The blog Axis Mundi recently posted a behemoth of a graphic showing just how many international organizations support the use of GMOs. They asked that the information be shared far and wide in order that the public become aware of how strong the scientific consensus behind GMOs truly is. Sleuth4Health is doing her part!
Below you will find brief descriptions and statements from 21 international science and medical organizations, societies and associations that not only support the use of GMO crops but attest to their safety and usefulness.
I had to chop the original graphic up and do a bit of rearranging to get it all to fit and be readable but the gang’s all here! What an impressive list.
If I were still anti-GMO and I read this list, I am convinced I would take pause and think something like this: they can’t all be in Monsanto’s back pocket, nor can they all be wrong.
A big thank you to Axis Mundi for rounding up all of this information and being willing to share it. I will refer to this often and please, feel free to spread it further.
Read Axis Mundi’s post on GM Food Meme Wars.
SLEUTH 4 HEALTH 
61 responses to “Is GM Food Safe? Experts Around the Globe Answer”
Julee: thanks for breaking this down into easy to consume chunks!
Thanks Cami. I think this is an excellent resource and one to build on. All of these organizations together in one place create a mighty swath of truth!
you do realise that none of these statements are factual and all can be disproved with current research?
Roundup (40% Glyphosate) is repeatedly applied to 500 million acres of GMO and other crops worldwide each year. Glyphosate was originally patented as a scale remover for pipes and boilers, on account of its strong chelating (mineral binding) action on Calcium, Potassium, Iron, Manganese and other metals. It kills plants by depriving them of Manganese, essential to the Shikimate pathway.
Roundup Ready seeds carry genetically altered genes that enable them to bypass the Shikimate Pathway, thus surviving repeated applications of glyphosate. Roundup herbicide also contains polyethoxylated tallowamine, a surfactant that aids glyphosate in penetrating plant tissues. Research conducted in 2005 shows that the mixture results in dramatically increased damage to animal cells then that caused by glyphosate alone, and may contribute to reproductive problems observed in Canadian farmers exposed to it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257636/
The Shikimate pathway is not found in mammals, but hundreds of millions of beneficial bacteria in their digestive systems are entirely dependent on it. It’s clearly too late to stop Glyphosate contamination of farmland or the food crops and animals raised on them. Manganese supplementation could be preventative for those eating non-organic or industrial food.
Hey Julie. Thanks very much for the share, and for splitting it up into readable chunks. I’ll add this link into the facebook page description too.
Many more to come!
Regards, Gaz – Axis Mundi
Should read “International Seed Federation”, not Foundation.
Hey thanks… Axis Mundi should be made aware of this as well.
ISF graphic corrected as of 7/27 at 1:53 PM PST.
Now ask all the above foundations to produce proof to support these claims. Not one GMO test that had lasted longer than 90 days has ever been released Monsanto. And seed companies??? Really!!!!! They are selling the seeds and making millions. I cannot believe an educated person would even waste their time compliing this information.
As an educated person, I can’t ignore this information. In addition to industry people and physicians, these organizations represent 100s of thousands of independent academics who are NOT paid by the industry. Also, you can’t prove that something is safe. Can you prove that driving to work tomorrow will be safe, that you won’t get in an accident? What you can prove is that seat belts and airbags have saved lives, that traffic signals and stop signs do a good job of controlling traffic, that driving within the speed limit is prudent. You can only supply evidence and interpretation of what has or has not already occurred, and there is PLENTY of evidence that supports GM technology – in the form of legitimate scientific research that doesn’t appear on vitamin websites or activist’s blogs. Watch out for all the pseudo-science and misinformation floating around. Also, talk to a plant geneticist, a true expert. What they know about the topic dispels so many fears about GMOs, it should be a mandatory step for every anti-GMO activist before they watch the fanciful “Genetic Roulette”.
Visit http://www.biofortified.org/ – a great place to start.
You certainly can prove it was safe i can give you an example, if you conducted a study involving a 100 people eating organic food, none of them people will be inflicted with any illness any intestinal permeability issues no immune disorders because organic produce is SAFE, now GM foods, you say as an educated person you cant ignore this information thats fair enough but have you considered the information that indicates its toxicity and association with other health conditions? because if you have you would not take the stance its completely safe, your basing your stance on safe studies and thats fine if ALL the studies showed theyre safe but theyre not, in fact what the evidence shows is conflicting, based on the conflicting evidence you can not attest to its absolute safety and if you were a person of intelligence you would be paying attention to ALL the research in an unbiased and objective manner and will conclude its far to early to summarise GM foods as 100% safe, theyre saftey is questionable based on inconclusive evidence, choosing to pay attention to only one side of that evidence reflects ignorance and bias….
now lets see if you have the deceny to allow my comment on your site, based on the fact, iv outlined a serious flaw in your perspective on GM foods i’ll presume you wont but we’ll see….
feed your health not the government…
What of the Organic Food Industry?
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/06/organic-hepatitis-a-outbreak/
The number of people killed by nuts is more than from all of GMO’s.
By the way, Michelle, why shouldn’t people make money creating better seeds and selling them? They obviously sell well because farmers like them.
“why shouldn’t people make money creating better seeds and selling them?” Because your rainbows and lollipops description is false.
1. Sterile “terminator” seeds are BETTER?! They’re not even better than nothing.
2. An agenda to dominate and monopolize the entire food chain with mutated plants.
Michelle, the point is that these are the world top academies and experts. By definition, they would not have made these claims without first looking at all the evidence available.
If the evidence was incomplete, they would have said so… Instead, the evidence is so completely clear that they all felt confident enough to make these statements,
It’s important to add that academic types don’t make claims lightly. Their entire professional reputations are on the line, constantly. Publication of something that is false is career suicide.
Thank you, Julee. I am fed-up of fearmongering.
Thank Gaz and Axis Mundi too! This pro-science band is really doing a lot to challenge the anti GMO meme.
Can we have links to those statemens? Are they official positions? I’m as pro-GMo as you get, but I wouldn’t want us not being backing up what we claim. I had a friend point out (correctly) that without sourcing, we can equally be accused of making up stuff. It’s unlikely that it’s that case, but we have to keep to the standards we expect and demand of others.
Hi Frank, I found the first 6 on their own websites, and then a number of others were in this list which was sent to me by ‘Sense about science’.
http://users.unimi.it/morandin/Sources-Academies-societies.doc
Some of the links were dead, so I just googled the organisations name followed by ‘consensus statement on biotechnology’.
It is important to note that these statements were part of much larger documents, and I had to choose carefully which statements to cut and paste. I tried my best not to misrepresent the message of the longer documents by quoting out of context.
Oooh, great find! I’ve just downloaded it for future reference. Are you going to post it in GMOLOL?
Aurgh. ‘Not being back up” should read “Not being able to back up”.
I got this from another website (axis mundi), but know that with, for example, the AAAS, the statement is part of a longer statement that has been made public. It’s pretty much the same with all of them. I’ve also seen WHO’s and the AMA’s longer statements. These are legit.
The AAAS quote: http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2013/Mar/AAASBoard.pdf
EC: http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/ a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf
ACSH: http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/BioTechFood.html
Thanks Frank… takes a bit of time but the links are nice to have!
Some more…
WHO: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/
NAS: http://www.nationalacademies.org/webextra/crops/
Royal Society of Medicine:
http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/101/6/290.full
AMA:
Click to access a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf
ASCB:
http://www.ascb.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=315&Itemid=31
ASM:
http://www.isaaa.org/kc/Publications/htm/articles/Position/asm.htm
ASPB:
http://www.isaaa.org/kc/Publications/htm/articles/Position/aspb.htm
CAST:
Click to access RABSAC_synthesis_report_Gouse_Dec2006.pdf
Crop Science Society of America:
http://www.scienceboard.net/community/perspectives.40.html
The beauty of this is… here we have a very useful resource. What would really be best is to have links to all of the larger documents and then highlight the excerpts there were used in the graphic. Maybe a future project for me!
I should also add: my reason for this post was to make each organization’s logo, description and statement stand out and be a little easier to read, and also to graphically present this very long, impressive list.
You’ve done a mitzvah, Julee !, bringing such excellent sources to the fore.
Ahh thanks… just took the ball passed to me by Axis Mundi and ran with it.
and on the neigh side…
Mike “Health Ranger” Adams and his so-called “NaturalNews”
Yeah, seems legit 🙂
Exactly! But we want to hold ourselves to a higher standard.. I totally get Frank’s point 🙂
I prefer to call him the, “Stealth Danger”.
Why?
