Latest Activity

Miles Brandon updated their profile
3 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
"Good one!"
5 hours ago
Stephen commented on Adriana's group Science!
"US update 30th November "
5 hours ago
Stephen commented on Adriana's group Science!
"UK update, 30th November"
5 hours ago
Stephen commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
"WOTMQ: Want"
9 hours ago
mario barker updated their profile
11 hours ago
Doone commented on Doone's group Humans of Earth and One Sore Loser Named Scump News
"Population Cartegram of Canada  "
17 hours ago
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"For those who cannot read Mr. Mackesy's handwriting, it says: "What is the bravest…"
21 hours ago
cal bates updated their profile
Onyango Makagutu commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"Loren that sounds so familiar. In fact, if you succeed at killing more of the enemy, you get…"
cherry wilhelm updated their profile
Stephen commented on Stephen's group Secularism in the UK and Europe.and the connection between much of the media and the Tory establishment. NEWS
"                     'Comfort and…"
jimmy zack updated their profile
Mrs.B commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"That makes it all ok."
Stephen replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion GOP Overtly Turned Against the Will of the People in the group Humans of Earth and One Sore Loser Named Scump News
"I've not always believed in the proportional representation system to elect our parliament and…"
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and…"
Grinning Cat replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion GOP Overtly Turned Against the Will of the People in the group Humans of Earth and One Sore Loser Named Scump News
"The Electoral College certainly distorts the will of the people. Voters in less populous states…"
Stephen replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion GOP Overtly Turned Against the Will of the People in the group Humans of Earth and One Sore Loser Named Scump News
"I can't help but think that the system of using the electoral college to decide on the…"
Stephen replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion COVID Reporting Delays in the group Science!
"Trumps apostle Boris Johnson has told the British People that because of the second lockdown he…"
Ruth Anthony-Gardner added a discussion to the group Humans of Earth and One Sore Loser Named Scump News

GOP Overtly Turned Against the Will of the People

In actively trying to subvert the results of the election, the GOP has shown unapologetically that…See More

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

Why genetically engineered food is dangerous: New report by genetic...

Earth Open Source press release 17 June 2012

GMO Myths and Truths

Aren’t critics of genetically engineered food anti-science? Isn’t the debate over GMOs (genetically modified organisms) a spat between emotional but ignorant activists on one hand and rational GM-supporting scientists on the other?

A new report released today, “GMO Myths and Truths”,[1] challenges these claims. The report presents a large body of peer-reviewed scientific and other authoritative evidence of the hazards to health and the environment posed by genetically engineered crops and organisms (GMOs).

Unusually, the initiative for the report came not from campaigners but from two genetic engineers who believe there are good scientific reasons to be wary of GM foods and crops.

One of the report’s authors, Dr Michael Antoniou of King’s College London School of Medicine in the UK, uses genetic engineering for medical applications but warns against its use in developing crops for human food and animal feed.

Dr Antoniou said: “GM crops are promoted on the basis of ambitious claims – that they are safe to eat, environmentally beneficial, increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides, and can help solve world hunger.

“I felt what was needed was a collation of the evidence that addresses the technology from a scientific point of view.

“Research studies show that genetically modified crops have harmful effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials and on the environment during cultivation. They have increased the use of pesticides and have failed to increase yields. Our report concludes that there are safer and more effective alternatives to meeting the world’s food needs.”

Another author of the report, Dr John Fagan, is a former genetic engineer who in 1994 returned to the National Institutes of Health $614,000 in grant money due to concerns about the safety and ethics of the technology. He subsequently founded a GMO testing company.

Dr Fagan said: “Crop genetic engineering as practiced today is a crude, imprecise, and outmoded technology. It can create unexpected toxins or allergens in foods and affect their nutritional value. Recent advances point to better ways of using our knowledge of genomics to improve food crops, that do not involve GM.

“Over 75% of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with herbicide. This has led to the spread of herbicide-resistant superweeds and has resulted in massively increased exposure of farmers and communities to these toxic chemicals. Epidemiological studies suggest a link between herbicide use and birth defects and cancer.

