With 2000+ global studies affirming safety, GM foods among most analyzed subjects in science

| October 8, 2013 |
via Real Clear Science, Shutterstock via Real Clear Science, Shutterstock

“The science just hasn’t been done.”

– Charles Benbrook, organic researcher, Washington State University.

“There is no credible evidence that GMO foods are safe to eat.”

– David Schubert, Salk Institute of Biological Studies

“[The] research [on GMOs] is scant…. Whether they’re killing us slowly— contributing to long-term, chronic maladies—remains anyone’s guess.”

– Tom Philpott, Mother Jones

“Genetically modified (GM) foods should be a concern for those who suffer from food allergies because they are not tested….”

– Organic Consumers Association

A popular weapon used by those critical of agricultural biotechnology is to claim that there has been little to no evaluation of the safety of GM crops and there is no scientific consensus on this issue.

Those claims are simply not true. Every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies—in some cases numbering in the hundreds—in coming to the consensus conclusion that GMO crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods, but the magnitude of the research has never been evaluated or documented.

Still the claim that GMOs are ‘understudied’—the meme represented in the quotes highlighted at the beginning of this article—has become a staple of anti-GMO critics, especially activist journalists. In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists cataloged and analyzed 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods—a staggering number.

The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded.

The research review, published in Critical Reviews in Biotechnology in September, spanned only the last decade—from 2002 to 2012—which represents only about a third of the lifetime of GM technology.

“Our goal was to create a single document where interested people of all levels of expertise can get an overview on what has been done by scientists regarding GE crop safety,” lead researcher Alessandro Nicolia, applied biologist at the University of Perugia, told Real Clear Science. “We tried to give a balanced view informing about what has been debated, the conclusions reached so far, and emerging issues.”

The conclusions are also striking because European governments, Italy in particular, have not been as embracing of genetically modified crops as has North and South America, although the consensus of European scientists has been generally positive.

The Italian review not only compiled independent research on GMOs over the last ten years but also summarizes findings in the different categories of GM research: general literature, environmental impact, safety of consumption and traceability.

The “general literature” category of studies largely reveals the differences between the US, EU and other countries when it comes to regulating GM crops. Due to lack of uniform regulatory practices and the rise of non-scientific rhetoric, Nicolia and his colleagues report, concern about GMOs has been greatly exaggerated.

Environmental impact studies are predominant in the body of GM research, making up 68% of the 1,783 studies. These studies investigated environmental impact on the crop-level, farm-level and landscape-level. Nicolia and his team found “little to no evidence” that GM crops have a negative environmental impact on their surroundings.

One of the fastest growing areas of research is in gene flow, the potential for genes from GM crops to be found—“contaminate” in the parlance of activists—in non-GM crops in neighboring fields. Nicolia and his colleagues report that this has been observed, and scientists have been studying ways to reduce this risk with different strategies such as isolation distances and post-harvest practices. The review notes that gene flow is not unique to GM technology and is commonly seen in wild plants and non-GM crops. While gene flow could certainly benefit from more research, Nicolia and his colleagues suggest, the public’s aversion to field trials discourages many scientists, especially in the EU.

In the food and feeding category, the team found no evidence that approved GMOs introduce any unique allergens or toxins into the food supply. All GM crops are tested against a database of all known allergens before commercialization and any crop found containing new allergens is not approved or marketed.

The researchers also address the safety of transcribed RNA from transgenic DNA. Are scientists fiddling with the ‘natural order’ of life? In fact, humans consume between 0.1 and 1 gram of DNA per day, from both GM and non-GM ingredients. This DNA is generally degraded by food processing, and any surviving DNA is then subsequently degraded in the digestive system. No evidence was found that DNA absorbed through the GI tract could be integrated into human cells—a popular anti-GMO criticism.

These 1783 studies are expected to be merged into the public database known as GENERA (Genetic Engineering Risk Atlas) being built by Biofortified, an independent non-profit website. Officially launched in 2012, GENERA includes peer-reviewed journal articles from different aspects of GM research, including basic genetics, feeding studies, environmental impact and nutritional impact. GENERA has more than 650 studies listed so far, many of which also show up in the new database. When merged, there should be well over 2000 GMO related studies, a sizable percentage—as many as 1000—that have been independently executed by independent scientists.

In short, genetically modified foods are among the most extensively studied scientific subjects in history. This year celebrates the 30th anniversary of GM technology, and the paper’s conclusion is unequivocal: there is no credible evidence that GMOs pose any unique threat to the environment or the public’s health. The reason for the public’s distrust of GMOs lies in psychology, politics and false debates.

Additional Resources:

 

  • RobertWager

    But I read on the internet…

    • Andrew

      I would be nice to wage both sides properly. It’s not true that there hasn’t been proper research on toxicity of GMO food. This documentary names a lot of those:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A

    • Maryjane Daniels

      Gmos are 100% poisen with no nutrition left in them

      • Ashley Wiggs

        Science and English are not your strong suits are they?

        • Kiplin

          I think that Maryjane was being facetious.

          Never mind… I just came across this:
          “I have visiual proof if u would like to see..gmos are poisen”

          She’s just cognitively disabled. It was funny before I realized that she is just retarded.

          • Lisa Taylor

            May I ask your age, Kiplin? If you’re an adult and resort to using derogatory terms like “retarded,” how can I take seriously anything you say? What if you had a child with Down’s Syndrome? Autism? And what if you heard someone call your child retarded? Same goes for the 15 people who “liked” his comment.

          • Joseph Mayfield

            What if dogs could talk or apples were purple?!?!
            I like this game.

          • Blood Ninja

            Or what if we had intellectual discourse instead of emotional browbeating? What if we stopped using guilt in a debate and used facts? What if we redefined retarded to mean “Someone that is willfully ignorant” as that’s the context that it’s almost exclusively used for over the last couple of decades? Maybe you are just retarded when it comes to the use of retard these days?

  • Jim Brauner

    What a crock of half truths and lies the GLP puts out. Here is much more evidence based information. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/06/dr-huber-gmo-foods.aspx

    • Loren Eaton

      ‘Dr. Don Huber is likely the leading GMO expert in the world.’ Which world would that be? “Dr.” Mercola is a new age quack. He wouldn’t know evidence if he tripped over it.

      • Brock Sherwood

        A simple google search results in articles of his peers at Perdue basically disputing everything he’s ever written.

        • Loren Eaton

          You mean like claiming to have found an entirely new ‘micro-fungus’ unlike anything ever seen? You beat me to it.
          Being a quack himself makes him ever so attractive to other quacks. (See Vandana Shiva, Jeffrey Smith, Mercola and so on).

    • Camarelli

      lol, citing the quack Mercola against real science!
      http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html

    • leah

      How hysterical when someone says they are offering scientific evidence and then presents something from Mercola – Central Quack city.

    • http://perplexedorder.blogspot.com/ Brad Smith

      Linking to Mercola? Ha!

    • Stuart M.

      Again, you missed the “credible” caveat on which studies were included.

    • David Pete

      HAHA You just used evidence and Mercola in the same sentance

    • RealityCheck131

      Evidence based information from Quack Mercola? lol

  • Jim Brauner

    By the way, if this toxic food is so wonderful, why would the biotech industry spend endless millions trying to keep it from being put on a label? Your pants are on fire!

    • Loren Eaton

      I like your circular argument. To require labeling, the gov’t must have proof of a compostional/safety difference. If those differences existed, the FDA would require a label. That’s the LAW…and it has nothing to do with your yuck factor!! If this thing in Washington state passes, I would think it would end up in court.

      • Guest

        Labeling in the face of thousands of safety studies showing no harm is do something totally unscientific. So to prove they are using good science, you want them to go and partake in bad science?

        • Brett

          Labels have nothing to do with science. Labels are a consumer choice issue. Just because it is “scientifically acceptable” does not mean everyone wants to buy it, and they have a right to spend their money the way they want.

          • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

            Brett, you are correct. But we already have labels: it’s called “organic”, and anyone who wants to avoid foods from GMO crops can do so. The vast majority of processed foods in the US contain GMOs, so if you do not want GMOs, buy organic or processed foods that have a “non GMO label”. So there really is no “consumer choice” issue of note here any longer. People who make those choices will be doing so for political and ideological and religious reasons though–not because of safety or health or environmental reasons. But hey, it’s a free world. Many people “choose” not to believe in evolution or think that human induced climate change is a myth…again, not science–rather “consumer choice”.

          • First Officer

            So don’t buy anything without a label. You do not have the right to compel speech without reasonable cause. Curiosity is not a reasonable cause.

          • http://cory.albrecht.name/ Cory Albrecht

            Nobody is preventing food corporations from labelling their own products “non-GMO”. The topic here is whether it is a appropriate for the government to force labelling of GMOs when there’s no safety reason for doing so.

    • Ron Tavernier

      Gee. They are companies who make money for their stockholders. They are against something that will cost them millions of dollars and probably stigmatize their products with no good science behind it being dangerous. No idea why they would be against it. Seems like losing millions would be something they would want.

    • Janice Burke

      Jim, all the science leads to the same conclusion. There is no difference. GMOs are safe. In 8000 B.C, humans began choosing and altering plants and livestock. In 4000 B.C Egyptians began making wine and in 2000 B.C. Egyptians and Sumerians were brewing and cheese making.

      • ModerndayAppleseed

        Yep that is true but Monsanto seed are being changed drastically so they can sell more roundup.

      • Celeste Arnold

        If GMOs are considered the ‘same’ as it’s organic cousin then why was Monsanto able to patent it’s seed?? To get a patent on something it has to be proven as unique or original. The FDA chooses to not label GMOs because they are a ‘substantial equivalent.’
        Isn’t this a conundrum? Are GMOs the same or are they unique and different? Monsanto can’t have it both ways.

        • Jon Entine

          Celeste, you’re confusing all kinds of things here. Growers and seed companies have been patenting seeds for 80 years; GM seeds are less than 20 years along. We patent innovation. Seeds grown for organic use and conventional use and GM seeds can ALL be patented. The FDA conclusion of substantial equivalence has nothing to do with the patent issue. You are reading too many junk NGO sites. I suggest checking in with the US Department of Agriculture or a serious science organization such as the World Health Organisation, and continue to read the balanced stories on the GLP.

          • Celeste Arnold

            Thank you but I am not just reading junk sites, I did not read that on the internet. I know that the FDA conclusion is not because of the patent issue. It is because of passing 3 month tests done by Monsanto themselves saying that GMOs are safe.
            I happen to think my point is valid. if something is a new innovation then it can’t be seen as a ‘substantial equivalent’. The crop is different and this is a clear point to justify in the least labeling.

          • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

            Celeste, Not sure what you are reading but it’s not a legitimate science site. There is no such thing as a 3 month test done by Mosanto to show things are safe or not. Every GMO process takes years of testing and evaluation, 5-17 years in some cases. No approval was based on 3 months of any test. That’s just silly, and any site that posts that is pure junk science. Here is the FDA’s short explanation of the process: http://www.fda.gov/food/foodscienceresearch/biotechnology/ucm346030.htm. The far left environmental magazine Grist has an independent reporter named Nathanael Johnson who has addressed the myths that you are circulating and has a helpful explanation, if you’re open minded enough to read it: http://grist.org/food/the-gm-safety-dance-whats-rule-and-whats-real/ Morever, GMOs are approved in some 30 countries around the world, each of whom has its own unique set of guidelines, and many that required government supported testing. The conclusions are unanimous: GMOS are safe. Sorry to burst your bubble.

          • Celeste Arnold

            “the developer identifies the distinguishing attributes of new genetic traits and assesses whether any new material that a person consumed in food made from the genetically engineered plants could be toxic or allergenic.” – FDA’s explanation – the developer in this case is Monsanto. ‘The developer’ is doing it’s own tests to show that they are safe. FDA is not doing there own tests, they are only reviewing what is given to them by Monsanto.
            What about the 64 countries where gmos are banned or labeled? does that burst your bubble? ha ha you are so funny. I have read these articles that you speak of Entine, I read both sides, and while i’m reading I don’t sit there and ridicule the other side like you do, that’s an open mind. So, thank you for your opinion saying I’m not open minded but your persistence to see this as a black and white issue affirms my belief that you are not open to learning the dangers of GE crops.

          • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

            Celeste, Who is being black and white?
            I’m asking for peaceful co-existence so farmers have a variety of methods on hand to address global and local food challenges; you are crowing about political bans imposed in direct contradiction to findings by independent scientists at more than 100 agencies around the world–while not one independent international agency of note has raised serious health or environmental issues linked to GMOs. You consistently confuse politics of anti-GMO activists with consensus science. Your goal appears to be to demonize technologies that you yourself admit you have only a cursory knowledge of. Being open minded means seeking appropriate solutions based on challenges–thinking without ideological blinders. Genetic modification, along with judicious use of pesticides which are encouraged by organic and conventional farming, are a set of contributory tools to help address food and farming challenges. We need integrated pest and production management techniques. No one process has monopoly on that. No amount of independent empirical evidence–100+ agenicies and 2000+ studies–will be enough to ever convince you, because empirical evidence is not your currency.

          • Celeste Arnold

            Crowing about 64 nations who ban or label? while you crow about the 30 that allow it? In future arguments you should focus on your own argument instead of telling other people how they think or what my ‘currency’ is. We don’t need to go into more discussion because every argument you make is just saying that those tests say they are safe- even though those tests don’t address all of the issues but apparently you are not interested in that. Therefore no interest is had by you to consider other points of view-. That is fine, we obviously disagree but you don’t need to be so rude.

            I am asking for the food I eat to be labeled. We don’t label food for safety (if it’s unsafe it shouldn’t even be on the market) we label food to provide information to the public. That information is valid and more than 90% of Americans would like to see gmos labeled.

          • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

            I never once even mentioned how many countries approve of GMO crops, let alone tout it as meaningful of anything. We have had two votes on GMO labeling. The only empirical evidence we have is less than 50% of people who voted when this was not just a flip opinion to a poll support GMO labeling in in their states. (And if it had been approved, it would have been overturned as illegal, as it is under US law.)

          • Lauren

            …actually, we DO label food for safety. What the hell do you think allergen information is? And hate to break it to you, but it’s not providing information if the public don’t know or understand what it actually is/means. You might as well announce an ingredient in a different language.
            What if 90% of Americans decided they wanted to know if a non-Caucasian was involved in the food making process? Completely useless information that makes no difference to the food, and would only be there to fulfil (rather racist) emotions and ignorant ideologies – should consumers have to pay more to know that information, even though it’s utterly useless at the end of the day?

          • Lauren

            Those 64 countries banned them due to economic and/or political reasons. Science never came into it.

    • Lauren

      Because it’s as pointless as putting on a label saying “this was made from crops harvested by a man named Bill on a Tuesday”. Do YOU want to pay double the price to receive information that is utterly useless to know? Labelling and marketing costs.

  • Adam Herstein

    But… but… John Robbins says that GMOs are bad and Monsanto is evil…

  • Ron Tavernier

    Monsanto. There, I win.

  • Aurelian

    It’s important to separate the actions of Monsanto, a corporation which is structured for profit maximization and like all other multinationals represents certain problems. With regards to GMOs it is important to acknowledge the findings above which validate scientists efforts, yet not uncritically accept all of what Monsanto does. Scientific method employed to better food production benefits all humanity, I can’t say the same about Monsanto.

    • ZPT205

      It’s tempting to reply to the anti-GMO nutters by saying “we can support GMOs without supporting Monsanto,” but if you look into it, most of their anti-Monsanto claims are bunk too. There’s no evidence of abusive pricing (actual studies have debunked the “Monsanto has caused Indian farmers to commit suicide over bankruptcy” rumor and shown that, if anything, GMOs have reduced farmer suicides in India), nor has Monsanto been aggressively suing “innocent” farmers who just had seeds blow onto their lands, as the anti-GMO folk so often like to claim.

      • Buster Fykes
        • Travis Brown

          in 1997 his field was unintentionally contaminated by monsantos seeds, the next year he deliberately used those seeds to setup fields of canola with monsantos patented seed and thats why they sued, if he had just left it alone when it came in accidentally they probably wouldn’t have sued. Schmeiser isn’t exactly innocent.

          • David Beckley

            If he is using seeds from plants sown by him in his own field, how is this in anyway his fault that Monsanto contaminated his crop? He can’t scrap his entire field because Monsanto can’t keep a lid on their product.

          • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

            David, the conclusion of the independent authors of the Italian study was that in totality GMOs are entirely safe or safer than conventional crops. That was represented fairly and accurately in the report. Any individual study could raise some questions, but more than two thousand studies have yet to identify any serious health problems. Science is about replicability and consensus. That exists overwhelmingly with GMO crops.

          • ryansouth

            Some are perceived to be just as safe but many studies show that they aren’t safer not do they yield better results. So why do we use them?

          • MattB

            Are GMO’s being used to improve health and nutrition and feed more people, or are they being used to maximize corporate profits, increase herbicide sales, and create a monopoly on seed stocks?

          • http://www.jonentine.com Jon Entine

            David, the farmer could have used non Monsanto seeds. Instead he used patented seeds and brazenly lied about which is why the courts were not sympathetic to his position. Stealing is…illegal, last I heard.

          • ZPT205

            You misunderstand– nobody is saying he had to scrap his entire field. He *specifically picked out* the Monsanto seeds and replanted those.

          • bruce123abc

            Before Monsanto, seeds are free any you can do with them as you wish.

            After Monsanto, you have to pay for seeds every year.
            —–
            The farmer looses. People in poor countries who can’t afford the new seed loose.

            It looks like it’s bad for the soil, bad for the environment, bad for farmers and bad for the consumer.

            More over, if we don’t want it in our food, shouldn’t we have the right to know and decide?

          • Bill A.

            Monsanto patented seeds have to be paid for.
            You can use any other seeds you wish without paying for them.
            It is of course a fact that those patented seeds make the farmer more money or they would not buy them.

          • bruce123abc

            When you buy other people’s seeds. You own it and you can harvest your seeds and re-use them for free.

            You also don’t have to buy a specific companies chemicals.
            —–
            The fact that Monsanto’s seeds contaminate other people’s fields, who don’t even want their seeds is also an issue.

            Monsanto takes no responsibility for their contamination, but want all the rights.

            So neighbouring farmers are forced to switch over or waste land with a buffer zone.

            Who wants to be sued? Even if they will get vindicated because they didn’t cause the contamination, who could afford to go into a lawsuit with Monsanto? (e.g. 1997 they were vindicated after a long trial.)

            This farmer may have stolen the seeds in 1998, but why wasn’t Monsanto responsible for his contamination in 1997?

            What about other people in the future who are contaminated without their wish? What will their recourse be?

          • Bill A.

            So you would be Ok with someone buying 1 of your patented ‘widget’ and then making others from that design.
            Not many new things would be developed with no way to recoup the development costs.
            No one says you HAVE to use any one specific chemical or manufacturers chemical.
            Most buy the least expensive.
            You want to reuse your seed then buy seeds without patents on them, they are available because anyone can replant them and sell the seed to you.

          • bruce123abc

            So, Monsanto doesn’t have a clause in their contract saying that people have to use their roundup herbicide, as I’ve read?

          • Bill A.

            If they do it has not stopped anyone in Ontario from using any make of Glyphosphate that they want

          • Eskil Jonsson

            You do know that without their patents the biotech industry becomes worthless right?

            Monsanto has never sued anyone for accidental cross pollination. Every case involves farmers breaching their contracts. If one doesn’t like the contract then don’t sign it and buy seeds from other companies.

            And they actually tried to solve this issue with sterile seed technology which would prevent genes from spreading – also protecting the environment from mono culture – but this was of course put down due to the anti-GM movement, which is sad really.

        • Jeff

          Did you even read the link you posted? “The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern
          what happens when farmers’ fields are accidentally contaminated with
          patented seed. However by the time the case went to trial, all claims
          had been dropped that related to patented seed in the field that was
          contaminated in 1997; the court only considered the GM canola in
          Schmeiser’s 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated
          and planted from his 1997 harvest. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser
          did not put forward any defense of accidental contamination.”

          • joe smith

            Schmeiser got his ass handed to him. His story made no sense. I feel bad for small farmers trying to make a living, but he was in the wrong,

        • StarLiner

          One where, You don’t use Extraneous grammar?????????

        • Kiplin

          I live in reality, where data trumps emotionally based narratives.

          http://www.dangeroustalk.net/a-team/GMO

          • Mike Phillips

            what about data that is purposefully manipulated??

        • stopaskingmetoregister

          The most trusted source on the internet wikipedia….

        • http://www.coldcallinginsider.com/ Frank R

          Wikipedia is a known source of misinformation since anyone can edit whatever they want onto a page.

          • http://ultimateglutenfree.com/ Peter Olins

            Really, Frank? At least for the areas of science that I have been involved in, Wikipedia is a remarkably accurate and balanced source—even though the prose may be clumsy, due to the multiple contributors. Is there a Wiki that you think is particularly inaccurate?

      • Maryjane Daniels

        I have visiual proof if u would like to see..gmos are poisen

        • ZPT205

          lol visual proof? That claim doesn’t even make sense.

          • ZPT205

            Why force feed it when everyone who lives in the United States– probably including you– has eaten them on a regular basis?

          • bruce abc123

            ….and North American diet is the least healthy in the world. More obesity and more coronary heart disease.

            Europe and Asian countries are banning GMO’s.

            It’s not all about the US. Other people have done good science, that is not profit or industry based. The rest of the world sees that. The US can keep it’s head in the sand and keep trying to bully other countries into believing it’s sales pitch, but it won’t work anymore!

          • ZPT205

            Um, actually Europe isn’t banning GMOs and is in the process of reversing its labeling requirements. Same in much of Asia. If you look up regulatory costs, you’ll see the US requires more testing than pretty much anywhere else in the rest of the world. Hate to rain on your anti-corporate/anti-science narrative with some facts, but…

            http://www.agbioforum.org/v13n1/v13n1a04-norton.htm

          • Warren Lauzon

            Even with the massive obesity rates in the US, longevity just hit another new record high this year.

      • Mike Phillips

        why aren’t GMO supporters “nutters”? they usually sound as deranged as theists and those abducted by aliens …

        • ZPT205

          If GMO supporters sound deranged to you, blame the Dunning-Kruger effect.

        • bruce123abc

          What’s sad is that GMO supporters demand things should be their way and don’t understand that everyone should have a right to their own opinion and should be able to vote with their pocketbooks.

          Instead they want to deny others the right to choose (GMO labelling) and tell others what is good for them.

          It does sound a bit religious.

          • Grokhar

            Yes, Bruce. Everyone should have their own opinion. But ignorance is not to be tolerated. What if mysticism like witchcraft were to crawl back to public policies like in the Middle Age, because many people believe that witchcraft is a fact, despite, and ignoring the overwhelming evidence of the contrary, because “they have their own opinion, and won’t change it”?

            Humble, intelligent and wise people will change their viewpoints with new proven evidence, regardless of their political, religious or philosophical values.

          • bruce123abc

            What’ I’ve read leads me to believe GMO’s in food are harmful.

            Everyone one having their own opinion does mean that ignorance should be tolerated. I.E. It’s not up to you to dictate who is right or wrong.

            However, I have a bachelor of Civil Engineering. I am certainly not ignorant and your bullying is not appreciated or wanted.

            Mysticism has nothing to do with it. The fact is that there are studies showing that GMO foods are unsafe.

            The fact that a lot of health effects, obesity, allergies are going up and a lot of it leads back to GMO foods as the culprit is a big concern.

            A lot of the claimed benefits and need of GMO foods is unfounded.

            I want to avoid GMO’s. Your opinion doesn’t change that.

            Avoiding GMO’s won’t affect you and can hurt, so why would you object?

            We need to move to a world that uses less petroleum, that means less chemicals, less big ag production, more local agriculture, methods that improve the soil, nutrition and grow more variety locally. A lot of eco-friendly solutions are available.

            I choose to vote with my pocket book, buy local, buy organic and buy non-GMO, and reduce my sugar, starch and processed food intake

            Those choice will make me healthier, use less energy, be better for the environment, better for my pocket book and better for the local economy.

            That is not ignorance. That is my life choice. I choose not to support GMO foods.

            Why are you threatened by that?
            —–
            FYI
            From what I’ve read inserting new genes by (e.g. shooting GENE covered gold flecks into DNA) causes a lot of effects that would make the food worse, such as;
            – Inserting into the middle of other genes destroying or altering their functionality
            – having the gene on all the time (by using a protein that keeps the gene turned on continuously) in all the cells so that the poison or protein is always being produced throughout the plant (This I assume would lead to lower nutrition since the plant is spending a lot of it’s resources producing a toxin continuously)
            – the activator may be turning on inactive genes that produce toxins or by producing more of a protein than normal produces unwanted protein production (e.g. 30,000 genes in the human body produce 80,000 different proteins -> a protein has more than one function)
            – Altering the function of other genes due to the fact that genes interact in a complicated way with each other and not singly as Genetic Modification assumes
            – using marker genes, that are cheaper, but promote anti-biotic resistance
            – the addition of extra DNA that my produce toxins
            – proteins that are possibly allergenic being added to foods that are normally not allergenic

          • Bill A.

            So Bruce; being an engineer you should understand the importance of using studies to prove the stability of any engineered project.

            Where are the studies that show GMO’s are anything but safe?

            Hearsay does not count.
            Replicable studies are the only thing that stands up.

            If you wish to pay more for ‘organic’ food that is grown with chemicals that are more hazardous than lots use in ‘commercial’ farming then that is your choice.
            Just do not force the cost of labelling on the rest of us.

          • bruce123abc

            No problem we can label things as organic and non-GMO. Then it won’t cost you anything.

            There’s no excuse for not letting people who want to know which foods are or aren’t GMO have their choice. You can’t have everything your way.
            —–
            All you have to do is Google “GMO Health studies” and you get studies showing studies on the bad effects of GMO’s.

            I like how you dis-allow a study right off the bat.

            All I asked for was a study showing that GMO’s are safe. The actual report that I can read through fully or a reasonable summary of it, which I don’t find. Just people like you trying to convince me that you’re right.

            That’s just bullying.

            You can’t bully technology into existence, when it has so many health effects and isn’t needed.

            We don’t need food that is cheaper to produce. We need healthier alternatives that we want to purchase.

            If you’re okay with it, you’re welcome to it, BUT don’t force it on me.

            The big issue is choice. You don’t have rights unless I have rights. You don’t have rights unless you have responsibilities. The fact that big agriculture blocks legislation that would make things more transparent. Puts people in place to change the rules to their advantage shows what is wrong with your way of thinking.

            The “I’m right and you’re going to do things my way” approach is unacceptable and undemocratic.

            The fact that you are unwilling to let other people think for themselves shows a very how psychopathic your side of the argument is.

            I’m not trying to have an argument with you or anyone else. I’m simply trying to get information so I can decide for myself.

            I understand if you tell people something long enough they’ll accept it.
            Fortunately we have freedom and the Internet so we don’t have to listen to people like you.

            I’m sorry, but I have better things to do. So this discussion, which I never wanted, is OVER.

          • Bill A.

            Do you not realize that there are thousands of studies that show no harm from GMO’s?
            Quit trying to look for what is not there.

            As for labelling organic that is exactly what I suggest.
            those who want the ‘special’ food from so called ‘organic’ production should pay the costs.
            Just as I grow non GMO Identity Preserved crops which I am paid a premium for to reward me for growing less efficient varieties.
            those who want the special foods or special labelling should pay the cost not those who want to eat the least expensive to produce food.
            I am not arguing just pointing out facts and am not bullying anyone unlike those who want to force costly and unnecessary labelling on everyone.
            As I have said if you want labelling then you pay for it on your special food and assume everything without that label is ‘ordinary’ food produced in the most efficient manner.

          • bruce abc123

            Natural varieties don’t destroy soil and are more sustainable in the long term. They have been grown for thousands of years without the intervention of big agriculture or the need for chemicals.

            It is how 3/4 of the world feeds itself, FOR FREE!
            —–
            Big money and big agriculture shouldn’t be allowed to ram things down people’s throats.

            If you want it, then label it GMO and the rest of us won’t buy it.
            —–
            Sorry that labelling things GMO will mean less people want to buy it, but you’re adding something to food without telling people. It should be treated no differently than any other additive.

            You’re making things less expensive for yourself by forcing it on unwanting participants. That’s not free market! That’s not letting the market decide!

            The natural food should doesn’t need to be labelled, the changed food should be!

          • bruce123abc

            - Séralini’s study

            – Arpad Puszt’s study

            – Book Seed’s of Deception had a lot of information on how genetic modification affects DNA and RNA.

            You’ll probably dismiss them anyway, but it’s independent and not tainted by industry influences.

            If you want re-producible, then re-do the study yourself.

            I’ve contacted Monsanto asking for samples to test. I doubt they’ll respond but I’m doing my part.
            —–
            The thing about science, is it’s not an absolute. It’s only right until it’s proven wrong.

            You trying to brow beat people by saying that other people’s studies have not been reproduced, doesn’t change that fact that they can be reproduced, except that everyone is afraid of the repercussions from Monsanto.

            It doesn’t change the fact that there are doubts, there is a lot of politics, legal maneuvering to scare people out of trying to re-produce studies and people like you trying to tell other people what to think.

            That’s not science. That’s bullying.
            —–
            If anyone can give me a link to a GMO study so I can decide for myself, please do.
            —–
            For everyone, Google the above studies. Look up some books. There is a lot of information out there.

            Eat whole foods (e.g. prepare vegetables and meat).
            Avoid sugar, too much starch/wheat/flour, processed foods and buy local (farmers markets and local stores.)

            Have a long and healthy life!

          • Bill A.

            Starting with Séralini’s study I suggest you read this
            http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology

            It was tested by others and found wanting then finally retracted since it did not follow good test procedures.

            You fail badly by leading off with that as your first example of any proof of harm from GMO’s.

          • bruce123abc

            I’m not trying to prove anything.

            It says the findings have some merit. As to why it was pulled, that is curious.

            Just looking at the study, how can a more than 100% increase in the death rate be statistically insignificant?

            Why wouldn’t someone put pressure to repeal the study. Shouldn’t they try it to see if they get the a different result?

            In my opinion, there is too much collusion.

            Good studies are all perfect and bad ones are discredited. That shows it’s more about money than good science.
            —–
            Ultimately it’s about choice.

            I don’t want GMO’s. Let the people who want to pay for GMO’s do so and the ones who don’t should have the choice not to buy it. That’s fare and that’s democratic.

            You can’t use science to force things on other people.

          • Bill A.

            No one is stopping you from eating ‘organic’ foods if you wish to.
            No one is forcing you to eat foods produced from GMO’s either is you do not wish to.

            But quit trying to say GMO’s are harmful when there are no studies which show that, at least none using proper steps and protocols so you get an honest answer.

            That is why Seralini’s study was retracted it did not follow proper scientific protocols so got faulty info.

          • That Food Man

            Firstly the retracted Seralini study your referring to was retracted based on the fact it was a flawed cancer study, which if you have read his re published article along with the additional commentary he added, he clearly states it was NOT and never was a carcinogenic study, the critics of his study came from Monsanto as well as other pro GMO scientists.

            Just to make you aware the editor of the Food Chemical and Toxicology journal (FCT) was a former Monsanto employee and Monsanto have actually funded many of the FCT’s conference meetings, GMO lobbyists were leaning on the FCT which caused him to retract the study in which even the editor had admitted he could see no discernible reason to retract it also “The raw data underlying the study’s findings are also published – unlike the raw data for the industry studies that underlie regulatory approvals of Roundup, which are kept secret. However, the new paper presents the same results as before and the conclusions are unchanged.” which again concludes the nit picking in his study for it only to be republished and accepted within the scientifical community the same as it were initially,

            In a letter to Prof Séralini, Hayes (FCT editor) admitted that the anonymous reviewers found nothing incorrect about the results, but argued that the tumour and mortality observations in the paper were “inconclusive”, and this justified his decision to retract the study:

            “A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups.”

            “The rationale given for the retraction was widely criticized by scientists as an act of censorship and a bow to the interests of the GMO industry”, says Robinson.

            “Some scientists pointed out that numerous published scientific papers contain inconclusive findings, including Monsanto’s own short (90-day) study on the same GM maize, and have not been retracted.[9] The retraction was even condemned by a former member of the editorial board of FCT.”

            Now the study has passed a third peer review arranged by the journal that is republishing the study, Environmental Sciences Europe.

            “FCT acquired as its new assistant editor for biotechnology a former employee of Monsanto after he sent a letter to FCT to complain about our study. This is in particular why FCT asked for a post-hoc analysis of our raw data. On 19 November, 2013, the editor-in-chief requested the retraction of our study while recognizing that the data were not incorrect and that there was no misconduct and no fraud or intentional misinterpretation in our complete raw data – an unusual or even unprecedented action in scientific publishing. The editor argued that no conclusions could be drawn because we studied 10 rats per group over 2 years, because they were Sprague Dawley rats, and because the data were inconclusive on cancer. Yet this was known at the time of submission of our study. Our study was however never attended to be a carcinogenicity study. We never used the word ‘cancer’ in our paper. The present opinion is a summary of the debate resulting in this retraction, as it is a historic example of conflicts of interest in the scientific assessments of products commercialized worldwide. We also show that the decision to retract cannot be rationalized on any discernible scientific or ethical grounds. Censorship of research into health risks undermines the value and the credibility of science; thus, we republish our paper.”

            http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsantos-roundup-ready-gmo-maize-causes-serious-health-damage/5388580

            http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/1

            ^^^ seralinis article regarding the retraction “Conflicts of interests, confidentiality and censorship in health risk assessment: the example of an herbicide and a GMO”

            So you should address and edit your comment because “You fail badly by leading off with that” as a line of defence for the invalidity of Seralinis article as a reference,

            In all honesty even if seralinis article does have flaws the way it was retracted and the controversy and influences on it only reflects the bias and lobbying effects when it comes to anything that says a bad word about GMO’s and portrays anything BUT transparency and integrity…

            happy reading

            That Food Man

            http://www.ttvitalnutrition.com

          • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

            The republished Seralini study was NOT peer reviewed according to the editor of the pay for play journal that Seralini bought his way into. There is no evidence that anything other than science reasons were resulted in the original article being retracted. There is no evidence that Monsanto or any other company had any influence on an independent journal. The Seralini article was judged deficient and pulled. It’s been reviewed by various independent agencies, and been eviscerated. Here are just a few reactions: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/06/24/scientists-react-to-republished-seralini-maize-rat-study/

    • Ammyth

      I too used to say “The actions of one company in the GM industry is not justification for vilifying the entire technology.” But the more I read on Monsanto’s alleged crimes against nature and humanity, the more I realized that they’re all kinda bullshit.

      • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

        I agree with you. When asked to provide evidence of Monsanto’s “crimes against nature and humanity,” they just inject ideology/religious views into the discussion.

        • Ammyth

          You seem to have misread my comment. I was agreeing that most of the claims about Monsanto are just activist nonsense. After rereading my comment, I can see how it might be misinterpreted.

          • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

            Ammyth, you are right, I did misread it originally, then corrected it! If you refresh your screen you’ll see my edited response.

    • Daniel Hendrick

      Prejudice against farmers is at the heart of Monsanto ranting’s – nobody who hates Monsanto also has no love for farmers. They work long hours at low pay – their farms stink from manure which is carried by the wind. But the exact problem is the most anti – farming maestros will not do the farm work are seeking to regulate the workplace of those who will do the work and put them out of business in the name of progress. But then we’ll have no production at all – I’m sure the people who don’t work in the occupation know less than the people who do even though they’re more vocal. Every industry is at risk of being destroyed by dumb outsiders when you allow illegalization of the best – safest choice to be chosen by the producers of that product. It is protectionists trying to illegalize the better product.

  • Corrie

    Just label the god damn food so I can stay away from it. Your family can eat GMO because I do not give a crap what your family eats. I do care what we eat hence the request for labeling. Why is it so damn difficult to do?

