Andrew Weil, his woo, and anti-GMO hysteria...

[roseBudd]

102. Science is true, whether you believe in it, or not...

http://www.researchgate.net/post/GMO_crops_Is_there_any_peer_reviewed_scientific_evidence_that_questions_their_safety

Alexander Stein · International Food Policy Research Institute
Disregarding links to obscure website and the general media, it seems only two papers that did studies with GMOs have been cited so far in response to this question.

On the Pusztai paper there is e.g. a discussion at Academics Review, where also many other GMO-related questions are covered and backed up with sources from the literature: http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/section-1/1-1-pusztais-flawed-claims/

On the Seralini paper there is e.g. a discussion by David Tribe at GMO Pundit, where many Letters to the Editor and other references are linked that respond to the study: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-grande-scientific-discussion-of.html

The website of David Tribe has a lot more info and also a comprehensive discussion and supportive references regarding the safety assessments of GM food: http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/150-published-safety-assessments-on-gm.html

A much longer list of published studies (currently 600) covering risk assessment and GMOs, as well as a lot more info, can be found at Biofortified.org: http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/

Then there is also an overview of studies on GMOs funded by the EU over 25 years that concludes that "there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms:" http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-1688_en.htm

And there is a literature review from last year on the "Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials" that concludes that "GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed." http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048

This means there is a handful of papers that suggest negative findings (but that have been heavily criticized by many other scientists in the field) and then there are hundreds of studies from all around the world that do not support concerns about the safety of GM food.

If the popular media and activist groups cite safety concerns as an argument to stop GMOs, they do so based on a very small selection of carefully cherry-picked (and otherwise disputed) papers out of a trove of other papers that contradict their position. (If they bother with evidence at all.)