Though the debates continue, experts agree that there is no consensus on the safety of GMOs. Organizations aligned with the agrichemical/biotech industry often mislead the public with claims of absolute safety when, in fact, the safety of GMOs is fully inconclusive. In the absence of a consensus on the safety of GMOs, it is recommended that mandatory labeling standards be enacted to allow the public a choice whether they consume Genetically Engineered/GM food or not.


Agrichemical/biotech proponents say that the scientific consensus is that GMO foods are safe, but the truth is that the IAASTD Global Report, co-sponsored by the WHO (World Health Organization) and six other world organizations, says GMOs have NOT been proven safe. Following are 124 other health or science related organizations from around the world that are in agreement with the IAASTD report, and/or support mandatory GMO labeling.

Also, read Food & Water Watch’s September 2014 Issue Brief titled “The So-Called Scientific ‘Consensus’: Why the Debate on GMO Safety Is Not Over” to learn how GMO advocates misinform the public. Download the Issue Brief PDF HERE.

If your science or health based organization is not listed and your organization would like to be added, please send us a message using our contact form or at

01. 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” and “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)

02. American Public Health Association (APHA) (30,000 members): “APHA declare its support that any food product containing genetically modified organisms be so labeled.”

“Improve food labeling for country-of-origin and genetic modification”


03. British Medical Association (153,000 members): “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.”

04. Australia Public Health Association (1,900 members) : “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 reflect the greater sensitivity of modern GM DNA detection methods and the standards desired by consumers, so that consumers can easily identify foods containing all ingredients originating from GM organisms, 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.”

05. Bundesärztekammer(German Medical Association) (470,000 physicians): “German Medical Assembly calls for the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food.”  Translation from German : “Deutsche Ärztetag fordert die Kennzeichnungspflicht von gentechnisch hergestellten Lebensmitteln.”

“through the application of genetic engineering in the food sector, health risks both during the manufacturing process and also in the consumption of these products cannot be ruled out” “the mandatory labeling of genetically modified food, as well as for food (ingredients), produced with the genetic engineering techniques is stressed for precautionary health protection.”  In German: “daß durch die Anwendung der Gentechnik im Ernährungsbereich gesundheitliche Gefahren sowohl während des Herstellungsprozesses wie auch beim Verzehr dieser Produkte nicht auszuschließen”

06. National Environmental Health Association (NEHA) (4,500 members) : “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”

07. 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.”

08. California Medical Association (CMA) (40,000 members): “the CMA support accurate labeling requirements for foods, including genetically modified foods, by appropriate regulatory agencies.”

09. Asociación Médica Peruana (Peruvian Medical Association): English translation: “Conclusions and Recommendations 1. biosecurity from animal and human health studies: better designed, case by case, observed by more time and carried out by independent groups. 2. regulate the GMOs and derived products in the labeling (consumer code) as a right to the information and the health of the citizens.” “5. require a moratorium on GMOs”  In Spanish: “Conclusiones y Recomendaciones 1. Estudios de Bioseguridad en salud animal y humana: mejor diseñados, caso por caso, observados por más tiempo y realizados por grupos independientes.  2. Reglamentar a los OVMs y productos derivados en el Etiquetado (Código del consumidor) como derecho a la información y la salud de los ciudadanos.” “5. Exigir una Moratoria para los OVMs”

10. Ontario Public Health Association (2,000 members): “Mandatory food labelling for GM content of food is necessary to enable consumer choice.  A related public health issue is the capacity for epidemiological tracking in the case of food toxicity or increased incidence of allergy that may be associated with a GM product in the food system. Such an assessment is not possible without a system of food labelling so that the origins of the causative agent can be traced.”

“Also, soy-based infant products may use genetically modified soybeans. Currently insufficient evidence is present within in the peer-reviewed literature to adequately assess this concern, thus the long term impacts of the genetic modification of food consumed by infants remain unknown”

11. Viennese Doctors’ Chamber (Ärztekammer für Wien): “Long-term analyses (over a period of at least 30 years) must be made in regard to nutritive, anti-nutritive, toxic and allergenic contents to establish unintended changes caused by the genetic modification.”  “The release of transgenic species in nature must still be strictly opposed as the results can neither be estimated nor reversed.”

12. Illinois Public Health Association (7,000 members): “lack of labeling denies health professionals the ability to trace potential toxic [1] or allergic reactions [2] [3] [4] to, and other adverse health effects [5] [6] [7] from, genetically engineered food”

13. American Nurses Association (3.1 million members): “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”

“The American Nurses Association (ANA) has joined a coalition urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to label foods that have been genetically engineered.”

14. Indiana State Medical Association (8,000 members) : “Lack of labeling denies health professionals the ability to trace potential toxic1 or allergic reactions2,3,4 to, and other adverse health effects5,6,7 from, genetically engineered food”

15. American College of Physicians (143,000 members): “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.”

16. Australian Medical Association (AMA) (27,000 members): “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.

“There should also be full labelling of genetically modified foods and the current system of labeling for genetically modified foods should include reference to the method of production…The AMA has also called for an alert system whereby medical practitioners can notify authorities if they believe a reaction may have occurred to the consumption of a genetically modified or other novel food.”

17. Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) (4,700 members) : “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”

18. 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”

19. Washington State Nurses Association (16,000 members) : “As health care professionals, Washington’s nurses want everyone to have information to make important decisions about their health. It is ’informed consent’. That’s why we support labeling of genetically engineered foods. The more information our patients and we have to better trace potential allergens, toxins and the food supply chain the better. This information allows our patients to make the best decisions for their health.”   The Washington Nurse Volume 43 No. 1 Spring 2013

20. Dignity Health (10,000 physicians): “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.” &

21. Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (600 members) : “Commercial application of genetical engineering for production of foods cannot be scientifically justified and carries with it unpredictable and potentially serious consequences.”

22. 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.”

23. 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.”

580 Hospitals signed the Healthy Food in Health Care Pledge

24. 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 Organization Annual General Meeting

“In view of the absence of any epidemiological studies detailing the effects of genetically engineered foods on human health, this AGM requests that the Minister for Health & Children provide funding for the establishment of a group to establish the implications of genetically modified foods.”

– General Motion #31 passed by the 2001 Irish Medical Organization Annual General Meeting

“The IMO views with concern the inadequate development of Health Impact Assessments as proposed by the National Health Strategy, particularly in relation to the pending introduction of incineration and the increasing availability of GM foods in Ireland, and urges the Department of Health & Children to fulfill its obligations as stated.”

General Motion #30 passed by the 2006 Irish Medical Organization Annual General Meeting

25. Institut national de santé publique du Québec (National Public Health Institute of Quebec):  English translation: “At present, no one can say with certainty that GMOs pose no health problem” “The scientific evidence is insufficient, it is not possible with the current state of knowledge,to predict the health effects of GM foods.” “The consumer can not know if they consume GMOs or not since labeling is nonexistent. The credibility of the state in its regulatory role is affected by the fact that they are also a promoter of GMOs. There is a lack of a proper certification process and failure to establish an efficient labeling policy to track products and consumer protection.  The absence of traceability mechanisms makes it impractical to manage and monitor unexpected effects and the proper management of the residual risk, for example, prompt removal of an inadequate product.”  In French : “À l’heure actuelle, personne ne peut affirmer avec certitude que les OGM ne posent aucun problème pour la santé” “Les données scientifiques sont insuffisantes, il n’est pas possible, avec l’état actuel des connaissances, de prédire les effets sur la santé des AGM.” “Le consommateur ne peut pas savoir s’il consomme ou non des AGM puisque l’étiquetage est inexistant. La crédibilité de l’État dans son rôle de réglementation est affectée par le fait qu’il est aussi promoteur des AGM. L’absence d’un processus adéquat d’homologation ne permettrait pas de mettre en place une politique d’étiquetage efficace pour assurer le suivi des produits et la protection des consommateurs. L’absence de mécanismes de traçabilité rend impraticable la gestion de la surveillance des effets inattendus et la gestion appropriée du risque résiduel, par exemple, le retrait rapide d’un produit inadéquat.”

26. Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association: “Genetically engineered food has not been tested adequately for possible adverse health effects. Present ‘risk assessments’ are inadequate. We believe that the introduction of genetic engineering techniques to food should be every bit as thoroughly researched as its introduction into medicine.”  “There have been no tests for possible adverse health effects from genetically engineered foods on humans and testing on animals has given rise to concern.” “It is a cause of great concern to our organisation that no attempt is being made to monitor any possible impact on public health.”

27. California Nurses Association (86,000 members): “Nurses see people suffering from serious diet-related diseases every day. The potential danger of genetically modified foods is why CNA supports Prop 37.”

28. Cyprus Dietetic and Nutrition Association (Συνδέσμου Διαιτολόγων Κύπρου) (229 members): “The long-term effects of GM foods is currently unknown. It would take many years with the help of science to make visible the impact of biotechnology on our body and in the ecosystem” In Greek “Οι μακροχρόνιες επιπτώσεις των ΓΤ τροφίμων είναι προς το παρόν άγνωστες. Θα πρέπει να περάσουν αρκετά χρόνια με την βοήθεια της επιστήμης για να γίνουν φανερές οι επιπτώσεις της βιοτεχνολογίας στον οργανισμό μας άλλα και στο οικοσύστημα”

29. Hong Kong Academy of Medicine (6,500 members):

“We cannot only rely on scientists and the industry involved in producing GM food to take up such roles.  We need governments, epidemiologists, public health, medical and health care professionals, consumer and other organisations, as well as the mass media to take up such roles.  However, by the time when new events and real adverse health effects are discovered, it may be too late and the whole world population may face a disaster of unmeasurable magnitude.”

“The Hong Kong Academy of Medicine believes that Hong Kong should proceed with mandatory labelling of Genetically Modified Food (GM food).”

30. Connecticut Public Health Association (300 members): “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 [22]. 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 [2].”—Kelly%20Rago,%20Intern%20-TMY.PDF

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

32. Physicians for Social Responsibility (50,000 members): “Physicians for Social Responsibility supports mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods (GMOs). We believe consumers have the right to know what’s in their food and make informed decisions about what they eat.”  “GMO use, especially on soybeans, has led to “superweeds” and increased use of pesticides.”  “There is no consensus that GMO foods are safe for human health or the environment, especially regarding risks due to toxicity and allergenicity.”

33. 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. ” In Spanish: “Del análisis de las publicaciones identificadas se concluye que la evidencia científica no es suficiente para determinar que el consumo de los AGM no genera efectos adversos en la salud humana. Es necesario desarrollar estudios de evaluación de la inocuidad de los AGM en humanos y animales de acuerdo a los estándares científicos internacionales. Similares conclusiones han sido formuladas por otros grupos científicos académicos”

34. International College of Integrative Medicine (150 members): “Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) or Genetically Engineered (GE) foods have not been proven safe, and the long-term health risks on humans of genetically modified foods have not been adequately investigated.”

35. Connecticut Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (CAND) (1,000 members): “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.”

36. 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.”

37. Federal Council of Nutritionists (Conselho Federal de Nutricionistas (CFN): English translation: “The concerns are justified especially by the absence of long-term studies.  The methodologies currently employed lead to a underestimation of the potential adverse health effects.”  “Advocates conducting rigorous monitoring post marketing of GMOs” “Requires compliance with current legislation and the strict monitoring the labeling of GM products and food and derivatives” ” Recommends refraining from use and recommending GM products and food or its derivatives until independent and conclusive studies ensure their safety”  In Portuguese: “As preocupações se justificam especialmente pela ausência de estudos de longo prazo.  As metodologias atualmente empregadas levam a uma subestimação dos efeitos potenciais adversos sobre a saúde” “Defende a realização de rigoroso monitoramento póscomercialização dos transgênicos” “Exige o cumprimento da legislação vigente e a rigorosa fiscalização da rotulagem dos produtos e alimentos transgênicos e seus derivados” “Recomenda que a categoria abstenha-se de utilizar e recomendar produtos e alimentos transgênicos ou seus derivados até que estudos independentes e conclusivos garantam sua inocuidade”

38. Norwegian Dietetic Association: “ensure that all food prepared with direct or indirect use of GMO is labelled, irrespective of whether GMO can be traced by quantitative analysis”

39. National Student Nurses’ Association (NSNA) (60,000 members): “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”

40. 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.”

41. Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses & Allied Professionals (6,000 members):  “PASNAP unanimously passed a resolution in April at their annual delegate meeting in Harrisburg that request that food containing GMO ingredients be labeled.”

42. Asociación Técnicos en Dietética y Nutrición de Canarias (Technical Association in Dietetics and Nutrition Canary Islands): English Translation “We demand adequate information to choose food free from GMOs” In Spanish “Exijamos información adecuada para poder elegir una alimentación libre de transgénicos.”

43. Ghana Public Health Association (GPHA): “There is need for longer, more-detailed transparent toxicological tests on all GMOs before approval and release to the market.  All GMOs must be appropriately labeled as such for informed choice and to facilitate post-market monitoring of any health effects”:

44. Hong Kong College of Community Medicine: “GM food should be monitored closely especially in relation to their effect on health. Before that, labelling of such food and products should be made compulsory”

45. Indian Council of Medical Research New Delhi: “various uncertainties exist regarding safety of these foods because there is limited scientific evidence regarding their toxicity or health risks, the methodology used for assessing the risks is not robust enough or sensitive enough, and the molecular and genetic effects of the technology are unpredictable in nature.  Widespread concerns have been expressed by the public and scientists about effect of GM foods on the environment, lack of consumer benefits, ethical issues and the perception that a few large multinational corporations will be the prime beneficiaries and would dictate world markets.”  “there is a need to compulsorily label a food if it contains novel DNA/protein or has altered characteristics…It should have certificate of origin indicating GMO status and proof of analysis from certified laboratories.”

46. Michigan State Medical Society (15,000 members): “The validity of the research for GMOs has been questionable, including concerns about the source of the studies and concerns that studies utilizing GMOs have not been performed in humans”

47. Oregon Nurses Association: “SUPPORT Measure 92: Requires genetically engineered foods to display a label stating its ingredients are genetically engineered”:

48. Swedish Association of Dietitians: “ensure that all food prepared with direct or indirect use of GMO is labelled, irrespective of whether GMO can be traced by quantitative analysis”

49. 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.”

50.  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”

51. 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,”


52. Italian Society of Ecology (Società Italiana di Ecologia): “GMOs may also pose a danger to the functioning of ecosystems, as their introduction is quite similar to the release of exotic species, a practice that has resulted in the recent and distant past in some benefit, but also a lot of damage, nature both biological and economic. The introduction of GMOs has already contributed in some cases to the decline of species and natural breeds and, if done on a large scale, can contribute to a drastic reduction of biodiversity of our ecosystems. ” In Italian “OGM possono anche costituire un pericolo per il funzionamento degli ecosistemi, poichè la loro introduzione è del tutto analoga al rilascio di specie esotiche, una pratica che ha portato nel recente e lontano passato a qualche beneficio, ma anche a molti danni, di natura sia biologica che economica. L’introduzione di OGM ha già contribuito in alcuni casi al declino di specie e razze naturali e, se effettuata su larga scala, può contribuire a una drastica diminuzione della biodiversità dei nostri ecosistemi.”

53. Institute of Human Rights of Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences: “The main recommendation is banning turnover of GMO products in Azerbaijan territory. We understand that a blanket ban of GMO-containing products is a last resort, but a total ban seems to us to be the most proper way of protection of the rights of our citizens in the absence of any safeguards for the health of future generations on the part of manufacturers, scientists, and states-exporters. Our recommendation is based on following arguments:..Absence of clear scientific evidences about safety of genetically modified products for the health of present and next generations.”

54. 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.”

55. Concerned Health Professionals for Biosafety in Food: “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signalling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS).”

56. COMMITTEE FOR NATURE CONSERVATION, POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: Translation: There are already recognized the direct and indirect environmental risks from GMOs, whose far-reaching and multi-dimensional consequences need to be investigated.  There is similar evidence, advertised in the major scientific journals and reliable synthetic studies on the adverse health effects of cultivation and consumption foods created on the basis of GMOs.  in Polish : Istnieją rozpoznane już bezpośrednie i pośrednie zagrożenia ekologiczne ze strony GMO, których dalekosiężne i wielowymiarowe konsekwencje wymagają zbadania i oszacowania, Istnieją analogiczne dowody, anonsowane w najpoważniejszych czasopismach naukowych i rzetelnych opracowaniach syntetycznych, na negatywne skutki zdrowotne upraw i spożywania pokarmów tworzonych na bazie GMO.

