Links to Articles about GMOs


Current independent articles and peer-reviewed citations that explain the findings and declarations and the outcomes of the CA Right to Know GE Food Act. There are dramatic new findings coming out every week. These are the most important. If you are presented with information that differs from what is in these documents, ask for the data, look critically and find out how the authors were compensated for the work.

 

GMO Myths and Truths An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops by Michael Antoniou, Claire Robinson, and John Fagan, June 2012.

 

Economic Assessment: Proposed California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act (Prop 37) Likely to Cause No Change in Food Prices, Minor Litigation Costs, and Negligible Administrative Costs, by Joanna M. Shepherd-Bailey, Ph.D. Emory University Law School. 2012.

 

Long-term toxicity study of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize, Seralini et al, Sept 2012 In the 15 years since GE foods have come on the market, we have seen an increase in childhood ADHD, diabetes, obesity, autism, digestive problems and inflammatory disease. Is that a coincidence?
Comments

Defense

Scientists Response to Critics of Seralini's Study, by GM Watch, Oct 2012,

 

When those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results, or when governments exploit political opportunities by picking and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public confidence in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own citizenry at risk. Safety testing, science-based regulation, and the scientific process itself, depend crucially on widespread trust in a body of scientists devoted to the public interest and professional integrity. If instead, the starting point of a scientific product assessment is an approval process rigged in favour of the applicant, backed up by systematic suppression of independent scientists working in the public interest, then there can never be an honest, rational or scientific debate. - Bill Olkowski

Seralini and Science: an Open Letter

 

Article - Food Movement - Michael Pollan - NY Times


Public Research Private Gain--Corporate Influence Over University Agricultural Research, by Food and Water Watch, April 2012,

 

Most Americans Want Labeling of GE Foods, Fact Sheet by Food and Water Watch, Sept 2012

 

How GE Crops Hurt Farmers, Fact Sheet by Food and Water Watch, July 2012,

 

The Case for GE Labeling, Fact Sheet by Food and Water Watch, Aug 2012,

 

Pesticide use ramping up as GMO crop technology backfires: study
By Carey Gillam Mon Oct 1, 2012 9:18pm EDT

 

The Precautionary Principle applied to GMO food - analysis of ruin, an open paper by: Yaneer Bar-Yam, Rupert Read, Nassim Nicholas Taleb

The risk of ruin is not sustainable, like a resource that gets depleted in the long term (even in the short term). By the ruin theorems, if you incur a tiny probability of ruin, as a “one-off”
risk, survive it, then repeat the exposure, you will eventually go bust with probability 1.