• Food Safety: Focus on Real Risks, Not Fake Ones

    Disease microbes, nutrient shortages and lack of access are greatest threats, not biotechnology. Contamination of fish and meat with parasites, or grains with mold toxins, are also significant food health hazards.

  • Jeffrey Smith: False Claims Unsupported by Science

    Jeffrey Smith has gained fame for claiming biotech foods are dangerous, but  none of his claims are based on sound science. Smith has no discernible scientific training  yet makes 65 such claims in his book Genetic Roulette. Click here for a point-by-point response based on peer-reviewed science.

Failing Grade for IARC Glyphosate Cancer Review

IARC glyphosate cancer review fails on multiple fronts

The International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph evaluation of certain insecticides and herbicides earns an F grade for failure to consider all the available studies, placing weight on weak and discredited studies (several in the advocacy community are already using this report claiming it is a vindication of the discredited Seralini GMO cancer claims), […]

Debunking pseudo science “lab testing” health risk claims about glyphosate (Roundup)

“Recently claims of adverse effects caused by glyphosate have begun to appear. Although none of the reports has proven credible, it appears that these reports are part of a deliberate campaign to create the False impression that glyphosate is highly toxic and harmful as a basis of calling for bans…”

Reuters' Gillam earns failing grade, again, for coverage of GMO science issues

Reuters’ Gillam earns failing grade, again, for coverage of GMO science issues

Reuters’ Carey Gillam repeated citing of false claims ignores the robust global consensus on the safety of crops improved through biotechnology, earning her another failing grade for accuracy and science journalism.

Why Consumers Pay More for Organic Foods? Fear Sells and Marketers Know it.

An academic review of more than 25 years of market research, marketing tactics and government programs driving sales in the organic and natural product industries

CNN Health earns D- grade

CNN Health article ignores overwhelming scientific consensus on GMO safety: D-

 Julie Taylor earns a D- for her CNN Health article published via upwave – “Turner Broadcasting’s new lifestyle brand designed to entertain the health into you!”  Taylor writes, “There is no consensus in the scientific community that GMOs are safe, says David Schubert at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies…”  To read Taylor’s article which opens, […]

Turning Science into a Circus: The New Yorker, Rachel Aviv and Tyrone Hayes

Turning Science into a Circus: The New Yorker, Rachel Aviv and Tyrone Hayes

Syngenta may have good reason to feel it was treated unfairly, even dishonestly, in the New Yorker article. The real damage, however, is that such shoddy journalism debases the public’s understanding of how science should be conducted and the importance of non-politicized, sound science-based regulatory systems to protect consumers

USDA ERS 2014 GE Crops Report

Grading the Science: USDA’s Economic Research Report & Coverage by Reuters

Grading the Science: USDA’s Economic Research Report A- & Coverage by Reuters D

Beneficial insects not harmed by GM crops

Feedstuffs Food Link article on GMOs and beneficial insects earns A for science

A LARGE body of literature has shown that genetically modified (GM) plants that produce proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to protect themselves from insect pests have little to no effect on a wide range of non-target insects.

Tufts University statement on Golden Rice Research

Multiple reviews found no concerns related to the integrity of the study data, the accuracy of the research results or the safety of the research subjects. In fact, the study indicated that a single serving of the test product, Golden Rice, could provide greater than 50 percent of the recommended daily intake of vitamin A in these children, which could significantly improve health outcomes if adopted as a dietary regimen.

A critical assessment of the paper ‘GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?’

In 2010, Antoniou et al published a paper entitled GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible? This made a number of claims of alleged negative impacts associated with the global use of genetically modified (GM) soybeans on human and animal health, on environmental safety and on socio-economic status. This briefing note examined and assessed the main claims in this paper.