    • Asura

      Here’s a way to make your life easier.
      If it doesn’t say “No GMOs!” on the front of the product, it has GMOs.

      You may now thank me.

      • Stuart M.

        Touché!!!!

    • ZPT205

      My family believes that food harvested from left-handed people is cursed (because an Italian quack with a few rats said so.) Just label the goddamn food so I can stay away from it. Your family can eat cursed left-handed food because I don’t care what your family eats.

  • Sharon

    Goodness, 1783 studies and you missed professor Judy Carman’s long term toxicology hog study at Flinders University in Australia and Professor Serelini’s 2 year rat study at the University of Caen? Someone is not doing their homework!

    • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

      Goodness, you apparently did not read the article and its research outline. Those studies were not in the time frame examined. The fact is there have been 2000+ studies. And not one study studied examined by the independent science community has demonstrated any unique safety concerns about GMO crops that is not also true of conventional or organic crops. Those two studies you mentioned are in the GENERA database, which is evolving as the go-to independent library for GMO studies.

      As for those two studies–you of course must know they have been soundly rejected by the independent science community because of their faulty methodologies. Anti-GMO crusaders love to trot them out, just as climate change deniers love to selectively present data, but poorly executed studies by well known activists with stated ideological objectives is not science–that’s politics. Science?: 2000+ studies, with as many as 1000+ plus by government and/or independent researchers showing what those with a basic understanding of genetics/biotechnology would tell you–precise genetic modification through genetic engineering is actually safer than conventional or organic alternatives.

      Get back to me when independent scientists–not avowed activists–have replicated their data. Hasn’t happened (no prior examples) and no doubt will never happen. Science policy should be driven by empirical data/weight of evidence…NOT by one-off studies by industry and not by one-off studies by activist scientists. Repeatability is science.

    • http://perplexedorder.blogspot.com/ Brad Smith

      The Judy Carman study was debunked and rejected by the scientific community because of questionable methodology, conflict of interest and shoddy statistics. The study in itself actually proved nothing.

    • Stuart M.

      Again, you obviously missed the “credible” caveat on which studies were included.

    • ZPT205

      If you favorably cite Serelini, you’re the one who failed to do their homework.

      • http://ultimateglutenfree.com/ Peter Olins, PhD

        Thanks, ZPT205. I also use a simple, very unscientific, rule-of-thumb, which is neatly captured by Skeptico:
        “The Seralini Rule. I have a new rule for debating anti-GMO people:
        If you favorably cite the 2012 Séralini rats fed on Roundup ready maize study, you just lost the argument.” http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2013/06/the-seralini-rule-gmo-bogus-study.html

        Fortunately, even the publisher of the scandalous Seralini paper has belatedly asked that it be retracted.

        It is, of course, unfair to pre-judge someone’s views; however, as a way of saving time, if someone hasn’t done their homework, and doesn’t “get” why the Seralini paper was a travesty of the peer-review process, it’s probably not worth the energy trying to discuss a larger issue.

        • ZPT205

          They actually just went a step further and retracted it themselves when the authors refused to do so. Are you familiar with the Wakefield affair concerning vaccines? The parallels are quite similar.

          Of course, the conspiracy nuts are claiming that this was all Big Agriculture’s fault because one person who works for the journal happens to be a former Monsanto employee, even though that employee made sure not to involve himself in the decision concerning the paper.

    • Lauren

      And someone clearly never did their homework back in primary and high school, if they think the rat study is legit. There are two MAJOR issues with the “study”:

      1. The sample size is too small. And when I say too small, I mean it’s too small for any kind of statistical analysis – it’s physically impossible to determine if there even IS a correlation full stop, let alone if correlation equals causation.
      2. Rats, like most rodents, have an interesting feature in their genetic makeup: once they reach a certain age, they grow tumours. I had mice as a kid, and they all grew tumours after they reached a certain age. No matter what you feed them or what their health is like, they will grow tumours – it’s part of their DNA. So it’s hardly fair to blame GMOs when you age rats past that minimum age, and they end up growing tumours. Those rats would have grown tumours no matter what the food; proven by the fact that the control group ALSO grew tumours. Fancy that. Nothing to do with the food, it’s just their genes.

  • Madeleine Love

    Read more about the GENERA list here and subsequent postings: http://madeleinelove.newsvine.com/_news/2013/09/18/20568345-my-great-big-list-of-studies-intro?lite

    Important studies are missing from both the Nicolia & GENERA lists. As for the Size of the GENERA lists, it has been somewhat padded by abstracts.

    Yours, going through the lists.

    • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

      GENERA is being compiled by the nonprofit Biofortified. It has about 650 on its list, and indeed miss some studies, but I don’t believe any “important” ones, whatever that means. They have run out of funding for now, but hope to get more and when they do, sometime within the next few months, they will have a searchable database of more than 2000. Whatever…the scientific consensus on genetically modified foods is overwhelming… about as overwhelming as the consensus on whether evolution is a “fact” or not.

      • Madeleine Love

        On the 18 September 2013 the GENERA list contained 600 entries. In comparison to the Nicolia list I think compilers have been sloppy in their work. The Nicolia list contains a few repeats and errors as well, but in my opinion within a more typical range of human error for people trying to produce accurate work.
        There is no scientific consensus that foods derived from commercial GM crops are safe to eat. Further, no matter how big the claims of scientific consensus are they will never be so overwhelming as to prevent my investigating their validity.
        Nicolia et al’s varied use of the term “scientific consensus” is interesting, used in far more contexts than the particular power frame used by GM proponents/propagandists. Sometimes ‘consensus’ can mean ‘agreement of findings’, rather than ‘agreement of a particular group of scientists’ though of course consensus bias needs to be investigated in each case. I went back to investigate the IPCC Climate Change models where the term ‘consensus’ is used a lot. In contrast to GM foods (which actually could be tested to develop a quantification of comparative risk, assuming the dedication of a large amount genuinely independent resources to the task), testing the actual validity of assumptions in the global environment models is impossible to do without placing the whole planet at risk. As such, the modelling required a lot of discussion with careful attention to terms relating to likelihood and consequence – there needed to be debates and agreements on variables and modelled interactions.
        The profound scientific disagreement on the safety of GM foods could be resolved through actual testing – no ‘consensus in the absence of data’ is required.
        I’m not sure anything will stop the GM proponents trying to use ‘scientific consensus’ as a power term – it has been used in such a manner before – but if used as a claim that there scientific agreement that GM foods are safe to eat it is deeply misleading.

        • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

          With all due respect, you are 100% wrong when you claim there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GM—not 99% but 100%. EVERY major science organization in the world including the central independent science academies in every major industrial country has come to the conclusion that GM crops or foods or as safe or safer than even organic alternatives–from the World Health Organization to the National Academy of Science to the Third World Science Academies. This no debate anymore except among conspiracy theory proponents. Here is a link to a GLP Infographic quoting many of these organizations—ALL independent: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/27/glp-infographic-international-science-organizations-on-crop-biotechnology-safety/

          • Madeleine Love

            With all due respect, you are entirely wrong in the claim of scientific consensus, even considering state interests, trade obligations, funding bias, licence agreements, and even threats on scientists of the kind reported in the UK very recently, viz “Government policy in Britain, Canada and Australia is crushing academic integrity on behalf of corporate power” – Guardian, Monbiot http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/30/scientists-democracy-dissent-reasonable-boyd. Most institutions made strong qualifying statements though I note these are not put on GM proponent infographics. Being Australian I can pass on the information that the use of FSANZ is probably not your strongest move – FSANZ is not a ‘central independent science academy’ – it is a government authority with conflicting obligations to facilitate trade. I might write a piece on ‘scientific consensus’…

          • keefos

            Are universities also churning out studies largely antithetical to anthropogenic global warming? Pretty much the opposite. Curious that the “corporations” haven’t gotten to those researchers. The Guardian, by the way, is about the least convincing source of counterevidence to anyone not notably of the Left.

    • Stuart M.

      You obviously missed the “credible” caveat on which studies were included.

      • Madeleine Love

        ;) Coz… studies from the corporation that stands to profit have ‘credible’ labelled all over them? #droll

        • ZPT205

          Obviously you missed the part about 1000 studies being independent. Practice reading before you make silly comments.

          And if you want to know why the industry funds so many studies, it’s because the law requires they do so– you can’t blame them for that.

      • Dr. Peterson

        How amusing.
        What are the JADAD scores of these studies? How many samples, what were the P factors to assure quality. I challenge all the readers of this web and Monsanto to produce even 10% of these so called scientific studies that are double-blind crossovers. These are the only studies to be trusted, whether pro or con GMO.

  • DougI

    Contrary to the claim of the article, not all of the 1783 studies listed actually delve into research validating the safety of GMOs. Nor are all the studies listed actually studies. So it doesn’t really help the GMO case for authors of articles touting the vast research on the health and environmental safety of GMOs if the author didn’t even bother looking at the studies. Just knock this article up to more pro-GMO propaganda that’s meant to appeal to the pro-GMO crowd.

    Seems like the authors of the article merely did a subject search and referenced every possible article, study or editorial published in a science journal. Gotta wonder if they actually read anything they referenced.

    Better luck next time.

    • Stuart M.

      Pardon me, if I don’t take your word for it. Stop your baseless fear mongering.

      • DougI

        And what fear mongering would that be? Obviously you haven’t taken the time to read any of the links in the article so maybe it’s best if you weren’t intellectually lazy and read the list of “studies” for yourself.

        • http://cory.albrecht.name/ Cory Albrecht

          So then if you have, you can actually specifically list out those which do not meet your standards.

          • DougI

            There are the general articles like:
            Genetically modified foods: a taste of the future

            and

            Genetically Modified Corn— Environmental Benefits and Risks
            which are merely articles and are not studies.

            Then there is the entire category of “Tracecability” in the list of studies which have nothing to do with research on the environmental and health safety of GMO products.

            Right there you’ve eliminated a vast number of the claimed number of studies validating the safety of GMO products. So the number is hardly near the 1783 studies as claimed in the above article (the author just throws in the number 2000 out of the air without giving any validation either).

            So a bunch of claims and with no evidence backing that up, the article is merely pro-GMO propaganda which is easily refuted if someone actually bothered to look at a sampling of the referenced citations, and certainly not a case of “fear mongering” as a previous poster had claimed.

          • Parallel

            Genetically modified foods: a taste of the future
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12830747

            Genetically Modified Corn— Environmental Benefits and Risks

            http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0000008

            Look like studies to me…

          • George Shute

            “In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists cataloged and analyzed 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods—a staggering number.”

            The 1783 studies number comes from the amount of studies that a team of Italian scientists cataloged.

            The “2000+” is the amount of studies, in total, that have been done.

            So, to recap: there have been over 2,000 studies on GMOs. A team of Italian scientist have cataloged and analyzed 1783 such studies.

            Seriously, this isn’t hard to figure out.

          • DougI

            Clearly you have a difficult time finding out what a study actually is so I’ll ask again, show me the methodology in the “study” in referenced nursing journal.

          • George Shute

            There are THOUSANDS of studies. Stop hanging your entire argument on one article. It doesn’t hold weight when you remove the myopia.

          • DougI

            I just picked one as an example, I could choose many others but it’s not like I’d get an answer to any of them since it’s pretty obvious all of you know I’m right, that’s why my point has yet to be refuted.

          • George Shute

            Sure thing, Captain Delusional.

            What’s you point? That some of the links are to articles that use studies rather than actual studies?

            Okay, great. That doesn’t somehow validate your idiotic junk-science, though.

            I’m going to stop replying to your inanity because there is nothing to talk about with you other how “right” you are, which you aren’t.

            Anyways, I win because I said so. Seems about as reasonable as your own assertion.

          • DougI

            Your second paragraph is that point and that the article on this blog is misleading, inaccurate propaganda. Your third paragraph is merely projection.

          • http://ultimateglutenfree.com/ Peter Olins

            George — “Never feed a troll”.

        • Becca Swenson Belden

          My husband works for bayer crop science and since he does…. I consider him an expert in this field. If he says all this about GMO’s are hype…. I believe him. Some people just aren’t happy unless they’re fear mongering people!!!

          • DougI

            It’s not like there’s a conflict of interest there but I’ll ask again, what have I presented that’s fear mongering? If you guys have the science on your side I’d expect more than fallacies like appeals to authority or outright lying about something I’ve said.

            How is reading the “studies” your side presents the equivalent of fear mongering? Do you guys even read the science or do you all just know a guy who works for a GMO company?

          • Andrew

            Try to watch all of this. It’s not fear mongering, it’s honest research: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A

          • https://www.facebook.com/General.L33 Truth Troll

            The same Bayer Corp that shipped Factor VIII contaminated with HIV? Yup! We’ll take their word for it. LoL!

          • Daniel Hendrick

            Bayer has saved thousands with its crop science. The crop yields increases and prevented hundreds of millions of deaths from starvation. People who’ve never produced a crop don’t know the slightest bit about agriculture. They don’t know even the basics the affects of the weather, the pests, the challenges.

          • https://www.facebook.com/General.L33 Truth Troll

            So again I will ask. We are suppose to trust a company that KNOWINGLY shipped Factor Vlll that was contaminated with HIV?

          • Daniel Hendrick

            Oversimplification of world war two – your historical revisionism is creative. Technically the allies were the bad guys and the Nazi’s obeyed the rules. American’s smuggled goods to Britain with any flag from their box of flags. The times of world war were very different times – the Nazi’s were very patient before they finally attacked the U.S. They put up with a lot of cheating and suffered tremendous casualties. You no nothing about history

          • https://www.facebook.com/General.L33 Truth Troll

            Didn’t think you would answer the question. Funny how “science” didn’t stop Germany and other countries from banning GMO. There is not one scientific study showing the effects of GMO long term in humans. Please direct me to such a study if I am wrong. I won’t even get into the revolving door between these companies and the FDA. GMO is not stopping world starvation. Throw that stupid argument out of the window. If people can’t afford to buy the food they still go hungry. Let’s not forget about all the farmers these companies put into debt.

          • Daniel Hendrick

            Ronald Reagan sought to open up European agricultural markets to free trade and he succeeded in doing so. But in order to undermine that free trade agreement in order to have an unfair trade. The protectionistic European farmers magically misused the GMO issue completely nullify free trade agreements and the GMO pawns here can’t spot the obvious they returned to protectionistic tactics they had in place before Reagan. Reagan fought hard to open up European markets to American products. But the banning of American farm products is only about European’s returning to protectionists tactics and nullification of Ronald Reagan’s efforts at keeping world markets open for producers to sell in foreign markets

          • Daniel Hendrick

            You’re just setting up unnecessary regulatory hurdles to tax the system. Your creating a fallacy that if we search long and hard enough we’ll find a long term effect if we keep studying it long it enough. But organic producers don’t study their product ad all – so while you’re waiting for the GMO long term studies to show a flaw, no data will prove the organic food is worse, because no long term studies are being performed.

          • https://www.facebook.com/General.L33 Truth Troll

            Organic farmers are not munipulating the make up of the food like Monsanto is. Why do they need to do research on non gmo food? It’s the same food people have been eating and growing for centuries. GMO is new to the block here. I don’t understand what Organic farmers should be researching for. Please explain.

          • Lauren

            And the end product of GMO food is no different to non-GMO food. The molecular structure is exactly the same, your body processes it exactly the same, and funnily enough, the whole gene transfer thing that they do when making GMO’s occurs naturally in the wild ANYWAY. So…..

            And technically, people have been eating GMO’s for a looooooooooooong time. Ever see what a banana or corn looks like naturally? Almost everything you eat was genetically modified at some point in the past; the only difference between them and what we’re modifying now is that those plants were modified using selective breeding in a filed, where as the modern method is quicker and actually CONTROLLED, so you know exactly what you’re getting.

            I’d actually prefer if organic sellers were as strict about their food as people are about GMO’s; considering the number of E Coli outbreaks caused by organic food and their “organic” fertilisers and pesticides…ugh.

          • Lauren

            Countries that have banned GMO’s have done so due to economic and/or political reasons; science wasn’t the issue.

            And when they say “stopping world hunger”, they aren’t talking about in 1st world western countries. They’re talking about crops in 3rd world countries being made so that they can grow better, faster, or provide the nutrients that these people are dying from a lack of. Ever hear about Golden Rice? The crop genetically engineered to fix major nutrient deficiencies that were sending children blind?

          • http://ultimateglutenfree.com/ Peter Olins

            Daniel,
            Please don’t feed a troll. As much as you or I might like to engage, endlessly, please don’t. Starvation is the only cure.

      • Lauren

        …how exactly is saying “Don’t worry, science says it ISN’T bad for you” fear mongering? Surely reassuring people that there’s nothing wrong is the exact OPPOSITE of fear mongering?

    • http://ultimateglutenfree.com/ Peter Olins, PhD

      Doug, I’m glad that you have taken the time to study these 1783 articles. While we may quibble about whether all the articles should have been included, this is a phenomenal resource for people interested in getting closer to the truth. Can you highlight the best one or two references that indicate plants bred through GM technology are more likely to be unsafe than those bred using alternative approaches? Also, were there any key references that were missed?

      • DougI

        Nice strawman argument, perhaps you would do best to respond to my post rather than attempt to misrepresent what I said.

        • http://ultimateglutenfree.com/ Peter Olins, PhD

          @Dougl, if you main objection to JoAnna’s article was that not all the 1783 references were primary research, then I agree. (Or is that just another straw-man?). The authors of the Nicolia review clearly stated that: “We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues that emerged in the debate on GE crops, trying to catch the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide.”

          Not all reviews or reports are peer-reviewed, but that doesn’t necessarily disqualify them from being part of a comprehensive examination of GE safety. Added to the existing dataset in the GENERA project, the review by Nicolia et al. offers an exceptional resource for anyone interested in GMO food safety.

          Very few people on earth will have read all 1783 references. However, please tell us if there was anything critical missing, or whether there was a smoking gun that wasn’t highlighted by the authors.

