Безопасен ли nongmoproject.org?

You can find numerous errors and fallacies just on the starter page alone (pretty much every paragraph is misleading or factually incorrect): Claim: "none of the GMO traits currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit." Fact: False, According to meta-analyses which, on average, show a 20% yield increase, 40% pesticide reduction, and 70% increase in farmer profits with the adoption of GM crops: ***** Enhanced nutrition examples: Golden rice, purple tomatoes, omega-3-enhanced soybeans, etc. etc. In addition to that, the GM techniques saved the papaya industry: ***** Reduces food waste: Arctic apple e.g. Provides more ethical solutions to animal agriculture: Real Vegan Cheese, e.g. Claim: "Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe." Fact: Misleading and purely political. The scientific consensus on GMOs -- that they are no more risky than other modification techniques -- is more solid than the consensus on anthropogenic climate change [PewResearch], and for obvious reasons for anyone with basic understanding of biotechnology. I suggest reading the reviews by all the major national academies of sciences like the: US National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of London, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Indian National Science Academy, Mexican Academy of Sciences, Third World Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities, etc. etc.* ... and scientific societies like the World Health Organization, American Association for the Advancement of Science, European Commission's Research Area, American Medical Association, Society of Toxicology, Society of Cell Biology, Society for In-Vitro Biology, Crop Science Society, Society for Microbiology, Society of Plant Biologists, Phytopathological Society, Dietetic Association, Council on Science and Health, etc. etc. etc. * The International Council for Science summarized the statements by all the major scientific academies and scientific unions worldwide and concluded "Currently available genetically modified foods are safe to eat." and "there is no evidence of any deleterious environmental effects having occurred from the trait/species combinations currently available." Claim: "In the absence of mandatory labeling, the Non-GMO Project was created to give consumers the informed choice they deserve." Fact: Mandatory labeling would only further mislead people and possibly waste billions of dollars: ***** It is the equivalent argument to wanting labels on foods containing DNA which is just as absurd yet that's what the ignorant masses want: ***** I think I've made my point. This website is not fact-based. It's misleading and shouldn't be used by anyone interested in truth.

Genetically modifying food organisms is what has made civilization possible and has been happening for well over 10,000 years. There is nothing inherently bad about GMOs. Like any technology, it needs to be regulated and safety testing, but banning it altogether and spreading panic about it where it is not warranted is not helping.

This site, while not making blatantly incorrect statements, is posing as an impartial nonprofit site which provides useful public in formation. In reality, it its History page denotes, it was created by a group of retailers who stand to benefit from FUD about GMOs. The site does not mention any benefits of GMOs (not even claims for benefits), and claims that GMOs are not safe because "Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe." while ignoring that there isn't a single peer-reviewed scientific research paper which showed any damage from GMOs. Similarly it "proves" that all GMOs damage the environment claiming the use of Roundup increased "15 times since GMOs were introduced" (an incorrect claim, more than 40 times larger than the increase claimed by the report of the Organic Center - see ***** This kind of information is very good for the organizations behind this site - organic groceries, farmers and food producers, but not for consumers or human kind (see ***** for a lot more details and references).