Besty's picture
If as you say GMO is so safe then why all the billions being spent to fight Labeling . Why not just spend a few $ and label all As you say safe GMO food and let us decide weather or not we want to buy it ,.Or is it that you know it WILL hurt your sales as so many people DO know that it is KILLING US as tested by scientists over 2 year studies on rats in England and France ,

A:Expert Answer

We oppose mandatory labeling of GM food because we believe such a label would convey to consumers that food made from farmers’ crops grown with our seeds is less safe or nutritious than or different from conventional or organic food.  A 2013 study conducted by an MIT professor indicated that this indeed would be the case [see "Policy and Inference: The Case of Product Labeling"].

 

We support consumers' right to know about the food that they are choosing, but in the absence of any food-safety concern, and as believers in GM technology who have seen its benefits accrue to farmers and communities around the world (check out "GMOs and the Future of Agriculture"), we believe claims regarding the presence or absence of GM ingredients are best left to voluntary, market-based labels that traditionally are used by competitors to promote one type of product over another.

 

With regard to safety, we are not asking for you to take our word for it, but we ask you to consider the hundreds of independent studies demonstrating  that GM food does not raise any new concerns about the food we eat (check out independent studies at Biofortified). In addition, scientific and regulatory authorities around the world have determined that GMOfoods on the market are as safe and nutritious as their non-GM counterparts [see FDA information here]. 

 

A few studies have asserted that such a risk exists, but each of these studies has been found not to be credible by the global scientific community. With regard to the rat studies you are referring to, stay tuned. We have experts addressing that question. Numerous independent scientists wrote letters of rebuttal and protest to the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology regarding those studies. These may be accessed at here.

Comments

gmosrock's picture

You have no convincing evidence that food made from farmers’ crops grown with your seeds is as safe or nutritious as conventional or organic food. This is why such an overwhelming percentage of the population is pressing for mandatory GMO labeling. Until you are accepting of the consumer request for labeling, when you say "We support a consumer’s right to know about the food that they are choosing" it is not true. There is no absence of any food safety concern. In fact, many scientists, and the general population at large, is very concerned. Scientific and regulatory authorities around the world have not been doing their job, as outlined in great extent here: http://responsibletechnology.org/fraud. For example, many industry leaders (including you) have worked in both the government environment and the industry environment, destroying any semblance of objectivity within the arena of safety. Yes, we have noticed that "each of the studies that have asserted that a risk exists" has been found not to be credible by the global scientific community. This is quite plain. We just question whether or not the global scientific community of which you speak has our interests at heart, and whether it is actually practicing sound and thorough science. We find that it is not.

Chris Causey's picture

This site is funded by the biotech industry. Its nothing more than propaganda to assure the people that you are not eating poison. The problem is they dont know. They can claim they have studies that show its safe yet very few actually have been done. Add to that the pesticides in the food and even a child can see its not safe.
Thing is they will use the argument that they dont want to confuse or alarm the public but do you buy that? Are Europeans smarter than us? Well thats what these answers are saying because GMO's are labeled in Europe with no problem whatsoever. no public confusion or panic that the food is unsafe. These labels as well as a lot of the food is labeled here in the US.... Yet we Americans cant handle it Theyve banned GMO's in many European countries and thats really what they are worried about. So companies like Kraft, Monsanto, and others have European recipes for the food they distribute there yet....too difficult to do here right.
Their weakest argument is that GMO's help feed the world. Fact: organic and other conventional have a higher yield year per year acre per acre. See Gmo crops and pesticides take from the land whereas conventional crops give back to the soil and can be replanted at a much better rate. They wont tell you this because it doesnt jive well with their agenda.

FIGHT FOR LABELING AND DO NOT BACK DOWN!!! If their product is so safe we wouldnt need the Farmers Assurance Provision (monsanto protection act) that eliminates any responsibility to biotech companies should their gmo experiments hurt people. THE GOV PROTECTED THESE COMPANIES!!!!

MARCH AGAINST MONSANTO on World Food Day Oct 12 in your city.

achood4mu's picture

@gmosrock: I'm not sure what your comment has to do with the question. Looks like you still have other questions about the safety of GM products. If so, go look at the answers that are already posted at the following links:
http://gmoanswers.com/ask/how-can-you-be-sure-gmo-foods-wont-affect-huma... and
http://gmoanswers.com/ask/i-know-there-havent-been-definitive-studies-co...

Feel free to ask more questions; you should also ask critical questions of all of your sources of information.

gmosrock's picture

@achood4mu - You're right - my comment doesn't have anything to do with the question. I was commenting on the answer to the question. As for the question...until there is labeling, there is The Non-GMO Shopping Guide: http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/

about's picture

Dear Cathleen,

Given your scientific background, I believe you would have an open mind to hearing what other experts in your field have to say about the safety of genetically modified foods. Please consider the following:

Genetically modified (GM) crops are promoted on the basis of a range of far-reaching claims from the
GM crop industry and its supporters. They say that GM crops:
● Are an extension of natural breeding and do not pose different risks from naturally bred crops
● Are safe to eat and can be more nutritious than naturally bred crops
● Are strictly regulated for safety
● Increase crop yields
● Reduce pesticide use
● Benefit farmers and make their lives easier
● Bring economic benefits
● Benefit the environment
● Can help solve problems caused by climate change
● Reduce energy use
● Will help feed the world.
However, a large and growing body of scientific and other authoritative evidence shows that these
claims are not true. On the contrary, evidence presented in this report indicates that GM crops:
● Are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods,
and pose different risks from non-GM crops
● Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts
● Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety
● Do not increase yield potential
● Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it
● Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant “superweeds”, compromised
soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops
● Have mixed economic effects
● Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity
● Do not offer effective solutions to climate change
● Are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops
● Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of
access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on.
Based on the evidence presented in this report, there is no need to take risks with GM crops when
effective, readily available, and sustainable solutions to the problems that GM technology is claimed to
address already exist. Conventional plant breeding, in some cases helped by safe modern technologies
like gene mapping and marker assisted selection, continues to outperform GM in producing high-yield,
drought-tolerant, and pest- and disease-resistant crops that can meet our present and future food
needs.

