The GLP is committed to full transparency. Download and review our 2019 Annual Report

Viewpoint: Consumers shouldn’t trust paid anti-GMO activists over independent biotech experts

| | June 17, 2019
Vani Hari
Popular anti-GMO activist Vani Hari, the "food babe."
This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

Despite the benefits of GMOs, 80% of respondents to the 2018 Food and Health Survey Report from the International Food Information Council Foundation are confused about food, or doubt their choices because of conflicting information. The report found that the context of GMOs influenced consumer judgment. The Pew Research Center found that 49% of Americans think genetically modified foods are worse for one’s health. In short, many people may fear or be suspicious of GMOs, but there is a history of important effects that most people would applaud. Insulin is one such case.

People without a clear understanding of GMOs spread misinformation on the internet. Much of what is shared lacks science-based facts and the rigors of peer review. A common tactic is connecting scientists to biotechnology corporations. Ironically, many of the campaigners in the anti-GMO movement are paid to share these messages.

Related article:  Hormel, Kellogg launch 'non-GMO' plant-based meats to compete with Beyond, Impossible

Consumers should form their own opinions about GMOs from the wealth of available science-based information and experts. Instead of accepting and spreading misinformation, shouldn’t we ask more questions, and turn to reliable sources instead?

Read full, original article: Op-ed: When did GMO Become a Dirty Word?

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

Send this to a friend