Scientific consensus on GMO safety stronger than for global warming


A Pew Research Center study on science literacy, undertaken in cooperation with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and released on January 29, contains a blockbuster: In sharp contrast to public skepticism about GMOs, 88% of scientists believe genetically modified foods are safe.

That overwhelming consensus exceeds the percentage of scientists, 87%, who believe global warming is the result of human activity. However, the public appears far more suspicious of scientific claims about GMO safety than they do about the consensus on climate change.

Some 57 percent of Americans say GM foods are unsafe and a startling 67% do not trust scientists, believing they don’t understand the science behind GMOs. Scientists blame poor reporting by mainstream scientists for the trust and literacy gaps.

The survey also contrasts sharply with a statement published earlier this week in a marginal pay-for-play European journal by a group of anti-GMO scientists and activists, including Michael Hansen of the Center for Food Safety, and philosopher Vandana Shiva, claiming, “no scientific consensus on GMO safety.”

A huge literacy gap between scientists and the public on biotechnology is one of the many disturbing nuggets that emerged from the Pew Research Center survey, which was conducted in cooperation with the AAAS, the world’s largest independent general scientific society. The full study, released on January 29, is available here.

This survey, the first of several reports to be released in coming months, compares the views of scientists and the general public on the role of science in the United States and globally.

The eye opening take-away: The American population in general borders on scientific illiteracy. The gap between what scientists believe, grounded on empirical evidence, often sharply differs from what the general public thinks is true. The differences are sharpest over biomedical research, including GMOs.

  • 88% of AAAS scientists think eating GM food is safe, while only 37% of the public believes that’s true—a 51-percentage point gap
  • 68% of scientists say it is safe to eat food grown with pesticides, compared with 28% of citizens—a 40% gap.
  • A 42-percentage point gap over the issue of using animals in research—89% of scientists favor it, while only 47% of the public backs the idea.

Screen Shot 2015-01-28 at 7.41.35 PMThe scientist/public gap is less pronounced over climate, energy and space issues.

  • 37-percentage point gap over whether humans are the primary cause of climate change—87% of AAAS scientists say it is, while 50% of the public does.
  • 33-percentage point gap on the question about whether humans have evolved over time—98% of scientists say we have, compared with 65% of the public.
  • By a 20-percentage point margin, citizens are more likely than scientists to favor offshore oil drilling.
  • By a 12-point margin, the public is more likely to say that astronauts are essential for the future of the U.S. space program.

Screen Shot 2015-01-28 at 7.43.50 PM

The survey represents a sample of 2,002 adult citizens and 3,748 scientists who are all members of the AAAS.

“As scientists size up the culture and their place in it,” Pew said in a statement. “Scientists are notably less upbeat than they were five years ago and express serious concerns about public knowledge of science and the way scientific findings are covered by journalists.”

The scientists believe that media hype is one possible reason for large gaps in opinion between their views and that of the public, particularly in the debate over GMOs. Seventy-nine percent of scientists said that the media doesn’t distinguish between “well-founded” and “not well-founded” scientific research. Additionally, 52 percent agreed that the media oversimplifies the science.

Three years ago, the AAAS released an unequivocal statement on the safety of GM foods and why a consensus of its members oppose mandatory labelling:

There are several current efforts to require labeling of foods containing products derived from genetically modified crop plants, commonly known as GM crops or GMOs. These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow “unnatural” and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm. Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested.

The AAAS also has addressed claims by anti-GMO advocacy groups, frequently echoed in the media and on activist websites, that GM foods are less tested or nutritionally deficient when compared to organic or other conventional foods.

… contrary to popular misconceptions, GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever added to our food supply. There are occasional claims that feeding GM foods to animals causes aberrations ranging from digestive disorders, to sterility, tumors and premature death. Although such claims are often sensationalized and receive a great deal of media attention, none have stood up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Indeed, a recent review of a dozen well-designed long-term animal feeding studies comparing GM and non-GM potatoes, soy, rice, corn and triticale found that the GM and their non-GM counterparts are nutritionally equivalent.