About the authors
Michael Antoniou, PhD is reader in molecular genetics and head, Gene Expression and Therapy Group,
King’s College London School of Medicine, London, UK. He has 28 years’ experience in the use of
genetic engineering technology investigating gene organisation and control, with over 40 peer reviewed
publications of original work, and holds inventor status on a number of gene expression biotechnology
patents. Dr Antoniou has a large network of collaborators in industry and academia who are making use
of his discoveries in gene control mechanisms for the production of research, diagnostic and therapeutic
products and safe and efficacious human somatic gene therapy for inherited and acquired genetic disorders.
Claire Robinson, MPhil, is research director at Earth Open Source. She has a background in
investigative reporting and the communication of topics relating to public health, science and policy, and
the environment. She is an editor at GMWatch (www.gmwatch.org), a public information service on issues
relating to genetic modification, and was formerly managing editor at SpinProfiles (now Powerbase.org).
John Fagan, PhD is a leading authority on sustainability in the food system, biosafety, and GMO testing.
He is founder and chief scientific officer of one of the world’s first GMO testing and certification companies,
through which he has pioneered the development of innovative tools to verify and advance food purity,
safety and sustainability. He co-founded Earth Open Source, which uses open source collaboration to
advance sustainable food production. Earlier, he conducted cancer research at the US National Institutes
of Health. He holds a PhD in biochemistry and molecular and cell biology from Cornell University.

GMO Lies's picture

"We oppose mandatory labeling of GMO food because we believe such a label would convey to consumers that food made from farmers’ crops grown with our seeds is less safe or nutritious or different from conventional or organic food."

In other words, you oppose GMO labeling because it might actually convey the truth to US consumers. OK, got it.

achood4mu's picture

@GMOsrock - I don't need that shopping guide, I am well read on both sides of this debate and am confident that GM foods are safe and will benefit us in trying to feed a hungry world. As a mom, food safety is one of my major priorities and i won't hesitate to buy GM feed. In fact, I am cautious to feed my family organic food becuase there is evidence of people dying from that...

Besty's picture

this site is a joke I wish I was a billionaire and i would go global to inform the world about your proper gander . Why do you have laws that prevent INDEPENDENT scientists from using your products in research , Ah now let me think on that ok if they use your GMO food and do a PROPER research program they will find that it will do considerable harm to them . And why are a lot of your past employers now sitting on health boards and committees in the USA GOVERNMENT Ah let me think Oh it would be to further your strangle hold on convincing government that your GMO is safe , utter bull poo, You are trying to reduce the worlds population by slowly killing of the population with your LEATHILL . FOOD .

rickspalding's picture

"as believers in GM technology who have seen its benefits accrue to farmers" This right here is a complete cognitive bias. I stopped reading. I have the "study" on the labeling up, I will get to it at some point. But Cathleen has now publicly admitted to cognitive bias. This is exactly why I won't ask any questions here. It is all pro bio tech. Truly a complete waste of time.

Transparency's picture

Regarding the famous rat study, it has garnered the attention from people around the world, and for good reason -- the photos were shocking. Articles that rebut this reputable and notable study almost mean nothing to the general populace, as so many "experts" who write such rebuttals are perceived to have a hidden agenda, or are paid to write such rebuttals. To be frank, Monsanto is perceived by many as an organization that is well-known for secret, "back room" deals.

Cornlover's picture

rickspalding you probably a waste of your time,you are not going to believe anything the experts tell you.

Besty's picture

what a joke this site is , its TOTALLY ONE SIDED

Cornlover's picture

If the truth is then yes it is

Label GMOs's picture

"We support a consumer’s right to know about the food that they are choosing"

This statement alone is false. Polls show that "82% of Americans think GMO foods should be labeled" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/gmo-poll_n_2807595.html). Although it would be best for GMOs to be banned altogether just as they have been in the European Union and many other countries across the world, AMERICAN CONSUMERS SHOULD AT THE VERY LEAST BE ABLE TO KNOW IF THERE ARE GMOS IN THEIR FOOD. That way, they can make (more) informed decisions about what to feed themselves and their families. And yet here we have the biotech industry spending millions of dollars with the intention of deceiving the public with their incredibly biased "facts" about GMOs. And then people like Cathleen Enright have the NERVE to try to mislead us once again by falsely claiming that the biotech industry supports the consumer's right to know.

The industry DOES NOT support the consumer's right to know. Why? Because if the consumer knows, they lose profit, and they know that. This is why the biotech industry is putting up a strong fight against the labeling of GMOs.

Take a look at Prop 37, a California ballot proposition that would have required the labeling of genetically engineered foods. $46 million dollars of funding against the labeling of GMOs came from the following:

1.) Biotech companies that create—and therefore profit greatly from—genetically modified food
[Monsanto, DuPont, Bayer, Dow, BASF, Syngenta]
*Monsanto was valued at $44 billion back in 2009, and its income for 2012 alone was 2.05 billion (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0118/americas-best-company-10-gmos-dup... & http://investing.money.msn.com/investments/financial-statements?symbol=MON). The ~$8 million that company invested in the campaign against Prop 37 is play money for Monsanto. It is an incredibly small amount compared to what the company could lose if the truth about their GMOs finally becomes common knowledge and the American people are given the right to say no to GMO products.
2.) Manufacturers who use GMOs in their products.
[PEPSICO, Kraft, Coca-Cola, ect]
3.) The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents the world's largest food and consumer product industries (who also use GMOs in their products).
[Del Monte, Dole, General Mills, Kellogg, Hershey Company, ect.]

