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

ChatGPT Image May 26, 2026, 08_42_17 AM (1)
Viewpoint: Greenpeace and poison: How environmental advocacy groups rely on compliant (and often ignorant) journalists to spread disinformation and spark litigation
Screenshot 2025-07-30 at 10.48
Can gene editing eliminate Down syndrome? Scientists have done it in lab-grown cells
Screenshot-2026-05-28-at-1.36.28-PM
Viewpoint: Can mRNA research survive the Trump administration?
Screenshot-2026-06-02-at-11.59.11-AM
Magnifica Humanitas: Pope’s encyclical broadside against AI naivete and overreach
Screenshot 2025-11-18 at 3.45
Viewpoint—GMOs and sustainability: Why buying organic foods is the least environmentally-sensitive food choice—without offering any health benefits
ChatGPT-Image-May-26-2026-07_51_21-AM-2
Viewpoint: There are more than 1,000 chemicals in a cup of coffee—including many substances that can cause cancer. Why isn’t it banned?
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-2-2026-11_39_58-AM
Viewpoint: Who is RFK, Jr.’s newly-appointed CDC senior counselor, Sara Brenner — Vaccine skeptic and self-proclaimed “MAHA mom”
Picture1
Sounds we can’t hear — the hidden planetary signals behind science, fear, and misinformation
ChatGPT Image May 28, 2026, 08_16_38 PM
Viewpoint: Why the EPA mismeasures cancer risk of chemicals and what should be done to fix it
Screenshot-2026-06-01-at-1.35.32-PM
Viewpoint: Swine farmers are under attack for allegedly mistreating their animals. Here are the facts.
glp menu logo outlined

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