Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide, which is used to kill weeds and grasses which are known to compete with commercial crops grown around the world.
For a GM crop to be approved for release in the US, it must be assessed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) agency within the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and may also be assessed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), depending on the intended use.
[8] In Australia Roundup Ready Canola was approved for commercial production in 2003 by the Gene Technology Regulator after undergoing approximately 400 tests and studies to determine it was safe.
[22][23][24][25] The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.
[26][27][28][29] Advocacy groups such as Greenpeace, the Non-GMO Project, and Organic Consumers Association say that risks of GM food have not been adequately identified and managed, and have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities.
[31] Due to the heavy reliance of glyphosate in agriculture, resistance to this chemical is a problem and is prevalent throughout Australia, the USA, and Canada.
In California, it has become a significant problem in this way because of the restrictions on phenoxy herbicides being used in the state due to crops such as the sensitivity of cotton and grapes to this chemical.
However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed.
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.