(Sources on Prop 37 Funding:
- http://votersedge.org/california/ballot-measures/2012/november/prop-37/f...
- http://www.gmaonline.org/forms/MemberDirectory/viewMemberDirectoryAll)

So $46 million dollars total went into funding a campaign against GMO labeling in one U.S. state alone. You could feed millions of hungry people with that kind of money if only it was utilized and directed properly. Wrap your head around that for a second.
Biotech companies like Monsanto claim that the answer to ending world hunger is to make MORE food. This is not true. In fact, the world currently produces more than enough food to generously feed the earth's entire population, and then some. The reason why people are still hungry, however, is due to poverty and lack of resources. In the U.S., for example, there is a plethora of food available to consumers at any given grocery store, but there are still many people who cannot afford to buy these foods due to poverty. And let's not forget that Americans throw out 90 billion pounds of food each year by letting it spoil or not utilizing left overs (source: http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/06/16/3346605/you-can-waste-less-food-at-h....) Surely a lack of food is not the problem. And take third world countries as another example: many of their citizens do not eat because they face not only poverty, but a significant lack of resources needed to produce, distribute, and obtain such food. Think of all the people that could finally eat if these multi-million/billion dollar companies directed that $46 million at the needy rather than Prop 37.
But, these companies chose instead to fund the campaign against Prop 37 to protect their interests, aka their paychecks. Contrary to what they may claim, greed is what drives these industries and their actions, not the well-being of the earth and its people. So think twice before you fall for the claim that they care about your right to know.

Maugly's picture

Cathleen Enright - you cannot possibly be serious. This site is the biggest fricken joke I've seen in my life. Do you honestly think that this lame PR smoke and mirrors front to protect your milti-billion dollar investments into GMOs is going to change or pacify public's opinion about your poison? Your standard cut-n-paste answer from Mosanto is such amazing waste of everyone's time I don't even know where to start. The same lame standard "answer" was used by the marionette politicians in congress who voted against state's rights to label GMOs. It is so full of utter lies and contradictions, the biotech industry led by Monsanto and their counterparts in FDA/USDA has just managed to shoot itself in the foot in the most spectacular way. "...but in the absence of any food safety concern..." - That phrase alone is worth the loudest circus laugh ever. Especially given that there is now a mountain of tangible peer-reviewed evidence of actual specific harm of GMOs and accompanying pesticides like glyphosate on everything that comes in contact with it - people, livestock, near-field plants, pollinators, etc etc etc. If you had a brain, you'd understand that your time over, and NONE of your lame PR efforts like this site or anything else you'll throw your money on will ever be able to stop the eventual demise of GMO industry. So, if you had a brain, you'd stop poisoning the world for the sake of your profits now. Get a clue.

Kiwi's picture

America, Monsanto are lying their head off. We have labelling in New Zealand as they do in Europe. Monsanto and their crooked friends can't stand it because no one will buy it. The products sit there in the shelves barely moving. We avoid it like the plague. We don't want it.

Even if ( and its a big IF) it was safe. We still wouldn't want it for the simple fact that we don't want genes of food owned by a corporation.

End of story.

Ps what a crazy site. I wish I was the agency that sold this idea to Monsanto. British American Tobacco launched one just like it in NZ a few months back. Look familiar? http://www.agreedisagree.co.nz/

Kiwi's picture

A German newspaper has published an article claiming Monsanto, along with help from Washington, are targeting groups that are critics of GMOs...

http://sustainablepulse.com/2013/07/13/the-sinister-monsanto-group-agent...

Cornlover's picture

You say it's about money.Who do you think is behind labeli and stands to make money of labeling,the organic company's.They gave you plenty of Audrey's to look at.

FoodFreedomRadio's picture

I know GMOS are not good for me. I hope Monsanto does keep these pages open. We need real dialogue.

Community Manager's picture

@maugly and @betsy please be respectful of those who answer the community’s questions.

For those of you who consider the information on this site “propaganda” and are not here to have an open discussion – which focuses on the facts – this site may not be for you. We aim to foster a productive and non-confrontational conversation about GMOs and biotechnology.

For those of you who are here to address the facts, please be patient. We know some folks are anxious to shut down this Website and effort. We are going to do our best to answer questions as factually as we can.

With regard to the comments on labeling, there is another thread which includes more information on this topic, here: http://gmoanswers.com/ask/if-you-say-gmo-so-safe-then-why-all-billions-b...

@ResearchGirl’s comments were deleted for profanity.

Know Them By Their Fruits's picture

Cathleen,

In several places I am seeing reference by experts on this site such as yourself claim that GMO food is nutritionally no different than non-GMO.

This is NOT true, a 2012 study found HUGE differences in nutritional content, the GMO food had far FEWER nutrition, and far MORE toxins:

http://www.naturalnews.com/040210_gm_corn_march_against_monsanto_glyphos...

Why did you not make reference to this study, a quick Google easily brings it up. I am seeing a bias toward industry-backed studies being cited on this site, that is not going to win you points with the public regarding Trust!!

I would like to see more reference to INDEPENDENT studies as well, we all have heard about the canned studies.

Blessings

achood4mu's picture

@ Know them by their fruits: Please do a google search about the "study" that you reference. That information is adulterated soil data that was put into a report and then placed on a website. It is not published, just cobbled together. Please take the time to read Dr. Kevin Folta's blog on that data: http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-gullible-moms-across-america-post...

Transparency's picture

To the Community Manager -- I appreciate your emphasis on facts and science. However, the public believes that Monsanto has skewed the facts by hiring scientists/experts who promote Monsanto's agenda, and by suppressing data that shows GMOs are dangerous. People believe so much of the real "facts" and truth have been suppressed and buried. Look at it this way, Monsanto is the creator of saccharine, aspartame, pcbs, ddt, agent orange, bovine growth hormone & glyphosate -- all of which were promoted as "safe" at one time or another. Well, now we know better -- pcbs, ddt, agent orange, saccharine are extremely dangerous. Recent studies have shown that even infinitesimal amounts of glyphosate act as carcinogens, and the chemical is much more toxic that previously reported. And now, the EPA is substantially raising glyphosate limits -- that is just plain scary. So my question is, how do we trust Monsanto's version of "science" and "the facts"?

