Support NeoGAF

[cameron]

AP: "Report: Genetically Altered Food Safe but Not Curing Hunger"

WASHINGTON (AP) — Genetically manipulated food remains generally safe for humans and the environment, a high-powered science advisory board declared in a report Tuesday.

The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine concluded that tinkering with the genetics of what we eat doesn't produce the "Frankenfood" monster some opponents claim — but it isn't feeding the world with substantially increased yields, as proponents promised.

With the line between engineered and natural foods blurring thanks to newer techniques such as gene editing, the 408-page report said, regulators need to make their safety focus more on the end-product of the food that's made rather than the nuts and bolts of how it's made.

The report waltzed a bit around the hot political issue of whether genetically modified food should be labeled. The study's authors said labels aren't needed for food safety reasons but potentially could be justified because of transparency, social and cultural factors, somewhat similar to made-in-America stickers. That stance was praised by some environmental and consumer groups, but criticized by some scientists as unnecessary because the food poses no unique risks.

There's no evidence of environmental problems caused by genetically modified crops, but pesticide resistance is a problem, the report said. Farms that use genetically modified crops in general are helped, but it may be a different story for smaller farmers and in poorer areas of the world, it said.

Most of the modified plants are soybean, cotton, corn and canola; in most cases, genetic tinkering has made them resistant to certain herbicides and insects. When farms switched from conventional crops to the engineered varieties, there was no substantial change in yields. While experimental results suggest that there should be an increase in production, U.S. Department of Agriculture data doesn't show it, the report said.

Many scientists who work on the issue but weren't part of the study team lauded the report as sensible, but not surprising.

Mark Sorrells at Cornell called it "very well balanced, accurate, and reiterates much of what has already been published many times."

"Science is science, facts are facts," emailed Bruce Chassy, an emeritus professor of biochemistry and food science at the University of Illinois. "There's just no sound basis for their opposition just as there was never any scientific basis to believe GM plants should be viewed any differently than any other,"

National Geographic: "Scientists Say GMO Foods Are Safe, Public Skepticism Remains"

Genetically-engineered crops are as safe to eat as their non-GE counterparts, they have no adverse environmental impacts, and they have reduced the use of pesticides. That’s according to a comprehensive report released by the National Academy of Sciences today—a group founded by the U.S. Congress to provide expert scientifically-based advice on a wide variety of issues.

But the academy also found that GE or (genetically-modified organisms or GMO) crops didn’t increase those crops’ potential yields, and they did lead to widespread and expensive problems with herbicide-resistant weeds.

The report acknowledges that beyond safety, other issues need to be addressed, including earning the public’s trust. It recommends a more transparent and inclusive conversation about GE crops going forward.

The report, two years in the making, is a 388-page, comprehensive look at every aspect of genetically engineered crops. “Sweeping statements about GE crops are problematic because issues related to them are multidimensional,” the report says right up front, and goes on to dig deep on those dimensions.

The assessment is generally positive, but there are many caveats and notes of caution. For those of you who want just the big takeaways, here’s the nutshell version:

• GE crops are safe to eat. There is always uncertainty about safety, of course, but there’s no evidence of harm.
• The GE crops in our food system don’t improve on the crops’ potential yields. They have, however, helped farmer protect yields from insects and weeds.
• Both herbicide-tolerant crops and crops with the organic pesticide Bt built in have decreased pesticide use, although those decreases came early on, and some have not been sustained.
• Increased use of glyphosate, the herbicide GE crops tolerate, has been responsible for a widespread and expensive problem of glyphosate-resistant weeds.
• The report found no adverse affects on biodiversity or danger from interbreeding between GE crops and wild relatives.
• Although both the use of GE crops and the employment of farming techniques that reduce tilling have been on the rise, the report finds no cause-and-effect relationship.
• The economic benefits to farmers have been well-documented, although individual results vary.
• Small-scale farmers may have trouble seeing those economic gains because of the price of seed and lack of access to credit.
• Appropriate regulation is imperative, and that regulation should be based on the characteristics of the crop, rather than the technique used to develop it, whether GE or non-GE.
• Ongoing public conversations about GE crops and related issues should be characterized by transparency and public participation.

Report: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects

More in the links.

 

[cameron]

Well, I thought the report was an interesting read. Parts of it were informative to me. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

NYT's coverage: "Genetically Engineered Crops Are Safe, Analysis Finds"

Despite its roughly 400 pages, however, the document is not expected to end the highly polarized dispute over biotech crops, which are often called G.M.O.s, for genetically modified organisms. Both sides on Tuesday pointed approvingly to findings that buttressed their viewpoint and criticized those that did not.

The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, which represents companies that sell genetically modified seeds, said it was “pleased” that the study found “that agricultural biotechnology has many demonstrated benefits to farmers, consumers and the environment.’’

But Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, which is critical of the crops, pointed to the lack of a significant increase in yield.

The report does not reach firm conclusions on two controversies: whether foods made from the crops should be labeled and whether glyphosate can cause cancer. It says there is no safety reason to label such foods, though it may be justified for other reasons like consumers’ right to know.

Tangentially, Vermont's GMO labeling law goes into effect July 1st.

Tiny Vermont is the first state to require such labeling, effective July 1. Its fellow New England states of Maine and Connecticut have passed laws that require such labeling if other nearby states put one into effect.

 

[DragonSworne]

People really think GMO is bad for you? These people must not be aware of the dangerous methods that got their non GMO food.

 

[Kurdel]

I hope news like this can change some minds.

 

[Saucy_XL]

Soon anti GMO people will be seen like anti Vaccers

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

Soon anti GMO people will be seen like anti Vaccers

Hopefully. Europe is still a bastion of anti-GMO lunacy though, and the EU seems to encourage it to protect their agriculture from American imports.

 

[Rebel Leader]

People really think GMO is bad for you? These people must not be aware of the dangerous methods that got their non GMO food.

I don't think it's dangerous.

I only buy organic stuff when i think it's tastier. Like publix green wise icecream.


Other than that, it doesn't matter to me

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

People really think GMO is bad for you? These people must not be aware of the dangerous methods that got their non GMO food.

The organic lobby funds a lot of harassment and media campaigns.

Though, no idea about the op's curing hunger bit. Green revolution did happen.

 

[Malvolio]

I think most people that are anti-GMO know that the food isn't unsafe, but worry about the corporations that abuse them.

 

[Rentahamster]

Good to know, although this probably won't change the minds of the most adamant anti-GMO advocates.

 

[daveo42]

Heard this on NPR during my drive home. Wasn't surprised to hear anti-GMOs already in an uproar over the results. Just disappointed.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

This was also in recent news.
As Big Candy Ditches GMOs, Sugar Beet Farmers Hit A Sour Patch

"The chemicals we used to put on the beets in [those] days were so much harsher for the guy applying them and for the environment," he says. "To me, it's insane to think that a non-GMO beet is going to be better for the environment, the world, or the consumer."

 

[Zaru]

The organic lobby funds a lot of harassment and media campaigns.

Well, you're not wrong.

But at the same time, thinking of it in the light of the "heinous organic food lobby damaging innocent global megacorporations" is hilarious to me.


I don't have much of an issue with GMO food, but the practices that companies which create/sell them often use. Fucking IRL cartoon villains.

 

[Rentahamster]

This was also in recent news.
As Big Candy Ditches GMOs, Sugar Beet Farmers Hit A Sour Patch

Yeah, it should be noted that points like this:

Increased use of glyphosate, the herbicide GE crops tolerate, has been responsible for a widespread and expensive problem of glyphosate-resistant weeds.

also be considered next to points like this:

Planting genetically modified sugar beets allows them to kill their weeds with fewer chemicals. Beyer says he sprays Roundup just a few times during the growing season, plus one application of another chemical to kill off any Roundup-resistant weeds.

He says that planting non-GMO beets would mean going back to what they used to do, spraying their crop every 10 days or so with a "witches brew" of five or six different weedkillers.

"The chemicals we used to put on the beets in [those] days were so much harsher for the guy applying them and for the environment," he says. "To me, it's insane to think that a non-GMO beet is going to be better for the environment, the world, or the consumer."

But Beyer says he'll do it if he needs to. He'll do what his customers want.

 

[cameron]

The organic lobby funds a lot of harassment and media campaigns.

Though, no idea about the op's curing hunger bit. Green revolution did happen.

The hunger bit is from the AP headline, referring to crop yields.

Heard this on NPR during my drive home. Wasn't surprised to hear anti-GMOs already in an uproar over the results. Just disappointed.

Yea. NPR:

Even before this report came out, an anti-GMO group called Food & Water Watch attacked it. The group accused some members of the committee that prepared the report of receiving research funding from biotech companies, or having other ties to the industry.

"The makeup of the panel is pretty clear. People are coming in with a perspective that is pro-genetically engineered crop," says Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food & Water Watch.

The preemptive attack frustrates Fred Gould, the North Carolina State University scientist who chaired the committee. Gould has been known in the past as a GMO critic. He has pushed for restrictions on the planting of some GMO crops. "I have not been a darling of the industry. As a matter of fact, they denied me seeds and plants to do my experiments," he says.

Gould says that over the two years that he and the other members of this committee worked on this report, they had one important rule: "If you had an opinion, you had to back it up with data. If you didn't have the data, it didn't go into the report."

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

When offered no scientific backing for their claims just yelling "Shill!" is enough.

 

[ThisGuy]

Well I see the America's are doing their parts. The rest of you are slackers.

 

[G.ZZZ]

Small-scale farmer being priced out of the market? Well figure me SHOCKED.

I'm however actually surprised at the not increase in yelds. For all the things you hear about them, you'd figure they at least increase crop production instead of simply being a way for big corps to bully out smaller producers from the market.

Health hazards were never considered credible by any scientist. The biggest fears were about the evolution of pesticide resistant infestants and new superbugs that would essentially kill anything non GMO in terms of competitiveness. And even then, i'd say it's probably a 0-sum game. The only reason anti-GMO has gained so much traction is that people are dumb and that the EU market would lose way too many jobs and the global food market would become dangerously centralized in only 2-3 big corps, and that's not something you want to happen with food , especially considering some of the shit that happened in the past ( Nestlè policies in third world countries? push for privatization of water? please gtfo , food should be a basic right)

 

[TI82]

Soon anti GMO people will be seen like anti Vaccers

I think they already are. Anti science leftists

 

[Kuro Madoushi]

I think they already are. Anti science leftists

Yuuuuup
"But it's better for the environment"
"But it's healthier"
"But it tastes better"
"But it's more sustainable"

Anything that is counter to that is attacked.

 

[Einchy]

Science wins again.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Here is a bunch of agriculture and genetics professors take on the report
http://geneticexperts.org/national-...-of-ge-crops-advocates-changes-to-regulation/

Soon anti GMO people will be seen like anti Vaccers

Most anti GMO groups are already antivax and anti-science and medicine:
https://www.organicconsumers.org/
which funds most anti-gmo groups.

 

[perfectchaos007]

I think they already are. Anti science leftists

Only lady at my work who is terrified of GMO's is an pro science rightist. I guess conservative publications must be publishing false science regarding GMO's because she won't eat any GMO's, she's made that clear.

 

[Karsticles]

People really think GMO is bad for you? These people must not be aware of the dangerous methods that got their non GMO food.

A lot of parents at my school think they cause cancer like vaccinations cause autism.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Only lady at my work who is terrified of GMO's is an pro science rightist. I guess conservative publications must be publishing false science regarding GMO's because she won't eat any GMO's, she's made that clear.

reminds me of:

The sweet potato is a naturally occurring transgenic crop.
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...t-potato-genetically-modified-8-000-years-ago

 

[KonradLaw]

Hopefully. Europe is still a bastion of anti-GMO lunacy though, and the EU seems to encourage it to protect their agriculture from American imports.

