GMOs Have NOT Been Proven Safe

According to supporters of agrichemical biotechnology, the World Health Organization (WHO) position is that GMO foods are safe. That’s not true. The IAASTD Global Report, co-sponsored by the WHO and six other world organizations, states GMOs have NOT been proven safe.

On January 24, 2015 a statement signed by 300 scientists was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Environmental Sciences Europe asserting that there is no scientific consensus about the safety of GE foods

Over 100 global and local health and science organizations agree with IAASTD report and/or support mandatory GMO labeling. Go Organic Principle’s Knowledge Exchange for related research.

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) co-sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO), The World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the United Nations Educational and Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) involving 900 participants and 110 countries from all regions of the world:

“The safety of GMO foods and feed is controversial due to limited available data, particularly for long-term nutritional consumption and chronic exposure. Food safety is a major issue in the GMO debate. Potential concerns include alteration in nutritional quality of foods, toxicity, antibiotic resistance, and allergenicity from consuming GM foods. The concepts and techniques used for evaluating food and feed safety have been outlined (WHO, 2005b), but the approval process of GM crops is considered inadequate (Spök et al., 2004). Under current practice, data are provided by the companies owning the genetic materials, making independent verification difficult or impossible. Recently, the data for regulatory approval of a new Bt-maize variety (Mon863) was challenged. Significant effects have been found on a number of measured parameters and a call has been made for more research to establish their safety… “There is little consensus among the findings from the assessments of economic and environmental impacts of GMOs.” – Global Report…

“In regions or countries that choose to produce GMOs, regulation should be based on the precautionary principle and the right of consumers to have an informed choice, for example through labeling” – Translation from Spanish: “En regiones o países, que elijan producir GMO, la regulación debería basarse en el principio de precaución y el derecho de los consumidores a tener una elección informada, por ejemplo a traves del etiquetado.” – LAC SDM (Latin America and Caribbean…

American Public Health Association (APHA):
“APHA declare its support that any food product containing genetically modified organisms be so labeled.”

British Medical Association:
“Many unanswered questions remain, particularly with regard to the potential long-term impact of GM foods on human health and on the environment. There is a lack of evidence-based research with regard to medium and long-term effects on health and the environment…Labelling of GM-containing foods should be continued [in Britain] in order to facilitate further health research and allow the public to choose whether they consume GM food or not. Robust population health surveillance in relation to consumption of all foods, including GM foods, is essential and we endorse the suggestions in the FSA (Food Standards Agency) feasibility study regarding the importance of linking nutritional and health surveillance data. When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.”

Australia Public Health Association:
“GM foods should not be assessed as safe to eat unless they have undergone long-term animal safety assessments utilizing endpoints relevant to human health and conducted by independent researchers…The labelling system should be improved to the standards desired by consumers, so that consumers can easily identify foods containing ingredients originating from GM animals and plants, and from animals fed GM feed…There are no surveillance systems set-up to determine the effects of GM foods on health, and no-one is paid to look in existing surveillance systems for problems.,,,and “The precautionary principle should be applied in developing GM food as it is not certain whether there are serious risks to the environment or to human health involved in producing or consuming GM foods or their products.”

Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology prepared by The Royal Society of Canada for Health Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and Environment Canada:
“The Panel recommends that approval of new transgenic organisms for environmental release, and for use as food or feed, should be based on rigorous scientific assessment of their potential for causing harm to the environment or to human health. Such testing should replace the current regulatory reliance on ‘substantial equivalence’ as a decision threshold. The Panel recommends the precautionary regulatory assumption that, in general, new technologies should not be presumed safe unless there is a reliable scientific basis for considering them safe. The Panel rejects the use of “substantial equivalence” as a decision threshold to exempt new GM products from rigorous safety assessments on the basis of superficial similarities because such a regulatory procedure is not a precautionary assignment of the burden of proof.”