Looking further at the demographics of respondents, the survey finds that those with a college degree are split on GMO safety: 49% say it’s generally safe while 47% say it’s generally unsafe. Women are more wary than men: only 28% of women think eating GM foods are safe compared to 47% of men. Race also divides the issue with blacks (24% say its safe) and Hispanics (32%) being more cautious than whites (41%).

The demographics of respondents on pesticide are quite similar to the responses on GMOs. More men say foods with pesticides are safe than women do. Those with more education are more likely to say food grown with pesticides are safe.Screen Shot 2015-01-28 at 7.39.53 PM

When it comes to GM labeling, exactly half of respondents said they “always” or “sometimes” check for a non-GMO label when they are shopping. Of course, those who check labels correlate higher with those who think genetically modified foods are unsafe to eat

So why are citizens so out of step with scientists on GMO safety?

“One possible reason for the gap: when it comes to GM crops, two-thirds of the public say scientists do not have a clear understanding about the health effects,” surmised the researchers.

Yet, oddly enough for a society that doesn’t trust scientists on the GMO debate, science itself still holds an esteemed position in the minds of adults. Seventy-nine percent of respondents believe that science has contributed positively to society with 62% saying it has been beneficial for the quality of food. However, the percent of people who believe that science has contributed negatively to food is up 10 points from 2009: 34% of respondents say that science has had a negative affect on food.

The public also highly values government investment in science research: 71% support government-funded basic science research and 61% said government funding is essential for scientific progress.

Pew also asked scientists another question: How good is the general state of science is today? Scientists were more negative this year than they were in 2009. Only 52% say that it is a good time for Screen Shot 2015-01-28 at 7.36.53 PMscience today while 74% said it was good in 2009.

And due to the public perception of GMOs at least, scientists’ more sober assessment might make sense.

Who’s to blame? Scientists (75%) say lack of STEM education in grades K-12 is the biggest culprit. The release of the next report is expected in mid-February.

How can scientists and the government bridge the disturbing literacy gap between the mainstream scientific community and a skeptical public? asks Alan Leshner, CEO of the AAAS, in an editorial accompanying the survey release?

Speaking up for the importance of science to society is our only hope, and scientists must not shy away from engaging with the public, even on the most polarizing science-based topics. Scientists need to speak clearly with journalists who provide a great vehicle for translating the nature and implications of their work. Scientists should also meet with members of the public and discuss what makes each side uncomfortable. In these situations, scientists must respond forthrightly to public concerns. In other words, there needs to be a conversation, not a lecture. The public’s perceptions of scientists’ expertise and trustworthiness are very important but they are not enough. Acceptance of scientific facts is not based solely on comprehension levels. It can be compromised anytime information confronts people’s personal, religious, or political views, and whenever scientific facts provoke fear or make people feel that they have no control over a situation. The only recourse is to have genuine, respectful dialogues with people.

  • gritnix

    The media does bear some of this, but I think the reason can be more pointed than just “oversimplification” or “hype”. It’s that the media almost without exception will find one person stating the evidence-based side of an issue and one person stating the total opposite (as in Vani Hari and GMOs). This one-to-one type of interview leaves the public to believe that half of the scientific community believe the way the non-evidence based person believes. See John Oliver’s climate change report where he starts out with Bill Nye and a denier, but then brings 96 other scientists on the side of Nye into the room at the same time. This is what’s needed. Not 1-on-1 interviews. We need proportional reporting to show the public on which side of an issue the evidence sits. The media will also let people like Vandana Shiva or Vani Hari simply state whatever they think, even if it’s untrue, and there’s no fact checking of any kind. If Vani Hari brings up the Seralini study on GMOs which was retracted by the journal as embarrassment, the reporter doesn’t say, “But that was retracted as terrible science.” The public just believes it’s fine because hey, one of the “experts” said so.

    • James DiGriz

      Bill Nye and 96 other “experts,” Shiva, Hari, et al. I don’t trust any of them and I’m not going to take their word on anything because they all have their own agenda. Consensus be damned (because if you or your industry has a lot of money, you can make your own consensus). The media, our own government, experts and scientists have sold themselves down the river on any number of issues. Case in point: HFCS is bad for you says one study, HFCS isn’t bad for you (research sponsored by the corn industry).

      Here’s the thing: if I drink a Coke made with HFCS, I feel like crap, but my brain is screaming for more. If I drink a lot of coke, I’ll get used to feeling like crap, but I’ll also get fat. Cut out the coke, and I lose weight. I think I just answered my question. Now some other guy may have a different response, but for me I avoid HFCS (and most processed food) mainly because I feel better after I eat it. And I’m also at a good weight …well, almost.

      • JoeFarmer

        The power of suggestion is strong.

        Look at how people rate wine when they know the price versus how they rate it when they can’t see the label.

      • Tonillero

        Wow, Monsanto has bribed 88 percent of the scientific community into extolling the virtues of GMOs; yet Shell Oil, which pulled over 30x the revenue in 2013, can shill only 13 percent into denying human-induced climate change. What’s your secret, Monsanto?

        • a20havoc

          Um, no…88% of the people who used proper scientific methodology to demonstrate that transgenic crops are safe are probably the same 87% who claim that climate change is caused by humans. That’s what I would expect. I

          • dps1879

            How can there have been a safety study…whom did they feed gmo’s to with no change? I cant find it anywhere…scientists have no idea how a seed turns into a plant….none. we do not know what the effects r….but we do know this…testing does show higher nutrition from cow manure than from man made manure…so wen they can get feces right i may try their seeds but for now….no science just big corps.

          • Kassie blank

            Of course we know how a seed turns into a plant. It’s the same process that makes eggs turn into chickens. And cow manure has more nutrients because cows can’t get all the nutrients out of their food. Furthermore, you don’t necessarily need to feed gmos to people to see if it is safe, you can analyze them for the chemicals that make up food, as well as those that are toxic.

          • Eric Anderson
      • Divided_Eye

        Lol, EVERYONE has their own agenda. I guess you might as well ignore everything you’ve ever read and everything you’ve ever been told. Everything you know came from someone with an agenda.

        • James DiGriz

          True. But my agenda isn’t funded by a corporation making something that contributes to obesity.

          • Divided_Eye

            Neither are GMOs, necessarily. Just like everything else, eating in moderation is key. For example, overeating with healthy foods can still lead to obesity. Also, your assertion that “cut out the coke, and I lose weight” is completely false. That’s not how it works–your body doesn’t automatically steer itself back to “healthy mode” when you stop drinking soda (or eating fast food, or whatever). To say that not drinking soda makes you lose weight only makes you look incredibly ignorant. You also seem to have no real grasp of how the media works… you think the media has sold out to (someone, you never do say who), and that thus they–the infamous “they”–are evil.

            The problem here is really the fact that you’re stubbornly refusing to do any actual research; it’s easier to say that scientists are owned by companies who only put out information they want you to hear so you’ll buy their products than it is to actually read studies/educate yourself on a subject. You also fail to realize that what you’re doing–spreading ignorance and misinformation (what your unfounded claims amount to)–is dangerous.

          • James DiGriz

            Actually, cutting the coke and processed foods isn’t false. I weighed 290 in 2013, I’m a semi-healthy 200 pounds now (I could lose another 20). You mistook my brevity for ignorance. And yes, it is far more complicated than this. There are two decent documentaries on fast food – Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead and Hungry for a Change. Both do a decent job and yes, each has their own agenda. We didn’t evolve by eating HFCS, or high amounts of sodium …or are you the type of person who doesn’t believe in evolution? You tell me – eat pizza and other food that you don’t prepare yourself. Drink the soda with HFCS. Do this for a year and tell me what your health is like. We may be different – you may be healthier in a year.

            Excellent use of the English language, by the way. Your clever response still doesn’t hold water, no matter how artfully you write it (and you managed to insult me as well – bravo!). You made a lot of assumptions yourself. I’ve read the studies (in fact I grew up in corn country and have firsthand knowledge of how Monsanto and ADM operate) and no, I’m not convinced. A good number of those studies (not all) were produced/funded by those selling the food! Conflict of interest anyone? The food libel laws alone make you wonder. Thirteen states now make it easier for food producers to sue for libel. Those laws were written by legislators who had campaigns financed by the likes of the food industry. I know I certainly didn’t ask them to that.