“These findings fundamentally challenge the utility and safety of GM crops, but the biotech industry uses its influence to block research by independent scientists and uses its powerful PR machine to discredit independent scientists whose findings challenge this approach.”

The third author of the report, Claire Robinson, research director of Earth Open Source, said, “The GM industry is trying to change our food supply in far-reaching and potentially dangerous ways. We all need to inform ourselves about what is going on and ensure that we – not biotechnology companies – keep control of our food system and crop seeds.

“We hope our report will contribute to a broader understanding of GM crops and the sustainable alternatives that are already working successfully for farmers and communities.”


The report, “GMO Myths and Truths, An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops”, by Michael Antoniou, PhD, Claire Robinson, and John Fagan, PhD is published by Earth Open Source (June 2012). The report is 123 pages long and contains over 600 citations, many of them from the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the rest from reports by scientists, physicians, government bodies, industry, and the media. The report is available here:

A shorter summary version will be released in the coming weeks.

Key points from the report

  1. Genetic engineering as used in crop development is not precise or predictable and has not been shown to be safe. The technique can result in the unexpected production of toxins or allergens in food that are unlikely to be spotted in current regulatory checks.
  2. GM crops, including some that are already in our food and animal feed supply, have shown clear signs of toxicity in animal feeding trials – notably disturbances in liver and kidney function and immune responses.
  3. GM proponents have dismissed these statistically significant findings as “not biologically relevant/significant”, based on scientifically indefensible arguments.
  4. Certain EU-commissioned animal feeding trials with GM foods and crops are often claimed by GM proponents to show they are safe. In fact, examination of these studies shows significant differences between the GM-fed and control animals that give cause for concern.
  5. GM foods have not been properly tested in humans, but the few studies that have been carried out in humans give cause for concern.
  6. The US FDA does not require mandatory safety testing of GM crops, and does not even assess the safety of GM crops but only “deregulates” them, based on assurances from biotech companies that they are “substantially equivalent” to their non-GM counterparts. This is like claiming that a cow with BSE is substantially equivalent to a cow that does not have BSE and is thus safe to eat! Claims of substantial equivalence cannot be justified on scientific grounds.
  7. The regulatory regime for GM foods is weakest in the US, where GM foods do not even have to be assessed for safety or labelled in the marketplace, but in most regions of the world regulations are inadequate to protect people’s health from the potential adverse effects of GM foods.
  8. In the EU, where the regulatory system is often claimed to be strict, minimal pre-market testing is required for a GMO and the tests are commissioned by the same companies that stand to profit from the GMO if it is approved – a clear conflict of interest.
  9. No long-term toxicological testing of GMOs on animals or testing on humans is required by any regulatory agency in the world.
  10. Biotech companies have used patent claims and intellectual property protection laws to restrict access of independent researchers to GM crops for research purposes. As a result, limited research has been conducted on GM foods and crops by scientists who are independent of the GM industry. Scientists whose work has raised concerns about the safety of GMOs have been attacked and discredited in orchestrated campaigns by GM crop promoters.
  11. Most GM crops (over 75%) are engineered to tolerate applications of herbicides. Where such GM crops have been adopted, they have led to massive increases in herbicide use.
  12. Roundup, the herbicide that over 50% of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate, is not safe or benign as has been claimed but has been found to cause malformations (birth defects), reproductive problems, DNA damage, and cancer in test animals. Human epidemiological studies have found an association between Roundup exposure and miscarriage, birth defects, neurological development problems, DNA damage, and certain types of cancer.
  13. A public health crisis has erupted in GM soy-producing regions of South America, where people exposed to spraying with Roundup and other agrochemicals sprayed on the crop report escalating rates of birth defects and cancer.
  14. A large number of studies indicate that Roundup is associated with increased crop diseases, especially infection with Fusarium, a fungus that causes wilt disease in soy and can have toxic effects on humans and livestock.
  15. Bt insecticidal GM crops do not sustainably reduce pesticide use but change the way in which pesticides are used: from sprayed on, to built in.
  16. Bt technology is proving unsustainable as pests evolve resistance to the toxin and secondary pest infestations are becoming common.
  17. GM proponents claim that the Bt toxin engineered into GM plants is safe because the natural form of Bt, long used as a spray by conventional and organic farmers, has a history of safe use. But the GM forms of Bt toxins are different from the natural forms and could have different toxic and allergenic effects.
  18. GM Bt toxin is not limited in its toxicity to insect pests. GM Bt crops have been found to have toxic effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials.
  19. GM Bt crops have been found to have toxic effects on non-target organisms in the environment.
  20. Bt toxin is not fully broken down in digestion and has been found circulating in the blood of pregnant women in Canada and in the blood supply to their foetuses.
  21. The no-till method of farming promoted with GM herbicide-tolerant crops, which avoids ploughing and uses herbicides to control weeds, is not more climate-friendly than ploughing. No-till fields do not store more carbon in the soil than ploughed fields when deeper levels of soil are measured.
  22. No-till increases the negative environmental impacts of soy cultivation, because of the herbicides used.
  23. Golden Rice, a beta-carotene-enriched rice, is promoted as a GM crop that could help malnourished people overcome vitamin A deficiency. But Golden Rice has not been tested for toxicological safety, has been plagued by basic development problems, and, after more than 12 years and millions of dollars of research funding, is still not ready for the market. Meanwhile, inexpensive and effective solutions to vitamin A deficiency are available but under-used due to lack of funding.
  24. GM crops are often promoted as a “vital tool in the toolbox” to feed the world’s growing population, but many experts question the contribution they could make, as they do not offer higher yields or cope better with drought than non-GM crops. Most GM crops are engineered to tolerate herbicides or to contain a pesticide – traits that are irrelevant to feeding the hungry.
  25. High adoption of GM crops among farmers is not a sign that the GM crop is superior to non-GM varieties, as once GM companies gain control of the seed market, they withdraw non-GM seed varieties from the market. The notion of “farmer choice” does not apply in this situation.
  26. GM contamination of non-GM and organic crops has resulted in massive financial losses by the food and feed industry, involving product recalls, lawsuits, and lost markets.
  27. When many people read about high-yielding, pest- and disease-resistant, drought-tolerant, and nutritionally improved super-crops, they think of GM. In fact, these are all products of conventional breeding, which continues to outstrip GM in producing such crops. The report contains a long list of these conventional crop breeding successes.
  28. Certain “supercrops” have been claimed to be GM successes when in fact they are products of conventional breeding, in some cases assisted by the non-GM biotechnology of marker assisted selection.
  29. Conventional plant breeding, with the help of non-GM biotechnologies such as marker assisted selection, is a safer and more powerful method than GM to produce new crop varieties required to meet current and future needs of food production, especially in the face of rapid climate change.
  30. Conventionally bred, locally adapted crops, used in combination with agroecological farming practices, offer a proven, sustainable approach to ensuring global food security.