National Environmental Health Association (NEHA): “NEHA declare its support for the “understandable” labeling of any food product that contains GMOs, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any labeling program not exempt soy oil and soy derivatives such as lecithin”

Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH):
“there are no robust techniques available to monitor the impact of genetic engineering in the food industry or on health or on the environment. Genetic engineering should not be used in the production of human food or animal feeding stuffs or released into the environment until such techniques are in place.”…

California Medical Association (CMA):
“the CMA support accurate labeling requirements for foods, including genetically modified foods, by appropriate regulatory agencies.”
California Medical Association SUPPORTS THE LABELING OF GMOs

European Commission:
“labelling should include objective information to the effect that a food or feed consists of, contains or is produced from GMOs. Clear labelling, irrespective of the detectability of DNA or protein resulting from the genetic modification in the final product, meets the demands expressed in numerous surveys by a large majority of consumers, facilitates informed choice and precludes potential misleading of consumers as regards methods of manufacture or production.”…

Honourable Supreme Court of India Technical Expert Committee (TEC):
“TEC recommends a ten year moratorium on field trials of Bt transgenics in all food crops(those used directly for human consumption)”…
Over 250 scientists support this committee.

“Accept majority TEC final report”: More than 250 scientists write to PM

Viennese Doctors’ Chamber (Ärztekammer für Wien):
“The release of transgenic species in nature must still be strictly opposed as the results can neither be estimated nor reversed.” Website:

Illinois Public Health Association:
“lack of labeling denies health professionals the ability to trace potential toxic or allergic reactions to, and other adverse health effects from, genetically engineered food” &

American Nurses Association:
“the American Nurses Association supports the public’s right to know through support of appropriate food labeling, including country-of-origin and genetic modification and of nutritional information for food served in institutions, restaurants and fast food chains” &

Indiana State Medical Association:
“Lack of labeling denies health professionals the ability to trace potential toxic or allergic reactions to, and other adverse health effects from, genetically engineered food”

American College of Physicians:
“the Board of Regents supports legislation and/or federal regulatory action which requires all foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be clearly labeled.” “the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine (ACP-ASIM) strongly encourage the study of the long-term impact of genetic engineering on the food supply and human health.”

Australian Medical Association (AMA):
“Genetically modified foods have been developed and introduced without regard for full and independent safety evaluation, or full and adequate public consultation or rigorous assessment of health impacts.” – Australian Medical Association, Public Health Association, Australian Consumers’ Association, ‘Grave fears that gene food labels will be denied to consumers’, Media Release, 29 July 1999.…

Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE): “CAPE has grave concerns about the environmental release of genetically modified (GM) crops and products; we call for the immediate suspension of all such releases”

American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM):
“because GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle”

European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER):
“No epidemiological studies in human populations have been carried out to establish whether there are any health effects associated with GM food consumption. As GM foods are not labelled in North America, a major producer and consumer of GM crops, it is scientifically impossible to trace, let alone study, patterns of consumption and their impacts. Therefore, claims that GM foods are safe for human health based on the experience of North American populations have no scientific basis.”…

Dignity Health:
“Our desire is to have things labeled so that we can make the best decision on what foods to bring into our hospitals,” “The more information we have, the better decision we can make about what to buy.” &…

Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology:
“Commercial application of genetical engineering for production of foods cannot be scientifically justified and carries with it unpredictable and potentially serious consequences.”

Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility (PSGR):
“The application of genetic engineering biotechnology, in particular the release overseas into the environment of genetically engineered organisms, has proven at best uncertain and at worst seriously damaging. We maintain that it is imperative to keep genetic engineering biotechnology in strict containment in the laboratory.

