Overwhelming Consensus On Genetically Modified Food Safety
Systematic reviews were performed to determine the consensus among health experts and the scientific literature on the safety of Genetically Modified (GM) foods currently on the market.
Systematic Review 1 Results:
91.5% of health groups with statements on GM food safety and no known conflicts of interest indicated there was not enough evidence to conclude that GM foods were safe (GMO Free Florida 2022).
Systematic Review 2 Results:
In at least 92.9% of surveys the majority of health professionals and health students surveyed either believe GM foods have health risks, or are unsure about the safety of GM foods (GMO Free Florida 2022a).
Systematic Review 3 Results:
In about 86.2% of all relevant animal feeding studies using the popular GM soy GTS 40-3-2, considered to be the most tested GM food, adverse effects or biomarkers indicative of adverse effects were reported by the researchers.
In 100% of the medium and long-term studies, of 6 months feeding duration or longer, adverse effects or biomarkers indicative of adverse effects from the GM soy GTS 40-3-2 diet were reported by the researchers (GMO Free Florida 2022b).
Based on the results of these systematic reviews a clear consensus among health groups and individual health professionals emerged. The consensus among health experts is that GM foods currently on the market cannot presently be considered as safe as their conventional counterparts. This is either due to lack of evidence of safety, or because of evidence that at least some GM foods currently on the market may be unsafe compared to their conventional counterparts (GMO Free Florida 2022b). These systematic reviews indicate there has been a failure to identify studies suggesting adverse effects in reports used to claim a consensus on GM food safety and other aspects related to GM food and crops. Therefore, the database https://gmoresearch.org/ which provides references documenting potential and actual harmful effects from GMOs, should be used by all looking to report on GM foods and crops.
Introduction:
Genetically modified (GM) foods and crops are a controversial subject. There is controversy in many regards including the safety of GM foods, if the current regulations are sufficient, whether or not GM foods should be labeled and if there should be a moratorium on GM crops. GM foods are also referred to as genetically engineered (GE) or bioengineered foods (BE). These include foods modified through techniques such as transgenesis, intragenesis, cisgenesis, zinc finger proteins, transcription activator-like effector nucleases, and clustered, regularly interspaced, short, palindromic repeats. The process of genetic modification can result in unexpected consequences, potentially causing the plant to produce toxins, create foreign proteins, or other unanticipated results (Ho 2013, Wilson 2006, Dona 2009, Rang 2005, Mesnage 2016, Eckerstorfer 2019).
GM foods are generally intended to be consumed for a lifetime by humans and animals of different ages, sexes, and with different medical conditions. Therefore, many health practitioners have concluded that these novel foods should be tested in long-term studies before approval (GMO Free Florida 2022). However, GM foods are generally not tested long-term before deregulation. Despite the lack of long-term testing, the claim has been made that there is a worldwide consensus in the medical and public health communities and the scientific literature that GM foods currently on the market are as safe or healthy as their conventional counterparts (Gostin 2016, Leshner 2015).
There are 3 lines of evidence-primarily used by those making this consensus claim:
- Handpicked statements or endorsements by groups and professional organizations or working groups from these organizations.
- A single survey of some American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) members.
- Handpicked narrative reviews which cite some studies on GM foods.
The references used by those claiming consensus, however, have been selected in an arbitrary manner. As far as we are aware, no attempt to systematically review these lines of evidence to come to an evidence-based conclusion has ever been conducted. We, therefore, have conducted systematic reviews for these lines of evidence to determine if the claim that GM foods currently on the market are as safe or healthy as their conventional counterparts can be accepted or rejected.
Disclaimer: Neither GMO Free Florida, our fiscal sponsor GMO Free USA, nor any person acting on behalf of GMO Free Florida or GMO Free USA are responsible for the use, actions or decisions taken as a result of the information in this report. The views expressed in this report are those of the unpaid volunteers who authored this report and are not necessarily the views of GMO Free Florida or GMO Free USA. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Report 1 overview
For line of evidence 1 we examined position statements, reports and other documents from medical and public health groups from around the world between the years 1996-2019 to determine if a consensus of opinion on GM foods and crops exists. Using the history of harm from tobacco as a basis it would be expected that if harm from GM foods were to be found it would be first identified by the independent medical and public health community. Although plant scientists and agricultural scientists had studied tobacco for many years, it was the medical and public health community that first identified harm from tobacco use (Proctor 2012). This would be expected as health professionals are the experts on health. The Pew Research Center survey of AAAS scientists also considers those in the field of health to be the experts on GM food safety (Pew Research Center 2015). Following the history of harm to health from tobacco, the following are unlikely to report harm from a product even when overwhelming evidence exists from independent health groups and professionals and the scientific literature published in peer-reviewed journals: 1. companies involved in selling a product, 2. universities or groups receiving funding from industry, 3. individual scientists and health professionals affiliated with industry, 4. politicians receiving contributions from industry, 5. related government agencies (Brownell 2009, Brandt 2012).