[…] literature,” it has stated. That scientific consensus has been endorsed by every major science oversight body in the […]
[…] Dunno what you researched, whom you talked with, but you’re the first person (in my experience, anyway) that’s flipped in that direction. Some of your quotes (Konnikova) & conclusions (emotionally-driven fear) are waaay out there in left field. GMOs are proven to be unhealthy in every sense and anyone who says otherwise is one of the following: A) a corporate shill seeking approval from those who trend our society; B) a futurist who likes the idea of RFID chips & nano-inspired Morgellons disease, turning the human species into a bunch of mindless trans-humanist cyborgs. C) one who is lacking long-term insight (or compassion) into where this road leads, for both the human species & nature. What’s going on, Julee? It’s hard to fathom that anyone not associated with Monsanto could come to this conclusion. Not here to be angry with you, just express my disappointment that a bright woman like yourself can take this position. Sterility, carcinogens, you name it. You don’t mind your children eating this stuff?? For Christ sake, even Monsanto doesn’t allow their employees to eat GMO foods at their corporate headquarters and both the royal family and US President’s family doesn’t eat this stuff, having their own organic gardens instead. GMOs are so damn healthy for us that Monsanto has to keep changing the names of the ingredients; also spending millions recently on focus groups in CA to see how to run their TV ads & influence voters to defeat legislation that would require labeling on all GMOs. But it’s okay for us non-elites, though, because it will evolve us, no doubt …right into a rigid matrix where individuality is scraped & everyone is plugged into the general singular consciousness (trans-humanism). Is that what you want for humanity, Julee? You wouldn’t mind your grandchildren being a homogenized vessel to serve the State? No thanks. God willing, (oops, I said God, how about Higher Consciousness?) naturalists and other emotionally-driven people like myself branch off & form another separate reality from the one you want: a mechanized, homogenized, empty, nature-less, sterile reality. Will keep my fingers crossed on that one. Whatever, Julee, just as long as you formed this opinion yourself & not for monetary gain. At least I could respect the former even if I vehemently disagreed with it. This just makes me kind of sad Anti-GMO people: Please, you are barking up the WRONG tree. If you’re curious, this was Sleuth4Health’s response: I ask only one thing. Please supply evidence to back up all that you are saying. I used to believe as you do but I researched. I did real in depth research and talked to real experts. I did research that is not just one google click after typing in “GMOs”. Please supply me with peer reviewed scientific evidence that has appeared in a well respected journal, a journal that is taken seriously, that proves GMOs have caused harm to people. The truth is, there is no such evidence. That is why I changed my mind. The following is an update to my original post and is the response, followed by my response. Real in-depth, peer-reviewed research? What, from pseudo-scientific hacks designed to support this industry? Come on, Julie, don’t be naive. The research is frickin’ EVERYWHERE. You talked in one of your blogs about being fluid with your perceptions, but it sounds like you’re as entrenched in this viewpoint as a dem or repub is in his/her respective ideology. You’ve obviously mainstreamed your opinions with that of corporations like Dupont & Monsanto, even mainstream news supports your viewpoints. Of course you’ll find “real in-depth, peer-reviewed research” as a result. Goodness, snap out of it, Julie. Don’t want to get in a pissing contest with you so I won’t write anymore. Take Care. My response: My only response is that it’s sad you only believe anti-GMO activist literature, psuedo-science and conspiracy theorists. No pissing contest necessary. https://sleuth4health.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/is-gm-food-safe-experts-around-the-globe-answer/ […]
[…] The following scientific organizations (and more) have issued public statements attesting to the safety and value of genetically engineered food crops. [See Sleuth4Health Post Is GM Food Safe? Experts Around the Globe Answer] […]
I agree that most GM foods are probably safe. But certain cases should be looked at. I have suffered a lot from a wheat allergy and the number of people suffering from celiac disease is increasing all the time. According to Dr William Davis and other sources this could be because of the modification of wheat to increase crop sizes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbBURnqYVzw
I would be interested in your opinion of this claim
There is no genetically modified wheat approved for commercial sale in the US. The breeding that has been done with wheat is not transgenic. In this article, my scope is strictly GMOs, or transgenic processes.
Celiac disease has also increased at the same rate in countries that don’t allow GMOs. So there’s not even a good correlation!