          • DougI

            Yes, the articles were cherry picked by the researchers to support a pre-conceived conclusions. There mere fact that non-studies were included shows that there aren’t 1783 studies proving the safety of GMOs. Therefore the study is a fraud and the article on this page is merely pro-GMO propaganda. If, as the pro-GMO crowd often attests, they have the science to support their position then they wouldn’t have to resort to such dishonesty.

          • http://ultimateglutenfree.com/ Peter Olins, PhD

            @Dougl, We’re all on the same side here. I am in no way hung up on numbers. Rather making claims of “fraud”—which is a distraction, because it guesses motives—please tell us about specific articles that were missed, or any key articles in the database that we need to focus on, to help forward this discussion.

          • Reed P.

            Peter Olins is my hero.

          • George Shute

            Yes, they were cherry-picked. All 1,700+ articles.

            That’s not cherry-picking, you dolt, that’s consensus.

    • Ryan Hall

      have you read all 1783 studies?! I’m really impressed with YOUR research! You should probably list all the exceptions then however, just to let us know which ones show evidence to which side of the case. Also, you should probably know that after investing 200 million euros in research including 50 studies over a span of 25 years, the European Commission stated that, “there is, as of today (december 2010), no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants.”

      • DougI

        It’s not necessary to read all the studies to debunk the claim in the article that over 2000 studies affirm the safety of GMOs. One would be all that it takes but I did a random sampling of the studies and, as I expressed earlier, saw that not all the citations were studies and some of the studies never tested the safety of GMOs. Which means I read more studies than the author of the article (or, for that matter, you).

    • Daniel Hendrick

      Not all the researchers are tip top yes, but all scientists can disprove their own bias and self deception. All scientists seek to have their work challenged as long as research is reproducible research and not I know the results of the research before I begin research and not seeking to discover the truth.

    • Ammyth

      How easy it is for people to dismiss mountains of research by simply calling those who they disagree with “shills” or “sellouts.” You honestly don’t think that the Italian scientists who performed this meta-study READ the studies they wrote about? Do you ever realize how paranoid and ridiculous that sounds?

      • DougI

        And yet the lack of facts you have presented doesn’t refute any of my criticisms. Go figure.

        • Ammyth

          No, legions of scientists have already done that. You are just choosing to ignore them because you think you know better. Lack of facts, indeed.

          • DougI

            Gee, even with “legions of scientists” supporting you not one of you could explain how the article from the nursing journal is a scientific study. Imagine that.

          • Scott

            Mate, some of the people on here actually have a education that exceeds yours, belive it or not (shock horror). Scientific articles, discussion papers and studies are different, congratulations for working that one out for us. However they are all an important part of this article used for highlighting the broad and massive amounts of work that has been done by actual scientists from all over the world. Actual scientists who have correctly formated, written and studied these things. Scientists who have dedicated there working life to be in a position where they have the authority to write such articles. These articles and the articles they are referenced from are not just claims and statements.
            Also, I don’t know anything about you but how can you not understand the importance and safety related to the traceability of our food, that’s a no brainer….
            Journels are full of scientific articles….. what are you even saying ?

          • DougI

            So you don’t know anything about me but you’ve concluded that you know my education level. Rather dishonest really, but that seems to be the topic of the thread. By your reasoning, this blog could be listed as a source in the metadata study since what qualifies as a study know is anything that supports the author’s pre-conceived conclusion.

          • Scott

            Sorry, I assumed, however with even minor or limited background in science and one would know what constitutes the “sources” scientific papers. How is what you said my reasoning ?
            This blog may be used in a study related to popular science and it’s relation to the public lol.

          • DougI

            I suppose one has to reduce their standards if they’re going to support GMOs. Corporations have herbicides to sell so it’s not surprising that they’d let their standards fall to the wayside yet again when there’s profit to be gained.

          • Scott

            I’m not going to lie, I support gm research and many gm crops, I’m also finalizing my science degree but don’t worry I’m not controlled by some allmighty corporation lol nor am I going to work with anything genetics related (can’t stand it)
            Soil degradation is a real problem all over the world and the food that we all eat isn’t going to become saline resistant on its own. As stated on here heaps, your eating gm if you like it or not, ultimately it’s like selective breeding (done over years and years) just more efficient, refined and tailored. Quite amazing actually.
            What if gm has the potential to feed everyone? Think of 3rd world countries being 100% self reliant, producing there own safe food. Simple things like blindness from vitamin deficiencies have been almost eradicated in places because of the introduction of gm crops and plants.

            And if your worried about gm crops wiping out the original species (evolution has been doing this for ages) then you can rest assured, you’ll find that most 1st world countries and a few international conglomerates have seed banks storing the genetic information of the past present and future. (Que creepy science alien music)
            Don’t worry guys most scientists don’t won’t to destroy the world….

          • Lauren

            Non-gmo’s and even organics use herbicides too you know.

    • http://ultimateglutenfree.com/ Peter Olins

      Doug, You raise an important point about the term “study”. Articles published in scientific journals in this field fall into at least three broad classes: primary reports of new data; reviews of results from multiple, previous papers; and commentaries. Often the review papers are very valuable, because they provide context, they discuss strengths and weaknesses of the current state of knowledge, and they draw conclusions about the current weight of evidence on a particular subject. Reviews will often contain insights that were absent from the primary experimental research. I addition, reviews (such as in a cross-disciplinary nursing journal) also perform the important role of educating people about the current weight of evidence, even if the reader may not have sufficient expertise to judge it themselves.

      Therefore, I think it was totally appropriate for the Nicolia group to include reviews in their collection of papers. Doug, in your comments over the past few months, you seem to be focusing on methodology, and I think you have made your point. But do you have anything useful to add about the two core issues: 1) are there any papers that are “smoking guns”, strongly suggesting a reason for concern?, and 2) were there any key research studies that were missed from the Nicolia and Genera collections?

    • bruce123abc

      Thank you.

      No one would give me an example of a study or a straight answer on those 1783 studies!

      It’s very suspicious when there is a 100% concensus. It doesn’t sound like real science when someone is quoting an absolute with no questionable or ambiguous studies.

      It sounds more like PR.

  • luigi

    probably somebody is looking at this topic upside down and i think is missing the meaning of what a market is: it’s a place where producers and buyers meet. buyers are the ones that “drive” the market, ’cause they spend their own money and decide what to buy, depending not only on what their needs are but also on their life philosophy. producers have to follow their choices and try to understand where they lead to. laws have the role to facilitate this “relationship”, supporting consumers to express themselves and feel safe. thus, i think it’s a logical consequence to label GMO foods, just because it’s a democratic right in a democratic State.

    • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

      Luigi, I know you sincerely believe that it’s a democratic right to have label, and in theory, I agree…but none of the labeling proposals I have read would convey meaningful information to consumers. Scientific American–which I would assume that no one would question its independence, reviewed this challenge in a recent editorial in which it declared that GMO labels–the ones being endorsed by advocacy groups–are a really bad idea, unscientic and misleading. http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/21/scientific-american-labels-for-gmo-foods-are-a-bad-idea/#.UlgdfCSv-uM

      So, what might be a meaningful label? Well, on tobacco products, we have labels that say that tobacco is harmful to your health or the Surgeon General has determined it is harmful to your health. Many labeling advocates site tobacco labeling as an essential inspiration. So, why not label products with GMOs in the ingredients section as such:

      –this product was made with USDA approved genetically engineered products that the World Health Organization and US National Academy of Sciences has determined are as healthy or healthier than organic foods. The scientific consensus is that the production of genetically modified ingredients results in less use of pesticides and a net sustainability gain.

      So, we are on the same page…let’s have a meaningful label that actually conveys information that can help the consumer make a choice based on facts rather than fear.

      Will you support this? Or is your real goal to create fears that are rejected by the mainstream science community with the same level of consensus that scientists reject creationism.

      • IScott22

        ln fact, GMOs do NOT “result in less use of pesticides”: in fact, the opposite occurs, because ‘pests’ are also biologic organisms, and they evolve defenses requiring increased doses of pesticides in turn. Roundup-ready is a case in point.

        • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

          Thanks for your post. The empirical evidence contradicts your comment however. First, most GM crops are not herbicide tolerant varieties; that’s just a small subset. In the case of GM crops paired with the use of Roundup Ready, glyphosate is about 100 times less toxic than the chemicals it replaces, so the environment is doused with far less toxic chemicals even in the rare cases when the volume of glyphosate exceeds the volume of the far more toxic chemical it replaces. The problem of pest resistance is common all through agriculture, so it’s not a GMO issue. That’s dealt with through crop rotation. BTW, organic farmers often use the chemical Bt (which is in some GM plants) but at much higher volumes. They also use copper, which is many multiples more toxic than even the most potent synthetic chemical. Farming is very challenging; chemicals are necessary. It’s all about proper management. But statements like “GMOs result in the use of more pesticides” are just not accurate.

          • DougI

            Contrary to your claim, glyphosate is still a chemical and the “amount of harm” is not a measure of the volume of herbicide. Since IScott mentioned pesticide use, replying with herbicide use as a rebuttal isn’t accurate. Studies show that pesticide use increases because bt crops only target certain species and pesticides still have to be used for non-targeted species which increase in number due to less competition from targeted species. As since evolution is a scientific fact, and targeted species to evolve, the only means of combating them is increase use of pesticide. That’s why long term studies have shown that GMOs result in increased use of pesticides.

          • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

            You are right…the volume of a chemical does not equate with harm. Glyphosate is about 100 times less toxic than the chemicals it has replaced. It’s usage has led to a sharp fall off in the toxic impact of many agricultural practices. Organic farmers extensively use chemicals, including Bt, which is also used in some GMO products. Good farming practices require sophisticated pest management practices, regardless if they are using organic, conventional or GMO seeds.

          • DougI

            Claiming something is 100 times less harmful than something else doesn’t exclude it from being in the realm of something that is harmful. Thanks for the little Monsanto talking point but it’s quite meaningless.

            In regards to good farming practices, the use of GMOs encourages monoculture and discourages things like crop rotation. So if your goal is positive farming practices then you can’t be in favor of gm crops.

          • keefos

            Your use of “is still a chemical” to indicate a problem suggests ignorance and/or bias. Water is a chemical.

          • DougI

            Thanks for the trolling of my posts. I’ll be moving on now.

  • ScienceME_up!

    It says 2000+ but in reality it is 1,783 studies. So why the name? #GMO’s

    • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

      If you read the article, it states clearly that this study contains 1783, but it’s limited to 10 years. There have been studies over 30 years, many of them in the GENERA database. Between them there are already well over 2000 studies. Hope this helps.

  • Andrew

    This is not true.
    This guy was hired to do proper research and was fired for publishing honest results:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Pusztai

  • Andrew

    US Doctors call for immediate moratorium on GM foods
    “GM foods pose a serious health risk”, states a new report from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM). The position paper, released on the 19th May, calls for physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid genetically modified foods (GM) and provide educational materials concerning health risks.

    • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

      Andrew, the AAEM are alternative medicine proponents, not mainstream physicians. I’m sure many of them are sincere, but the organization is dominated by natural product hucksters and pseudo scientists. We’re not talking about the American Medical Association or the National Academy of Science or the American Association for the Advancement of Science, all of which have endorsed the safety of GM foods. These are crackpots, by and large.

      • Andrew

        You think you are going to find any mainstream studies? Monsanto, FDA, USA Gov., mainstream sci institutions – same line of people. GMO studies will never be unbiased as long as company like Monsanto is dominating GMO market. And should you trust company that produced:

        – Dioxin and Agent Orange (designed only to destory Vietnemese jungle – killed more than 400,000 Vietnamese while half a million children were born with birth defects and up to million people were disabled or suffered from chronic diseases. More than 3 million American troops and their offspring were also the victims of Agent Orange.

        -PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls – production started in 1920 , in 1970 it was finally banned). Took them 50 years.

        -DDT (In 1944 Monsanto among 15 other companies started manufacturing DDT as a pesticide for killing weeds. Despite all the claims of Monsanto that DDT was safe, the research in 1970s confirmed all the side effects and harms of DDT and DDTs were banned in 1972.). Took them 28 years.

        -Roundup (even more toxic than DDT). Of course, FDA and it’s host of scientist will say that is’t ok just like they did for DDT and Aspartam but you can find tone of sci. articles proving otherwise (which is kind of a miracle.)

        -Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) is injected to livestock for faster growth and production of more milk. rBGH growth hormones can cause painful udder infections in livestock which forces large commercial dairy farmers to give cows injection of antibiotics routinely. Human beings are exposed to rBGH growth hormones and antibiotics when they consume meat or dairy of livestock that are injected with hormones. Based on many studies rBGH growth hormones are related to breast cancer in women and prostate cancer in men. Hormones are also related to a wave of chronic diseases including colon cancer, diabetes, heart diseases and obesity. Both European Union and Canada have banned use of growth hormones in livestock.

        I am not going to put Aspartam here but I am not consuming any products with it just like I wouldn’t consume anything else produced by Monsanto.

        • hyperzombie

          Wow, great info. An industrial/AG chemical company makes industrial and agricultural chemicals. Who would have guessed.
          PS DDT kills insects not plants..

        • keefos

          DDT was blacklisted in a political witch hunt whose scientific rational was discredited almost as soon as the smear campaign started. Millions of poor people died as a result.

        • Lauren

          You know how many of those were created by the Government; they just hired Monsanto to follow their recipe.
          That’d be like blaming the ones who make bullets when criminals use them to kill people.

  • My son is sick because of GMO

    Nearly all of those ‘most-studied’ tests were 90-day animal trials (3 months). The issues which are cropping up now are all long-term health issues which occur at around 18 months in animal studies. So it takes 18 months to grow a cancer and not just 3 months. Funny how you chose to omit that, huh? People will start to believe the corporations when they start to publishing some long-term generational studies. I used to work at Arthur D. Little. I know the difference. People aren’t stupid.

    • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

      It’s sad that your son is sick, but there is zero chance that GMOs is the cause of it. There is no biological difference between a food made through the process of genetic modification versus conventional or organic foods. The US has been eating GM foods for 17 years and cancer rates are going down, not up. Cancer patterns and diseased patterns in western countries where GMOs are not eaten are no different. You have a right to believe what you want of course–that’s what religion is all about. Science is based on evidence and the empirical evidence is clear: GMOs pose no unusual harm. There is no biological possibility, certainly not in causing cancer, as even the disgraced Seralini admits.

      • 1123581321345589

        Jon, if you defend the safety of GMO’s, it’s best that you consume them on a regular basis. It’s a noble way to at least stand up for your opinion.

        • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

          I do, every day, and so do you, as 75% of foods in the US contain it (and not one case of any health related problems after 17 years).

          • Celeste Arnold

            There is not one case of any health related problems linked to GMOs because as they are not labeled- therefore doctors cannot ascertain the real cause of the illness. There are many illnesses that doctors are uncertain of the cause, if we could know what’s in our food and environment we could possibly find the cause.

          • Jon Entine

            Celeste, what you write is not accurate. Genetic modification is a process not an end point, so labeling that something is or is not GM would provide zero information to determining the causes of certain condition. There is no biological mechanism for the process of GMOs to create an illness. There have been more than 2000 studies and reviews, and this issue has reached a critical consensus.–the process of GMOs is not fundamentally different than the process of conventional breeding, other than it’s more exact and there less potential side effects–and they’ve been pre-evaluated. You’ll need to find a new bogeyman–the process of genetic modification is safe, as every major health organization in the world has concluded.

          • Celeste Arnold

            Jon, writing people and telling them they are not accurate in everything they say shows that you are not willing to consider other points of view. You believe whole-heartedly that they are safe, that is nice for you but treating condescendingly doesn’t help your argument.
            I believe that if you want to find the source of a problem, you need to find the root. What you eat everyday effects your health. How do people find out what they are allergic too? They deduce what it is they ate that they had a reaction to, they eliminate it and they see the improvements or not.
            We have a right to know what we are eating.

          • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

            Celeste, when you make a statement that’s wrong it should stand uncorrected. The difference between me and you on this issue is that I respect empirical evidence and you believe all scientific is political and corrupt. To me that’s conspiratorial thinking. When every major science organization in the world, bar none, comes to the same conclusion, then we have a consensus. We have it on evolution (it’s real) and vaccines (safe). We have it on GMOs, despite a loud anti-science movement. There are very few food allergies, and none linked to any GMO product. Many people think they have GMO wheat allergies, but there is no GMO wheat. There are no GMO nuts. The body could not tell the difference between GMO corn and non-GMO corn, so if there were any allergies (and there are very few to corn), there would be no differences. All the approved GMOs have been run through the international allergen banks. Sorry, you’ll need another bogeyman.

          • Celeste Arnold

            Entine- this is not a black and white subject as you seem to think it is. What is your fixation with the bogey man? I don’t believe all science is political and corrupt, in fact I am in search of more research being done on this subject.
            There are more issues with GE crops than you seem to realize, such as environmental issues of mono-crops and all of the earths seed and food supply controlled by one company – Monsanto which is pretty scary.

            I don’t wish to argue the safety of eating them because as I’ve already stated (which you can’t really refute) is the fact that the FDA isn’t to be trusted with our health. Why do you think over 64 other countries either ban or label GMOs? Do you think that they believe that they are the safest food ever offered? No, they don’t because there are other scientific tests being done out there that don’t seem to be mentioned on the sites that you are reading about. We have the right to know what is in our food.

          • Jon Entine

            Celeste, you seem disinterested in distinguishing between political bans voted in by politicians and recommendations by scientists that endorse science and say ideology should not guide policy. When creationist factions on the Texas School Board voted to restrict the teaching of evolution in defiance of the science consensus, most people other than science denialists, made that disinction. That’s no different than when the European Commission and the European Food Safety Authority–among the most independent science organizations in the world, and which actually fund independent research on GMOs–come to the exact conclusions as the FDA—and yet European politicians voted to impose a ban on some but not all GMOs. That’s not science, that’s politics. Science says: GMOs safe. Activists say: Ignore science, let’s vote on fear. If you can’t embrace consensus science–and we are talking every major science organization in the world has found GMOs safe or safer than conventional and organics–than your religious beliefs in effect are no different than those of creationists. As for the monoculture meme, as you probably know, invoking that has nothing necessarily to do with GMOs…it’s an issue for all of agriculture. Monoculture is a complex issue, and I believe most nuanced scientists believe that large scale agriculture offers some enormous advantages over small scale varieties in many but not all situations. All tools are needed to confront local and global food issues. GMOs are safer or safer than alternatives. They are part of the solution but not a silver bullet. Get some balance in your life. Read a science book. Learn genetics 101. Pledge never to read Jeffrey Smith or site NaturalNews.com. Claiming the GMOS are evil else is just ideology–that’s where you are now. They are one tool to deal with complex issues. All tools offer benefits and challenges. GMOs and organics are no different.

          • Celeste Arnold

            It’s not a consensus. There are other scientists and nations around the world with differing opinions.
            Yes, mono-culture has to do with agriculture, and GE crops are taking over our agriculture so yes, they have everything to do with each other.

          • Jon Entine

            Celeste, you are resistant to the concept of empirical evidence. Consensus doesn’t mean everyone. You can go on the Internet and find thousands of scientists who support creationism or scientists who claim vaccines cause harm or scientists who claim that GMOs are not safe. In each of those cases, the consensus among experts is well more than 95%. You are part of a crank–and diminishing-minority. As for monoculture, large scale agriculture is not the same as monoculture. You need to freshen up on your basic agriculture facts and not just quote cliches from Michael Pollan. Neither GMOs nor large scale agriculture necessarily equals monoculture, and we need a variety of production systems to meet various global and local food challenges. My god, we would kill hundreds of millions of people if we switched to small scale organics if it it meant giving up large scale agriculture. If you support diverse agriculture–solutions tailored to specific challenges–than you would support GMOs in many situations (but not all) because they add to genetic diversity and are far more sustainable than organic agriculture–and you did not know that? Not in Pollan’s book? Not on Jeffrey Smith’s website? Try a basic ag book.

          • bruce123abc

            You should read Seeds of Deception.

            There are several reasons stated there why genetic modification would cause health issues.

            The issue isn’t what science you wish to believe. The issue is everyone else’s right to choose to believe differently.

            GMO foods should be labelled. If you believe it is safe then continue eating it. For us who don’t want to eat it, we should have that right.

            When a company and government assume all the rights and no responsibilities and our rights are ignored, that a very serious sign of psychopathy. It’s a big problem with today’s government and industry.

            “We’ll tell you what to think.” That’s not democratic and it’s not right.
            —–
            Here in Canada we did not approve Monsanto’s rGBH and Europe and many other countries have banned GMO’s. Do you think they are all wrong?
            —–
            There are people out there who are reclaiming millions of acres of desert and arid land with better methods of crop rotation, more strategic planting of trees, and appropriate flora and fauna and helping to feed people by giving them the tools and knowledge to become self sufficient.

            It is free from economics, chemicals and politics.

            We don’t need GMO’s to feed the world.

            Certainly we don’t need GMO’s in the US or Canada. We have more than enough food. Why experiment on people with a new food technology that is not needed?

          • http://www.jonentine.com Jon Entine

            Seeds of Deception is written by former flying yogic instructor and Maharishi cult member Jeffrey Smith, who has zero science background. It is a rant by someone with no understanding of GMOs. Only two countries in the world have banned GMOs. Every major independent science organization in the world says GM crops and foods are as safe and in many ways safer and more nutritious than non-GMO varieties.

          • Kiplin

            Actually, yes there is a consensus… You just don’t agree with the outcome:

            Massive Review Reveals Consensus on GMO Safety
            http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/10/massive-review-reveals-consensus-on-gmo-safety.html

          • Rachel Van Scoy

            I have to say, this whole exchange was very enlightening! Thank you to both you and Jon for talking about this in detail. I checked my source (as is always a sound practice for internet validity) and it turns out Genetic Literacy Project is founded by Jon Entine. His bio is here among other places: http://www.aei.org/scholar/jon-entine/ …always good to consider whom you are speaking with. He has a bias, but it is definitely backed by more than belief and some research. I, like you, dislike the poor and shady practices on the businesses’ handlings of GMOs, but through all my research it really does seem like the science itself is not the issue. Better care must be made to regulate business handlings and fund research necessary to foster highest quality goods for current and future consumption (rather than built in obsolescence to increase corporate profit at the expense of farmers). Ignorance of long-term effects of monoculture on the part of the farmer is also not GMOs but it’s easy to wrap them up in one unpalatable bundle instead of recognizing the overwhelming benefits of genetic engineering in itself. Super interesting stuff. I hope the past 7 months has been full of learning and challenging and more questioning and all that good stuff for you. Happy almost harvest!

          • Lauren

            Majority of places that ban them or label them do so because of economics or politics; nothing to do with science.

          • Cindy Koch

            My body sure tells me when I’ve eaten GMOs!

          • Kiplin

            And I’m sure that you would be one of the many people to fall for the “Organic Vs. Conventional Banana Study” where everyone that tried the banana slice labeled “Organic” just KNEW that it was organic because it tasted more natural and more like how a banana should taste… Then got really mad when told that they just ate 2 slices from the same banana and the only difference was the label in front of the plate so all the differences were in their mind.

          • Cindy Koch

            Pls. get back w/us in 10 yrs. and let us know how you’re doing since you think eating pesticides are good for you!

          • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

            Cindy, you need to do your homework. There are dozens of genetically modified products, including cotton, salmon, papaya, and many others that are either not foods or do not involve the use of what are called Bt, which is what I believe you are referring to. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a naturally-occurring soil bacterium that kills target insects but biologically has no impact on humans as we do not have the receptors in our stomach to digest. (99% of pesticides are natural and almost all are harmless to humans). Bt is widely used in organic farming. Studies of Bt sprayed or incorporated in genetically modified crops have found in entirely harmless. Here’s an analysis by Cornell University: http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/24d-captan/bt-ext.html

            In GM Bt crops, Bt rarely end up in the food itself, except in extremely small amounts at worst–in far less volume than shows up in organic food, as Bt is one of the most widely used organic pesticides. I also suggest that you take a look at the latest USDA report, which noted a tenfold reduction in the use of insecticides as a result of the engineered Bt trait. Here’s a link to the USDA summary and the actual report: http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2014-march/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-by-us-farmers-has-increased-steadily-for-over-15-years.aspx#.U1vFceZdXR4

            So, if your concern is ingesting harmless Bt, I would strongly encourage you to cut organic foods out of your diet, as organic foods contain higher trace levels of Bt because of multiple broad leaft spraying per crop (GM Bt is targeted; not on the foods) and are the single major cause of exposure to the (harmless to humans) pesticide.

            I hope this addresses your concerns.

          • Cindy Koch

            Thanks for the info. I will continue eating organic and growing my own food. I don’t want to support chemical companies. And doesn’t Monsanto give big bucks to Cornell?! And pls. tell me why almost daily other countries are banning GMOs? I’m sure you’ll have an answer for that too! Thanks for your input and you have a great day!

          • Cindy Koch

            A recent study has found that the herbicide glyphosate, sold under the trade name Roundup (and others), is present in alarming levels in breast milk of American females. The study found that samples of mother’s milk from women in the United States contained levels of the weed-killer that were 760 to 1,600 time greater than the amount of pesticides allowed by the European Water Directive. Those levels are still less than the 700 ug/l maximum contaminant level (MCL) that the Environmental Protection Agency has decided is safe.
            This pretty much debunks everything you just wrote!

          • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

            Cindy, I really urge you to make an effort to lean bout critical science thinking. What you are citing is not a a peer reviewed “study” but a review paid for completely but two anti-GMO activist groups. It was contracted out to an organization that has no experience in doing academic independent studies. The review was not peer reviewed, has not been published in an independent journal and is the very definition of junk science. No legitimate news organization even reported on it because it’s so transparently activist propaganda and promoted/paid for by Sustainability Pulse, which is a well known junk science site…you can read the GLP profile of its founder, Henry Rowlands, on the GLP. The “review” also contradicts 100s of independent academic and government reviews in more than 20 countries. Science is about repeatability–do results show up in multiple studies. Here is a deconstruction of this piece of propaganda: http://academicsreview.org/2014/04/debunking-pseudo-science-lab-testing-health-risk-claims-about-glyphosate-roundup/

          • Cindy Koch

            Thanks Jon! I am a member of Moms Across America and I will back up this study. Round up is killing us that I know and when I have time I will send you scientific studies obviously you ignore! Enjoy your day!

          • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

            Ah, now your promoting of junk science is clear ! Get back to me when reputable scientists with advocacy ties do a peer reviewed study in a first line (not pay for play) journal…and it’s replicated. Short of that the science community will rely on real science and the 200+ studies that show glyphosate is less toxic than salt and some approved organic pesticides.

          • Cindy Koch

            Unfortunately Jon, my one comment didn’t get printed when I asked you why daily other countries are banning GMOs and not accepting our crappy GMO food?! Glyphosate less toxic than salt! That is too funny! Now I’m guessing you work for Monsanto or some other chemical company! My discussion w/you is through!! Goodbye…

          • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

            Cindy, I’ve censored none of your comments. As far you are citing of “bans” of GMOs as a useful indicator: There are about 120 major international science oversight organizations. Every single one of them has issued a statement saying that GMOs are safe. Here’s a link to a few of the major ones such as the World Health Organization and the National Academy of Sciences and the European Commission and European Food Safety Authority: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/27/glp-infographic-international-science-organizations-on-crop-biotechnology-safety/

            When the science score card reads 100+ to 0, that’s a pretty good consensus…as strong as the consensus on human induced global warming or evolution. Only Peru has banned GMOs based on the information I have. Other countries restrict GMOs in some fashion, such as not allowing cultivation, such as in the UK. But GMOs are in foods and in food grains eaten by animals that are then eaten (as non GMO labeled foods) by the population.

            Not one high level science organization in any western country that has restricted the use of GMOs in a political vote supports these restrictions; they were voted in by politicians–no western science organization has supported these restrictions. It’s political because of the hysteria generating success of organizations like yours–just like politicians in Kansas and Texas have voted in to teach creationism after crackpot anti-science groups lobbied against it. Political votes do not equal science. Get back to me when the National Academy of Sciences or the German Academy of Sciences or the French Academy of Sciences pulls its endorsement of the safety and sustainability of genetically modified foods.

            As for how glyphosate ranks in toxicity, this information has been widely publicized in science journals–which you and your organization obviously have zero interest in reading, as your goals are propaganda and not education/information. Here is one of dozens of comparison charts, this one published by the University of Florida: https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/PI/PI17000.pdf As you can see, glyphosate is far less toxic (lower numbers are more toxic) than salt, caffeine, bleach and many other substances. Here’s two fact sheets for you, if you want to create a little kerfuffle among your true believers and actually engage in MAINSTREAM SCIENCE: –http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.pdf
            http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html

          • David Smith

            Hi Cindy, I’ll save you the trouble…
            A quote from a letter by Viljoen (2013) in Food and Chemical Toxicology:

            “Several studies have reported on the toxicity of commercial formulations of R and/or glyphosate on mammals, Nile tilapia and sea urchin (Clair et al., 2012; Daruich et al., 2001; Gasnier et al., 2009; Gui et al., 2012; Jiraungkoorskul et al., 2002; Koller et al., 2012; Malatesta et al., 2008b; Marc et al., 2002, 2004; Paganelli et al., 2010; Romano et al., 2012).

            Despite this, a recent industry sponsored review concluded that ‘‘the available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations’’ (Williams et al., 2012). The authors of the latter suggest that where glyphosate toxicity has been observed, it is the result of ‘‘surfactants present in the formulations and not the direct result of glyphosate exposure’’. This argument is irrelevant since it is the formulation that is being applied in practice and is part of the ‘‘herbicide complex’’ of chemicals taken up by the plant.”

            In their response to Williams et al. (2012) by Bellé et al. (2012).
            http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1093
            They point out the following:
            1. “The authors consider our results as “not environmentally relevant” because of the concentrations used. The sentence was repeated five times in their article. This is a speculative assertion since (1) we observe effects at concentrations (8 mM affecting 100% of the individual cells at short time exposure) below the usage concentration (20 mM) of the herbicide. Therefore, regarding the considerable amount of glyphosate-based product sprayed worldwide, the concentration of Roundup in every single micro droplet is far above the threshold concentration that would activate the cell cycle checkpoint. (2) The effects we demonstrate were obtained by a short exposure time (minutes) of the cells to glyphosate based products, and nothing excludes that prolonged exposure to lower doses may also have effects. Since glyphosate is commonly found present in drinking water in many countries, low doses with long exposure by ingestion are a fact. The consequences of this permanent long term exposure remain to be further investigated but cannot just be ignored.”

            Bellé et al. (2012) also point out that:
            “The authors do not take into account in their interpretation of our results the very poor cell membrane permeability of pure glyphosate (Riechers et al. 1994), although they do state that “commercial formulations include a surfactant system . . . allowing penetration of the active ingredient.” Since our results were obtained for short exposure time at neutral pH, we ascribed the absence of cellular effect of pure glyphosate to this poor permeability. To our knowledge, pure glyphosate is not used as an herbicide in agriculture applications and we ignore whether, in such conditions, pure glyphosate is or not an herbicide.”

            In other words in pure form glyphosate cannot be taken up by the cell and that is why a surfactant is used. How many safety studies sponsored by industry have included surfactant? In an industry sponsored review of glyphosate, Williams et al. disregard the role of the surfactant in the uptake of glyphosate.

          • David Smith

            In a letter to the editor of Food and Chemical toxicology, Viljoen (2013) observed that “One of the most central issues relating to the safety of glyphosate tolerant GM crops, but which has been ignored in most studies, is whether the commercial herbicide should be included in the treatment practice of the crop being used in feeding studies. A search of the scientific literature regarding animal feeding studies to specifically determine the human safety of R crops, identified 16 studies …. In only three studies was the application of R” (Roundup) “noted but in two of these not further described as to allow experiments to be independently repeated. Thus, very few feeding trials assessing the safety of R tolerant GM corn, canola or soybean is certain to have used a product that is known to be comparable to what would be found in the food chain.”

            Viljoen (2013) further commented that “… a recent industry sponsored review concluded that ‘‘the available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations’’ (Williams et al., 2012). The authors of the latter suggest that where glyphosate toxicity has been observed, it is the result of ‘‘surfactants present in the formulations and not the direct result of glyphosate exposure’’. This argument is irrelevant since it is the formulation that is being applied in practice and is part of the ‘‘herbicide complex’’ of chemicals taken up by the plant.”

            Bellé et al. (2012) have responded to Williams et al. (2012) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1093… and point out the following: “The authors consider our results as “not environmentally relevant” because of the concentrations used. The sentence was repeated five times in their article. This is a speculative assertion since (1) we observe effects at concentrations (8 mM affecting 100% of the individual cells at short time exposure) below the usage concentration (20 mM) of the herbicide. Therefore, regarding the considerable amount of glyphosate-based product sprayed worldwide, the concentration of Roundup in every single micro droplet is far above the threshold concentration that would activate the cell cycle checkpoint. (2) The effects we demonstrate were obtained by a short exposure time (minutes) of the cells to glyphosate based products, and nothing excludes that prolonged exposure to lower doses may also have effects. Since glyphosate is commonly found present in drinking water in many countries, low doses with long exposure by ingestion are a fact. The consequences of this permanent long term exposure remain to be further investigated but cannot just be ignored.”
            Furthermore, Bellé et al. (2012) also point out that “The authors do not take into account in their interpretation of our results the very poor cell membrane permeability of pure glyphosate (Riechers et al. 1994), although they do state that “commercial formulations include a surfactant system … allowing penetration of the active ingredient.” Since our results were obtained for short exposure time at neutral pH, we ascribed the absence of cellular effect of pure glyphosate to this poor permeability. To our knowledge, pure glyphosate is not used as an herbicide in agriculture applications and we ignore whether, in such conditions, pure glyphosate is or not an herbicide.”
            In other words in pure form glyphosate cannot be taken up by the cell and that is why a surfactant is used. So how many safety studies on glyphosate sponsored by industry and evaluated by the EPA have included surfactant? Basically none! In an industry sponsored review of glyphosate, Williams et al. disregard the role of the surfactant in the toxicity of glyphosate. So hat is why independent studies (that use the formulation) show toxicity, and industry sponsored studies (that use pure glyphosate) do not.

          • Bill Stevens

            I’ve been eating food in the US since I was born (25 years ago) and I don’t have cancer, I’m not blind or pissing blood, and I don’t have a third ear. I’m sure most of that food was genetically modified. Pesticide isn’t the same as genetically modified produce.

          • Ishmael

            You are wrong Celeste. He has considered your view point, and found it inaccurate… and just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are condescending to you.

          • Celeste Arnold

            Thanks for your opinion Ishmael. But I do not think that I am wrong in the fact that Entoman has been condescending in his argument and I don’t feel that he considered my viewpoint either. He puts down people that argue against them saying they are not smart and haven’t read about the subject. That is personal attack instead of a debate, therefore condescending..

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Of course you don’t think you’re wrong but you are in fact wrong. You have based your opinions on demonstrably false claims. That’s not.meant to be condescending its trying to illustrate that the information you used to come to your conclusions is false, therefore when confronted by this truth you should reevaluate your position based on verifiable evidence. You refuse to do that and it’s incredibly frustrating to those of us trying to educate people on the facts about genetic modification.

            As to the point of Mr. entine not considering your point of view, While scientists use expert consensus as a benchmark it should not be misconstrued to mean science is democratic. Scientific evidence cares nothing for the sensibilities of the human condition such as “opinion” or “belief”. So while you may be entitled to your beliefs you are not entitled to be free of criticism of those beliefs, especially when those beliefs run contrary to the evidence or as in the case of your criticisms of GMOs are found to be completely unfounded

          • Celeste Arnold

            I believe in science just as much as you gmo supporters do, who always claim that we are science deniers. In fact I would like to have a bit more scientific studies on this issue. Your so called consensus is not in all actuality quite true, when looking at the 64 Nations have either banned or labeled GMOs and Over 130 nations who have signed on to the Cartagena Protocol, an agreement to take the precautionary principle regarding GMOs.
            Also, we don’t label ingredients because they are dangerous. We label all ingredients because it is our right to know what is in our food.