            Here is a case in point of what is going on: Princeton University publishes a study of HFCS, needless to say it isn’t flattering (amazingly the rats fed HFCS got fatter – who knew?!). Another researcher, employed by Monell Chemical Senses Center (whose homepage has a very cute picture of a smiling baby eating from a spoon) criticizes the work and cleverly points out the flaws. Who sponsors ‘The Monell Center’ as they prefer to be known? Companies like PepsiCo. and The Sugar Association (headquartered, of course, in Washington DC).

            All this was found in five minutes and is one study about HFCS.

            So much for unfounded claims.

          • Divided_Eye

            You misunderstood my comment. You claimed that simply cutting coke out of your diet automatically makes your body switch to “lose weight” mode. That isn’t true. While cutting sugary drinks out of your diet no doubt helps, it does not trigger such a response in your body by default (likewise, you can drink coke without getting fat from it…). “If I drink a lot of coke, I’ll get used to feeling like crap, but I’ll also get fat. Cut out the coke, and I lose weight.” That’s not how it works. You do not automatically lose weight. If you can’t wrap your head around that, it’s not my problem.

            Congrats on losing weight. I’m assuming you did a little more than cut coke out of your diet (you seem to have been trying to lose weight, as opposed to miraculously losing weight by simply cutting out soda, as you originally claimed).

            It’s funny that you assume I’m unaware of conflicts of interest in research, lol. I don’t really care if you think I’m stupid, though.

            edit: Also, “We didn’t evolve by eating HFCS, or high amounts of sodium …or are you the type of person who doesn’t believe in evolution?” is a stupid argument. We also do not have vaccines for diseases like smallpox in our systems by default–should we give those up too? Your logic is faulty as fuck my friend.

      • Keef Hitchens

        why couldn’t big tobacco buy a consensus or big oil? both substantially bigger than Monsanto or your demon du jour.

  • Mike

    Small typo: “88 percent of AAAS scientists think eating GM food is safe, while 37 percent of the public believes that it’s not—a 51-percentage point gap” should be “88 percent of AAAS scientists think eating GM food is safe, while 37 percent of the public believe eating GM food is safe—a 51-percentage point gap”

  • agliterate

    I don’t understand the PEW Research Centeer question about people who “seek out GMO labels” (25% always look, etc.) – since there are no functioning mandatory GMO labels in the U.S., I wonder what the PEW was referring to; European labels? Or did they get the question backward, and mean to refer to people who checked to see if food did NOT contain gmos?

    • James DiGriz

      There aren’t any “official” labels you mean? As required by the USDA, for example? I have to admit to looking for the “non-GMO” label and I would rather buy non-GMO if it comes down to it. Of course, can you trust any label for that matter? (Government required or not.)

      Frankly I don’t trust an industry that is this litigous (the question comes to mind why can’t people speak their minds on this?). But as with the climate change argument, we really have no idea at this stage. Feed a controlled population GMO foods for 20 years and tell me what the effects are …even then you may not have a true picture.

      • hyperzombie

        Feed a controlled population GMO foods for 20 years and tell me what the effects are …even then you may not have a true picture

        Shall we do it with or without the concentration camps, will you give them yellow GMO stars to wear?
        All kidding aside, there are only a few gmos, huge health problems would occur if you fed people only corn, soy, and canola. with a papaya garnish. who could live for 20 years eating nothing but vegetarian (soy) deepfried (canola) burritos (corn) with papaya salsa. Blech

      • ForGMOEducation

        Trust me, people always speak their minds about GMOs.

      • drloko

        There are GMO studies spanning 30 years involving over 100 billion animals. They find no evidence of harmful effects in GMOs. What additional evidence are you looking for?

    • a20havoc

      Well, I don’t seek them out. But when I see them, I point it out to my wife and we both laugh at how stupid they are. Especially on products made from cereal grains, or vegetables, and other ingredients that could not possibly be “contaminated” with transgenics of any kind. But as far as I’m concerned, bring on the labels. I couldn’t care less. I eat what I want, when I want. No activist can change that.

  • mikebmikeb

    As a small farmer with a little experience, this article reminds me that the world is insane:

    What the hell does “food grown with pesticides” mean?

    Every pesticide is different. Even “organic” ones.

    Every crop is different in its requirements for pest protection.

    Every farmer’s needs and procedures are different.