57. Honourable Supreme Court of India Technical Expert Committee (TEC): “TEC was of the view that the safety of Bt transgenics with regard to chronic toxicity has not been established and this needs to be done before it can be considered safe.” “TEC recommends a ten year moratorium on field trials of Bt transgenics in all food crops(those used directly for human consumption)”  “based on the reasons presented in the section on Herbicide Tolerance, the conclusion of the TEC is that HT crops would most likely exert a highly adverse impact over time on sustainable agriculture, rural livelihoods, and environment. The TEC finds them completely unsuitable in the Indian context.”

Over 250 scientists support this committee.

58. 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.”

59. Royal Society of Canada: “The Panel recommends that a national research program be established to monitor the longterm effects of GM organisms on the environment, human health, and animal health and welfare.”  “The Panel recommends development of mechanisms for after-market surveillance of GM foods” “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.” “If the same government agency that is charged with the responsibility to protect the public health and environmental safety from risks posed by technologies also is charged with the promotion of that same technology, and if its safety assessments are, by official policy, balanced against the economic interests of the industries that develop them, this represents, from the point of view of both the public and the industrial stakeholders, a significant conflict of interest.”

60. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: “Biotechnology in the form of genetic engineering, commonly referred to as genetically modified organisms, has produced some crops that are biofortified, chemically resistant, and/or pest resistant. There is no consensus on the benefit or harm of this approach and more research is needed to determine the impact on human and environmental health.”:

61. International College of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine: “ICHNFM advocates organic foods and sustainable agriculture (in agreement with a United Nations report); ICHNFM opposes the overuse of toxic pesticides and the inappropriate use of (including the forced consumption of) genetically manipulated organisms/foodoid products. While all toxic chemicals are obvious causes of concern, glyphosate and atrazine warrant particular concern due to their widespread distribution, political misuse, genotoxic effects, mitochondriopathic effects, cyp450 inhibiting effects, and reproductive toxicity.”

62. American Cancer Society : “since their introduction into the food supply is relatively recent, long-term health effects are unknown. Ongoing evaluation of the safety of genetically modified foods is important”

63. American Osteopathic Association (129,000 members): “The American Osteopathic Association supports efforts that require clear identification of any genetically manipulated food products so that consumers may be properly informed as they make food choices. 2000, revised 2005, 2010.”

64. Brazilian Association of Nutrition (Asbran) – English translation: “It is worth mentioning that the release of GMOs in Brazil, which is already the second largest producer in the world, continues to provoke intense debate about the risks to health and the environment. And throughout the world the discussion remains. Last year, France definitively banned the cultivation of a genetically modified corn by the American company Monsanto, MON 810, as has already occurred in other European Union countries (in Brazil cultivation is permitted).   The article published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences showed that the consumption of the modified seed has negative effects mainly on liver and kidney, organs linked to the elimination of impurities14. The increasing liberation of the planting of transgenic varieties of soybean, maize and other crops in Brazil brought an increase in the use of agrochemicals. More serious still: it has been provoking the emergence of new pests that are more resistant to poisons, which demand the development of new poisons, in a spiral that seems to have no end and that has been built without the necessary environmental impact studies.”  In Portuguese “Vale destacar que a liberação dos transgênicos no Brasil –  que já é o segundo maior produtor mundial –  continua provocando intenso debate quanto aos riscos à saúde e ao meio ambiente.  E no mundo todo a discussão permanence. No ano passado, a França proibiu definitivamente o cultivo de um milho geneticamente modificado pela empresa americana Monsanto, o MON 810, como já ocorreu em outros países da União Europeia (no Brasil é permitido o cultivo). Artigo publicado no International Journal of Biological Sciences mostrou que o consumo da semente modificada tem efeitos negativos principalmente sobre fígado e rim, órgãos ligados à eliminação de impurezas14.  A crescente liberação do plantio de variedades transgênicas de soja, milho e outros cultivos no Brasil trouxe um aumento da utilização de agrotóxicos. Mais grave ainda: vem provocando o surgimento de novas pragas mais resistentes aos venenos, que demandam o desenvolvimento de novos venenos, numa espiral que parece não ter fim e que vem sendo construída sem os estudos de impacto ambiental necessários.”

Groups that support mandatory GMO labeling:

65. Academy of Integrative Health & Medicine:

66. Ação Brasileira pela Nutrição e Direitos Humanos (AABRANDH):

67. AFP Center:

68. Akasha Center for Integrative Medicine:

69. Alliance for Natural Health International:

70. Alliance for Natural Health USA:

71. Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments:

72. American Chiropractic Association:

73. American College for Advancement in Medicine (600 members):

74. American Holistic Medical Association:

75. American Medical Students Association:

76. American Nutrition Association:

77. Anne Arundel Medical Center:

78. Aria Integrative Medicine:

79. Arizona Center for Advanced Medicine:

80. Asbl Cancer 7000:

81. Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria:

82. Association of Scientific Researchers of the State of São Paulo – APQC:

83. Atlantis Medical Wellness Center:

84. Balance Integrative Health:

85. Baptist Health South Florida:

86. Bayshore Pediatric Association:

87. Bem Nutrition:

88. Bernhoft Center for Advanced Medicine:

89. Bhutan Agriculture and Food Regulatory Authority:

90. Biogenesis Medical and Wellness Centers:

91. Biologists Association of Quebec:

92. BistroMD:

93. Block Center for Integrative Cancer Treatment:

94. Bowdoin Street Health Center:

95. Brandwein Nutrition:

96. Brazilian Association of Collective Health (Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva – ABRASCO) (3140 members):

97. Brazilian Forum on Sovereignty and Food and Nutritional Security (FBSSAN):

98. Breast Cancer Action:


100. Brownstein Health:

101. Bukovyna State Medical University:

102. Calton Nutrition:

103. Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions (200,000 members):

104. Canadian Health Coalition:

105. Catholic Health Alliance of Canada:

106. Center for Environmental Health:

107. Center for Ethics and Toxics:

108. Center for Food Safety:

109. Center for Integrative Medicine:

110. Center for Natural Health Research:

111. Center for Natural & Integrative Medicine:

112. Center of Health:

113. Centro Médico Integrativo CasaFEN:

114. Chagrin Falls Pet Clinic:

115. Children’s Health Environmental Coalition:

116. Coastal Carolina’s Integrated Medicine:

117. Commission de l’éthique de la science et de la technologie:

118. Community Nutrition Institute:

119. Conselho Económico e Social (CES):

120. Conselho Regional de Medicina do Estado de São Paulo:

121. Conselho Nacional de Nutricionistas:

122. Conselho Nacional de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional (National Council of Food and Nutrition Security – CONSEA):

123. Conselho Nacional do Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Sustentavel (CNADS):

124. Conselho Regional de Nutricionistas – 1st Região:

125. Conselho Regional de Nutricionistas – 2st Região:

126. Conselho Regional de Nutricionistas – 4th Região:

127. Conselho Regional de Nutricionistas – 5th Região:

128. Conselho Regional de Nutricionistas – 6th Região:

129. Conselho Regional de Nutricionistas da 9ª Região – Minas Gerais:

130. Conselho Regional de Nutricionistas – 10th Região:

131. Conselho Regional de Nutricionistas do Paraná:

132. Consumer Health Organization of Canada (CHOC):

133. Consumers Union:

134. COOPMED – RN:

135. Council for Food Security and Nutrition Jundiaí (CONSEA-JD):

136. Council For Responsible Genetics:

137. Danish Diet and Nutrition Association:

138. DaSilva Institute of Anti-Aging, Regenerative & Functional Medicine:

139. Dayton Ear, Nose & Throat Surgeons, Inc.:

140. Dedicated to Health Medical Group:

141. Diet By Design:

142. Dietitians Association of Australia:

143. Digestive Medical Solutions:

144. Doctors for the Environment Australia:

145. Doctor’s Weight Solutions:

146. Dr. Paul’s Knee Pain Treatment: