Dear The Editors,

I read your article “Fight the GM Food Scare” multiple times and felt as though I was being coerced to believe questionable information. It is understandable to want to hide who you are when writing such a controversial article, but not from such a respected scientific magazine. Science is always backed up by details, data, and citations from where they came from. I saw a lot of data and details, however no citation. An article based solely on opinion can go without citation, but only until real facts and statistics come into play. There were a lot of ‘international teams of researchers’, but no names. Monsanto should be one of the names listed. The article gave off a sneaky feel to it because of the fact that there were no names or places to look up the information you did not want the reader to be aware of. So, with that in mind, it would make sense why you would not put the name Monsanto in your article because they are building up a very bad reputation. By taking away the name and not providing any information to allow someone to look further into the specific example, you have forced the reader into one belief. Which you stated was one of the reasons that made all these anti-GMO groups putting labels stating nutritional information the makers of a bad idea, insinuating that they are bad. As a reader of Scientific American magazine, I was surprised to see this article written with hypocritical statements and no names, making me believe that the writers did not want their names on the commentary. It was a very controversial topic, and writing an opinion-based article is understandable. However, the fact that there is missing information throughout the piece really takes away from the respect given to a scientific paper. Overall, this article shows a very narrow view of a very large and controversial international