Data Sources and Selection: Electronic literature systematic search using Google search engine and manual reference checks of all articles related to public health group statements on genetically modified foods and crops.
Data Extraction:
123 medical and public health groups, representing over 25 countries, with related statements on GM foods and crops were found.
Results:
73 groups, representing 22 countries as well as international groups, had statements on GMO safety. 74% of the groups with statements on GMO safety indicated there was not enough evidence to conclude that GM foods were safe.
When groups with a known conflict of interest were eliminated: 91.5% of the groups with statements on GMO safety indicated there was not enough evidence to conclude that GM foods were safe.
35 groups, representing 16 countries as well as international groups, had statements on the current GM food regulatory process. 74.3% indicated the current regulatory process for GMOs is insufficient.
When groups with a known conflict of interest were eliminated: 92.9% indicated the current regulatory process for GMOs is insufficient.
83 groups had statements on GM food labeling, representing 17 countries as well as international groups, of which about 95.2% believed GM food labeling should be mandatory.
When groups with a known conflict of interest were eliminated: About 98.8% believed GM food labeling should be mandatory.
34 groups had statements on GM food or crop moratoriums, representing 16 countries as well as international groups, of which about 61.8% believed there should be a moratorium on all or some GMOs.
When groups with a known conflict of interest were eliminated: About 77.8% believed there should be a moratorium on all or some GMOs.
To see all of Report 1 click the Systematic Reviews tab and Health Groups from the pulldown menu at https://gmofreeflorida.com
Report 2 Overview
For line of evidence 2, surveys conducted between 2009 and 2019 of individuals in the fields of medicine or public health and students in such fields from around the world were also used to determine the consensus of opinion.
Data Sources and Selection: Electronic literature systematic search using Google Scholar and Google and manual reference checks of all articles related to surveys of health professionals’ opinions on genetically modified foods and crops.
Data Extraction:
Relevant surveys of health professionals were found between the years 2009 to 2019 representing 8 countries. These surveys included opinions about GM food safety, GM food labeling, willingness to consume GM food, the regulatory process or agencies that regulate GM foods.
Results:
28 relevant surveys of health professionals were found for opinions about GM food safety between the years 2009 to 2019 representing 8 countries. In at least 92.9% of surveys about GM food safety the majority of health professionals and health students either believe GM foods have health risks, or are neutral or unsure about the safety of GM foods.
12 relevant surveys of health professionals were found for opinions about GM food labeling between the years 2009 to 2019 representing 4 countries. In 100% of surveys about GM food labeling the majority of health professionals and health students believe GM food products should be labeled.
19 relevant surveys of health professionals were found regarding opinions about willingness to consume GM food between the years 2009 to 2019 and representing 7 countries. In 89.5% of surveys about the willingness to consume GM foods the majority of health professionals and health students were unwilling or unsure about consuming GM foods, or would choose non-GMO foods over GM foods.
10 relevant surveys of health professionals were found for opinions about support for GM food and crop production between the years 2009 to 2019 representing 4 countries. In at least 80% of surveys the majority of health professionals and health students either do not support GM foods or GM crop production in their respective countries, or are unsure.
5 relevant surveys of health professionals were found for opinions about the regulatory process or agencies that regulate GM foods and crops between the years 2009 to 2019 representing 3 countries. In 100% of surveys the majority of health professionals and health students either do not believe the regulatory process is adequate for GM foods and crops or were unsure about the adequacy.