          • http://ultimateglutenfree.com/ Peter Olins

            Celeste, As a scientist, I’m always glad to see more data (!), but what SPECIFIC study do you think needs to be done to distinguish crops that have been modified by biotech versus alternative technology?

          • bruce

            The GM organisms may be expressing genes combinations that do not currently exist in our food chain. So the same studies that would be done for the FDA, for any new chemical being sold into the human food chain, should be applied here.

          • Lauren

            He DID consider your viewpoint; if he didn’t read it and consider it, he couldn’t reply to specific points, could he? He would just say “you’re wrong”. But he went through your argument bit by bit, and explained what was wrong with each point. He read your argument, he considered it, and he found it to be incorrect in the face of evidence, and then pointed that out.

            Not considering an argument would result in the person simply saying “you’re wrong”, refusing to read it, refusing to respond to what you were actually arguing, etc etc.

          • Kiplin

            It’s hard to not get condescending when the person is a cult member that refuses to adjust their beliefs with the input of new information.

          • Kiplin

            “writing people and telling them they are not accurate” is informing them of their factual error in hopes that they will go out and EDUCATE THEMSELVES on the topic and not stick to their outdated or erroneous information… Like how Creationists continue to use arguments to support their cause that have been utterly debunked decades ago… But they’re cult members, as you seem to be, and thus don’t allow reality and new data to contaminate their preconceived beliefs. “Beliefs” as in “A View Held WIthout or i the Face of Contradictory Evidence”.

          • chris

            um, wtf? Many instances of genetic engineering ARE fundementally different than ‘conventional breeding’, specifically when they allow researchers to selectively inject the genes of a bacterium or plant into the genetic sequence of a fish or mammal. it’s incredibly disingenuous to suggest otherwise. hybridization is ONE thing, but creating pesticide-resistant (that will POISON insects) plants is another.

          • bruce123abc

            Genetic modification adds something to the cell structure.
            So the nutrition may be the same, but what does the extra DNA and proteins they produce do?
            Unless we have GMO labelling we would never be able to trace it.
            Is the rise in allergic reactions due to GMO’s? Obesity? Irritable bowel syndrome?
            We are doing a long term study on people with no way of tracing it.
            By labelling things GMO or Organic if you must protest, then there will be a way to trace the effects of GMO’s.

          • bruce123abc

            Genetic modification adds something to the cell structure.
            So the nutrition may be the same, but what does the extra DNA and proteins they produce do?
            Unless we have GMO labelling we would never be able to trace it.
            Is the rise in allergic reactions due to GMO’s? Obesity? Irritable bowel syndrome?
            We are doing a long term study on people with no way of tracing it.
            By labelling things GMO or Organic if you must protest, then there will be a way to trace the effects of GMO’s.

          • Mike Phillips

            please prove that statement

      • Bruce

        Zero chance?. Incorrect, there is always the chance that one of these unique combinations could go wrong when feed to humans.

      • Mike Phillips

        if supposed cancer rates are going down then why are people around me dropping dead left and right from cancer. I”M not doing it.

        • Neurotic Knight

          Because they arnt dying of TB or malaria or any of the adult hood diseases, so they age into later part of life where they get cancer and die.

    • Daniel Hendrick

      Classic placebo effect- once the research subject knows the opinion required to be true they’ll make it so.

    • Kiplin

      Don’t let data get in the way of your knee-jerk, emotion and politics driven based narrative. http://www.dangeroustalk.net/a-team/GMO

    • bruce123abc

      Read “Seeds of Deception”
      From what I’ve read inserting new genes by (e.g. shooting GENE covered gold flecks into DNA) causes a lot of effects that would make the food worse, such as;
      – Inserting into the middle of other genes destroying or altering their functionality
      – having the gene on all the time (by using a protein that keeps the gene turned on continuously) in all the cells so that the poison or protein is always being produced throughout the plant (This I assume would lead to lower nutrition since the plant is spending a lot of it’s resources producing a toxin continuously)
      – the activator may be turning on inactive genes that produce toxins or by producing more of a protein than normal produces unwanted protein production (e.g. 30,000 genes in the human body produce 80,000 different proteins -> a protein has more than one function)
      – Altering the function of other genes due to the fact that genes interact in a complicated way with each other and not singly as Genetic Modification assumes
      – using marker genes, that are cheaper, but promote anti-biotic resistance
      – the addition of extra DNA that my produce toxins
      – proteins that are possibly allergenic being added to foods that are normally not allergenic
      —–
      When I switched to eating more whole foods (preparing my own vegetables and meat), avoiding sugar, eating less starch (e.g. aren’t pancakes just cake for breakfast? Go back to bacon and eggs!), preparing my own food and processed foods and GMO’s it helped me.
      – The eczema on my fingertips, I had for 10 years, cleared up!
      —–
      Don’t let people bully you. It doesn’t matter how many times they say there is no evidence, because there is.

    • Guest

      When I switched to eating more whole foods (preparing my own vegetables and meat), avoiding sugar, eating less starch (e.g. aren’t pancakes just cake for breakfast? Go back to bacon and eggs!), processed foods and GMO’s it helped me.

      – The eczema on my fingertips, I had for 10 years, cleared up!

      Regardless avoiding GMO’s will automatically help you avoid processed foods, sugar and starches.
      —–
      Don’t let people bully you. It doesn’t matter how many times they say there is no evidence, because there is.
      ——
      See “Seeds of Deception”
      From what I’ve read inserting new genes by (e.g. shooting GENE covered gold flecks into DNA) causes a lot of effects that would make the food worse, such as;
      – Inserting into the middle of other genes destroying or altering their functionality
      – having the gene on all the time (by using a protein that keeps the gene turned on continuously) in all the cells so that the poison or protein is always being produced throughout the plant (This I assume would lead to lower nutrition since the plant is spending a lot of it’s resources producing a toxin continuously)
      – the activator may be turning on inactive genes that produce toxins or by producing more of a protein than normal produces unwanted protein production (e.g. 30,000 genes in the human body produce 80,000 different proteins -> a protein has more than one function)
      – Altering the function of other genes due to the fact that genes interact in a complicated way with each other and not singly as Genetic Modification assumes
      – using marker genes, that are cheaper, but promote anti-biotic resistance
      – the addition of extra DNA that my produce toxins
      – proteins that are possibly allergenic being added to foods that are normally not allergenic

  • https://www.facebook.com/General.L33 Truth Troll

    So if they are safe why do they fight tooth and nail not to label them? We label fat content, Sugar content, etc… Why not state the way the ingredients or the food was grown? Don’t people have the right to this as consumers? Why all the secrecy?

    • keefos

      Because unnecessary bureaucratic overhead costs everybody, mainly consumers, a lot of money. Unless there’s a good reason for labeling, compulsion is inappropriate. If the FDA cannot be trusted to decide what is safe and needs to be labeled, it should be disbanded. Otherwise, it should be heeded (albeit not blindly).

      • Celeste Arnold

        The FDA should not be trusted and we have seen this in case after case in history. From DDT, PCBs and rBGH (which by the way were all Monsanto products) they have been released and promoted in public, then later find out they cause cancer. So…
        Also, the FDA doesn’t actually perform any scientific tests, they require the companies, in this case Monsanto, to send them their test results in order to show they are safe.
        Therefore, we need to make our own informed decisions. Ergo- labeling is clearly justified.

        • Jon Entine

          The FDA funds some studies and reviews all of the critical ones necessary to make an independent evaluation. That takes years of careful evaluation and research. Many international organizations actually fund and oversee studies, such as the European Commission (which endorses the safety of GMOs despite the opposition by politicians–science matters.) There have been more than 1000 independent studies of genetically modified crops. Not one study in a major journal has found any health or safety related problems linked to the process of GMOs. Science may not matter to you, but it does to the World Health Organisation, the EU, the National Academy of Sciences and every major independent science organization in the world. Obviously, the science conflicts with your religious views about science; we see this all the time in people who are opposed to teaching evolutionary theory. But please, don’t confuse religion and ideology with science.

          • Buster Fykes

            “The FDA funds some studies and reviews all of the critical ones necessary to make an independent evaluation.” that’s a very political statement. it’s called ‘double-talk’, in that what you are in fact saying , is that the FAD does not test, why don’t you leave politics out of heath issues, and don’t intentionally leave out all the scientific findings that have led to European and other foreign countries, and even the main island of Hawaii disallowing the planting of GMO seeds…there are still a few people left alive, that believe that mother nature is a bit more intelligent than people with a bunch of letters at the end of their name, whom sense themselves as Demi-Gods~~~.

          • http://ultimateglutenfree.com/ Peter Olins

            Buster,

            The EFSA is the central body that reviews the safety of foods in Europe. Unfortunately, many individual governments have overruled the EFSA when it comes to GMO-derived foods. (Check out their site http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/panels/gmo.htm )

            Europe is a sad case of politics trumping science, but there’s no reason why the US needs to join the other lemmings.

            “Mother nature” is incredibly dumb, but this is not the place to get into an intelligent design debate. However, you raise an important point: the current Western trend towards anti-rational/anti-science decision making is a major threat to our society. Fortunately, there are a handful of websites like this that are trying to help us from slipping back into the Dark Ages.

          • th C

            Because rational and scientific thinking is leading society to…..where exactly?

          • PaminPA

            Bravo. The conundrum continues, though. Science illiteracy breeds distrust and fear, embracing of pseudo-science. Ignorant are easily manipulated.

      • https://www.facebook.com/General.L33 Truth Troll

        Well it should be disbanded then because NO government agency can be trusted. Especially when those government agencies start hiring insiders of the the GMO crowd like ‘Michael Taylor who is now the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. Sure that’s no conflict of interest now is it?

        • PaminPA

          Now
          taking donations for truth troll’s tinfoil hat

      • Buster Fykes

        the fda doesn’t test, they leave it up to mountsandhole

      • Lisa Taylor

        Well, the FDA cannot be trusted so let the disbanding begin. Do you realize how many billions of taxpayer dollars go to subsidizing already enormously profitable agribusiness? Their farming method is unsustainable; their greed-driven business is too. If they didn’t receive those hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers, a hamburger would cost about $35.

    • Daniel Hendrick

      Insiders claim is indicating lack of understanding that even if they are biased by being insiders – it doesn’t matter, because reproducible science is reproducible. Total avoidance of science as the solution to the debate whether they are corrupt, why because if you’re selling malarkey you don’t want science to disprove your malarkey. Yes people who have scientifically proven their claim is correct. Do want the question resolved scientifically, but those who don’t want it solved scientifically are the corrupt. Science is unbiased – but pseudo science is biased.

    • Dylan Thompson

      They fight tooth and nail because a big, fat, “CONTAINS GMOs” label on the food suggests that it is unhealthy, which it is not, and it will be very bad for Monsanto’s profits. I would do the same thing if I was Monsanto.

      • bruce123abc

        I would like GMO food labelled, so I can make my own choice. Vote with my wallet.

        That’s capitalism.

        Corporations influencing or denying people the choice is corporate non-sense. It’s not free capitalism and it’s not letting the market decide.

        People being able to decide for themselves, is democracy. Companies influencing what we can know collusion and fraud.

        What Monsanto wants is less important that what individual people want.
        —–
        Big corporations don’t care about people’s health or the environment, so they should never be allowed to be in charge.

        They work for us, not the other way around.

        • Bill Stevens

          If you had taken a single biology course, you’d know that the DNA alterations performed on the plants you’re talking about would have no effect on you or the food’s safety. Plant DNA doesn’t transcribe onto human DNA (I don’t have time to explain this, read a biology textbook for more info.) Even if you were the only human being on the planet for whom this was a possibility, the combination of digestive enzymes in your mouth and intestines combined with acids in your stomach destroys whatever DNA isn’t cooked out of your food to begin with. You eat about a gram of DNA per day, which is about 225 billion base pairs. In contrast, a single strand of human DNA contains about 3.2 billion base pairs. In other words, if it were possible for GM plant genes to affect you, then you would already have sprouted udders, or at least feathers by now.

          GM crops don’t PRODUCE any toxins; they’re simply immune to certain ones that kill other plants.

          I’m just not sure how you can ‘vote with your wallet’ when you’ve got absolutely no clue what you’re ‘voting’ about. Oh well. Guess that’s ‘Murica for you.

    • TwoZero OZ

      Troll, Labels have always had the requirement of being scientifically justified. Not only is this true, but I think you actually agree with it too:

      The Astrologist believes that the phase of the moon upon harvest impacts the health and safety of food. The Astrologist calls for labeling the phase of the moon upon harvest in the name of ‘more consumer information’. Do you believe this should also be labeled? After all, it meets all of the logical requirements in your post for “no secrecy”, “right to know”, etc etc.

      Or, just perhaps, would you be willing to admit that even you think that anti-science ideas should not be labeled?

    • blah blah

      hell if you want to pay more taxes, GO FOR IT. Also if its not a health risk then can you explain why they should even still consider labeling?

    • ZPT205

      Fat content, sugar content, etc actually have an effect on nutrition. GMO content does not.

  • Josh Nyce

    I am seriously confused after reading this. I have seen tons of studies and etc. stating that GMOs are bad for the environment. So, clearly either the studies that say GMOs are bad is wrong or these studies are wrong. But, how do you know which one is true or not since they are both scientific studies. Someone has to be wrong then. Well, here is a list of studies and articles talking about how GMOs are bad: http://www.organicauthority.com/foodie-buzz/eight-reasons-gmos-are-bad-for-you.html
    http://www.scienceandsociety.emory.edu/GMO/Environment.htm

    A quote from a website shows that your studies are not valid because GMOs are not very new and we have not had enough time to see the effects of them on environment and people. “Many GMOs are so new that we haven’t had time to weight the effects, good or bad, of these items. Foods such as Bt-resistant corn may be making the world safer, by reducing the need for pesticide sprays. However, they may cause trouble for the environment in other, as-yet undiscovered, ways.”
    http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/gmos-good-or-bad-planet.

    • Jon Entine

      Josh, I’m not quite sure how to respond. I can assure you you have not seen “tons of studies…stating that GMOs are bad for the environment,” as there are none–zero. There are claims on websites, such as “organicauthority.com”, but that’s not a science site; it’s an activist site. As the scientific article in this article points out, there have been more than 1700 studies in the years 2002-2012 alone, and well more than 2200 studies in total, and not one study in a major peer reviewed science publication has found any environmental or safety problems that are unique to GMOs. Some studies have pointed out that the use of some GMO seeds can lead to superweeds, but that’s also true of conventional seeds–it has nothing to do with the type of seed and everything to do with crop management, rotation of crops, etc. GMO crops have been in existence for more than 30 years and have been planted for more than 17 years. There is not one safety or health or environmental issue that has been identified in the world unique to GMOs. Mainstream scientists–not fringe organic or anti-GMO websites–overwhelmingly endorse the environmental and health safety of GMOs. I’m talking real, independent scientists–the World Health Organisation, the National Academy of Sciences, the European Food Safety Authority, the European Commission, the German Academy of Sciences—more than 100 organizations in all. Here is a list with links of major organizations: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/08/27/glp-infographic-international-science-organizations-on-crop-biotechnology-safety/#.Uqvtv42j_uI . There are no mainstream scientists critical of GMOs. (Some people can raise legitimate questions about conventional agricultural practices, but that is a different debate that’s often lumped in with the GMO discussion.) That should tell you something about the credibility of “professional critics.”

      • Becker

        What is your definition of a mainstream scientists? Those that agree with your position? And those that don’t agree with are not mainstream scientists ..right? So you always win? Clever and shady.

        • Jon Entine

          Mainstream scientists are ones that do not have an avowed position and do not belong to corporate or advocacy groups. So independent scientists with links to the National Academy of Sciences or the World Health Organization or the German Academy of Sciences are mainstream; a scientist for Monsanto or any of the scientists with ENSEER (European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility) which is an anti-GMO front group of fringe scientists are not. Actually very clear. As of today, there are almost no mainstream independent scientists that question the safety of GM crops…far fewer than question the validity of evolution or man-made climate. That’s what makes them “fringe.”

          • Mark

            I think both sides are guilty of this including you Jon:

            “Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1]People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence),belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

            A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people’s conclusions. Explan

      • Lisa Makarchuk

        “I can assure you you have not seen “tons of studies…stating that GMOs are bad for the environment,” as there are none–zero”
        Whoa. That’s not right. The biggest doubts that independent scientists raise with our current GMOs are environmental.

    • sjv

      I would suggest, Josh, for you to look at publications from scientific journals, not the sources you cited. They are pointed and not based in science. Scientific journals have to go through a peer review process, reviewed by other scientists that had nothing to do with the study, to make sure they are valid. The biggest thing when dealing with getting conflicting information, is knowing how to find the empirical evidence through credible sources, to see the information yourself.

  • keefos

    The US organic food industry is worth more than $30 billion dollars a year—more than triple the sales of food-related products by Monsanto or DuPont. This is big business with vested interests and political influence.

  • Brad

    GENERA is not an “independent” organization, their board of directors is made up of pro-GMO and biotech industry people, especially David Tribe, a viscious and vociferous pro-GMO blogger, zealot and internet comment troller. GENERA even co-ops the term ‘Franken Food’ and twists it into a cuddly mascot.

    GENERA has an agenda, they say so right in their website: “the claim that there is no science, hardly any science, or only industry science conducted on genetically engineered crops kept coming up. Some would say that the few independent studies always found problems.
    Dr. David Tribe started to assemble a list of studies to refute these claims, and to show the studies that support the safety of these crops for consumption, the environment, etc.”

    http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/making-sense-of-lists-of-studies/

    In other words, the whole “list” has a predetermined outcome, to “refute the claims”. It’s politically motivated, and as such, pure propaganda.
    Fucking hilarious.

    • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

      Brad, if you curse again you will be banned from this list forever and your comments expunged. The GLP welcomes healthy discussions.