“The precautionary principle should dictate that we declare an immediate moratorium on (i) the release of any genetically engineered organisms into the environment, and (ii) the incorporation of GEOs [genetically engineered organisms] – their parts, processes and products – into the food chain.”…

Health Care Without Harm – Healthy Food in Health Care program:
“Health Care Without Harm joined as a partner to the Just Label It campaign, which has petitioned the FDA to legally require that genetically engineered (GE) foods be labeled. Americans have a basic right to know what they are eating and the right to make informed choices about what they eat.” “Healthy Food in Health Care program encourages health care providers to purchase foods free from genetically engineered (GE) ingredients as much as possible, to source from suppliers that demonstrate a strong commitment to non-GE foods, and to support local farmers that favor sustainable practices.”
481 Hospitals signed the Healthy Food in Health Care Pledge

Council For Responsible Genetics:
“Governments should require mandatory labeling of foods produced by or containing genetically engineered organisms (GMOs)”

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM):
“Tell Congress It’s Time to Label GMOs”

Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association:
“The health risks of introducing genetically modified animal feed and agricultural crops into the food chain need to be as thoroughly researched as the introduction of drugs produced by GM bacteria into medicine. This is patently not the case.”

California Nurses Association:
“Nurses see people suffering from serious diet-related diseases every day. The potential danger of genetically modified foods is why CNA supports Prop 37.”

American College for Advancement in Medicine:
“Americans have a right to know if their foods contain GMO ingredients.”

The Independent Science Panel (ISP):
“GM foods have never passed any required tests that could have established they are safe.”

Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS):
“Support food labeling laws that require foods containing GE crops to be clearly identified as such, so that consumers can make informed decisions about buying GE products.”…

Arizona Center for Advanced Medicine:
“At the very least, we can be wary. We can insist on more long-term studies of the effects of our genetic modification of crops. We can insist that our foods be labeled, so that we can make the choice whether to consume genetically modified foods.”…

Russia’s National Association for Genetic Safety (NAGS):
“It is necessary to ban GMO, to impose moratorium [on it] for 10 years. While GMO will be prohibited, we can plan experiments, tests, or maybe even new methods of research could be developed,” Website:

Peru National Institute of Health/Instituto Nacional de Salud (INS): English translation: “The analysis of identified publications concluded that the scientific evidence is not sufficient to determine the consumption of GMO generates no adverse effects on human health. It is necessary to develop studies evaluating the safety of human and animal GMO according to international scientific standards. Similar findings have been made by other scholars (30, 31) scientific groups. ”…

World Conservation Union (IUCN): “
CALLS for a moratorium on further environmental releases of GMOs until these can be demonstrated to be safe for biodiversity, and for human and animal health, beyond reasonable doubt”

Connecticut Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (CAND):
“Labeled GMOs would be an added component to an already terrific collection of information on a product’s Nutrition Facts Label. This information is critical for consumers looking to make wise and specific food purchases, many of which directly affect health.”

Maine Integrative Healthcare:
“While the scientific debate about the benefits and risks of genetically engineered crops is vigorous and unlikely to reach a consensus anytime soon, you have a right to know what you are eating now.”

Plurinational State of Bolivia (Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia):
“Based on the current knowledge, including the published literature and narratives, the Plurinational State of Bolivia recognizes that changes in biodiversity and ecosystems caused by LMOs [living modified organisms/genetically modified organisms] are linked to pressing socioeconomic (SE) concerns.”

National Student Nurses’ Association (NSNA): the NSNA encourage its constituent members to write to their state and national legislators in support of mandatory labeling of genetically modified, genetically engineered, or bioengineered food

National Institute of Integrative Medicine:
“Overall, the research debunks the notion that it is necessary or beneficial to integrate GM crops into our everyday nutrition. The health risks, both proven and potential, greatly outweigh the argument for improved nutrition through genetic modification.”

Association of Catholic Medical Practitioners of Nigeria: “a moratorium should be placed on distribution of all GMOs through all sources”

Consumers Union:
“Consumers Union Calls on U.S. to Support Genetically Modified Food Labeling Agreement”

Institute for Integrative Nutrition:
“Integrative Nutrition is joining the conversation about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) because we believe everyone has the right to make educated decisions about what we eat.”

Irish Medical Organization:
“this AGM calls for full and proper labeling of foods, which either contain genetically engineered ingredients or have been produced using genetically engineered technology, irrespective of whether these foods are substantially equivalent to existing foods or not” –
General Motion #29 passed by the 1997 Irish Medical Association Annual General Meeting

Wellness Center at Post Haste:
“In animal studies, GMO’s have been linked to infertility, gastrointestinal and immune problems, faulty insulin regulation and major changes in internal organs.”

