GMO MYTHS AND TRUTHS REPORT

Print

Executive Summary

GMO Myths and Truths report 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.

Download a PDF of the full GMO Myths and Truths report

Comments   

 
-1 #16 Donna 2013-11-18 01:21
Thank you so much for this free report. I am listening to you on the GMO Summit where Jeffrey Smith is interviewing you "GMOs: Separating Myth From Truth". It sounds a little muffled but still very informative.
Quote
 
 
0 #15 Happiness 2013-10-16 09:03
what chemicals go into these foods? what do they do to our bodies? i am not scientifically clued up but i can see that there is something not right with how people act and how our brains function. i have seen how some foods are highly addictive and how we have a high rate of obesity. i have seen how sexual young people are getting and nothing else matters anymore. are these at all connected to these GMO's? one last question, does anyone know how I can recognize these foods in the market and am i given that choice?
Quote
 
 
+5 #14 Mkindi 2013-08-04 10:54
This is a wonderful report with details which can convince even the pro GMOs
Quote
 
 
+4 #13 Mkindi 2013-08-04 10:52
This report has come at the right time when we are debating on the safety of GM food
Quote
 
 
+5 #12 Mkindi 2013-08-04 10:49
This report has unveiled the long standing false solution that GMOs are the panacea of food insecurity in developing countries
Quote
 
 
-1 #11 tzena 2013-07-09 23:21
Quoting Julie Katana:
Quoting tzena:
All BT GM crops are listed with the EPA as pesticides so they are designed to KILL insects and guess what Bt toxin is expressed in every cell of the plant... Absolutely appalling!


I would like to quote and cite your comment in my community's weeky newspaper in Washington State where GMO labeling will be on the ballot this fall. There was an excellent letter to the editor published last week about GMOs and I think your comment would really add some teeth to that person's comment. I don't have a website. Thanks.

Please feel free to use it...The post is a culmination of hours of research taken in part from scientists wisdom that were strong enough to stand up to biotech, in an effort to regain my health plus the health of my family and friends!!!
Quote
 
 
0 #10 tzena 2013-07-09 21:08
Quoting Julie Katana:
Quoting tzena:
All BT GM crops are listed with the EPA as pesticides so they are designed to KILL insects and guess what Bt toxin is expressed in every cell of the plant... Absolutely appalling!


I would like to quote and cite your comment in my community's weeky newspaper in Washington State where GMO labeling will be on the ballot this fall. There was an excellent letter to the editor published last week about GMOs and I think your comment would really add some teeth to that person's comment. I don't have a website. Thanks.


Yes of course; that comment is the result of many hours of research on this subject utilizing the many scientists wisdom that have dared to speak out, as most of us are trying to regain our health back and the health of our families.
Quote
 
 
+5 #9 Claire Robinson1 2013-07-09 16:09
To be specific, the cows that were 'removed' from the study and replaced died because they were euthanised:
http://openagricola.nal.usda.gov/Record/IND44387067
Replacing animals in a study is unacceptable practice and means that the study is useless as an assessment of feed safety or toxicity.
Quote
 
 
+1 #8 Gerhart Ryffel 2013-07-09 15:33
@Claire Robinson
Addressing my comment on your report may be misleading. Here is my wording concerning section “3.1 Myth: GM foods are safe to eat, Truth: Studies show that GM foods can be toxic or allergenic” (page 37).
My conclusion 3.1: GM foods have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There should be a distinction between cis-/intragenic and transgenic food.
General: Your summary is not well balanced, as it cites the references of papers showing negative effects, but ignores articles that failed to see adverse effects. Examples of quite balanced reviews: (Magana-Gomez and de la Barca, 2009; Lemaux, 2008; Zhang and Shi, 2011). I cannot see a problem with altered nutritional value, as we eat not just one food and allergenic plants are quite common. Of course a new plant has to be checked for novel allergenicity. It is also not clear, which examples you listed prove toxic effects or rather an altered nutritional value. In summary, your listing is quite useless, unless one reads all these papers in details. I would welcome a more critical and scientific evaluation.
You argue that long term studies were hardly made, but you ignore the following studies: (Steinke et al., 2010; Daleprane et al., 2010; Daleprane et al., 2009; Sissener et al., 2011; Sissener et al., 2010; Domon et al., 2009; Rhee et al., 2005; Trabalza-Marinu cci et al., 2008). I assume there are more. You may also include the most recent papers (Buzoianu et al., 2012d; Buzoianu et al., 2012b; Buzoianu et al., 2012c; Buzoianu et al., 2012a). A recent review (Snell et al., 2012) you should include.

I assume you refer to the study of Steinke et al. (2010). Indeed, this is rather a feeding study analyzing the effect of GM corn on performance of lactating cows. It extended over 25 months. There is no indication of the death of the animals, but nine cows of the 18 cows in each group were exchanged because of illness or infertility and replaced by first-lactation cows.
(The references given above are in my full comment that is still available: )
Quote
 
 
+3 #7 Claire Robinson1 2013-07-09 09:32
@Kevin Reanus: based on the part of the critique that dealt with toxicology studies on GM, we are not inclined to spend time on it, though we will indeed be updating our report soon. One so-called 'long-term' study that was claimed to show safety of GM foods turned out
1. not to be conducted in an accepted human toxicity model (was in cows)
2. not to be a toxicology study but an animal production study
2. not to be long-term at all
3. to have simply replaced animals that got sick and died!
Dealing with this kind of unscientific argument and 'joke' studies is not a good use of our time and funds. Many of the points in the critique have already been addressed in other parts of the report. Wherever we can find substantive points that have not been addressed in our report, we will address them in our update.
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh