Line 4Line 4 Copyic/close/grey600play_circle_outline - material


Given there are similar levels of scientific consensus regarding climate change and GMO safety, why is it that so many people who are firmly committed to mitigating the effects of climate change based on scientific consensus are equally firmly of the belief that GMOs are unsafe despite the scientific consensus to the contrary?

Submitted by: RealityCheck


Expert response from Andy Hedgecock

Former Director, Scientific Affairs, DuPont Pioneer

Tuesday, 11/02/2014 10:12

As you point out, the science overwhelmingly supports the safety of GM food. However, we also know that decisions about food are very personal and influenced by many factors. We launched this site to give people the chance to ask the questions about biotechnology that are most important to them.


Author, journalist and environmental activist Mark Lynas addressed this question during his presentation at the Risk Science Center’s Bernstein Symposium in October 2013. Lynas was one of the early leaders of the anti-biotech movement and was involved in several biotech crop destructions.  During his presentation titled, “Why is it hard to pivot based on science?” he talked about how a project to document and catalog the real-life impacts of climate change led him to take a similar fact-finding approach to the science behind biotechnology. His research eventually led to a high-profile apology for his anti-biotech stance and actions. Read more on Lynas’ comments here or watch his presentation here


Mark Lynas is just one person, but his story is an example of how complex and personal this issue is. It also reinforces that an unbiased review of the science supports the safety of GM crops and technology.