      As for “independent,” the word is not defined as “agrees with Brad.” Independent means that the person or organization is not being paid for their views or is financially or ideologically compromised by pre-determined conclusions independent of what the empirical evidence suggests . Someone who works for Syngeneta or Greenpeace would not be considered “independent” even if he/she did great research. Each individual’s research should be evaluated on its on merits, and no one should embrace or dismiss research or analysis from someone with documentable industry or ideological ties–but he/she would not be independent.

      Whatever you may think of the scientists at Biofortified, the organization and the scientists are the epitome of independent. They do not take industry money. Their work is well respected in the science community. Their research is grounded in empirical data and reflects the consensus of 95% of the mainstream genetics community.

      The fact that their basic conclusion–that they reject simplistic and erroneous claims that there are few or mostly flawed studies demonstrating the basic safety of GMOs–happens to conform with the views of every major independent science organization in the world–bar none–does not by some twisted logic make them not independent.

      Also, as far as I know, and I am quite familiar with their work and writings, no one affiliated with Biofortified has taken a “political” stand on any issue related to agricultural biotechnology, as you insinuated

      Because of YOUR ideological view of science you may reject their individual conclusions; you may consider the World Health Organisation and the National Academy of Sciences promoters of ‘junk science.’ You’d be wrong on all these accounts, but you are welcome to your opinions, however misguided. You are not welcome to manipulate the facts though.

      • Lisa Makarchuk

        What is it exactly that you’re saying the WHO and NAS is saying? Have you read their publications?

  • Lila Hw

    Most of the problems in genetic engineering will probably be solved by paradigm advances in physics in string theory.
    The main problem the Food and Chemical Toxicology Editor claimed was the reason for the extraction of Dr. Seralini, PhD.’s article was the use of only 10 rats per male and female groups.”Concerning the statistical power in a t test at 5%, with the comparison of 2 samples of 10 rats, there is a 44% chance to miss a significant effect of 1 standard deviation (SD; power 56%)(1.)
    However, Dr. Seralini’s, extracted research design was nearly identical with Monsanto’s animal feeding studies for NK 603, MON 810, MON 863 [Sprague-Dawley albino strain, with 10 rats per gender group]. But Monsanto’s designs were only 90 days, while Dr. Seralini’s design found rats fed Round up Ready’s glyphosate for 2 years, developed cancer tumors.
    Thus Monsanto’s NK 603, MON 810, MON 863 corns, ethically should be time wise/intelligently recalled [extracted] because their experimental safety design has a 44 % chance the corn could be toxic. In fact Dr. Seralini did a more competent statistical analysis of Monsanto’s original studies, and found indeed Monsanto’s lab rats had signs of liver and kidney diseases (2.).
    There are many other peer reviewed research studies showing Monsanto’s paradigm is flawed and dangerous. Here are just a few.
    According to the Journal of Insect Conservation and Diversity, published in 2012, By Dr. Brower, PhD., and replicated in the Journal of Insect Conservation and Diversity, published in 2012, by Dr. Oberhauser , PhD., 90 % of Midwest milkweed has been destroyed inadvertently by glyphosate. A subsequent 80% of the Midwest monarch butterfly population has been decimated.
    According to a study published in Entropy, 2013 (3.), glyphosate is connected to gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. There are over 250 research articles cited in this review article.
    Medical research published in Chemical Research in Toxicology, shows glyphosate and glyphosate based herbicides, “interfere with key molecular mechanisms regulating early development in both Xenopus and chicken embryos, leading to congenital malformations… The phenotypes obtained after GBH treatments or injections of glyphosate alone are strikingly reminiscent of those observed as a consequence of an excess of RA signaling in vertebrates and humans,” exposed to aerial glyphosate and spraying (4.).
    An approximated 0.07368 parts per million (ppm) of herbicide glyphosate were found in Canadian non-pregnant women’s blood. These women live in cities away from farms. Worst of all, trace amounts, 0.00014 ppm, of the corn’s GE bacterial insecticide, Bt-Cry1Ab, were found in the fetuses of Canadian pregnant women, according to Reproductive Toxicology, published in 2011 (5.). This is the area of highest danger in Monsanto’s flawed paradigm: damage to the human fetus and/or fetal DNA mutations from exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides and insecticides.
    The study which was extracted has incredible statistical analyses, useful for teaching fast track high school seniors destined for DNA research: multivariate analysis, principal component analysis (PCA), partial least- squares to latent structures (PLS), and orthogonal PLS (OPLS). This study should be reintroduced into Food and Chemical Toxicology, as a “blueprint” design for the benefit of humanity. A minimum 100 replications should be made by scientists like Dr. Seralini, who are not funded by biotech corporations, using the same design but especially with large rat samples, 100 to 1,000 per gender group.
    Digital PCR should be used in all US hospitals to precisely quantify how many of all of Monsanto’s copyright toxins are in human blood. Correlations and potential co-morbidity variables can thus be established, especially for pediatric illnesses. -Will Davis

  • Pit Boss

    There are zero long-term, controlled studies on humans. PERIOD. This article is garbage.

    • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

      There are zero long term controlled studies on humans on any food or chemical…not one. Obviously you have no understanding of testing methodologies. Essentially, what you are saying is that you reject the consensus view of the World Health Organisation and the National Academy of Sciences and every major independent science organization in the world…now that’s a firm platform to voice your views.

      • Pit Boss

        You’re right about foods, wrong about chemicals. That’s one of the ways GMOs have been able to slip by relatively unnoticed. But in my opinion they need to be studied much more extensively considering their application on society.

        • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

          GMOs have not “slipped by” anyone. No agricultural products in history have been more carefully and extensively studied, and to date there is not one health related incident–not so much as a sniffle–linked to the consumption of foods whose ingredients have been modified by genetic engineering. Contrast that with the thousands of deaths linked to the consumption or organic foods, where oversight is almost nonexistent.

          And I repeat: there has been no–not one–long term controlled study on humans on any food or chemical. Too many variables; the data would be useless and the exercise unethical.

          • Pit Boss

            It would be very easy to accomplish this in a prison setting.

          • Martin Gumbo

            use the prisoners as test subjects ???…have you NO ethics ?

          • Pit Boss

            Please tell me you’re being sarcastic. If not you’ve just summed up why biotech giants are run by sociopaths and why supporters are almost as bad.

          • Martin Gumbo

            “it would be very easy to accomplish this in a prison setting”….unless I am misunderstanding this , it seems like you are suggesting the use of prisoners to be the test subjects to determine the safety of GM foods. It is you whom we hope is being sarcastic.

          • Pit Boss

            Well considering that the general public is currently being used as the test subjects, I fail to see how using prisoners is any more unethical.

          • Cindy Koch

            No, we’ll just use all the children in the world as test rats! The government has no ethics in my opinion.

    • http://ultimateglutenfree.com/ Peter Olins

      Hi Pit Boss. I understand where you’re coming from, but it’s almost impossible to think of how to do such a study, even if you wanted to. You would need to have hundreds of closely-matched people, for a period of years, all eating EXACTLY the same food, with the only difference being the food source.

      Even for a SHORT-TERM safety study, the only ethical study is for drugs that have the potential benefit of treating a disease: it’s not ethical to deliberately give people substances that you believe will be toxic. For example, even though we know that lead is toxic to animals, we cannot test how toxic it is in humans.

      Even if you could do such a study, what would you test for? There are literally hundreds of possible changes in the human body, many of which would only show up after autopsy. I, personally, do not support the idea of hundreds of dead bodies on an autopsy slab, looking for changes that we have no reason to expect to occur, based on our prior knowledge.

      Finally, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of compounds in foods that we already know are toxic in test animals at HIGH doses. Are you advocating that we ban mustard or carrots until we have long-term human safety studies on these, too?

      • Bruce

        We have been eating those food like mustard for millennium, so we feel we don’t need to test them. But now we know some people can’t eat some foods due to allergies. No we didn’t advocate a ban, but we did get labelling, which is what the public are asking for with GM. The refusal of which is creating the primary barrier to consumption, through the perception of the removal of people’s choice.

        The second barrier is the failure of anyone to prove to the consumer that these new unique foods are safe, and its a crop by crop decision, no matter how little difference the modification makes to the end product. It may be a minor, but it is a distinct difference, due largely to the extent this was proclaimed when GM was first marketed. We got that it was new, but not now that some are trying to forced us to eat it.

        In the face of a change. we tend to rely on what we know, until the new is proven safe. The alternative is to blindly accept something in the knowledge it may harm us.

        If we make a major food crop toxic to humans, that would be a tragedy, and the death-knell of any company that produced the seed. Caution is due.

        • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

          Bruce, no food can be “proven” safe. Any food has the potential to harm someone dependent upon their individual biology. Labeling a food as “GM” or “organic” provides no scientific information as to potential safety of any individual food. For a label to be meaningful, every single food, regardless of how it was grown or what seeds were used, would have to least every single protein and also how each of those proteins could interact with each other. That’s impossible to do. Short of that, labeling as is being discussed…saying something is GMO or not…is both useless and deceptive. It conveys no actionable information from a science or medical point of view.

  • http://hoshikogen.tumblr.com/ Genevieve

    This is moderately interesting to me. What about the studies with the rats in France that got huge tumours after being fed GMO corn? Or this: http://sustainablepulse.com/wp-content/uploads/ENSSER_Statement_no_scientific_consensus_on_GMO_safety_ENG_LV.pdf

    ???

    Maybe if the GM companies weren’t acting in a way that causes mass public distrust then we the people would be more willing to hear what they have to say….

  • foreignerph

    You can’t prove safety of modified food, you can only fail to prove it’s unsafe. These studies are short-term. That means probably that 99% of the mice didn’t die eating the stuff. What it means for humans over a life-span of 80 years, and/or in the next generation, who knows? It took quite a while, from the bonfires of our ancestors till 30 years ago when it was found by epidemiological studies that charcoaled food enhances the risk of cancer.

    Natural adaptation to novel molecules in food takes many generations. One of the most recent was lactose-tolerance. People that died from lactose-intolerance while switching to dairy products have been eliminated from the gene pool, guided by natural selection over thousands of years. Are the Genetic Modifiers counting on the same selection mechanism perhaps?

    But let’s assume 99 or even 99.9% of the mice didn’t die in all these studies, probably sponsored by the same companies that have invested a lot in GGOs. Wouldn’t there be a perk for clinicians in favorable studies? Would studies be included that yielded less favorable results? If not, that would be amazing since it’s common practice in clinical trials of drugs.

    Drugs, however, are life-saving, even if not all the side-effects have been accounted for yet when they are released. Modified food isn’t necessary at all, we don’t need it. So why not err on the safe side and just stick to natural food that has been around for many thousands of years? Or will we at least have the choice by clear labeling of the stuff? Currently, the Modifiers are lobbying intensively to avoid any labeling, for instance in the EU.

    Will GGOs reduce hunger and poverty by higher yield? I’ve lived for some years in a very “poor” area, median income 2$/day/family. Nobody was hungry there, reverting to subsistence farming and cattle-raising in a natural way. They might need more land to grow natural products instead of GGOs, but that’s how it always has been and why should they change to something that risks to be a poison in the long run?

    Consumer food GGOs are not about any scientific advance. They are just about more money for the Modifiers.

    • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

      Your post makes no scientific sense. You can say the exact same thing about our entire food supply. Almost every grain, fruit and vegetable has been modified, in an accelerating rate, over centuries, but mostly in recent decades. Novel combinations of genes have been created. Moreover, mutagenesis–dousing seeds with radiation and chemicals, which can result in organic grains, fruits and vegetables (eg: organic ruby red grapefruits) have created thousands–about 3,000+–new novel foods in the past four decades. None has been tested, and by your ‘theory’ should be evaluated over many generations and could well result in health problems. Of course your ‘theory’, from a science perspective, is total bull. (and your charcoal analogy ridiculous). Our bodies are adapted to deal with many changes in the environment, including barrages of bacteria which assault us every day…so the entire thesis is silly. And in fact, GMOs are precisely evaluated and tested…unlike the ‘mutated’ foods we eat every day, including 95% of your daily diet. Please, take a genetics 101 course….

      • Pit Boss

        Nice red herring. He’s 100% correct. There is no effort in the biotech community to prove safety over time. They can, but apparently don’t have to so they don’t. We’re consuming things that our bodies are rejecting, but since there are no long-term controlled studies they can claim “everything is safe” and proceed to call you an anti-science monster if you dare question the path we’re on. Biotech has proven itself to be nothing but a whole lot of empty promises disguised as science.

        Perfect example: Nutrasweet (aspartame). Monsanto’s miracle sweetener that’s 100% safe. At least, that’s what they said when they released it in the 80s. The FDA approved it with no problem, just like they do with every new GM crop. Do a search for aspartame side effects and see what science thinks of this stuff now, 30 years later.

        You don’t hear much about this, because big ag’s money keeps it from getting out. They have a long history of threatening news stations with lawsuits when they dare attempt to investigate one of their products.

        You sure seem to have some scummy friends.

      • Lisa Makarchuk

        3000+ novel foods from mutagenesis in the last 40 years? Which ones am I actually eating? Can you name, like, 10? (I can’t even think of 3000 novel foods)

  • Howard Gilbraith

    Regardless of the merits of GMO’s, the industrial farming system is inherently unsustainable and destructive to the environment. Arguing for the safety of a technology, while its implementation does more damage than it solves, is pretty fruitless.

    • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

      Howard, you can argue that the “industrial farming system is inherently unsustainable” or that “technology…does more damage that it solves”, but those are minority views among sustainability experts, farmers and economists, including organic farmers, who heavily rely on advanced technology (have you ever been to a medium or large scale organic farm?). What is clearly unsustainable is organic/small scale farming. It’s less productive, eats up resources and results in gobbling up of land as food demand skyrockets–it’s a direct path to global food insecurity. I recommend, for example, that you read a well known progressives take on this issue, “The Infinite Resources” by Ramez Naam.

  • Jaime

    Anyone who agrees gmos are safe… hahahahah in your face … I rather not be a Monsanto lab rat thank you very much… Lolol Bann Gmos Im signing every petition out there to ban gmo in The Usa

  • Michael Cooper

    Thank you, JoAnna Wendel, for this article. It has been very useful for pointing people claiming this hasn’t been studied to one place where they can see a summary.

  • Maryjane Daniels

    I participated in a blind study. My skin itches, then gets pustules, then falls off within 10 mins of eating GMO’s… I was one of those people who thought anti gmo people were just loony or trying to start some kind of fad.. I was wrong.. do your own research don’t listen to talk..people can and will say anything for money in this society. I tried to post pics of my hands with and without gmos’s but your site kept deleting them!! So if anyone would like to see they could contact me personally..by the way I worked in the health field for 10yrs.

  • dbhalling

    Great article, but quit using the word consensus. Science is not about consensus.

  • Hello

    Affirm? You can’t affirm safety. The only thing you can prove under a study is that under those condition and methods used in the study, the following results that were measured happened. Plus, the vast majority of those studies on the spreadsheet were not testing the toxicology of GMOs at all. Even those studies with a title that supposedly meant they were conducting toxicology studies were just articles on how to conduct a tox study on GMOs if one was actually done.

  • Rob37

    This is from one of the studies: “The 90-day-long tests are insufficient to evaluate chronic toxicity, and the signs highlighted in the kidneys and livers could be the onset of chronic diseases. However, no minimal length for the tests is yet obligatory for any of the GMOs cultivated on a large scale, and this is socially unacceptable in terms of consumer health protection. We are suggesting that the studies should be improved and prolonged, as well as being made compulsory, and that the sexual hormones should be assessed too, and moreover, reproductive and multigenerational studies ought to be conducted too.” Here is the link: http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

  • http://www.YourFightOurBattle.com/ SusieQGuru

    read more facts on my Facebook page health and nutrition

  • Neil

    The world is depleting resources so fast and farmlands are getting damaged daily and becoming wastelands. In case we really want to stop global warming and still feed the ever increasing population with limited resources GM is the only way to go. GM is all about reducing the number of years required to get a specific trait in a crop. If we would have been slectively breeding we would have grown the same genes in our crop we now have to fight diseases in 100 odd years. Stopping the journey of GM because of politics is a deterrent to science. Remember that rice was also a grass and it took many centuries to make it rice through slective breeding. We just do not have that much of time now.

    • Orion Antares

      You can’t selectively breed a gene from a bacteria into a plant.

  • Mike Phillips

    all you have to do is eat a GMO “pretty” tomato (with zero taste) and then compare it to an heirloom tomato to realize the difference and that the way science has destroyed that one example is criminal.

    • http://www.jonentine.com Jon Entine

      There are no GMO tomatoes.

  • Lilly

    i do not see any real long term studies.

  • andy b

    because most of the “research” done on GMO’s has been performed and paid for by the same biotech companies developing the technology.

  • andy b

    If GMO’s are so “safe” and great for us why are the biotech companies along with the GMA pouring millions into anti-labeling campaigns, what are they afraid of? Not to mention the fact that GMO’s have been outlawed all together in several countries and more to come as well.

    • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

      It’s been outlawed in Peru and Saudi Arabia, I believe–that’s it. The NY Times, Scientific American, American Medical Association, LA Times, Oregonian, National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science oppose labeling as its deceptive to the consumer since foods with GMOs are functionally and nutritionally identical to non-GMO versions (though they can be superior if enhanced with vitamins…that should indeed be labeled when that’s the case.

      • andy b

        Actually John, Russia, China, Mexico, France, and Argentina have banned all GMO importation and planting of GMO seed for certain crops like corn and soy.

        • ShaneJax

          Stop letting facts get in the way of his narrative…

        • bjarte

          and all of scandinavia too

        • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

          Why?

      • Orion Antares

        Oh, the food industry wants to draw the line at GMO labeling as misleading… There’s no reason for them not to allow GMO labeling for those that want to make the choice. The labels are going to be reworked soon anyways for the new nutritional layout, might as well get it done at the same time so it doesn’t cost extra.

        • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

          Labeling implies a warning when none is needed. You obviously have not read the FDA’s labeling rules. Get back to me when you do.

          • Orion Antares

            “All Natural”

          • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

            Really?

            Chemicals are used in organic food production.
            Natural is a man made term. It is a philosophical term.

