The organization began as an initiative of independent natural foods retailers in the U.S. and Canada,[5] with the stated aim to label products produced in compliance with their Non-GMO Project Standard,[6] which aims to prevent genetically modified foodstuffs from being present in retail food products.

[1] Two natural food retailers formed the project, with a goal of creating a standardized definition for non-genetically modified organisms.

[13][14] The Non-GMO Project claims to "educate consumers and the food industry to help build awareness about GMOs and their impact on our health".

[15][16] The Non-GMO Project maintains a consensus-based standard,[17] which outlines their system for ensuring best practices for avoiding genetically modified organisms.

Methods such as segregation, traceability, risk assessment, sampling techniques, and quality control management are emphasized in the Standard.

The Project maintains this is because many products that appear to be inherently non-GMO (such as orange juice, oats, tea and table salt) often contain GMO-derived additives (such as citric acid).

[37][38][39][40] 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.

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.