GMO Watch Bias - Bias and Credibility (original) (raw)
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information; therefore, fact-checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.
- Overall, we rate GMO Watch a moderate pseudoscience source based on giving an equal voice to anti-GMO sources that reject the scientific consensus.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: PSEUDOSCIENCE (-2.0)
Factual Reporting: MIXED (5.0)
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
History
GMO Watch provides information on GMOs through publishing podcasts and blog posts. The website lacks transparency as they do not describe ownership or funding. According to the about page, “GMO Watch is a place to get information from both sides of this debate. And I want that information to be easy to understand. While we’re at it . . . a sense of humor would be nice, too!”
Read our profile on the United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership
GMO Watch lacks transparency as they do not clearly disclose ownership; however, it appears that Emily Journey hosts the site and podcast. Advertising generates revenue.
Analysis / Bias
GMO Watch attempts to present both sides of the GMO debate. For example, the article “Are genetically modified foods safe to eat?” provides pro-GMO information from credible sources such as the National Academy of Sciences, The American Medical Association, and The American Association for the Advancement of Science. They then present the anti-GMO position derived from sources we have labeled as either conspiracy or pseudoscience, such as the Institute for Responsible Technology and GMwatch.
We also reviewed a Podcast titled Do GMOs cause cancer? This podcast was pro-science as the Doctor being interviewed clearly stated there isn’t evidence that GMOs are harmful. He went on to describe how you can tell if the information is credible or not. Interestingly, his description of non-credible sources matches the pseudoscience sources GMO Watch references for anti-GMO positions.
In general, this source seems to have good intentions to present both sides; however, the anti-GMO side rejects the consensus of science on the safety of GMOs. By giving these organizations a voice, GMO Watch is contributing to the spread of anti-GMO propaganda and hence promoting pseudoscience.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years
Overall, we rate GMO Watch a moderate pseudoscience source based on giving an equal voice to anti-GMO sources that reject the scientific consensus. (M. Huitsing 5/31/2021) Updated (02/07/2025)
Source: https://gmowatch.com
Last Updated on February 7, 2025 by
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
or