotech products have been safety tested, unfortunately the US system isn’t set up for that. Quite the opposite. When they find this out they will NOT be happy. Fearing this backlash, the GMO proponents use various tricks to fool people into thinking there are huge piles of safety data.

            The first trick they use is to act as though decades of unscientific testing (on us) using a barrage of untested chemicals and GMOs somehow proves all GMOs are safe. (Trillion meal study!) They refer to important sounding agencies which “reviewed the data” (of thousands of studies!). But these agency reviews almost always refer to “performance” (not health) studies, and ones using non-mammals, and LOTS of “sub-chronic” (short) studies. Few people will ever bother to dig down and find out the truth, and they know it. They serve up a bowl of chaff and call it a steak dinner.

            Once I realized this I decided it’s very important to get a complete answer to this question: Where is the long term safety data?

            Some GMO apologists try to demand proof that GMOs are NOT safe, as if the burden of proof was on the human guinea pigs instead of the biotech industry. This of course is both logically bankrupt and a trap. Any study which shows toxic effects gets nitpicked. The criticism of Seralini’s famous study is a great example of how far they are willing to contort themselves. But again, the burden of proof isn’t on the GMO critics.

            GMO proponents often assert that subchronic (90 day) studies are sufficient to establish long term safety, but they know how idiotic that argument is. They usually like to confuse the issues as much as possible, and once they get someone down into the weeds it’s off to the races. I stick to the simple question they SHOULD be able to answer: Where is the long term safety data?

            A very good way to see how little they actually have is to read the critiques of the 2011 “Snell” review (touted at the top of this page) I recommend this one: . Snell’s review of 24 alleged long term safety studies asks us to believe that a 35 day chicken study is relevant, and it is: It shows how little data they have to work with.

            Lately GMO proponents have built some elaborate and impressive looking GMO “risk” study databases such as GENERA and IPAFEED. They are somewhat useful, but they’re practically designed to hide long term data. Even though “duration” is easily found in every study, that field isn’t available for filtering so you cannot locate the number of long term studies. But even with a deliberately unhelpful database design, an approximation of the answer can be found: NOT MUCH.

            IMO the reason they make it difficult to isolate the long term data is that they only have data for A FEW long term health effect studies (and some of those indicate GMO/chemical toxicity). In GENERA the number may be just a handfull, I can’t tell exactly yet. But it seems to me that since this industry has spent DECADES developing these products, there MUST be a LOT of long term safety data. Where is it?

            Samsel says he has 15,000 pages of Monsanto’s glyphosate data. If they show toxic effects it is VERY easy to imagine why Monsanto hid the data (and continue to do so) and if Samsel’s theories pan out they are going to lose billions of dollars. Some of their officers may even end up in prison.

            In any event I predict that the GMO apologists will attack Samsel rather than join the critics in demanding access to this data from EPA/FDA/Monsanto. If Samsel is even close to being correct a new regime of safety testing will likely be enacted, and the GMO proponents won’t be able to peddle their products without providing the long term safety test data they say is so abundant.

          • You still failed to provide the 2 year animal feeding studies that you railed about in your original post. Failed again.

          • I provided the information I have. We shall see if Dr Samsel has what he says he does, but if Monsanto’s own “trade secret” 2-yr data shows what he says, it will mean that they have been deliberately poisoning us all, just like they poisoned Anniston Alabama.

          • We’ll probably have to wait until after Huber shows the world his pathogen. Seriously Dave, if Samsel has what he claims, the entire scientific community would be clamoring for the same documentation for evaluation. Any conscientious researcher would be looking for as much help as possible to address the issue as quickly as possible. Samsel and Seneff have demonstrated a willingness to take potshots in hopes of garnering the accolades that would accompany the discovery of “the smoking gun”. Witness their glyphosate-autism flailing about from 2013.

          • “Any conscientious researcher would be looking for as much help as possible to address the issue as quickly as possible.”

            He is legally bound to limit access to the documents so far. He is asking others to petition the EPA to release them. But you already said you don’t care what’s in them, so your unethical position is obvious.

            The lack of long term GMO safety data proves the GMO proponents are lying. How badly and about what remains to be seen. Monsanto has a long criminal record which you also probably don’t care about. Whether there is a connection between autism and roundup needs to be studied, but the whole idea is easily dismissed by people like you who obviously don’t want to know.

          • You mean to tell me he’s got the smoking gun and is more concerned with legal conventions than doing the right thing? I missed in my assessment of you. That’s the most convoluted bull I’ve come across in a long time and you’re a complete idiot for foisting it on us.

            Any conscientious person in possession of information as damning as he alludes to that doesn’t go public with it for fear of legal repercussions is as chicken shit as can be imagined. Given the myriad of entities that would join in his defense and the financial resources available to them he would have absolutely nothing to fear. If he is being truthful.