Paulina Buncic Lewis's picture

I have watched every documentary about Monsanto and how our food production has become a mechanized industry for profit. I have read countless research studies on GMOs by you and independent scientists because my husband has cancer. Since we stopped eating red meat (which is fed with GMO corn) and switched to organic local produce, our health has greatly improved, his cancer is shrinking, my IBS is gone, the list goes on. You can't tell me that changing things on the molecular level is not going to have unforseen effects in the long term. I know that sick people don't make you or big pharma money. And you suing the farmers for uncontrollable cross contamination...really? You NEED the farmers to buy your your precious genetically modified seeds and pesticides. If you put them all out of business by suing them for something out of their control, who's going to plant your crops? Why are you penalizing Americans who don't want your seeds? Because "He who controls the food, controls the people." America is waking up Monsanto. I for one do not want your GMOs.

Paulina Buncic Lewis's picture

I meant to write that HEALTHY people don't make you or big pharma money.

Kenneth L's picture

ONE MIT PROFESSORS' STUDY PROVES...OH I'M IMPRESSED...37 COUNTRIES NOT WANTING ANYTHING TO DO WITH GMO IS WHAT PEOPLE HAVE AND ARE BECOMING AWARE OF...SO IF THEY SEE THAT THEY CAN PURCHASE SOMETHING WITHOUT IT THEY PROBABLY WILL JUST FOR THAT REASON...TRUE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE IGNORANT TO WHAT GMO IS AND ONCE THEY SEE A LABEL SAYING "GMO FREE" THEY MIGHT DO SOME RESEARCH AND DISCOVER WHAT GMO IS AND DECIDE NOT TO TAKE THE CHANCE BUYING THINGS THAT HAVE GMO IN THEM...WHICH RELAY IS A MOOT POINT BECAUSE ONCE LABELING BECOMES THE NORM ( AND IT WILL) NO COMPANY IN ITS' RIGHT MIND WILL OFFER PRODUCTS THAT ARE NOT GMO FREE...FACE IT YOUR DONE...IF NOT THIS YEAR IT WILL BE THE NEXT, DON'T THINK FOR A MINUTE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BLOW OVER OR BE SIMPLY POO-POOED...THIS HAS GOTTEN SO HOT YOUR EVEN GOING TO LOOSE THE POLITICIANS...SEE YA...WOULDN'T WANT TO BE YA!!

corshy1's picture

The reason why we consider some (not all but some) of your answers 'propaganda' is because you are not taking into account and debunking sources that go against you, When you launched this site, I gave you one last chance to redeem yourselves as people who only want to improve our nutrition, unfortunately, I was wrong, unless you professionally take into account why we think Monsanto's version of GMOs are bad by debunking our sources, YOUR ANSWERS ARE INVALID!!! I actually gave you a chance once you launched this website, now I feel your only trying to kill us all for some sick profit (also just a notice, your GMO foods are not working, some farmers are falling back to pesticides, "http://rt.com/usa/gmo-corn-fails-against-pests-863/,)".

corshy1's picture

To be fair for Monsanto (for once) that was forced by the US military, so it technically wasn't all monsanto's fault.

corshy1's picture

Apologising for my comments

urhh, I kind of ment my comments in the wrong way, can you add a 'remove comment" button for us, it would be easier so we can repost our comments properly

Monsatan's picture

Monsatan has developed crops that survive herbicide, insects/insecticide, fungicide/fungus, and even drought!!! Drought for chrissakes....why then, wouldn't they develop a crop that could survive weeds????....Oh...Weeds don't kill people, animals, and bees.

JayeRD's picture

You are forced to label GMOs in Europe because those governments care about their citizens. Here in the USA, the FDA (with a mandate to watch out for the wellbeing of the citizens of this country do not do this, being controlled by a former Monsanto attorney/employee, and being a corrupt agency) has NO credibility with people who search for the truth. As far as I am concerned, the FDA is just another branch of Monsanto, and I trust them no more than I trust anyone at Monsanto. Whatever you say, this site is no more than a PR attempt at damage control, but it's too late. Too many Americans are determined to avoid GMOs...we don't accept those so-called "independent" studies (which are anything BUT) and we will continue to buy organic foods and continue NOT to buy poisonous foods that will harm our families. This site is NOT an attempt to have an "honest" conversation about GMOs. There is not one individual working for Monsanto who will tell the truth about genetically-modified organisms. It is, or should be, a crime that you have actually patented seeds. The American people are determined to take you DOWN through demanding labeling and never buying your product. If you don't think boycotting works, if you don't think petitions work, if you don't think spreading the word about dangerous products via social media works--ask the former producers of Pink Slime!

achood4mu's picture

@know the by their fruits: Please do some research on the "study" that you reference. It is not a study at all. It is just some soil data that someone cobbled together. All of the studies that independent experts have referenced are studies that have been reviewed by an panel of reputable scientists and the published in reputable science journals.

Cornlover's picture

JayeRd just because Europe does it don't make it right.Here in the USA we don't label unless proved unsafe.You can't get around the science.Who do you think wants this the organic company's but nobles them for trying toy a buck.

Rex Peterson's picture

After reading the Great Britain sample of the European Union regulations, I think they were requested by the European farmers as a trade barrier, not the consumers. They feed mostly barley, not corn, peas, not soybeans and raise rape rather than better oil canola. They see American farmers as a threat.
The regulations have real holes. Animals fed GMO grain are not required to be labeled. However, feed that may include GMO grain is required to have certifications which American farmers simply do not prepare and shippers do not require. Simply testing a sample of imported feed is the door to fining the importer, suspending trade and making news.

ProGMOfarmer's picture

@ average man in the country

"After reading the Great Britain sample of the European Union regulations, I think they were requested... as a trade barrier."

BINGO!!!

As those who mount the monumental undertaking of attempting to answer the GMO detractors are rapidly learning, this (labeling) issue is long passed a mere non-confrontational discussion. It has become a true political movement involving the most important product securing mankind's survival, FOOD!