Well..the results of this approach are good though, so in the end it matters little what means were used to achieve it.

 

[DOWN]

Legit get pissed at people who imply non-GMO is healthier or safer for you. Almost as bad as companies who label products or market them as non-GMO.

 

[oti]

Really glad it's safe to consume. Shame it isn't that more efficient though. Maybe if the EU warms up to it a global effort could change this.

 

[KonradLaw]

Really glad it's safe to consume. Shame it isn't that more efficient though. Maybe if the EU warms up to it a global effort could change this.

EU probably never will warm to it. It doesn't make much sense for it too.

 

[Weckum]

EU probably never will warm to it. It doesn't make much sense for it too.

It could save so much on farming subsidies.

We've been GMO'ing for millennia, only difference is we're doing it in labs now instead of in the wild.

 

[raphier]

People really think GMO is bad for you? These people must not be aware of the dangerous methods that got their non GMO food.

The problem with GMO is that they can introduce mutations that do not naturally materialize, for good and for bad. My biggest fear is the branded (tm) over engineering. There are apples in our store called Arctic (c) which eliminate bruising, but taste like wax. Soon enough you'll see overpriced cloned apples with All New Perfection(tm) and New Recipe(tm) Apples. Absolutely unnecessary and capitalistic. Like shampoo bottles.

 

[KonradLaw]

It could save so much on farming subsidies.
.

Exactly how? Europe is already producing more food than it can eat. It's not like it needs more. Subsidies are there to make it profitable, because large portion of EU population's livelyhoods is depended on working at agriculture. GMOs won't do much to change that. In fact, increased crops might lead to lowering of prices, which would mean that even more subsidies would be needd. And letting in american GMO modified food into EU market would be utter diseaster economically.

 

[Rentahamster]

The problem with GMO is that they can introduce mutations that do not naturally materialize, for good and for bad. My biggest fear is the branded (tm) over engineering. There are apples in our store called Arctic (c) which eliminate bruising, but taste like wax. Soon enough you'll see overpriced cloned apples with All New Perfection(tm) and New Recipe(tm) Apples. Absolutely unnecessary and capitalistic. Like shampoo bottles.

Just buy the cheap one. You don't got cheap ones?

 

[Alucrid]

The problem with GMO is that they can introduce mutations that do not naturally materialize, for good and for bad. My biggest fear is the branded (tm) over engineering. There are apples in our store called Arctic (c) which eliminate bruising, but taste like wax. Soon enough you'll see overpriced cloned apples with All New Perfection(tm) and New Recipe(tm) Apples. Absolutely unnecessary and capitalistic. Like shampoo bottles.

so you're scared that the current giant selection of apple types will become an even larger giant selection of apple types?

 

[TheSlySoul]

So the logic is that it keeps them from getting spoiled but does not increase the growth rate?
Understandable it is not curing hunger then.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

One thing that is overlooked is that they provide evidence that GMO/non-GMO is a completely vague distinction.

 

[Kinitari]

So the logic is that it keeps them from getting spoiled but does not increase the growth rate?
Understandable it is not curing hunger then.

Well the problem is hunger has been reducing since before gmos at a steady rate, after gmos at the same rate. Gmos maybe are a part of this formula, but it's hard to say. Gmos really aren't all that available foodstuff crops in developing nations, that also might have a part to play.

GMOs mostly right now just make growing foods cheaper and more environmentally friendly. Although next gen crops are aiming to improve shelf life, reduce carcinogens and enrich foods with needed vitamins. That last one is most important for developing nations

 

[DOWN]

GMO people rewriting history pretending they were never talking about GMOs and their health effects, just concern for the environmemt

 

[Kinitari]

GMO people rewriting history pretending they were never talking about GMOs and their health effects, just concern for the environmemt

Hmm?

 

[Alchemy]

The problem isn't food availability, it's capitalism. We have plenty of people in the US and plenty of people starving. Things just get worse in poorer countries despite many of them actually growing food, it just gets shipped out to places that can pay for it.