Genetic Roulette


Genetic Roulette is Jeffrey Smith’s second self-published book in which he makes unsubstantiated claims against biotechnology. In it, he details 65 separate claims that the technology causes harm in a variety of ways. On these pages each of those claims – addressed in the same eight “sections” that correspond directly with the book – are stacked up against peer-reviewed science.

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. [...] looked at the book to see how his claims stacked up against peer reviewed science. They do a chapter by chapter takedown of the book. The group describes their mission as being, “committed to the unsurpassed value of [...]

  2. [...] wonder modern apocalyptic mythology about agriculture, sinister stories about pesticides and assertions that genetic engineering of crops break a [...]

  3. [...] the dangers of GM foods. Unfortunately, his work has not stood up well to scientific review, and a panel of experts from the Royal Society concluded that he had not established any dangers from GM [...]

  4. [...] at the book to see how his claims stacked up against current peer-reviewed science and submitted a chapter by chapter take down of the [...]

  5. [...] I have been disappointed to see that the labeling movement seems less interested in thoughtful discussion than in doing anything and everything to stop genetic engineering. While food movement leaders like Marion Nestle and Michael Pollan deserve credit for expressing skepticism about the aforementioned French study claiming a link between GM corn and cancer, they have been regrettably silent on the broader misinformation campaign from the Yes on 37 campaign and its allies like NaturalNews.com and author Jeffrey Smith, whose anti-biotech literature has been thoroughly debunked. [...]

  6. Howard Metzenberg says:

    The willingness of some “foodies” to believe in such pseudoscience reminds me of the willingness of people on the opposite end of the political spectrum to believe in pseudoscience about climate change, around which there is a similar scientific consensus. Why don’t they focus instead on voluntary labeling, following the model of the kosher foods movement.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.