          • I am not privy to his reasoning but the guy you are so glibly disparaging is methodically picking through 15,000 pages of highly technical data and making a case for glyphosate’s potential role in quite a number of significant health issues. If he goes to jail none of that probably happens, so I suspect that might be holding him back from doing a wikileaks type dump.

            I’m with you I would have sent it out as soon as I saw what was on it, but the EPA would never have given them to people like me. LOL.

          • No glibness. No disparagement. He’s either got the goods or not. He’s got all the help he will ever need or want so blow your smoke at someone else’s sphincter. If he’s afraid of jail when he’s sitting on what you claim he has then you need to find a different hero.

          • Bill, I’ll buy you a beer if this info is good enough for ole Dave. It will be one or all of the following for good ole Dave:

            1) paid for by evil corporations, and biased by shills;
            2) not precisely the kind of study HE wants to see, and biased by shills;
            3) politically motivated by these shill troll sock puppets.

            I’m guessing all three. Ya gotta wonder why he hangs around GLP. He really thinks he has convincing evidence to get us into the woo woo fearmongering camp, I guess. Despite all the evidence to the contrary about the reaction of people who respect science, crop breeders, oversight agencies, thousands of studies, and farmers. Not good enough for ole Dave.

            Davey boy, actually, we aren’t here to convince you. Either you do the work yourself and figure it out, or go eat organic. Your mind is slammed shut, and you are gonna have to be the one to pry it open your own self.

            Which you won’t.

          • Hi Bill,

            I will do you the courtesy of answering your rhetorical question, with specifics.

            I suppose the “goalpost” would be good science, and yes it might need to move slightly. In this case that would be to have glyphosate and its AMPA metabolyte levels monitored in common labratory feeds, so that this chemical contamination can be taken into consideration as animal studies are conducted. Currently several toxic chemicals are monitored, and it makes perfect sense to add glyphosate to this list considering the ~185 million pounds of it which is sprayed on our food supply (in 2007) and its powerful negative health effects, which are finally becoming known despite being hidden for decades by Monsanto and the FDA.

            I don’t know much about the EFSA but apparently they have had some issues trying to get their image cleaned up after they had their own PR problems. Other European food safety organizations say the EFSA has a lot of industrial biotech types on board and have been putting a lot of pro-GMO spin on stuff. Reading their news release shows how hard they’re trying to spin this one too.

            The specific observation they made of the claim that the lab animal feed is contaminated with glyphosate doesn’t try to deny that it might be true, it says that “The information reported on the website is not supported by sufficient detail or a reference to permit a full scientific review.” This is a classic strawman argument.

            I’m not surprised that they say that they need more detail, the article they are talking about doesn’t give much. “Farmwars” is a small site run by a gal in Oregon. I’m sure if/when the various european scientific agencies decide to start monitoring the glyphosate levels in their lab feed we will hear something about it from various sources.

            As the EFSA says, the non-technical “Farmwars” site doesn’t mention actual feed contamination levels. Dr Samsel makes no such error as he describes the levels of glyphosate which Monsanto fed their lab rats in their toxicology studies, or when he talks about the tests he had performed on several of the most common lab chows from Purina:

            Apparently he will have a paper out this fall describing his findings. As important as uncontaminated feed is for good science this seems like it could be an important study, with rather wide repercussions. If glyphosate (and its adjuvants and metabolytes) are as toxic as Monsanto’s own studies (and others) seem to indicate, then there are a lot of other studies which will need to be reviewed. As usual, better data can lead to better science.

            I see the sock trolls are out in force, and that they think I’m here to convince them of something, which is hilarious.

            I’m not here to convince them of anything, I am here to show interested readers how vapid the pro-GMO arguments are. Since that has been accomplished to a degree and no one with expertise and a real name has shown their faces, it’s about time for the nameless trolls to have a party and declare themselves the winners. They have no interest in good science or the truth, as is easily diescerned from their posts.

            This conversation started with some utter bollocks from Jon Entine: “There have been more than a thousand studies, most of them by independent researchers, documenting the safety of GMOs.”

            He then cleverly says “The GENERA database, found at the independent Biology Fortified site, lists more than three-dozen examples of multi-year studies.” The removal of the word “safety” is the tell.

            Unless they intend to rewrite the standards of toxicology the “more than a thousand” statement is simply false, because subchronic and performance studies cannot prove safety. The number of actual studies which they can legitimately claim is as yet unknown. It is in my estimation perhaps in the dozens, at most. Karl haro Von Mogel could only locate 23 in GENERA and that number fell apart under the barest scrutiny so who knows what it really is. I know its a question they refuse to answer, so that’s good enough to prove my point. It isn’t “more than a thousand” or anywhere near that, unless you make a mockery of toxicology, which speaks volumes about the strength of the actual case for GMO safety.

          • GENERA list of reports don’t meet your strict scientific standards, eh, Dave? But Samsel and Seneff’s writings and off-base speculations do. And you call anyone whose views you disagree with a troll and sock puppet! Ha! Well, you go ahead and rely on those guys. Why don’t you spend your time there, rather than trying to change the minds of people here who actually have some background and experience with biotech crops. You can go on calling me a troll and a sock puppet (and a shill, altho I haven’t seen any $$$ yet – can’t you advocate for me to get some shill $$$?)

            You’re like an unwelcome evangelist, shouting to anyone who disagrees with you that they are all going to hell.

            How much money do you get from Samsel and Seneff, Benbrook, and the rest of their ilk? I mean, you’re persistent, if nothing else. Sort of like a corn borer without Bt.

          • Dear gmoeater,
            Thank you once again for demonstrating how weak the arguments for GMO safety really are at the GLP. Obviously if you wish to actually prove Dr Samsel is all wet, all you have to do is send a sample of the rodent chow(s) he listed to a reputable lab, and then post the results, although data from an anonymous troll might be questioned by some. Maybe you could post it under a real name? I am going to guess that will not happen, because you don’t actually care about science.

            Have fun trolling, and thanks again for the juvenile insults. My points are only underlined by your ridiculous comments.

          • An excellent reply, Bill.
            I couldn’t ask for a better finale to show anyone reading this thread the level of sophistication here at the GLP. Thanks again for your help!

          • Samsel has been making these idiotic claims for years. First if this 30 year old claim was of any substance. We would be seeing the “”horrible”” results by now. Second, EPA documents are subject to the FOIA. Thus samsel is lying about how secret they are. Third, If they containing anything “”horrible”” He should have easily been able to replicate the results. Why have we seen nothing?

          • Agreed. This dude’s every other post is about Monsanto. It’s kind of adorable, since there are SO many other corporations that do what Monsanto does. After reading his other posts, his inconsistent logic is astounding. You throw someone a heap of evidence and they write it off because of niggling little things that actually don’t matter if you know what you’re talking about. Cute.

          • Disingenuous.
            He is wasting his time here. Why, he could put his time to better use, and be out painting signs about the evils of Mon-Satan that is forcing farmers to buy their seeds. The emperor has no clothes. He’s got nuthin.’

        • Sorry, you failed. Failed to provide facts. Your link is to some sort of polemic internet blog site. It does not constitute evidence or facts in the form of scientific studies. Pennington, you keep on failing. Why is that? In order to succeed with your argument vs. GMOs you have to provide evidence, facts, research results from authentic studies. Not just a lot of hot air hype. Unfortunately you just aren’t intelligent enough to do any research yourself. You failed.

          • “In order to succeed with your argument vs. GMOs you have to provide evidence, facts, research results from authentic studies.”


            And from credible sources, not Anthony Samsel, who is to science in these subjects what I am to opera singing.

    • What a waste of time that was. Samsel is hanging on by his fingernails hoping the aphids don’t catch on so he doesn’t have to find a real job. Good thing you’ve got his back Dave.

  2. “There are in fact hundreds of studies, many of them multigenerational and long term, into the safety of GM food for livestock.”

    How many is “many”? Your GENERA database has no ability to sort by study duration, even though that information is available. It would appear that you don’t want people to be able to find the long term studies you insist are so numerous.

    If you search GENERA for consumption safety studies with “mixed” results, the first study it finds (Toxicity studies of genetically modified plants: a review of the published literature 2007) concludes: “This review can be concluded raising the following question: where is
    the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically

    A good question.

    • So, answer the question. Go to the decision documents that the regulatory agency has published about glyphosate. They state that it is one of the safest herbicidal substances that have ever been produced. Stop failing, and try to keep up by looking at the evidence.

      • I actually have looked at the evidence. It’s as pathetic as the trolls like you who keep avoiding the serious questions.

        Roundup (including its “inert” ingredients) has never been tested for safety except in a few independent studies which found numerous toxicity issues. Glyphosate (one ingredient in Roundup) was “safety tested” for all of 90 days by Monsanto and the FDA officials (many of whom former chemical industry employees) approved Roundup based on those short term studies. Monsanto also filed long term study data with the EPA which Dr Samsel finally accessed and is now writing about. Monsanto tried to permanently seal these studies as “trade secrets” but that game is over. Now we get to see what they tried to hide.

