A scientific analysis backed by the National Academies finds no evidence that genetically engineered crops pose heightened health risks or environmental problems, but points up subtler concerns about the technology.
Today’s 420-page report says the impact of genetic engineering for resistance to insects and herbicides has been mostly positive, due to a decrease of pests and crop losses. The outcomes vary widely, however. If proper pest management practices aren’t followed, insects and weeds can evolve to overcome the crops’ built-in resistance. That presents a “major agronomic problem,” the report says.
“Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects” was drawn up by a committee comprising more than a dozen experts, with the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the National Academy of Medicine. The experts delved into nearly 900 publications about genetically engineered corn, soybeans and cotton, which account for almost all of today’s commercial genetically engineered crops.
The experts also heard from 80 speakers during a series of public meetings, and read through 700 comments from members of the public.
“The committee focused on listening carefully and responding thoughtfully to members of the public who have concerns about GE crops and foods, as well as those who feel that there are great benefits to be had from GE crops,” chairman Fred Gould, an entomologist and co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University, said in a news release.
In the wake of the report’s release, proponents of GE crops focused on the finding that there were no clear health or environmental risks, while critics focused on the committee’s calls for greater transparency and accountability:
NAS #GMO report: Call for more transparency to a skeptical public was loud and clear @careygillam https://t.co/ogBtSNztFK
— U.S. Right To Know (@USRightToKnow) May 17, 2016
Some critics accused the National Academies and the National Research Council of being overly subject to industry influence, an accusation that Gould rebuffed:
.@WenonahHauter: National Research Council #GMO Study Compromised by Industry Ties https://t.co/12Xwmd9Ujb @nutiva pic.twitter.com/HYsYkq8yV5
— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) May 16, 2016
1st question to #GECropStudy accuses The National Academy of Science of bias – Fred Gould pushes back – tired of these accusations
— Robert Saik, PAg,CAC (@rsaik) May 17, 2016
Most genetically engineered crop varieties are not yet in commercial production, the study says. Herbicide resistance and insect resistance are the main traits that have been put into GE crops. But additional traits, such as viral resistance and anti-browning genes for apples and potatoes, are starting to pop up commercially.
The study notes that the most commonly grown GE crops in 2015 were soybeans (accounting for 83 percent of the land in production); cotton (75 percent); corn (29 percent); and canola (24 percent).
The study says food should be regulated based on the product, rather than based on the process behind production. It recommends that new plant varieties with potentially hazardous characteristics should undergo safety testing, whether they’re developed through genetic engineering or through conventional breeding techniques. New “-omics” technologies – for example, proteomics and metabolomics – could be enlisted to check for unintended consequences.
The committee said mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods would not be justified solely on the grounds of public health, but acknowledged that other factors might make such labeling advisable nevertheless.
“Those issues clearly involved social and economic choices that go beyond scientific assessments of health or environmental safety; ultimately, they inherently involve value choices that science alone cannot answer,” the study said.
Most surveys suggest that an overwhelming majority of Americans favor requiring labels for GE foods.
Check out the National Academies’ website summarizing the study’s findings and recommendations.