    Anyone want the hair I just ripped out of my head to make a wig with?

    • hyperzombie

      Anyone want the hair I just ripped out of my head to make a wig with?

      Nope got my own, and you speak the truth brother. Every plant has built in pesticides,,, did these people not go to school?

    • Antumbra

      Ah, but do your pesticides contain chemicals?

      That’s the important question that scientists and Monsanto refuse to answer.

      (Note: this is sarcasm – I reread it and it sounded too authentic, so I want to make sure you know)

    • Flandre

      Did you grow that hair with pesticides?

  • grab

    Jon Entine is a Monsanto Lapdog that can skew any lies to meet his propaganda. Lets feed his kids the GMO’s and we will see if he is such a strong advocate when they develop Autism

  • stats tho

    Given the 3.1 point margin of error for the poll, the title of this article is misleading. A better one would state that consensus for GMO safety is “as strong” or “not significantly different than” consensus for anthropogenic climate change.

    • Carl G Craver

      Both have the same margin for error. They negate.

  • johnwerneken

    Democracy is NOT about people getting government to do stuff, regardless of what. It is about using the people’s collective diversity and stability as one of the CHECKS on the government over-extending its power in any direction, i.e. throwing the bastards out.

    It ought not therefore to matter if people in general were 100% wrong or 100% right on anything besides their judgment of the over-all state of affairs as affects they themselves (which is the only thing most of us can be trusted to grasp accurately at all).

    Leave arguments about harm to lawsuits for damages. Let those who think they can mobilize capital, workers, ideas, and organization to produce goods and services that will provide an attractive investment attempt to do so, whether they frack, nuke, gene splice, rocket, Uber, burn coal, or whatever. Those opposed need not buy. Those damaged can sue. Those providing allegedly more attractive alternatives can try their luck too.

    • Riley Fritz

      Good point. Also, the pro GMO scientists & the FDA have been bought off by Monsanto; so the bastards are lying for the sake of profit & greed. A friend of family is a nutritionist PhD who has studied GMO’s for years and the real word is that GMO’s are bad for health and the environment but are now so widespread that avoiding them takes a lot of effort. It’s no small indication that nearly all of Europe along with Japan and other nations have banned GMO’s as well as growth hormones injected in livestock, that our corrupt government sees fit to allow so as to use us as lab rats. We need to kick all of our “leaders” out.

      • JoeFarmer


        “Also, the pro GMO scientists & the FDA have been bought off by Monsanto…”

        How much did that cost, genius? LMAO!

        • Riley Fritz

          You need to do more research, genius

  • chake

    The public belief in climate change is not necessarily an informed belief. Climate change has been sold better and they have even used the old evangelists doomsday fear factor. But even before they sold it they used Islamic tactics with the other scientists – either you go along with our sacred doomsday climate beliefs or we will cut off your funding.
    Amazing that the old ways of fear and salesmanship still work on a gullible public and timid scientists.

    • Sterling Ericsson

      No, you don’t get to use that argument. That’s the same argument anti-GMO people use to claim about the consensus on GMOs.

      The science behind the safety of GMOs is sound, just as the science behind anthropogenic climate change is sound and only getting more concrete for both as more experiments and studies are done.

      • chake

        Yes GMOs are actual science and probably cause no harm, although some of the stuff like tomatoes taste like crap.The idea we can somehow control future climate fluctuations is pure speculation. There is no science which can predict the future. With the possible exception of when you are dealing in a much smaller more controlled arena, but not on anything not man made and as global as climate trends. Just doesn’t fly. There is absolutely no proof or even probability anything we can do will be effective. What the warmies want us to do is spend billions even trillions to conduct an experiment form them to see if their hypothesis is correct. This is not unlike the alchemists of the dark ages trying to turn iron into gold.

  • gskibum

    I always look for foods with the GMO-Free label – so I can go an find a product that does indeed contain GMO ingredients.

  • pakilolo

    I don’t know if GMO foods are safe. Maybe GMO food is safe. But…I don’t want to eat it. I don’t trust Monsanto. I think organically grown food that is not doused with gobs of roundup is safer and more nutritious.

