Work on the 388-page report began two years ago. Crops that were engineered to resist bugs, for instance, reduce incidence of insecticide poisoning, and those that were altered to produce more vitamin A can cut cases of blindness and death caused by vitamin A deficiency.
Advertisement
The Academy’s Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops looked at the evidence related to claims of positive and negative effects of existing genetically engineered crops.
“If GE crops are to be used sustainably, regulations and incentives are needed so that more integrated and sustainable pest-management approaches become economically feasible”, the committee reports.
Researchers compared disease reports in the USA and Canada, where GE crops have been consumed for two decades, to reports in the United Kingdom and western Europe, where they have not been as common.
This consensus report examines a range of questions and opinions about the economic, agronomic, health, safety, or other effects of genetically engineered (GE) crops and food.
Furthermore, the researchers found no correlation between GE food consumption and obesity or Type II diabetes.
The report briefly touches on the controversial topic of GMO labeling, stating that labels are not necessary for safety purposes, but they can be helpful to consumers for other reasons.
According to the study, from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, there is “no evidence” that GM food harms human health in the short-term, although it acknowledged that there have been no long-term studies into this link. However, the study also stated that it is not clear whether the technology has increased crop yields.
One issue the study looked at was the promise of higher yield from crops using this new technology, and they didn’t find a difference in the yield trend. “In colder climates, increased temperatures may extend the growing season, particularly of crops with indeterminate growth such as cotton”, the committee members wrote. It reviewed the 900 studies that have been conducted over the last twenty years, i.e. since genetically modified foods hit the market. It received more than 700 public comments, as well.
“The inescapable conclusion, after reading the report, is the GE crops are pretty much just crops”, said Wayne Parrott, professor in the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences at the University of Georgia.
“Science is science, facts are facts”, said Bruce Chassy, an emeritus professor of biochemistry and food science at the University of IL, in an email. We thank the Academies for tackling this issue and doing a thorough, scientific review.
Some groups critical of genetically engineering foods were critical of the report before it was released, inclduing Food & Water Watch. “As a matter of fact, they denied me seeds and plants to do my experiments”, he says. And numerous documents conclusions are hedged by caveats.
Advertisement
A tiered process for regulating new crop varieties should focus on a plant’s characteristics rather than the process by which it was developed, the committee recommends.
