Supporters of genetically modified foods frequently claim that their position is based on "sound science," in contrast to the "junk science" practiced by anti-GM activists. Their definition of "sound science" is rooted in a set of norms for appropriate scientific behavior. A true scientist, the GM defenders say, would only argue his case with great care on the basis of sound, peer-reviewed data open to critical scrutiny. In reality, however, these standards of scientific probity are only demanded from perceived critics, while anything goes with scientists who support GM foods. This web page by the British Nofolk Genetic Information Network shows how pro-GM scientists have freely proferred statements that are unproven, comments on research that is still unpublished, even accounts of research that may be seriously misleading or entirely false.