    So why can’t we have GMO foods labeled if it’s so safe. Huh? Why does Monsanto fight labeling their (so called) safe GMO foods. Because of GMO Coke and GMO Pepsi and EMO cereal and GMO milk and GMO baby foods and pet foods.
    I don’t want to eat GMO. i want it labeled. I think it’s a dangerous way to grow our crops. It spreads more pesticides (from Monsanto) on our soils. It’s just another Corporate profit making scam without taking the health of the soil or citizen into account. We are the guinea pigs.

    • mikebmikeb

      “But…I don’t want to eat it. I don’t trust Monsanto. I think
      organically grown food that is not doused with gobs of roundup is safer
      and more nutritious.”

      The food you prefer is ALREADY labeled as ‘Organic.’ Are you that dense?

    • Good4U

      My family DOES want to eat GMOs. We don’t want more labels on food. I refuse to buy or eat food that is labeled to contain no GMOs. That’s enough labeling for anyone to make a buying decision. Can’t you read?

    • a20havoc

      You do release that if the anti-transgenic posse gets its way, and glyphosate and RR crops are abolished (not going to happen), the alternatives would be a throwback to a much, much unhealthier weed-control scenario? Or, that organic growers routinely spray Bt on crops to manage insects? Did you also know that in “GM Watch”‘s posted rebuttals to the inconvenient Bt truth, authors refer to sprayable Bt as an “insecticidal protein” so readers don’t make the connection between it and transgenic corn expressing Bt?

    • RJB

      Your “pakilolo” (sic) is genetically modified. As is almost all of your “organic” food. You are a much more a “guinea pig” of the “organic” industry, than those that consume the GMOs you don’t want to eat.

  • GPM

    Label it and let the consumer decide.

    • JustAnotherSkeptic

      What’s wrong with voluntary labeling that already exists?

    • Good4U

      My family does NOT WANT MORE LABELING of the food items that we purchase. Most of all, WE want NO labeling that puts transgenic crops (GMOs) at a marketing disadvantage. You don’t speak for all, or even a majority, of the people. There’s enough labeling of food already.

      • Don

        As usual, follow the money. Obviously you have a dog in the fight. I pray your dreat grandchildren will look back favorably on your point of view. Seriously.

      • Tripper

        WOW now that is a SHILL response if I ever heard one! Has anyone here EVER heard of a family complaining that their food had too many informative labels? Seriously you are a horrible SHILL!

  • brock2118

    GMO is scientific.
    Climate Change is Cloud cuckoo land make believe.
    But if you oppose “Climate Change” you will lose your tenure application and be turfed out to drive taxicabs.
    You have to obey The Man or you don’t have a future in the science technocracy.

    • JustAnotherSkeptic

      Both the safety of current commercial GMOs and the human impact on the changing climate are backed by solid science.

      • brock2118

        Whatever. You haven’t been following Watts Up With That very well. I am just happy the Hockey Stick is getting its day in court soon in Mann vs. Steyn. Steyn has countersued so hide-the-decline Mann won’t be able to weasel out of it.

        • JustAnotherSkeptic

          The scientific understanding of climate change is not based on a single graph, nor is a blog site a reliable source for accurate information. Scientists publish in peer-reviewed journals. Pseudoscientists publish on blogs.

          • brock2118

            Scientists publish in highly-controlled peer-reviewed journals in which they smother opposing voices. Every heard of climategate? if you ever bothered to read Climate Journals you would discover that most don’t have anything to do with climate change. Here’s the lead article in this week’s Journal Of Climate:


          • Sterling Ericsson

            Anyone who actually read all the emails in “climategate” found that climate change deniers purposefully took them out of context from what was a simple disagreement in said emails into some sort of conspiracy.

          • a20havoc

            Pseudoscientists also make bank traveling around the world, lecturing as self-proclaimed “experts” on agriculture and human health, and delivering screeds vilifying biotechnology while imploring their audiences to rely on “ancient wisdom”, “subtle energies” and “paramagnetism.” Complete frauds.

        • Sterling Ericsson

          Following Watts Up With That is similar to reading Mercola or Natural News.