Consumers Health Forum of Australia (CHF):
“Concerns about safety are not simply a knee-jerk reaction to the technology or an automatic fear-based response. There is already evidence that some GMOs released have acted in a different manner than expected.” and “The fact that GMOs are living things with the capacity to breed and presumably possibly “interbreed” with existing non-GMO organisms means that, once released into the environment either deliberately following authorisation or accidentally, it may be very difficult to “fix” a mistake. Scientific understanding of the effect of introducing DNA into another organism on its other characteristics is incomplete.”…

American Chiropractic Association:
“In consideration that genetically modified plant technology is at an early stage of development and since the scientific community acknowledges that the use of genetically modified plants is not without risk both to the environment and human health. The ACA supports the right of consumers not to be involuntarily subjected to possible risks by supporting the right of consumers to choose not to consume genetically modified foods through clear and informative labeling.”

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for a Livable Future:
“The risks, however, of introducing genetically engineered plants into the environment have not been fully characterized with regard to ecosystem and human health. Unpredicted risks, such as the potential for increased food allergies, have not been fully considered.”

Macalester College GMO Exploratory Committee:
“All GMO products should be labeled as such. The committee feels that the public has the right to be informed about the nature of the foods they consume. This is also essential for citizens with food allergies. Therefore, we recommend labeling with stickers for produce or directly labeling the packaging of other foods. Further information about each GMO product will be available online or in information packets in grocery stores and restaurants. Distributors of the food must provide this information to the marketing location.”

Dietitians Association of Australia:
“DAA supports compulsory labelling of genetically modified foods and ingredients.” and, “As genetically modified food is a relatively recent addition to the food supply, it is difficult to assess the long- term effect it may have on the environment and the health of those who eat it.

Connecticut Public Health Association:
“requiring the labeling of GM foods will assure transparency by the GM food industry and also create a system which allows for the traceability of GMOs, making it possible to monitor GM foods for human health effects. Genetically modified foods pose real potential health risks to humans, and when such hazards to human health are at stake, unbiased, rigorous research is necessary to protect the public’s health and inform decision making.”—Kelly%20Rago,%20Intern%20-TMY.PDF

Groups that support mandatory GMO labeling:

Akasha Center for Integrative Medicine :

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments:

American Holistic Medical Association:

American Medical Students Association:

Bernhoft Center for Advanced Medicine:

Bowdoin Street Health Center:

Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions:

Canadian Health Coalition:

Center for Environmental Health:

Center for Ethics and Toxics:

Children’s Environmental Health Network:

Ghana Public Health Association(GPHA):

Harbor Medical Group:

Healthcare Professionals for a Safe & Healthy Sustainable Food Supply:

HealthNOW Medical Center:

Institute of Progressive Medicine:

Institute for Restorative Health:

International and American Association of Clinical Nutritionists:

International College of Integrative Medicine:

Jade Mountain Health Center:

Latino Care Medical Group:

. Michigan State Medical Society:…

M.D. Integrative Wellness:

National Association of Nutrition Professionals:

Ontario Health Coalition:

Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility:

Pacific Center For Integral Health:

Palmetto Allergy and Asthma:

PCOS Nutrition Center:…
80. Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses & Allied Professionals:

Physicians for Social Responsibility:

Physicians for Social Responsibility, Arizona:

. Physicians for Social Responsibility- Los Angeles:

Physicians for Social Responsibility- Sacramento:

Porter Ranch Medical Center:

The Preventive Medicine Center :

Preventive Medicine Research Institute:

Registered Nurses Association of Ontario:

Redwood Wellness:

Santa Cruz Integrative Medicine:

. Santa Cruz Occupational Medical Center:

San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility:

San Francisco Preventive Medical Group:

Sedona Center for Complementary Medicine:

Texas Association of Naturopathic Doctors:

Vermont Public Health Association:

Washington Association of Naturopathic Physicians:

Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility:

Washington State Nurses Association:

Western Washington Physicians for a National Health Program: