GMO crops are safe, say scientists. Do they need labels anyway?
Genetically-modified crops pose聽no greater risk to our聽health or the environment than聽natural crops, a comprehensive study from the national scientific academy found.听听
The 408-page report, released by the National聽Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine on Tuesday,聽聽that genetically-modified crops led to widespread health problems or that insect-resistant or herbicide-resistant聽crops have decreased plant or insect聽diversity. In聽some cases,聽it found the crops increased聽insect diversity.听听聽
The report comes as the聽debate over genetically-modified organisms (GMO)聽and their safety intensifies.聽Opinions are divided over GMOs' dangers and聽ethics and if they should be labeled.聽Cognizant聽of the contentious nature of the subject, the report's聽authors declined to provide an聽聽on genetically-modified crops.聽
"We made recommendations on our findings. Ultimately, however, decisions about how to govern new crops need to be made by societies," reads the report's聽preface.聽"There is an indisputable case for regulations to be informed by accurate scientific聽information, but history makes clear that solely 'scientific-based regulation' is rare and not necessarily desirable."聽
Still, the report聽provides interesting food for thought. A committee of 20 members conducted the study, nearly all of whom work in academia. None of the聽committee members were聽affiliated with major biotechnology聽corporations that include聽Monsanto or DuPont,聽.听听
In their analysis of nearly 1,000 research articles, 80 speakers, and 15 webinars, the committee members聽concentrated their review聽on the types of聽genetically-modified聽crops grown most聽in the United States: corn and cotton聽with bacterial genes that makes them聽resistant聽to certain insects; and soybeans, corn, and cotton that are resistant to herbicides.
Based on chemical analyses and animal studies, the crops do not appear to increase health risks, the report finds, although with the caveat that many animal studies were small.聽
The committee聽also聽compared the incidence of certain diseases in the United States聽鈥撀爓here genetically-modified crops have been part of the聽country's聽diet聽since 1996 鈥� to western Europe, where GMO crops have been聽limited.聽The聽committee聽found no evidence genetically-modified crops聽increase聽incidences of聽cancer, obesity, diabetes, kidney disease, autism, celiac disease, or food allergies, all arguments used against GMOs.听听
The study did find evidence of聽gene flow聽between聽genetically-modified plants and聽neighboring plants, but " from this transfer," as the National Academies say in a press release.聽
Many聽scientists who聽聽but were not聽involved in the report praised it, but said they weren't聽surprised by its conclusions, according to the Associated Press.聽Others, such as聽, a聽non-governmental organization and consumer rights group which focuses on corporate and government accountability,聽questioned its integrity.听听
"The science surrounding this technology is one-sided. There are major gaps in scientific literature,"聽Tim Schwab, a senior researcher with the consumer rights group that focuses on food, water and fishing, tells 海角大神.聽"It's hard to have confidence in the safety or merits of the technology given those facts."聽聽
"It's聽a radical new approach to breeding in agriculture that is very poorly regulated," he adds. 聽聽
The report found no health or safety justification to label GMOs, but encouraged it be considered anyway.听听
"It noted that the issue involves social and economic choices that go beyond technical assessments of health or environmental safety; ultimately, it involves value choices that technical assessments alone cannot answer," reads a statement from the National Academies. 聽聽
Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine mandate that foods that contain GMOs be labeled. In March, the Senate聽voted down聽a Republican bill that would have reversed these requirements. Nevertheless, General Mills and聽Campbell聽Soup聽agreed this year聽to聽label聽their products that contain GMOs.听听
Although most scientists dispute claims that GMOs are dangerous to health or the environment, the arguments against them聽, writes one philosopher of science:聽they alter the essence of plants and animals, they seem to contaminate them, etc.聽
"For now, the best way to turn the tide and generate a more positive public response to GMOs is to play into people's intuitions as well," writes聽Stefaan聽Blancke, who analyzed the psychological reasons people oppose GMOs, in the Scientific American.聽"Given the benefits and promises of GM technology, such a change is much needed."
