Study: Genetically modified crops do not add to human health risks
One of the nation’s premier scientific bodies says it has found no evidence that genetically modified crops are bad for human health.
In a 400-page report released May 17, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine says its review of nearly 900 studies and years of disease data showed no increase in health risks due to the consumption of genetically modified food.
The group, however, noted that expert scientific bodies do not agree about the cancer-causing potential of glyphosate, an herbicide that’s often paired with genetically engineered crops.
It also pointed out the use of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, has led to increases in weed and pest resistance and called for incentives and regulations to push farmers toward practices to delay the evolution of resistance in weeds and pests.
The report advocated for similar regulatory treatment of plants whose genes have been altered in any way — either through genetic engineering or conventional breeding techniques. USDA and EPA partially decide which plants to regulate based on the process by which their genes were altered, the report says, and new methods of genetic manipulation may fall outside existing regulatory regimes.
Any genetic alteration has the potential for unintended consequences, the report said, and the product, not the process, should be the driver behind regulatory review.
Genetically modified crops were widely adopted in U.S. agriculture in the 1990s, mainly by incorporating genes resistant to pests and herbicides. Monsanto, based in suburban St. Louis, was one of the early developers of genetically modified crops, engineering soybeans and corn to be resistant to glyphosate, sold under the brand Roundup.
But as their use has grown, concerns over their safety have persisted, leading some food manufacturers and restaurants to disclose their use or tout products free of GMOs. Vermont will begin requiring labeling of GMOs this summer, and other states have tried to enact similar laws.
Monsanto and other big agriculture and food companies, however, have fought the efforts, arguing that labeling food would confuse consumers and lead to an expensive patchwork of state regulations.
Many people are concerned that GMOs are partly to blame for cancer, obesity, gastrointestinal tract illnesses, kidney disease, allergies and autism spectrum disorders, the National Academies said.
It reviewed disease registries in the U.S. and Canada, where GMOs have been a regular part of the diet since the 1990s, and the United Kingdom and Western Europe, where GMOs are not widely consumed.
It found no difference in the increase or decrease of specific health problems after the introduction of GMO foods and the associated increase in glyphosate.
Even without evidence of health effects from existing GMO use, the study committee’s chair, North Carolina State University entomology professor Fred Gould, said continued scrutiny is necessary because of the possibility of “subtle” effects showing up later. He compared it to changing consensus over the years on dietary guidelines, such as the health benefit of eggs or how much salt is healthy.
“It’s been 20 years, maybe it will take 40 years to show up,” he said during a briefing on the report.
The report did acknowledge there is “ongoing debate about potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate in humans.” While a report in March 2015 from the International Agency for Research on Cancer listed the herbicide as “probably” carcinogenic to humans, other regulatory agencies have not found a link to cancer, including the EPA, Canada’s health agency and the European Food Safety Authority. On Monday, experts from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization concluded a review that found glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.”
Matt Arnold, an analyst at Des Peres-based Edward Jones who follows Monsanto, said he doesn’t see the report swaying skeptics of GMOs, affecting consumer demand or influencing debates on state labeling laws. Critics will point to their pairing with herbicides, he said.
“The lack of evidence that genetically modified crops do cause harm is Monsanto’s strongest argument, and this report kind of bolsters that argument to some extent,” Arnold said. But “at the end of the day, it’s more ammo in a debate that will rage on as far as the eye can see.”
Monsanto, in a statement, said the report “underscores” the “science and safety” behind GMO crops.
“We believe this was a valuable analysis that brought together parties on all sides of the science who share different viewpoints about its promise and potential,” the company said.
When it came to social and economic effects, the National Academies said farmers who have adopted genetically engineered crops “generally had favorable economic outcomes.”
But it did dampen one of the big talking points espoused by Monsanto and other seed companies, namely that their GMO technologies are necessary in order to keep up with population growth. Even though pest-resistant crops have reduced farmers’ crop losses, there is no evidence that the adoption of GMOs in the 1990s sped up farm yield improvements beyond the pace they had been on in the preceding decades, the report found.
“We hear quite a few claims that we need genetically engineered crops to feed the world, and by using genetic engineering we can increase the rate by which we improve crop yield,” Gould said. “With the advent of (GMO) crops, we’re not seeing that all of a sudden we’re increasing the rate of increase.”
Going forward, the committee recommended investing in a number of different approaches, not just genetic engineering, to continue the improvements in farm yields.
While the report said it found no evidence of “cause-and-effect relationships” between genetically modified crops and environmental problems, it said “the complex nature of assessing long-term environmental changes often made it difficult to reach definitive conclusions.”
For instance, it said the scientific literature has not found a definitive link between the decline of monarch butterfly populations and glyphosate suppression of milkweed. Yet it noted that there is no consensus among researchers that “increased glyphosate use is not at all associated with decreased monarch populations.”
The National Academies, regarded as one of the country’s most prestigious scientific bodies, still drew criticism from groups opposed to the use of genetically engineered food.
Advocacy group Food and Water Watch released a report Monday that accused many of the study committee members of having worked with Monsanto or other companies with an interest in GMO use over the years. It said “millions of dollars” go to the National Academies from Monsanto and similar companies and questioned whether the public should trust the review.
“Corporate agribusinesses pour millions of dollars into our public universities, play a heavy hand in peer-reviewed scientific journals and seek to influence prestigious scientific bodies like the National Research Council,” Food and Water Watch wrote in a blog May 16 about the soon-to-be-released report. “We’ve asked the (National Research Council) many times to remove itself from this broken system of science, to step up and be a leader on the issue of conflicts of interest in GMO research.”
Gould said that funding for the report came from nonindustry sources and pointed to a special disclosure section. He said it’s important that groups like Food and Water Watch “keep pushing us to be as transparent as possible,” but he said he worried that some of the accusations would hinder dialogue about costs and benefits of GMO use.
“There’s a lot of talking points that go around from both sides,” Gould said. “And we’re kind of tired of that. We want to see a conversation.”
Jacob Barker is a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Bruce's Blog 