          • brock2118

            i THINK NOT. Journal of Climate is the premier peer-reviewed journal of the American Meterological Society. You can read the “context” of the climategate emails any way you like. But when Mann and his cohorts are furious that someone published something that didn’t agree with them and relate they are gonna get even…that’s pretty astounding. You didn’t even read the article did you?

          • axl
  • Nelson

    This article manipulates statistics and language. These tactics make me question the safety of GMOs even more. If GMOs are so safe why try to deceive readers?

  • smalljude

    No no… you’re thinking of vaccines. /s

  • brock2118

    I eat GMOs every day.
    So do you if you go to the supermarket.

  • Good4U

    Grab is a big-organic lapdog that frequently addresses every subject with the anti-capitalistic vapor that permeates the degraded hippocampuses of the potheads in his commune. Let him feed his kids the half-rotten, insect and disease infested “food” that they grow in their gardens fertilized with human and animal manure. If they get sick, they’ll most certainly be cured with holistic medicines and free-range granola. They aren’t vaccinated, so they’ll just rely upon shaman chants to pull them through their next disease cycle. [So there, take that!!!!]

  • a20havoc

    Give it a rest bro. There is no scientifically valid evidence that autism is directly attributable to transgenic food, contaminants, or otherwise. None.

  • Don

    Just proves Monsanto has more money than whoever wants to promote the human caused global warming lie. I understand the science behind GMOs and it scares the hell outta me. Scientists as a group do not have a great reputation for either accuracy or common sense.

  • It is a problematic overstatement to say, “GMO’s are safe.” Maybe one could truthfully say, “GMO’s can and are being produced that are safe.” But GMO’s can also be produced that are not safe–clearly.

  • WARYR1

    The one question these polls didn’t ask is “does the public feel the scientists views are influenced by major companies (like Monsanto) donations?”

  • catalinadee

    It says right at the beginning “in cooperation with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)”. its obvious this article was going to take this platform for GMOs. The advancement of science will take any coarse to proceed, disregarding morals, & even their own thorough methodology of objective experimentation & scrutiny. This article was basically a waste of time to read because it never actually says anything scientific about GMOs. it just states irrelevant stats about peoples opinions on things. It states percentage based scientific views as “facts” which goes against the scientific method inwhich a well tested hypothesis is repeated my multiple different sources with similar results, to then be called a theory. These scientists must be pretty high up on themselves to beleive their knowlegde of a product thats only been around for about 80 years can be considered “scientific fact”. I found the pompus tone of this article insulting of anyone without a wide background knowledge of science, or of anyone with an open mind or opposing opinion. This article read to me ‘you silly humans and your concerns… let us intelligent intelectuals decide whats safe for your life.’

  • communitygrowing

    I’m always saddened to see such one-sided reporting.
    Here’s a Jan, 2015 Press Release stating that there is “No scientific consensus on GMO safety.” Also an ongoing Open Letter (1999-2013) from the World’s Scientists demanding a moratorium on GMOs.

  • Nance Broderzen

    Just like it takes most MDs a while to figure out that the pharmaceutical industrial complex bought their college medical departments, took over the staffs and indoctrinated them into believing that pharmaceuticals are the cat’s meow (and some never figure it out), it will take scientists a while to figure out that bio-tech corporations have hijacked their education and indoctrinated them into believing that GMOs are the ultimate. Plus too many of their careers depend on loving bio-tech, especially in the U.S. (and of course, AAAS begins with the word “American”)! AAAS has 126,995 members of the 7M full time science researchers in the world, yet the press is calling out “all scientists” and calling this a global warming flip-flop! Ha!

  • Karl Baba

    The idea that GMO’s are inherently safety is anti-scientific and preposterous based on the following indisputable fact:
    GMO technology is a tool, not a food in itself. This tool can theoretically be used to create deadly poisonous foods, although obviously that is not the intent. There is nothing inherently safe about it, it just depends on the genes and traits that are introduced into the food. Thus, GMO safety depends entirely on the “Devil in the details” regarding any particular food and its effect on the environment and the body. What could be the unintended consequences.
    Calling all GMOs safe would be the same as calling all new chemicals inherently safe, can’t be done. Even Hybrid technology can be dangerous as evidence by the toxic Lenape potato, how many more dangerous combinations are possible when the restriction of nature’s laws are bypassed and the combinations become infinite?