Not Substantially Equivalent: New Scientific Methods Challenge Claims That GMOs Are Safe (Professor Antoniou Interview Part 2)

In the U.S., more than 90% of corn plants are genetically modified to withstand weed-killing chemicals like glyphosate, to make their own insecticides, or both. For soybeans, over 94% are genetically modified, almost all to tolerate glyphosate, with newer varieties also resistant to the herbicides dicamba and 2,4-D. Are these foods safe to consume?

In an interview with U.S. Right to Know, a leading molecular geneticist warns that regulators are ignoring the risks of these “stacked-trait” GMOs – which have never been properly tested for safety, even though animal studies have shown signs of liver, kidney, immune and digestive system damage from earlier single-trait GMOs. His research has also found liver and kidney damage in rats exposed to mixtures of herbicides used on GMOs (glyphosate, 2,4-D, dicamba) — at levels regulators say are safe.

In part two of our interview posted here, Professor Michael Antoniou, head of the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College London, explains the findings of his team’s extensive research on glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicide formulations, which he said shows that regulators are “clearly wrong” that current exposure levels are safe for our health.

Professor Antoniou also explains how his research challenges the claim that GMOs are “substantially equivalent” to non-GMOs — the foundation of U.S. regulations for GMOs — and how regulators are ignoring modern scientific tests and methods that can help us better understand the risks to our health from GMOs and pesticides.