To see all of Report 2 click the Systematic Reviews tab and Health Surveys from the pulldown menu at https://gmofreeflorida.com
Report 3 Overview
For line of evidence 3, we reviewed feeding studies which examined health parameters and used animals comparable to humans which were fed single event 40-3-2 glyphosate tolerant soy foods. We reviewed all studies reviewed in Nicolia 2014, Sanchez 2015 and Sanchez 2017 as well as those from sources purported to be used by Sanchez 2017. Since the claim is that all GM foods currently on the market are as safe as their conventional counterparts, if the consensus in the scientific literature is that even a single GM food on the market is less safe, then this claim must be rejected. We chose GM soy with event 40-3-2 as it is one the most grown, has the most animal feeding studies according to Sanchez 2017 and is one of the most approved GMOs internationally.
Data Sources and Selection: Review of all sources used in Nicolia 2014, Sanchez 2015 and Sanchez 2017 pertaining to relevant animal feeding studies using GM food GTS 40-3-2.
Data Extraction: Relevant studies were identified of select animals fed GTS 40-3-2.
Results:
Nicolia 2014
Only 1 relevant animal health study specifically mentions, or provides a reference that specifically mentioned, the feeding of GTS 40-3-2 soy is reviewed in Nicolia 2014 in which the authors do not report adverse effects in the GM soy group. However, 9 studies using GTS 40-3-2 are used in Nicolia 2014 in which the authors report adverse effects or biomarkers indicative of adverse effects in the GM soy fed group. This represents 90% of the relevant GTS 40-3-2 studies used in Nicolia 2014 reporting adverse effects or biomarkers indicative of adverse effects.
Taking into consideration the numerous studies that Nicolia 2014 missed that appear on the GMO Free USA and Coalition for GMO Free India websites or social media posts: 18 relevant animal health studies specifically mentioning the use of GTS 40-3-2 have authors reporting adverse effects or biomarkers indicative of adverse effects in the GM soy fed group. This represents 94.7% of the relevant event 40-3-2 studies that should have been used in Nicolia 2014 reporting adverse effects or biomarkers indicative of adverse effects.
For the medium and long-term studies, of 6 months feeding duration or longer, 100% of the GTS 40-3-2 studies used by Nicolia 2014 report adverse effects or biomarkers indicative of adverse effects in the groups fed the GM soy diet.
Taking into consideration several studies that Nicolia 2014 missed that appear on the GMO Free USA and Coalition for GMO Free India websites or other internet posts: 100% of the GTS 40-3-2 medium and long-term studies, of 6 months feeding duration or longer, indicate adverse effects or biomarkers indicative of adverse effects from the GM soy 40-3-2 diet.
Sanchez 2015 and 2017
Only 4 relevant animal health studies specifically mentioning, or providing a reference that specifically mentioned, the use of event 40-3-2 are used in Sanchez 2015 in which the authors do not report adverse effects. 10 such relevant animal health studies are used in Sanchez 2015 and 2017 in which the authors report that adverse effects or biomarkers indicative of adverse effects were observed. Therefore, 71.4% of these relevant animal health studies indicate adverse effects or biomarkers indicative of adverse effects in the groups fed the GM soy 40-3-2 diet.
Taking into consideration the numerous studies that Sanchez 2015/2017 missed that appear on the GMO Free USA and Coalition for GMO Free India websites or social media posts: There are 25 relevant animal health studies specifically mentioning, or providing a reference that specifically mentioned, the use of GTS 40-3-2 which the authors report adverse effects or biomarkers indicative of adverse effects. Therefore, about 86.2% of relevant animal health studies suggest adverse effects or biomarkers indicative of adverse effects from the GM soy 40-3-2 diet.
100% of the rodent and select non-rodent medium or long-term feeding studies using GTS 40-3-2 soy report adverse effects in the GM soy fed groups.
Taking into consideration the numerous studies that Sanchez 2015/2017 missed that appear on the GMO Free USA and Coalition for GMO Free India websites or social media posts: 100% of the rodent and select non-rodent medium or long-term feeding studies using GTS 40-3-2 soy report adverse effects in the GM soy fed groups.
To see all of Report 3 click the Systematic Reviews tab and GM Soy from the pulldown menu at https://gmofreeflorida.com
Report 4 Overview
Report 4 is a literature review where we compare the consensus observed in our systematic reviews presented in Reports 1, 2 and 3, to the consensus on climate change. It also discusses why the claim of a worldwide consensus in the medical and public health communities and the scientific literature that GM foods currently on the market are as safe or healthy as their conventional counterparts should not have been made in the absence of systematic reviews on the subject. We also present evidence that as with other health-related topics, such as Cov-2 virus, artificial trans fats, etc., a precautionary approach should be taken with GM foods. This approach should be taken especially since there is now a consensus among health groups and individual health professionals that GM foods currently on the market cannot currently be considered as safe as their conventional counterparts.
Results:
Large sums of money have been spent by GM seed and food companies to promote the idea of a consensus that GM foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts. This appears to have perpetuated the idea of such a consensus despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Proponents of GM foods have largely engaged in various types of science denial. These include reliance on fake experts, cherry-picked supportive facts, belief in conspiracy theories, impossible expectations of what research can deliver, as well as attacks on science and scientists.
A precautionary approach should be taken with GM foods. This should be done to avoid repeating the mistakes made by failing to respond quick enough to prevent substantial harm such as what happened with artificial trans fats and the coronavirus epidemic of 2019-2020.
Health professionals generally agree with climatologists on climate change.
Farmers and agriculture experts appear far less likely to agree with climatologists on climate change when compared to health experts.
Environmental groups often agree with climatologists on climate change and health professionals on GM food safety.
To see all of Report 4 click the Systematic Reviews tab and Consensus on GM Foods from the pulldown menu at https://gmofreeflorida.com
GMOResearch Database
The results of our systematic reviews clearly indicate that previous reports have failed to identify a large body of evidence that indicates problems with GM foods, crops, regulations and other topics related to the subject. Therefore, the database http://GMOResearch.org should be used as a resource for all who are looking to report on GM food and crops. GMOResearch should be used along with other databases to ensure that reports do not use cherry-picked references that fit a particular narrative.
References
Note: If any of the links below are broken, place this before the url: https://web.archive.org/
For example: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12344237086176188366
Would become: https://web.archive.org/https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12344237086176188366
Brandt, A. M. (2012). Inventing conflicts of interest: a history of tobacco industry tactics. American Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 63-71. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=10204660751561827948&hl=
Brownell, K. D., & Warner, K. E. (2009). The perils of ignoring history: Big Tobacco played dirty and millions died. How similar is Big Food?. The Milbank Quarterly, 87(1), 259-294. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=36342925663854805&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10
Dona, A., & Arvanitoyannis, I. S. (2009). Health risks of genetically modified foods. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 49(2), 164-175. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=2941931847779947170&hl=
Eckerstorfer, M. F., Heissenberger, A., Reichenbecher, W., Steinbrecher, R. A., & Waßmann, F. (2019). An EU perspective on biosafety considerations for plants developed by genome editing and other new genetic modification techniques (nGMs). Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 7. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12049981105055901807&hl=
GMO Free Florida (2022). Health Groups. Systematic Reviews. Available from: https://gmofreeflorida.com
GMO Free Florida (2022a). Health Surveys. Systematic Reviews. Available from: https://gmofreeflorida.com
GMO Free Florida (2022b). GM Soy. Systematic Reviews. Available from: https://gmofreeflorida.com
Gostin, L. O. (2016). Genetically Modified Food Labeling: A “Right to Know”?. JAMA, 316(22), 2345-2346. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=6444254399353425998&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10
Ho, M. W. (2013). The new genetics and natural versus artificial genetic modification. Entropy, 15(11), 4748-4781. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11290094311944334911&hl=
Leshner, A. I. (2015). Bridging the opinion gap. Science, 347(6221), 459-459. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=18135457762796266742&hl=
Mesnage, R., Agapito-Tenfen, S.Z., Vilperte, V., Renney, G., Ward, M., Séralini, G.E., Nodari, R.O. and Antoniou, M.N., (2016). An integrated multi-omics analysis of the NK603 Roundup-tolerant GM maize reveals metabolism disturbances caused by the transformation process. Scientific reports, 6(1), pp.1-14. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=6477406195910091532&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10
Pew Research Center (2015). “An Elaboration of AAAS Scientists’ Views” July. Available from:
Proctor, R. N. (2012). The history of the discovery of the cigarette–lung cancer link: evidentiary traditions, corporate denial, global toll. Tobacco Control, 21(2), 87-91. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5006358032844355714&hl=
Rang, A., Linke, B., & Jansen, B. (2005). Detection of RNA variants transcribed from the transgene in Roundup Ready soybean. European Food Research and Technology, 220(3-4), 438-443. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=2477275647936867897&hl=
Wilson, A. K., Latham, J. R., & Steinbrecher, R. A. (2006). Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: analysis and biosafety implications. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, 23(1), 209-238. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12219212651561893601&hl=