        Most Americans don’t know that the EPA/FDA do not require actual safety testing. The fact that they do not require long term testing shows how much their “safety” process was corrupted by lobbyists like Michael Taylor. Their regulatory decisions are obviously not the same thing as toxicity test data, but you know that and the reader now knows that you either don’t know where the relevant studies are, or you know that there are few if any available. The GENERA database doesn’t have many, if any. It was probably designed to hide this fact in a large pile of chaff.

        Good bye, sad little troll. If you locate any long term safety data let me know and I will be happy to take a look at it, but all you’ve done so far is act like a troll, so its time to stop feeding you.

        • Hey, little Dave P. Good to hear from you again. Ha!, I always love laughing at your blabberings. With all of your conspiracy theories you appear to share a mentality with Mel Gibson. In reality, though, you have done no (zero) searching for evidence. If you had, you would have easily found it here:

          On that site you will find the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Reregistration Eligibility Decision document on glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup and other trademark herbicides). As you can see, it’s all freely available. So you see, your Samsel co-conspirator didn’t come up with anything that’s not already available from the regulatory agency that protects human health and environmental integrity in the U.S. It has been there for many years, so it’s no secret. It includes long-term safety studies such as you suggest.

          Now, little Dave, you must truly feel like a fool. You & Mel G. should check into a facility somewhere. I’m sure you will find each others’ company agreeable.

          • Hello anonymous troll,
            Thank you for helping make my case. Unfortunately the EPA document you link to contains only summary information (not study data). It does refer to some of the unpublished (trade secret) Monsanto studies that Dr Samsel finally extracted from them. He has the actual studies, including the data, which the EPA and Monsanto still protect as “trade secrets” even though they are over 30 yrs old. Funny how the “safest herbicide ever” can’t have its safety studies fully examined!

          • Paranoia, selling based on fear, and conspiracy theories — all accompanied by troll and shill accusations. How nice. How utterly predictable, unoriginal, erroneous, and how utterly boring.
            Your paranoid conspiracy posts would be much better received on the Food Babe site where ignorance, fueled by arrogance, runs rampant.
            If you really want to know something about pesticide use and GE crops, please talk to a local farmer.

          • I have spoken with farmers, none of them had any idea that the FDA/EPA allows GMOs and dangerous farm chemicals to be sold based on tests conducted by the manufacturer. Like many of us they assumed the FDA/EPA had a stronger role in making sure things are safe. They REALLY didn’t like the idea of Monsanto having the ability to hide their safety test data. They want to know what the data says, because they use Roundup fairly often, and they are told it’s perfectly safe.

            The great thing about people like you, “farmer Sue”, is that you never address the real issue so you UNDERLINE IT. If these products are so safe, why are the manufacturers hiding the long term toxicology reports? All they have to release are the summaries or SUBCHRONIC studies, and apparently their summaries are based on some pretty questionable science. I would think that a real farmer would want to see this safety data.

            For now only Dr Samsel has Monsanto’s partially-unsealed 30 yr old “trade secret” toxicity data. Once we get it (assuming it is released) his claims can be verified or refuted, but REGARDLESS of that long term safety data is rare at best. Hopefully more will be found or released soon. Until then I can wait, and enjoy the insults of GMO proponents who consistently refuse to even acknowledge the simple fact that little long term safety data is actually available. Since the GMO “experts” can’t (or won’t) answer this simple question, don’t feel bad if you can’t either.

          • Yeah, he must have talked to a bunch of real dumb farmers. Sheesh. I don’t think he talked to any farmers. Maybe a few backyard organic gardeners. He needs to call up his local Farm Bureau. Will he? hahahahaha!

          • Total baloney. Farmers know what they are buying and whether they are considered safe or not. Go talk to a real farmer. Not a backyard organic gardiner. Call your local farm bureau. Learn something and quit making up lies.

            Your quoting Samsel as a credible source of info is a joke in the farming community, by the way.

        • You say: “Roundup (including its “inert” ingredients) has never been tested for safety except in a few independent studies ”
          I just did a search at Science Direct and found over 6,000 peer reviewed studies on glyphosate.
          For instance:



          Every regulatory agency in the world has concluded that glyphosate is safe when used as directed on the label.
          And YES, The EPA requires safety testing you fool.

          Take some time to learn something before you open your mouth.

  3. I have seen studies that contradict this information and all though I am in a farming community where you can no longer grow organic corn because there is so much GMO corn in the area , I don’t have the opportunity to hear the experience of farmers. There are other studies also about the impact of GMO farming on the land, and this should be considered when viewing impact on humans. There are other ways to farm that is not harmful to the water and animals. And the control that the GMO industry wants over seed .

    my thoughts are ,it took years before truth about nicotine released and then only due to a whistle blower. Yet common sense told many people (“those nut jobs”) different.

Leave a Comment

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

Send this to a friend