It is becoming excruciatingly clear that many of these anit-innovation warriors are unable to do math, nor do they understand geography. The idea that small scale organic gardening ever could feed the world, or even Europe's 739 M people is totally ludicrous. These people are regressive zealots. Sadly, we can only pity them... their gurus have abandoned them

http://www.frontpagemag.com/arnold-ahlert/radical-environmentalism-and-s...

drreality's picture

If you truly believe in the benefits of GMO crops, why would you not use food package labeling as a promotional tool? Opposition to food labeling gives the appearance that GMO should be hidden from public knowledge to promote an agenda. So, why not be proud of the fact that a food product uses GMO?

GMO Free America's picture

A response to Cathleen Enright:
Dr. Enright, you say that “[You and the industry] oppose mandatory labeling of GMO food because [you] believe such a label would convey to consumers that food made from farmers’ crops grown with our seeds is less safe or nutritious or different from conventional or organic food.” You’re correct, such labeling WOULD convey to consumers that food made from farmers’ crops brown with YOUR SEED is less safe or nutritious or different from conventional [hybrid] or organic food because it is. It’s interesting that you say “your seeds” I believe the “recent study conducted by an MIT professor indicated that this indeed would be the case (See Policy and Inference: The Case of Product Labeling).” It should because it would. That is our whole point that we make, support, purport and work for. I love the equal parts of truth and sarcasm in drrealitiy’s comment: “Opposition to food labeling gives the appearance that GMO should be hidden from public knowledge to promote an agenda. So, why not be proud of the fact that a food product uses GMO?” The agenda is affected when labeling is enacted. The industry’s influence is affected when labeling is enacted. One cannot patent, sell or sue for hybrid agricultural developments for the greater good of feeding the hungry, increasing yields and drought resistance. But the industry can and is making growing billions with GMO product development and such altruistic marketing and branding.
If you and the industry truly supported “a consumer’s right to know about the food that they are choosing,” then support labeling. But then you say “but in the absence of any food safety concern[s]” I give you the following highlights and listings of many safety concerns and studies that speak contrary to the safety of GMO foods. As Monsanto is one of the leaders in development and marketing funding, in all it’s many forms and as Glyphosate the active ingredient in the “Roundup Ready” brand, the first few notes or sections speak to the issue of Glyphosate by way of introduction to the overall topic of GMO food safety or lack thereof:
The following information, research and links are quoted from: "Genetically Modified Organisms and the deterioration of health in the United States N.L. Swanson, 4/24/2013"
(http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/glyphosate/NancySwanson.pdf) (Emphasis mine)

