David Takayoshi Suzuki CC OBC FRSC (born March 24, 1936) is a Canadian academic, science broadcaster, and environmental activist.

He is best known as host and narrator of the popular and long-running CBC Television science program The Nature of Things, seen in over 40 countries.

In 2004, Suzuki ranked fifth on the list of final nominees in a CBC television series that asked viewers to select The Greatest Canadian of all time.

[11] Early in his research career he studied genetics using the popular model organism Drosophila melanogaster (fruit flies).

He jokingly noted at a lecture at Johns Hopkins University that the only alternative subject was "(damn) tough skin."

From 1979 to 2023, Suzuki hosted The Nature of Things, a CBC television series that has aired in nearly fifty countries worldwide.

[13] His 1985 hit series, A Planet for the Taking, averaged more than 1.8 million viewers per episode and earned him a United Nations Environment Programme Medal.

His perspective in this series is summed up in his statement: "We have both a sense of the importance of the wilderness and space in our culture and an attitude that it is limitless and therefore we needn't worry."

Suzuki's The Sacred Balance, a book first published in 1997 and later made into a five-hour mini-series on Canadian public television, was broadcast in 2002.

[14][15] Suzuki is now taking part in an advertisement campaign with the tagline "You have the power", promoting energy conservation through various household alternatives, such as the use of compact fluorescent lightbulbs.

The conservation-biology based documentary focused on Dave Foreman's Wildlands Project, which considers how to create corridors between and buffer zones around large wilderness reserves as a means to preserve biological diversity.

"[18][19] Suzuki is unequivocal that climate change is a very real and pressing problem and that an "overwhelming majority of scientists" now agree that human activity is responsible.

Irrefutable evidence from around the world – including extreme weather events, record temperatures, retreating glaciers, and rising sea levels – all point to the fact climate change is happening now and at rates much faster than previously thought.

The reason for the confusion about climate change, in Suzuki's view, was due to a well organized campaign of disinformation about the science involved.

They are linked to "industry-funded lobby groups", such as the Information Council on the Environment (ICE),[21] whose aim is to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact).

"[20] Suzuki is a "messenger" / ambassador for the environmental organization 350.org advocating for cutting CO2 emissions and creating climate solutions.

Suzuki himself laments that in travelling constantly to spread his message of climate responsibility, he has ended up "over his [carbon] limit by hundreds of tonnes."

Suzuki has written that "products of biotechnology are being rammed into our food, onto our fields and into our medicines, without any public participation in discussions and with the complicity, indeed, the active support and funding of governments.

"[33] In a 1999 CP Wire article, Suzuki is quoted as saying: "Any politician or scientist who tells you these products are safe is either very stupid or lying.

"[36] In a 2013 speech on water policy at the University of Alberta, Suzuki claimed that a second emergency at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant would require the evacuation of the North American west coast.

[39] While being interviewed by Tony Jones on Australia's ABC TV network in September 2013, Suzuki repeated the claim from Canadian media that the Harper government was building prisons even though crime rates were declining in Canada.

Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.Krimsky, Sheldon (2015).

I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs.

Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data.

Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.