            Did you read the FDA labeling rules yet?

          • Orion Antares

            Which makes my point. They allow that but don’t want to allow companies (there active efforts to make laws banning it) to choose to label their food GMO free.

          • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

            You do not understand the issue. You do not understand labeling rules. You seem to think it is some sort of conspiracy, yet you have not offered anything to show that GMOs need a warning label.

            As for grains, you are never going to get GMO free. Even if you have GMO free grains, they will be mix in with GMO grains.

            There are so many problems with labeling that anti-GMO people ignore.

            “The consumer should know” is not a valid argument.

          • Orion Antares

            I didn’t say GMOs need a warning label. I said companies that don’t use GMOs should be allowed to label as such. There are active efforts to create federal laws to prevent that.

          • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

            I see lots of products with labels that say, “GMO FREE”

            I saw some orange juice that was labeled GMO FREE. That is funny. Currently there are no GMO oranges used to make orange juice. That is like putting a NO FAT label on a watermelon.

            Where can I read about the effort to stop this?
            They would have to change the FDA labeling rules to not allow “GMO FREE” labels.

            link?

          • Orion Antares

            I apologize, I went back, reread, and realize I misread the article. It was only a reference to preventing states from allowing it.

            As far as the no GMO label on orange juice, you could compare it to a NO FAT label on watermelon juice, but not on a watermelon. Orange juice can easily have additives or fortification that are derived from GMO sources. You could probably call the label redundant if it’s also labeled “100% pure orange juice” with no other listed ingredients. Now if they labeled an actual orange GMO FREE, that would be a different matter.

          • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

            No. Orange juice that contains stuff other than orange juice has to be labeled as such.

            The FDA labeling rules would not allow GMO warning labels not due to an evil conspiracy, but due to rules that are in place for all foods.

          • Orion Antares

            But can still be labeled “100% juice” if those additives that are listed are very small in volume comparatively.

          • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

            It can not be labeled orange juice then.
            My point remains, current FDA rules would not allow a warning label for GMOs. It is not some conspiracy, it is the same for all food.

          • Orion Antares

            Really, then there are some very big names in orange juice violating the rules right now…

            Are you maybe confused about what I was referring to originally with labeling? Were you assuming that the labeling would be part of the nutritional label because I mentioned they were going to need to redesign their labels anyways?

            I guess I could have been more specific and said they will have to redesign their packaging for the new nutritional labels anyways. That was in reference to one of the arguments against it, the cost of reworking the packaging.

          • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

            Sigh. The rules are clear. It is not important.

            Either way, mandating labeling to warn of GMOs is not feasible under the current food labeling rules including nutritional guidelines.

            A label is not needed. If you want to avoid GMO foods, buy foods that are labeled as GMO free and buy organic foods. Your best bet is to grow your own food. That is what I do.

            Many companies proudly label their food as GMO FREE, it is a good marketing ploy.

      • Bjarte Johansen

        gmo is outlawed in france, austria, switzerland, bulgaria, germany, and italy have banned the mon810 corn

        • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

          Why?

    • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

      Labeling implies a warning when none is needed. It is just another part of the War On The Poor.

  • andy b

    Why dosent this article sight some of the “independent research” that’s been done on this topic?

    • Joshua Jansen

      Cites all of it at the bottom. The goal of this paper was actually not to prove the safety of GMOs, but to disprove the “lack of research” spiel. They did that effectively here. Other arguments will build cases for GMOs, but this one only wanted to solve the issue of “lack of research.”

      Identifying the purpose of an argument is important for understanding it. If you’d like, I can probably point you towards other sources for or against the safety of GMOs. This site has plenty as well.

  • David Beckley

    I downloaded the excel file and picked one study that reported unforeseen hazards in the application of GMO use. The conclusion of the study was that more research needed to be done to identify more hazards. This is one of the studies that the author is reporting as supporting the use of GMOs. I believe this author, JoAnna Wendel, is misleading you in this article. She has not done the appropriate amount of investigations to support her claims. Read the research. It does not support GMO’s. It supports the need for more research to be done if we are to determine their safety. Do your homework. The resource from the list of 1783 studies I am citing is listed here: Hazard identification and risk assessment procedure for genetically modified plants in the field—GMHAZID

    • Arcadius Oram Fox

      Every scientific article ever published calls for more research to be conducted. Not doing so would be like rolling a die one time, getting a 3, and claiming that all dice can only roll the number 3. That’s not how science works. Instead, when cumulative results start to point towards a common story we can begin to draw more broad conclusions.

  • Ashley Coe

    List of studies, not shared on this thread. Should be the first thing shouldn’t it??? Still don’t trust. Be sceptical, and verify.

    • Joshua Jansen

      It is shared. right at the bottom.

      • Calamity

        You shared your bottom, Ya freak!

        • Joshua Jansen

          Cute. Do you have anything important to say, or is that it?

        • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

          Your mother should have eaten you while your bones were still soft.

  • Rick

    Actually, there is a statement from scientists in Europe saying this claim is false.
    GMOs safety is a topic without consensus, according to a recent statement by the European Network of Scientists.

    http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

    • http://www.jonentine.com Jon Entine

      Rick, ENSEER is not an independent science group…it’s a collection of anti-GMO ideologues, and reflects the beliefs of less than 1% of the scientific consensus. Here is a backgrounder on ENSEER: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/05/27/gmo-science-denialists-ensser-challenges-who-national-academy-of-sciences-on-gm-safety/

    • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

      Did you read any of the studies?

    • Rick

      I stand corrected. I found this European statement is not representative of the worldwide majority, which now makes me thing that at least this organization is not completely honest. Some of the members are actually being questioned.

      This is a typical example of how the internet can fool us all, in this case, I was completely fooled, and I apologize for my original post.

  • 911

    OH OH OH I WONDER HOW THEY TEST LONG EFFECTS ON HUMANS IN 2 YEAR STUDIES. ROFL
    BUT THEN AGAIN, DID I JUST READ “SAFER THEN BIOLOGICAL”?
    ROFL!!!!!!!!!!

    • Joshua Jansen

      You must be a genius! You single handedly knew all 1700 studies were wrong, and proved that GMOs were terrible! Wow! It was either that, or maybe it was just you pretending like you know what you are talking about.

      • Calamity

        Joshua, You aren’t a scientist. You are a blithering moron with a computer his mommy bought him. Learn some manners before opening your cakehole.

        • Joshua Jansen

          Learning manners isn’t your specialty either. In fact, I wouldn’t expect to find that you were a scientist either! Now that I think about it, it seems you might just be a blithering moron who opened his cake whole on the computer his mommy bought him.

          Sadly though, neither of us know each other, so all we have to go on is the fact that we disagree, so if you think I am wrong, then we can discus that. If, on the off-chance, you only came here to insult me, then unplug from your internet and go back to your own life. I’m not discussing who I am on the internet, and I do not intend to discus your problems either.

        • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

          Clalmity, you are not a scientist. You are a science denier and a complete idiot. Take two weeks off then quit.

  • perfectprefect

    i’m not worried about the plants themselves what I want studied is the pesticide usage with them

  • Noteasilyswayed

    Ok ppl…if GMO’s are so safe or safer than organic, than why is Monsanto spending hundreds of millions to stop labeling when millions of consumers want it. I can only guess that once consumers see the ingredients they won’t buy the product. Therefore it’s all about profits not health. Also the FDA through pressure from the Monsanto lobbyists to allow higher concentrations of glyphosates on crops was passed. All pesticides are poisons and to increase the volumes so weeds don’t take over the fields is understood BUT we are eating them daily and is going to accumulate in our bodies eventually and cause illnesses. No amount of washing will remove them because it’s in the DNA of the food!!!!

    • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

      Labeling GMO products is very dumb. It implies a warning when none is needed.

      The only reason I have heard from people that want labeling is, “Consumers should know.”

      GMOs are perfectly safe, no label is needed.

      If you want to avoid GMOs, that is your choice. You can buy organic foods. There is no reason to impose labeling.

      Labeling is just another shot at the poor.

  • bruce123abc

    I don’t want someone telling me every study say it’s safe. I want to see a study on animal feeding and the results of feeding GMO vs non-GMO food to them.

    I don’t want a nutritional analysis which is irelavent to the food safety as the nutritional component isn’t in question. The safety of what has been added or changed is in question.

    When I look for studies all I get is people telling me all the studies say it safe. I don’t get any studies. Very suspicious…

    • http://www.jonentine.com Jon Entine

      Here is a link to 1700 studies. The independent scientists who compiled the list have concluded, as have all major international independent science organizations, that GM crops are as safe or safer than conventional/organic foods.
      http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/

    • Jetblakc

      Then go to a library and do some goddamned research. If you want actual science you can’t wait to be spoon-fed.

      • bruce123abc

        This is 2014. We have the Internet now.

        When I ask for an example of a study showing it’s safe. I get arrogant rude bull comments like yours!
        —–
        I see detailed information on studies showing that GMO’s aren’t safe. What the study showed, how it was performed etc.

        When I look for studies showing GMO’s are safe, I only hear people say “all 1700 studies say GMO’s are safe” or other peoples interpretation of a study. Vague unjustified nonsense.

        That’s not how science works. Things are only proved true until they are proved false. So even if a million studies say it’s safe. When you get a study that says it’s not safe, then your theory has been proven false.

        Any experiment should be re-producible, but the fact that GMO companies threaten people and universities to control or bury the outcome and won’t give you the product to test, with no strings attached, makes it hard to re-try.
        —–
        Governments should be funding studies directly. Industries should never fund their own safety studies.

        I’ve worked in the construction field doing safety testing, that has been funded by the construction companies we are suppose to monitor. Even if we get an unsafe result it gets ignored! (e.g. concrete for roadways is sub-standard but it gets passed any ways (so we end up with a road that will only last 15 years instead of 50 years).

        • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

          Did you read any of the studies?

      • bruce123abc

        When I ask for an example of a study showing it’s safe. I get arrogant rude bull comments like yours!

        —–
        The studies I’ve found showing that GMO’s aren’t safe tell how it was performed, what the results were etc.

        When I check for studies showing GMO’s are safe, I get “all 2000 studies show GMO’s are safe”, or someone summarizing a study with their own opinion. Un-provable vague nonsense!

        That’s not how science works. Theories are only proven true, until they are proven false. It’s not political. It’s not about being right.
        —–
        There could be a million studies showing something is safe, but once you get a study saying GMO’s are not safe, then your theory is wrong.

        When I look I find a lot of studies showing the adverse affects of GMO’s but only vague statements for the safety of GMO’s.

        —–
        Studies have to be re-producible but how does one reproduce a study when the GMO company pressures the person, university or government official to quash the results or won’t give the product to be tested, no strings attached?
        —–
        Studies should be publicly funded, not self policed by the very people who stand to benefit.

        I’ve been involved in construction testing and our testing was funded by the construction company. Even if we got bad results they were ignored or adjusted to fit or we wouldn’t get hired again. So we end up with concrete on a road that is sub-standard and a road that will last 15 years instead of 50 years!

  • Calamity

    I want long term independent unbiased research. I absolutely will never believe a corporate research report, ever. Monsanto has a history of hiding facts and doctoring reports for profits. they are completely untrustworthy. These 2000 tests? Never seen a single one from anyone but corporate. Serilini? Same exact tests Monsanto used to say that they were okay. Serilini says that in 2 years will cause several lethal ailments. Monsanto decries it. WTF!

    NO these foods are not ready for prime time and should be burned to the ground today. Farmers beware, you are introducing virulent strains ino the wild. That’s tantamount to terrorism. You will be held accountable.

    • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

      You are exactly the same as a climate denier.
      Silly Luddite.

  • Dr. T

    I am seeing a lot of comments stating that “the FDA cannot be trusted.”

    I am curious… There is a “scientific consensus”, affirmed by the FDA, that GM crops are safe to eat. There is another “scientific consensus”, affirmed by other government organizations, that global warming is occurring and it is the result of human activities.

    Why do you believe the “scientific consensus” on global warming but not on the safety of GM foods?

  • Michail Iakovidis

    Well… If you want to believe a rumor, go ahead and believe it.

    Just like “there is no gravity” and try to jump off a cliff. Gravity will win!

    As for GMOs so far 0/1783 times have proven harmful. So the chances are 0% for harm in humans so far.

  • Cynthia Gurin

    Monsanto has been most generous in providing grants for studies with preferred outcomes.

    • http://www.lemonparty.org/ IJR

      Which of the studies were funded by Monsanto?
      Which of the 2,000 studies do you not believe?

  • JudsonParker

    Those 2,000 studies from Biofortified in no way reach the same conclusion as the title of this blog post. For example, #1367 on your list (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835) states that “Animal toxicity studies with certain GM foods have shown that they may toxically affect several organs and systems… The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters… The use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which may promote cancer.

    How are we to take you seriously, John, when the studies you are referencing do not even support your conclusions?

    • http://ultimateglutenfree.com/ Peter Olins

      Hi Judson. The paper you cite is not primary research, and this abstract does not accurately discuss the validity or relevance of the original papers regarding “hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects”.

      Sadly, titles and abstracts are often written to capture an audience, and to promote what the author would like to believe is true. It takes a lot of work to dig deeper through all the background material, in order to reach your own conclusions.

      The Dona review is largely a catalog of worst-possible-case scenarios, rather than documented problems. This is a useful starting point for further research, but real-world decisions will always need to be made using the weight of evidence, rather than perfect data.

  • http://www.isitorganic.ca/ Mischa Popoff

    The anti-GMO organic activists listed above should all be ashamed of themselves. But, let’s face it, we all have to share in the blame here.

    The sooner we stop subsidizing the anti-GMO organic movement at the same time as we negotiate and debate with its representatives, the sooner the whole phony debate between organic and GMO farming will end, and the sooner we’ll finally see some true progress in GMO farming.

    We have to stop trying to have it both ways.

  • Julz

    “the consensus conclusion that GMO crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods”??? THAT is your bs alert right there.

    • Jon Entine

      Actually that’s the conclusion of a number of independent global organizations such as the German Academy of Sciences. If you devoted the time to understanding genetic modification, you’d recognize that GM food is tested and organic/conventional food is not, which is why it’s safer. It’s basic science.

  • Beef

    Label foods containing GMO. Let the consumer be the judge.

    Monsanto is greed driven.

    3. New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans

    This study was recently released by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), and uses data from the US department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection Agency, medical journal reviews as well as other independent research. (3)(4) The authors relate GM foods to five conditions that may either trigger or exacerbate gluten-related disorders, including the autoimmune disorder, Celiac Disease:

    Intestinal permeability

    Imbalanced gut bacteria

    Immune activation and allergic response

    Impaired digestion

    Damage to the intestinal wall

    The Institute for Responsible technology is a world leader in educating policy makers and the public about GMO foods and crops. The institute reports and investigates on the impact GM foods can have on health, environment, agriculture and more.

    • http://ultimateglutenfree.com/ Peter Olins

      @Beef—This was not a published scientific “study” but a propaganda piece produced by two activists, a chiropractor and a computer scientist. My hunch is that you may not have actually read it. If you did, could you highlight the single argument that you found most persuasive, so that we can discuss in in the light of the topic of this thread?

  • Beef

    A study by scientist Judy Carman, PhD that was recently published in the peer reviewed journal Organic Systems outlines the effects of a diet mixed with GMO feed for pigs, and how it is a cause for concern when it comes to health. (11) Scientists randomized and fed isowean pigs either a mixed GM soy and GM corn (maize) diet for approximately 23 weeks (nothing out of the ordinary for most pigs in the United States), which is unfortunately the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from weaning to slaughter. Equal numbers of male and female pigs were present in each group. The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs. GM-fed pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% compared to 125 of non-GM fed pigs.

    The study concluded that pigs fed a GMO diet exhibited a heavier uteri and a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation than pigs who weren’t fed a GMO diet. Because the use of GMO feed for livestock and humans is so widespread, this is definitely another cause for concern when it comes to GMO consumption. Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and these GM crops are consumed widely by people, especially in the United States.

    • http://ultimateglutenfree.com/ Peter Olins

      @Beef—This paper made it to my list of “top 10 worst papers of the last decade”. It has been widely debunked by other scientists, and would make a great teaching tool for an undergraduate biology class. Here are a few concerns to get you started:

      –There was no attempt to use the same parental crop strains or growth conditions for the GMO versus non-GMO animal feed. Any farmer will tell you that crops vary depending on how and when they are grown. In other words, this is not a controlled study.
      –About 90% of piglets had inflamed stomachs (regardless of food source)—probably not the ideal baseline for studying nutritional intake.
      –The stomach “inflammation” data were interpreted by visual inspection of color. Color is not a meaningful endpoint, unless blood loss and handling are controlled for.There was no biochemical or immunological follow up to validate an inflammatory effect of the GMO feed. Such tests would have been straightforward and quantitative.
      –Lurid pictures of highly inflamed stomachs may make great news, but pictures of stomach inflammation in the non-GMO-fed piglets were strangely omitted from the paper. This is strikingly similar to the tactic used by the infamous 2012 Seralini rat safety study.
      –Mycotoxin contamination in the animal feed was at a level where it could confound the results, but the authors did not discuss the relevant literature. Pigs are very sensitive.
      –Uterine weights ranged VERY widely (from 0.036 to 0.244 % bodyweight in the control animals, and 0.040 to 0.310% in the GMO-feed animals). While there was a difference in the mean weights between the groups, I do not accept that such a highly variable endpoint is meaningful, without substantiating evidence.
      –The flaws in their statistical analysis have been discussed widely on the internet, but might be too heavy for a thread like this.
      –No attempt was made to vary the amount of GMO feed: a “dose-response” effect is one of the most fundamental principles of toxicology research.
      –Instead, a mixture of both GMO-derived corn and soy was used, adding an extra variable which complicated the interpretation, rather than trying to control for a single variable.

      –A surprising number of the pigs had pneumonia, regardless of diet, suggesting a low standard of animal husbandry that could confound any meaningful result.

      If, after considering these points, you can highlight a key conclusion that you find compelling, please post it on this thread for discussion.