*The USDA estimates that in 2012, 93% of all soy, 88% of the corn and 94% of the cotton grown in the U.S. was genetically engineered. The USDA only collects GE data on these three crops. The figure below shows the percent change of GE crops planted since 1996. (1996-1999 data: USDA Agricultural Economic Report No. (AER-810) 67 pp, May 2002 2000-2012 data: USDA:NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer-agricultural-economic-report/ae... & http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID...) (pg. 4)
*It could be argued that not all of these crops are grown for human consumption. Some are grown for animal feed. But the percentage of the crops grown for animal feed are still in the food supply in the form of meat, eggs, milk and milk products. (pg. 4)
*Contrary to claims made by the chemical industries, glyphosate use increased 6,504% from 1991 to 2010 according to data from the USDA (http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do;jsessionid=...): National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). States participating in the USDA surveys reported applying a whopping 91,200 tons (1 rail car holds approximately100 tons) of glyphosate on corn, cotton and soy crops alone in 2010 (see graph). Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup™, the herbicide used on Roundup Ready™ crops genetically engineered (GE) to withstand glyphosate. Glyphosate residues of up to 4.4 mg/kg have been detected in stems, leaves and beans of glyphosate-resistant soy (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14971683), indicating metabolism of the herbicide. This means that the ROUNDUP READY™ PLANTS ARE ABSORBING THE HERBICIDE AND YOU CANNOT SIMPLY WASH IT OFF. (pg. 5) "Genetically Modified Organisms and the deterioration of health in the United States N.L. Swanson, 4/24/2013"
(http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/glyphosate/NancySwanson.pdf) (Emphasis mine)
*DATA TRENDS SHOW CORRELATIONS BEWEEN INCREASES IN ORGAN DISEASES AND GMOs...There are many scientific studies showing that glyphosate and the additives in Roundup are toxic to human cells. Below is a list of those most pertinent to this discussion.
*In 2004, Marc et al(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15182708). reported that GLYPHOSATE-BASED PESTICIDES CAUSE CELL-CYCLE DYSFUNCTION THAT LEADS TO DEVELOPMENT OF CANCER.
*In 2009 Gasnier et al(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539684). published an article in the journal Toxicology citing evidence that GLYPHOSATE BASED (G-based) HERBICIDES ARE ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS IN HUMAN CELLS. They reported TOXIC EFFECTS TO LIVER CELLS “at 5 ppm [parts per million], and the first ENDOCRINE DISRUPTING ACTIONS at 0.5 ppm, WHICH IS 800 TIMES LOWER THAN THE LEVEL AUTHORIZED IN SOME FOOD OR FEED (400 ppm, USEPA, 1998). ... In conclusion, ACCORDING TO THESE DATA AND THE LITERATURE, G-based HERBICIDES PRESENT DNA DAMAGES... ON HUMAN CELLS.”
*In 2012 Koller et al(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331240). reported that glyphosate and its formulation (Roundup) is TOXIC TO CELLS, PARTICULARLY ORGAN CELLS, and exhibits DNA-damaging properties “ AFTER SHORT EXPOSURE to concentrations that correspond to a 450-fold dilution of spraying used in agriculture.”
*What is often overlooked is the role of “inert” ingredients in glyphosate formulations like Roundup, which have been found to amplify glyphosate toxicity.
*In 2005, Richard et al(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/). reported that “glyphosate is TOXIC TO HUMAN PLACENTAL JEG3 CELLS within 18 hr with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use, and this effect increases with concentration and time or in the presence of Roundup adjuvants. Surprisingly, Roundup is always more toxic than its active ingredient. ... We conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup, not just glyphosate, can be observed in mammals.”
*In 2012, Mesnage et al(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X12003459). reported, “This study demonstrates that all the glyphosate-based herbicides tested are more toxic than glyphosate alone ... The formulated herbicides (including Roundup) CAN AFFECT ALL LIVING CELLS, ESPECIALLY HUMAN CELLS. Among them, POE-15 clearly appears to be the most toxic principle against human cells, ... We demonstrate in addition that POE-15 induces necrosis when its first micellization process occurs, by contrast to glyphosate which is known to promote endocrine disrupting effects after entering cells.”' (See Graphs & Charts on pp. 8-14)
DATA SOURCES:
*Diabetes incidence data: CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/incidence/fig1.htm)
*Diabetes prevalence data: CDC(http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/prev/national/figpersons.htm)
*ESRD data: U.S. Renal Data System(http://www.usrds.org/reference.aspx)
*Blood pressure data: CDC (http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/display.asp?cat=HA&yr=2009&qkey=4420&stat...)
*Obesity data: CDC (http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/page.asp?yr=2004&state=UB&cat=OB#OB)
*Acute Kidney Injury: National Kidney and Urologic Diseases Information Clearinghouse (http://kidney.niddk.nih.gov/KUDiseases/pubs/kustats/index.aspx) (NKUDIC) a service of NIH (public domain).
*Cancer data: National Cancer Institute-Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) (http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2009_pops09/browse_csr.php?section=14&pa...) SEER 9 areas (San Francisco, Connecticut, Detroit, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, Seattle, Utah, and Atlanta). Rates are per 100,000 and are age-adjusted to the 2000 US Std Population (19 age groups - Census P25-1130).
*Glyphosate: USDA:NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) (http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do;jsessionid=...)
PERCENT OF GE CORN & SOY DATA:
*1996-1999 data: USDA Agricultural Economic Report No. (AER-810) 67 pp, May 2002 (http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer-agricultural-economic-report/ae...)
*2000-2012 data: USDA:NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service.) (http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID...)(pg.15)
*Mounting evidence that GMO crops can cause INFERTILITY AND BIRTH DEFECTS The endocrine disrupting properties of glyphosate can lead to reproductive problems: INFERTILITY, MISCARRIAGE, BIRTH DEFECTS, AND SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT (see notes). FETUSES, INFANTS AND CHILDREN ARE ESPECIALLY SUSCEPTIBLE because they are continually experiencing growth and hormonal changes...There are increasing reports of glyphosates and glyphosate formulations causing SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION, LOW BIRTH WEIGHT, FEWER BIRTHS AND STERILITY IN LAGABORTORY ANIMALS, FARM ANIMALS AND HUMANS (see notes).
*A Russian study found that feeding hamsters GMO soy resulted in COMPLETE STERILITY AFTER TWO OR THREE GENERATIONS (http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/16/6524765.html/). (pg. 16)
NOTES:
*INFERTILITY AND LOW BIRTH RATES:
*Laboratory animals: In 1995 Yousef et al(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7797819). reported on toxic effects of glyphosate on semen characteristics in rabbits, “Pesticide treatment resulted in a DECLINE IN BODY WEIGHT, LIBIDO, EJACULATE VOLUME, SPERM CONCENTRATION, SEMEN INITIAL FRUCTOSE AND SEMEN OSMOLALITY. This was accompanied with increases in the ABNORMAL AND DEAD SPERM.”
*In 2002 Markaverich et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240732/). found that, “Housing adult rats on ground corncob bedding IMPEDES MALE AND FEMALE MATING BEHAVIOR and CAUSES ACYCLICITY IN FEMALES [not according to regular cycles].”
*In 2008, Austrian researchers found that mice fed GM corn produced FEWER AND SMALLER BABIES than those fed a non-GM diet (http://www.biosicherheit.de/pdf/aktuell/zentek_studie_2008.pdf).
*In April 2010, a Russian study (http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/16/6524765.html/)found that after feeding hamsters GM soy for two years over three generations, most were STERILE BY THE THIRD GENERATION.
*2011 Siepmann et al(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21353476). reported, “HYPOGONADISM [functional incompetence of the gonads especially in the male with subnormal or impaired production of hormones and germ cells] and ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION associated with soy product
*In 2012 Antoniou et al(http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/glyphosate/NancySwanson.pdf). published a review of the evidence of the reproductive toxicity of glyphosate herbicides and concluded that a new and transparent risk assessment needs to be conducted.
*In 2012 Irina Ermakova (http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html)reported low birth weight and a 55.6% mortality rate in the babies of rats fed GMO soy compared to 6.8% in the control group.
FARM ANIMALS:
*An Iowa pig farmer reports sterility and false pregnancies in pigs fed GMO corn (http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-01-23/former-agribusiness-farmer-l...).
*A Danish pig farmer reports birth defects, infertility and low birth rate in pigs fed GMO corn. (http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/danish_dossier.html).
HUMANS:
*In 2001 Arbuckle et al, reported on the effect of pesticide exposure on the risk of SPONTANEOUS ABORTION.... (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240415/)
BIRTH DEFFECTS:
Cells:
*In 2005, Richard et al(Differential Effects of Glyphosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells and Aromatase http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/). reported that “glyphosate is TOXIC TO HUMAN PLACENTAL JEG3 CELLS within 18 hr with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use, and this effect increases with concentration and time or in the presence of Roundup adjuvants.”
*In 2009, Benachour et al (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n). evaluated the toxicity of four glyphosate (G)-based herbicides in Roundup formulations on three different human cell types using a dilution far below agricultural recommendations and corresponds to low levels of residues in food or feed. They reported that glyphosate formulations induce APOPTOSIS [CELL SELF-DESTRUCTION] and NECROSIS [TISSUE DEATH IN HUMAN UMBILICAL, EMBRYONIC, AND PLACENTAL CELLS.
AMPHIBIANS:
In 2010, Paganelli et al(http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749). injected low doses (lower than levels used in fumigating) of glyphosate into AMPHIBIAN EMBRYOS and recorded BRAINS, INTESTINAL AND HEART DEFECTS IN THE FETUSES. Effects included REDUCED HEAD SIZE, GENETIC ALTERATION IN THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM, INCREASED DEATH OF CELLS THAT HELP FORM THE SKULL, DEFORMED CARTLAGE, EYE DEFECTS, AND UNDEVELOPED KIDNEYS. In addition, the GLYPHOSATE WAS NOT BREAKING DOWN IN THE CELLS, BUT WAS ACCUMULATING. According to the authors THESE RESULTS ARE "COMPLETELY COMPARABLE TO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THE DEVELPMENT OF THE HUMAN EMBRYO”
HUMANS:
*In 2009, Mesnage et al(http://oem.bmj.com/content/early/2009/11/30/oem.2009.052969.abstract). reported TWO CASES OF BIRTH DEFECTS in the same family in France after multiple pesticide exposure. “Many pesticides were used by this family around pregnancies. The father sprayed, without protection, more than 1.3 tons of pesticides per year including 300 liters of glyphosate based herbicides.”
In 2009, Winchester et al.(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2667895/), reported, “Elevated concentrations of agrichemicals in surface water in April–July coincided with HIGHER RISK OF BIRTH DEFECTS IN LIVE BIRTHS WITH LMPs [last menstrual periods] April–July.”
DATA SOURCES:
ART data: CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/art/ART2009/section5.htm)
Infant mortality data: CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/Vitalstatsonline.htm)
LBW and preterm birth data: CDC (http://205.207.175.93/Vitalstats/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx) and CDC Interactive tables (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/vitalstats/VitalStats_Births.htm) (pp 17-20)

DATA SHOW CORRELATIONS BEWEEN INCREASE IN NEUROLOGICAL DISEASES AND GMOs (pg. 21)
*The endocrine disrupting (http://www.examiner.com/article/data-trends-show-correlation-between-inc...) properties of glyphosate can lead to neurological disorders(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3983024) (learning disabilities (LD), attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22458970), autism, dementia, Alzheimer's, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder). Those most susceptible are children and the elderly.
Correlation does not necessarily imply causation and there are now a host of chemicals in our food and our environment. The huge increase in the amount of glyphosate applied to GE food and feed crops has significantly increased our exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals. In a previous article, correlations were shown between glyphosate use, GMO crop increase and: thyroid cancer, liver cancer, obesity, high blood pressure, acute kidney injury, incidence and prevalence of diabetes and end stage renal disease. All of these diseases and disorders were carefully chosen based on:
1 Glyphosate is a known endocrine disruptor.
2. Endocrine disruptors can cause organ and neurological damage.
3. Roundup™ and GMOs have shown liver and kidney damage and abnormal behavior in rat studies.
4. Use of glyphosate on herbicide-resistant crops has skyrocketed since 1995.
5. Incidence, prevalence and deaths due to these diseases has also skyrocketed since 1995. (pg. 23)

It seems improbable that the correlations in the nine graphs of glyphosates and organ disease, and the three presented here (for a total of 12), can all be coincidence. There has been a trend among the agriculrural and food industries and their regulators ro engage in practices that place the consumers at risk, emerging in the mid-1990s and growing. It involves nor just GMOs bur many other things as well and those factors may may be correlated with each other. That may make it impossible to separate our which one caused a particular effect. Much more research needs to be done. Our children are disturbed and our elders are dying horribly. (pg. 24)

NOTES:
*In 2006 Irena Ermakova reported (http://www.kenes.com/aep2006/program/session1.asp?SessionId=POS13&SSessi...) to the European Congress of Psychiatry that, “As in previous series the behavior of males from GM group was compared with the behavior of control rats. Obtained data showed a high level of anxiety and aggression in males, females and young pups from GM groups. Aggression was more expressed in females and rat pups: they attacked and bite each other and the
worker.” 14th European Congress of Psychiatry, Nice, France, Sunday, March 5 2006, Poster #048.
*In 2010 Shelton et al(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404662/). published a paper describing potential mechanisms linking pesticides and autism.
*In 2006, Grandjean and Landrigan reported on developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals. “Neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, attention deficit disorder, mental retardation, and cerebral palsy are common, costly, and can cause lifelong disability. ... Exposure to these chemicals during early fetal development can cause brain injury at doses much lower than those affecting adult brain function.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17174709/)
GMOs AND MULTIPLE CHRONIC DISEASES
*A paper published 18 April 2013 in the scientific journal Entropy (http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416) explains the connection between glyphosate and gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

*Since GMOs were introduced into the food supply the rate of chronic health conditions among children in the United States increased from 12.8% in 1994 to 26.6% in 2006, particularly for asthma, obesity, and behavior and learning problems. The rate of chronic disease in the entire U.S. population has been dramatically increasing with an estimated 25% of the U.S. population suffering from multiple chronic diseases (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20159870).
*THE ACADAMY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE has issued a position statement on GMO food stating, “...several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility. The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.” They further state that “because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of probable harm,” they call on physicians to educate the public and warn their patients to avoid GM foods (http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html).
As to finding benefits to farmers and communities around the world, here’s a story of “Farmers Smash Records Without GMOs” (http://www.honeycolony.com/article/miracle-grow-indian-farmers-smash-rec...).
Here are “Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology Will Not Ensure Food Security, Protect The Environment, And Reduce Poverty In The Developing World” (http://agbioforum.org/v2n34/v2n34a03-altieri.htm). This was published by the AgBioForum – The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Technology.
And here is an article on “GM Crops Not Increasing Yields, Despite Industry Claims” (http://www.realfarmacy.com/gm-crops-not-increasing-yields-despite-indust...)
Because of the health studies that are now being done, mostly outside the US (for obvious but heartrending reasons) we believe claims regarding the presence or absence of GMO ingredients should, at the least, be MANDATORY. Ideally, we believe and support “consumer rejection of GMOs until proven safe.”
In reference to your request that we “consider the hundreds of independent studies demonstrating that GMO food does not raise any new concerns about the food we eat” I will again offer that you and others read the summary comment, notes, references, conclusions and links that I pasted above or that you read the entire study and report of "Genetically Modified Organisms and the deterioration of health in the United States N.L. Swanson, 4/24/2013"
I DO want to point out, with no equivocation, that your comment that “scientific and regulatory authorities around the world have determined that GMO foods on the market are as safe and nutritious as their non GMO counterparts….” is a lie. Here is a “List of Countries That Ban GMO Crops and Require GE Food Labels” ( http://naturalrevolution.org/list-of-countries-that-ban-gmo-crops-and-re...)
Here is an article about a “GM Scientist Changes Opinion and Now Wants GMOs Banned” (http://www.gmeducation.org/blog/p212592-gm-scientist-changes-opinion-and...)
There have been a MANY studies that have asserted a very great health risk exists and they are all more than credible by the global scientific community. He writes that he “defended the side of technological advance, of science and progress. In the last 10 years I have changed my position. I started paying attention to the flow of published studies coming from Europe, some from prestigious labs and published in prestigious scientific journals, that questioned the impact and safety of engineered food. I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.”
Here is an “Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments Concerning Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) (via http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php). “Previous versions of this letter were submitted to many governments and international forums including:
•World Trade Organization Conference in Seattle (November 30 – Dec. 2, 1999)
•UN Biosafety Protocol Meeting in Montreal (24 – 28, Jan. 2000)
•UN Commission on Sustainable Development Conference on Sustainable Agriculture in New York (April 24-May 5, 2000)
•UN Convention on Biological Diversity Conference in Nairobi (May 16-24, 2000)
•United States Congress (29 June, 2000)
* The Letter was also signed by 828 scientists from 84 different countries”

