Just One Small Problem With This Major Report on GMO Safety
By Tom Philpott,
Mother Jones
| 03. 05. 2017
Researchers allege undisclosed conflicts of interest on a National Academies of Sciences panel.
About a year ago, the prestigious National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine produced a 584-page report assessing the health, environmental, and agronomic impact of genetically modified crops. The conclusion: GMOs have so far proved to be neither a disaster nor a triumph. They haven't been shown to pose a threat to human health, as some critics have argued they do; but they also haven't discernibly raised crop yields, as some boosters insist they have.
Not surprisingly, the report did little to "end the highly polarized dispute over biotech crops," concluded New York Times reporter Andrew Martin in an article just after the report's release. He added that both sides of the debate "pointed approvingly to findings that buttressed their viewpoint and criticized those that did not."
And a new paper, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS-One, ups the temperature of that long-simmering debate. The authors—Sheldon Krimsky, a professor in the Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning at Tufts, and Tim Schwab...
Related Articles
By Carly Mallenbaum, Axios [cites Emily Galpern] | 03.29.2026
More Americans are turning to surrogacy to build their families, as the practice becomes more common and more publicly discussed.
Why it matters: As surrogacy becomes more visible and accessible, ethical, legal and cultural tensions become harder to ignore...
By Carly Mallenbaum, Axios [cites Surrogacy360] | 03.29.2026
Without a federal law, surrogacy in the U.S. is governed by a patchwork of state regulations/
Why it matters: Confusing, varied local rules can determine everything from whether agreements are legally binding to who is recognized as a parent at...
Cathy Tie seems to be good at starting businesses but not so dedicated to maintaining them. CGS, like many others, first heard of her thanks to Caiwei Chen and Antonio Regalado in MIT Technology Review, May 2025, as the partner (perhaps bride) of the notorious Chinese scientist He Jiankui, described in the headline as “China’s Frankenstein.” He prefers “Chinese Darwin.” She ran his Twitter account for a while, contributing such gems as:
Get in luddite, we’re going gene editing...
By Jessica Riskin, Los Ángeles Review of Books | 03.24.2026
This is the second part of the 14th installment in the Legacies of Eugenics series, which features essays by leading thinkers devoted to exploring the history of eugenics and the ways it shapes our present. You can read the...