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 human somatic gene therapies for inherited and acquired genetic disorders.

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 a GMO testing and certification company. He is a director of Earth Open Source. Earlier, he conducted cancer research at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and in academia. He holds a PhD in biochemistry and molecular and cell biology from Cornell University.

Dr Fagan became an early voice in the scientific debate on genetic engineering when in 1994 he took an ethical stand challenging the use of germline gene therapy (which has subsequently been banned in most countries) and genetic engineering in agriculture. He underlined his concerns by returning a grant of around $614,000 to the US National Institutes of Health, awarded for cancer research that used genetic engineering as a research tool. He was concerned that knowledge generated in his research could potentially be misused to advance human germline genetic engineering (for example, to create “designer babies”), which he found unacceptable on grounds of both safety and ethics. For similar reasons, around the same time, he withdrew applications for two additional grants totalling $1.25 million from the NIH and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). In 1996 he founded one of the pioneering GMO testing and certification companies after realising that this could be useful to assist industry in providing consumers with the transparency that they desired regarding the presence of GMOs in foods.

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 (, a public information service on issues relating to genetic modification, and was formerly managing editor at SpinProfiles (now Powerbase).

Views: 246

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I have kind of a dumb question:how do we know if we're eating GM modified food ?

I don't know about Canada, but in America GM foods are NOT labeled! 

In america you don't.

10- Biotech companies have used patent claims and intellectual property protection laws to restrict access of independent researchers to GM crops for research purposes.

That's what's wrong.

Yes, that is outrageously wrong. 

I am trying to think where I saw a report that was saying that patents actually hinder innovation rather than promote innovation. When I remember where I saw the plurry article I will post it. 

29 Conventional plant breeding, with the help of non-GM biotechnologies such as marker assisted selection, is a safer and more powerful method than GM to produce new crop varieties required to meet current and future needs of food production, especially in the face of rapid climate change.

30 Conventionally bred, locally adapted crops, used in combination with agroecological farming practices, offer a proven, sustainable approach to ensuring global food security.

This is the path we should be taking not Genetically modifying food crops.

IMO- We should not rule out plant Gene modification altogether - As there is one way that it can be used and that is for producing products that are being produced from plants such as cotton which are high water consuming crops and also require a large amount of pesticides in their production. 

There are trees that already produce a cotton like material but it is not produce in bolls like the cotton plant nor are the fibres as long as cotton. These trees are the poplars also known as cottonwoods. These trees are at the moment grown because of their fast growth rate for biomass. Being harvested between five to ten years. 

Now if we could get these trees to have the shape of Lombardy poplar, with them producing cotton bolls at the end of branches making it easier to harvest the bolls. We have a tree that not only saves water because it produces cotton also eliminating the need for high applications of pesticides.Then at the end of ten years or even 20 years the trees are harvested for biomass or in the production of cellulose based plastics. 

The trees can be grown in a windbreaks around fields thus giving farmers an additional source of income without having to acquire additional land or set aside land for the trees. Plus it helps meets our needs for cotton fibre. 

The gene modification cannot make it resistant to pests either but should it go wild then the genes that produce the tight cotton bolls becomes dormant and the tree produces bolls that allow the wind to disperse the seeds. It should also be able to cross pollinate with other trees within the species and allow the processes of evolution to decide what becomes of it in the wild. 

Just some of my thoughts!

GM food crops the Indian farmers have learnt the hard way that GM crops are no better than natural crops. They bought GM corn from Monsanto and they were not allowed to keep it like all good farmers do, keep enough seeds from one crop for the following years crop. They also had to buy more of Monsanto's seeds the following year. The crop they grew the yields were not much better than the crops they grew before. 

Funny you mention cottonwood. At one point when I had a backyard there were more than twenty of these around the house, with a few that were gigantic. On a warm windless say, the whole lawn would be covered in fluffy white fiber. Pretty surreal.

Yeah. I know what you mean because that is what got me thinking about it as well. 

Imagine all that fluff as cotton fibres. How many pounds of fibre would there have been?

Imagine if they were like the trees I mentioned above. They would not only be decorative but also a source of fibre that helps to meet our demands for fibre. 

It would be a form of vertical gardening in a sense. 

Also: the leaves of these trees are very thick. I've read somewhere that they have an exceptionally high protein content. If we were thorough we could easily rake up to fifty garbage bags of leaves in the fall.

We can forego the leaves to feed the tree thus limiting the need for additional fertiliser input. 

The leaves of deciduous tree should be composted and returned back to the soil as Organic Matter which is further broken down to form humus that chelates the elements that the plants requires which can be leached from the soil horizon. Humus also holds up to seven times it weight in soil moisture which is available to plants. 

There is nothIng intrinsically wrong in modifying crops by genetic engineering; the problem is that to make money, companies like Monsanto do not carry out a sufficient number of studies. The risk assessment is insufficient. Also, it all depends what you are modifying as well: are you putting in resistance to weed-killers? Are you modifying yields? Etc, etc. Physiologically it may be very different, depending on the modification. For example, all the Roundup health problem are a problem because of Roundup, basically; even we use it in our own gardens or patios it's problem. Of course, one can question the idea to genetic engineer for resistance to roundup, when you know that shit is toxic!


© 2020   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service