notjustnews's picture

I sincerely hope that people reading this don't think comments = reality.

You are all aware that (big) companies (more) often buy comments, likes on facebook and followers on Twitter.

They cost cents per the hundred.

I hope you are all also aware that Monsanto contracts Blackwater for "security."

A lot of the security is online 'security' in the form of PR washing.

This is not a place for transparency...not when it's funded by the very companies pushing their own products on here.

Cornlover's picture

The reality is it has been proven safe and the law says no label.

dhal9000's picture

Some misguided people here in Washington State are trying to pass initiative I-522, which would require labeling of food products containing GMO's. Can you do something to stop this? If people knew what had been done to the food they eat, they might not buy it and then we'll have to go back to eating plain, boring, ordinary food (yuck)...I mean, have you actually looked at nature lately? It's messy, dirty and animals poop in it! I for one feel much better when I think of nice men in pure (and bleached for sanitary reasons) white lab coats putting a barrier of scientific safety between all that natural filth and my gut. As for your critics who hysterically claim that GMO's remain unregulated because your lobbyists and campaign contributions have bought so many congressmen, every real American knows that our representatives are public servants who would never put their own career ambitions and self interest above the health and safety of the American people. Anyone who doesn't support keeping GMO's content in the food supply is obviously a nervous nellie know nothing and quite possibly anti-American and anti free enterprise. God bless you for protecting us from being exposed to thoughts that might make us feel uncomfortable and concerned. I'm certain you have our best interests at heart.

JPeaceGreen green's picture

Betsy - to you believe the food producers should take the easier route of labelling because it is cheaper even if is means giving into the spreading misinformation about GMOs?

Chris123's picture

For true answers:
Evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops: www.gmo-news.com/2013/07/gmo-myths-and-truths/

as pdf download.

achood4mu's picture

@notjustnews: I work for Monsanto and we are not hiring people to comment on these posts. I'm proud to say that comments are unsolicited and genuine. Also, Monsanto did not hire Blackwater. That question was answered here: http://gmoanswers.com/ask/if-you-want-know-truth-about-gmos-you-have-loo... Thanks for coming to the site. I hope you learned something new.

Community Manager's picture

@FoodFreedomRadio You may be interested in this article from Ron Bailey with Reason Magazine which addresses the claim that GMOs are unhealthy: http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/22/the-top-five-lies-about-biotech-crops. From the article:
“Every independent scientific body that has ever evaluated the safety of biotech crops has found them to be safe for humans to eat. A 2004 report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that “no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.” In 2003 the International Council for Science, representing 111 national academies of science and 29 scientific unions, found “no evidence of any ill effects from the consumption of foods containing genetically modified ingredients.” The World Health Organization flatly states, “No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”
In 2010, a European Commission review of 50 studies on the safety of biotech crops found “no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.”At its annual meeting in June, the American Medical Association endorsed a report on the labeling of bioengineered foods from its Council on Science and Public Health. The report concluded that “Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.”
Unfortunately there is no shortage of fringe scientists to gin up bogus studies suggesting that biotech crops are not safe.”

@Maugly If you do not believe in the legitimacy of this forum and are not here to have an open discussion, which focuses on the facts, this site may not be for you. We aim to foster a productive and non-confrontational conversation about GMOs and biotechnology. Please be respectful of those who answer this community's questions.

@Chris 123 Please also see the article below from Sense About Science, an independent trust in the UK that works with over 5,000 scientists to help the public make sense of claims about scientific evidence. In this article they talk about GM. http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/9/MSofGM2011.pdf

ohnogmo's picture

@ Cathleen Enright
Your answer is hogwash. GMO's have not been consumer tested over a period of years for you to say 'they're safe', unless you have a crystal ball, and then we're not talking science anymore.
If Monsanto was so sure their GMO's were safe, why weren't they happy to label? Why didn't they prove their safety by doing control long term studies? Why didn't they say, 'we are so sure that you'll see the benefits of GMO's that you'll want to choose our products?
Instead we were decieved. We tried to speak out in the '90's but we weren't heard and were ridiculed.
Take down your double talk statement where Monsanto says we have a right to know about our food, or just Label GMO's.
Organics are labelled dispite ongoing attention that they're no different then conventional. So what? We want to choose what to put in our mouths! Label GMO's.

ohnogmo's picture

@Cathleen Enright
Can you please comment on the Monsanto Protection Act, in regards to consumer fears that without labelling consumers are unwittingly been forced GMO's, and IF / WHEN they get sick, they will have no legal recourse? And you expect us to accept GMO's when Monsanto has gotten legal protection for a food product that may or may not adversely affect peoples' health