It is frequently claimed that GM foods are not properly tested, or asserted that few independent studies have been published to establish their safety. Another similar claim made is that the food regulatory agencies rely exclusively of corporate information to decide whether GM food and feed are safe. The further claim is made that very few independent tests relating to GM food safety are done. This conventional ‘wisdom’ is wrong.
Photo by distopiandreamgirl via Flickr.
There are almost 300 peer-reviewed reports in the scientific literature which document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds (as of May 2010). In contrast, there has been little testing of the safety of non-transgenic foods in the scientific literature, despite the well known dangers of breeding, such as with potatoes and celery, and despite the potential dangers posed with novel foods such as kiwi fruit and star fruit.
About 30% of the studies are funded through independent sources. Since many opponents (and proponents) of biotechnology are hesitant to accept industry funded studies, we’ve listed independently funded studies on a separate page: Safety Testing – Independent Funding.
If you know of a study that we’ve missed, whether it shows GMOs to be safe or not, please provide a link or citation in the appropriate section of the Biofortified Forum. We’d like to be as through as possible. Thanks in advance for your assistance in compiling this resource.
Another resource where you can find peer-reviewed GMO risk assessments is the Bibliography Database maintained by the Center for Environmental Risk Assessment, part of the International Life Sciences Institute.
Note: Thanks to David Tribe for compiling many of these studies and for much of the introductory text on this page.
Recent Comments