[…] For a near comprehensive list of scientific agencies worldwide who claim the safety of GMOs, see Is GM Food Safe? Experts Around the Globe Answer […]
[…] that proclaims the belief that there is not consensus surrounding the safety of GMOs. This is a blatantly false statement [3] – and just more perpetuation of the same old crap that I once regurgitated then later […]
[…] Is GM Food Safe: Experts Around the Globe Answer, Pollan’s Fall From […]
This post is great but there is a mistake:
“- Royal Society of Medicine, 2008”
That is not RSoM but a single article in the journal of RSoM. Therefore, I recommend you to correct that line and perhaps also try to find similar statements by RSoM.
Thanks I will look into this. For now I’ve taken the box out. I did find a 2002 ‘position’ statement directly from the society. http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2002/9960.pdf
#7 in the summary:
There is at present no evidence that GM foods cause allergic reactions. The allergenic risks posed by GM plants are in principle no greater than those posed by conventionally derived crops or by plants introduced from other areas of the world.
[…] scientific evidence that crops bred by genetic modification are in any way different or dangerous. Every major scientific organization world wide, including the AAAS, AMA, and WHO has examined the science and concluded that GM crops pose no […]
[…] scientific evidence that crops bred by genetic modification are in any way different or dangerous. Every major scientific organization world wide, including the AAAS, AMA, and WHO has examined the science and concluded that GM crops pose no […]
This debunks the information in the graphic pretty well.. https://www.facebook.com/notes/gmo-free-usa/debunked-troll-list-of-science-groups/616296258416856
and in case you are interested in more here are a couple of good places to start:
THE GMO EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES Global Citizens Report on GMOs – False Promises
Coordinated by Vandana Shiva, Navdanya Debbie Barker, Centre for Food Safety Caroline Lockhart, Navdanya International
Click to access Latest_Publications7.pdf
GMO SCIENCE – This compilation is a sample of the scientific references including studies, surveys, and analyses that suggest various adverse impacts and potential adverse impacts of genetically engineered (GE/GMO) crops, foods and related pesticides.
http://gmofreeusa.org/gmo-science/
David Suzuki, Canada’s trusted geneticist and environmental expert has personally authorized the True Food Foundation to quote him as follows:
“Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid, or deliberately lying. The reality is, we don’t know.
http://www.truefoodfoundation.org/david-suzuki/
This is my biggest fear.. http://www.goal-2025.com/the-trouble-with-monsanto-and-gmo/
I appreciate you taking the time to comment. However, every single one of the “debunking” sources you cite above is a known anti-GMO activist website or person with huge agendas. I used to believe all of them too and was scared out of my wits about GMOs – until I looked deeper and realized that the VAST majority of scientists worldwide both public and private speak in favor of the safety of GMOs. Ask yourself how ALL those agencies could have it wrong?
I don’t expect you’ll believe me but I have to say it nonetheless, to be true to myself and stand up for rational thinking. I was once where you are, card-carrying member of the anti-GMO movement, blogging tirades against GMOS, but I completely changed my mind when I learned more via extensive reading (not just biased anti-GMO literature but neutral science-based literature as well). I became acquainted with several plant geneticists and we remain in contact to this day.
And before you fire back with the “they are all being paid by Monsanto” argument, let me assure you they are NOT. Monsanto is simply not that powerful nor can they afford to pay the thousands of people worldwide that speak up for science, and all the lobbyists, and all the agencies, etc. This myth of the all powerful Monsanto is not even possible, let alone probable.
Think of it this way: oil companies, companies that are ginormous compared to Monsanto, have not been able to silence scientists on the real danger of climate change, though they have instilled doubt just enough to muddy up the issue publicly. The same EXACT scenario is playing out with GMOs. The anti-GMO activists are instilling public doubt via the use of fear but experts in the field (save for a few renegades like Suzuki who operate from a perspective of belief, not evidence) have the EVIDENCE on their side, an absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence, not to mention that they are PhDs who know their stuff and work/live it every day.
I hope you’ll look further into the matter than just believing activist websites and personalities. The whole thing is sad to me because there is technology that can really help our planet and activists are holding it back because they are scared. It’s as simple as that.
Nice answer, particularly your debunking the Monsanto controls all belief and your personal journey. I don’t knwo why anybody continues to believe Vandana Shive as she continues to spread the belief that sterile seeds would out propagate fertile ones and, then, suddenly die off.
Thanks for the graphic. Always nice to have more ammo to use when the subject of GMOs/Monsanto comes up at my work (which is an oncology center where I am a registered nurse, so I hear a lot of whacky things).
[…] scientists who have studied GMOs say there are no additional health or safety issues involved in consuming […]
[…] scientists who have studied GMOs say there […]
seems like people are choosing to believe all GMO foods are safe without regarding any thought or consideration for the peer reviewed ones they show they aren’t…
They’ll do just fine ignoring the lesson of Pandora’s Box and the Precautionary Principle and clueless about co-evolution. They’re sitting in Darwin’s waiting room.
in fact here is a REAL statement from the same organisation youve quoted above that indicates issues with the very compound the main distributor or GMOs sells…
“Glyphosate application is further linked to acrylamide release from the polyacrylamide added to commercial herbicide mixtures to reduce spray drift [7] (“Acrylamde in cooked food: the glyphosate connection”). A new report released earlier this year by United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and World Health Organisation (WHO) stated [8]: “The neurotoxicity of acrylamide in humans is known from high occupational and accidental exposure when acryalmide is used in industrial processes in the production of plastics and materials. Studies in animals have also shown that acrylamide causes reproductive problems and cancer.” It recommended that, “efforts to reduce acrylamide levels in foodstuffs should continue.” But there was still no mention of glyphosate connection
I am aware of the toxicity of acrylamide when foods such as potatoes are cooked. I am looking into the connection between acrylamide and glyphosate and will hopefully have a more detailed response later for you.
But to be honest, my first reaction is suspect due to the fact that the “bee in the bonnet” about this originates from I-SIS, a well-known activist website that allows belief and ideology to trump evidence. Just today I saw posts at the organization’s website crying about how unfair the retraction of Seralini’s paper is and how the recent article in the New Yorker by well established journalist Michael Specter is, according to its subject Vendana Shiva, “poor journalism” and “misleading”.
My favorite website for excellent information is http://www.biofortified.org/. It often gets trashed by the anti-GMO crowd, but the truth is that it is non-profit. Here is the ‘about’ blurb:
I am aquainted with many of the scientists who run and write for that site and most, though not all, are PUBLIC scientists who care deeply about food and agriculture but are constantly villified. They DO NOT work for Monsanto or any other company. That doesn’t mean that occasionally ties can’t be found between their university departments and modest amounts of funding from biotech companies that go toward specific, isolated projects or groups. Research is not something that is under one big universal umbrella. It just doesn’t work that way. Look, I admire these scientists. Broadly speaking, they are trying to save our food supply, not destroy it. They are caring people, just like I am sure you are.
The goal of this post was to communicate the following:
It is the overwhelming opinion in mainstream science that genetically engineered foods pose no more danger to human health than conventional. Not one case of illness or death can be traced to GMOs. Not one. Idealogues can cherry pick all they want for possible links to danger, such as this glyphosate/acrylamide connection, but in each one of these cases, the method, the dose, so many integral factors, are what create the toxicity – or not. Most conventional farming practices can be equally cherry-picked for possible links to danger. I have learned that correlation does not equal causation.
FYI: There is a biotech company called Simplot that has engineered a potato that enhances desired traits and decreases less desirable traits, one of which solves the acrylamide problem. And what’s more, NO new DNA is introduced into the potato to achieve this. I wrote a post about it: https://sleuth4health.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/a-healthier-spud-and-its-gm/
Yes, acrylamide is harmful, but what has acrylamide to do with GMO? Even if glyphosate is linked to acrylamide release: glyphosate is also not a GMO. So, there is no conntection between GMO and the toxicity of acrylamide. The only conclusion about this is that you should not use glyphosate as a herbicide. And the conclusion from that is that there is no need to develop glyphosate resistant crops. But again, this has really nothing to do with the safety of GMOs.
To conclude: Of course, your “REAL” WHO statements are totally true BUT they have nothing to do with the safety of GMO. So, whats your point?
[…] dangerous horrible evil that many (embarrassingly, liberal) people say they are? Check out this and this. You’ll see an array of respected, non-profit, non-corporate-sponsored scientific […]
I think that food safety will start to consider GMO as a potential hazard. The http://www.ehaccp.org/lms haccp training have a section on it however it doesn’t qualify it, yet, as a health risk. It just stands to reason that labeling food as GMO is a requirement in certain countries the question must be raised as to why. There is no shortage of controversy on the subject.
Hi Stephen, the only “controversy” that exists has been created and maintained by non-science believing activists. The whole point of this post is to show that there is no controversy among the true experts. It only looks as if there is, because those with an agenda have created the controversy. Thanks for your comment.