Line 4Line 4 Copyic/close/grey600play_circle_outline - material


Can this site include more studies from the growing number of geneticists against GMO foods? This would offer all of us a better perspective. Here is a good primer by David Susuki on tree plant foods and GMOs:

Submitted by: Chad Clifford


Expert response from Kevin Folta

Professor and Chairman, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida

Friday, 20/12/2013 20:30



The central goal of this website is to provide evidence-based information.  The scientific consensus is backed by massive literature of hard peer-reviewed literature that is the foundation of these products and the problems they seek to solve.  We need to rely on vetted evidence to base our decisions in science, especially as it pertains to policy.  And a “better perspective” is not so good if it is just opinion.  We need to deal in hypothesis-derived evidence.  We don’t invite a Creationist to the evolution conference just because someone feels the earth is 6,000 years old.


Suzuki and others like him have opinions.  Sure, he had a great career in science and published solid papers and books (I used his genetics textbook in college).  However, he is not actively publishing in research science and has taken on a mantle of activism instead.  For every David Suzuki you produce, there are thousands of scientists of equal caliber that side with the scientific consensus.  He’s only a darling of activists because he says something they agree with.


Growing number of geneticists against GMO foods?  I certainly don’t know of any personally, in fact, most of the geneticists I know are growing increasingly tired of activists stalling good technology.


I also am not aware of any published legitimate concerns from geneticists about GM technology, but am willing to look at published legitimate concerns from geneticists if you are aware of any.  (Please don’t just cut/paste from crazy lists on the internet.)


And to your posted site - if the information was real it would be in journals and not on Mercola’s website. The statement, “The loudest proponents of GE are the ones who stand to profit the most, and they don’t seem terribly concerned about the human or environmental costs” should be a red flag.  The loudest proponents (probably me included) see no profits, and attempt to teach the merits (and limitations) of good technology to help humans and the environment.  It is a good time to maybe dial down the scientists-turned-activists and get in tune with independent scientists that represent your scientific consensus.