A popular weapon used by those critical of agricultural biotechnology is to claim that there has been little to no evaluation of the safety of GM crops and there is no scientific consensus on this issue. Those claims are simply not true.
by Jon Entine
“The science just hasn’t been done.” - Charles Benbrook, organic researcher, Washington State University.
“There is no credible evidence that GMO foods are safe to eat.” - David Schubert, Salk Institute of Biological Studies
“[The] research [on GMOs] is scant…. Whether they’re killing us slowly— contributing to long-term, chronic maladies—remains anyone’s guess.” - Tom Philpott, Mother Jones
“Genetically modified (GM) foods should be a concern for those who suffer from food allergies because they are not tested….” - Organic Consumers Association
The claim that
genetically engineered crops are ‘understudied’—the meme represented in the
quotes highlighted above—has become a staple of opponents of crop
biotechnology, especially activist journalists. Anti-GMO campaigners, including
many organic supporters, assert time and again that genetically modified crops
have not been safety tested or that the research done to date on the health or
environmental impact of GMOs has “all” been done by the companies that produce
the seeds. Therefore, they claim, consumers are taking a ‘leap of faith’ in
concluding that they face no harm from consuming foods made with genetically
modified ingredients.
Every major
international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent
studies—in some cases numbering in the hundreds—in coming to the consensus
conclusion that GMO crops are as safe or safer than
conventional or organic foods. But until now, the magnitude of the research on
crop biotechnology has never been cataloged. In response to what they believed
was an information gap, a team of Italian
scientists summarized 1783 studies about the
safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods—a staggering number.
The researchers
couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any
harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not
detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically
engineered crops,” the scientists concluded.
The research
review, published in Critical
Reviews in Biotechnology in September, spanned only the last
decade—from 2002 to 2012—which represents only about a third of the lifetime of
GM technology.
“Our goal was to
create a single document where interested people of all levels of expertise can
get an overview on what has been done by scientists regarding GE crop safety,”
lead researcher Alessandro Nicolia, applied biologist at the University of
Perugia, told Real
Clear Science. “We tried to give a balanced view informing about what has
been debated, the conclusions reached so far, and emerging issues.”
The conclusions
are also striking because European governments, Italy in particular, have not
been as embracing of genetically modified crops as has North and South America,
although the consensus of European scientists has been generally positive.
The Italian review
not only compiled independent research on GMOs over the last ten years but also
summarizes findings in the different categories of GM research: general
literature, environmental impact, safety of consumption and traceability.
The “general
literature” category of studies largely reveals the differences between the US,
EU and other countries when it comes to regulating GM crops. Due to lack of
uniform regulatory practices and the rise of non-scientific rhetoric, Nicolia
and his colleagues report, concern about GMOs has been greatly exaggerated.
Environmental
impact studies are predominant in the body of GM research, making up 68% of the
1,783 studies. These studies investigated environmental impact on the
crop-level, farm-level and landscape-level. Nicolia and his team found “little
to no evidence” that GM crops have a negative environmental impact on their
surroundings.
One of the fastest
growing areas of research is in gene flow, the potential for genes from GM
crops to be found—“contaminate” in the parlance of activists—in non-GM crops in
neighboring fields. Nicolia and his colleagues report that this has been
observed, and scientists have been studying ways to reduce this risk with
different strategies such as isolation distances and post-harvest practices.
The review notes that gene flow is not unique to GM technology and is commonly
seen in wild plants and non-GM crops. While gene flow could certainly benefit
from more research, Nicolia and his colleagues suggest, the public’s
aversion to field trials discourages many scientists, especially
in the EU.
In the food and
feeding category, the team found no evidence that approved GMOs introduce any
unique allergens or toxins into the food supply. All GM crops are tested
against a database of all known allergens before commercialization and any crop
found containing new allergens is not approved or marketed.
The researchers
also address the safety of transcribed RNA from transgenic DNA. Are scientists
fiddling with the ‘natural order’ of life? In fact, humans consume between 0.1
and 1 gram of DNA per day, from both GM and non-GM ingredients. This DNA is
generally degraded by food processing, and any surviving DNA is then
subsequently degraded in the digestive system. No evidence was found that DNA
absorbed through the GI tract could be integrated into human cells—a popular
anti-GMO criticism.
These 1783 studies
are expected to be merged into the public database known as GENERA (Genetic
Engineering Risk Atlas) being built by Biofortified, an independent
non-profit website. Officially launched in 2012, GENERA includes peer-reviewed
journal articles from different aspects of GM research, including basic
genetics, feeding studies, environmental impact and nutritional impact. GENERA
has more than 650 studies listed so far, many of which also show up in the new
database. When merged, there should be well over 2000 GMO related studies, a
sizable percentage—as many as 1000—that have been independently executed by
independent scientists.
In short,
genetically modified foods are among the most extensively studied scientific
subjects in history. This year celebrates the 30th anniversary
of GM technology, and the paper’s conclusion is unequivocal: there is no
credible evidence that GMOs pose any unique threat to the environment or the
public’s health. The reason for the public’s distrust of GMOs lies in psychology, politics and false debates.
No comments:
Post a Comment