NAS Report: GE Crops Pose No Greater Health, Environmental Risks than Non-GE Crops

NOTE: This column is copyrighted material; therefore reproduction or retransmission is prohibited under U.S. copyright laws.

Genetically engineered (GE) crops have had “generally favorable economic outcomes” for producers and an extensive two-year review “found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops,” according to a report released Tuesday by the National Academies of Science (NAS). Link to report.

GE crops and producers. Available evidence indicates that “GE soybean, cotton, and maize have generally had favorable economic outcomes for producers who have adopted these crops, but outcomes have been heterogeneous depending on pest abundance, farming practices, and agricultural infrastructure,” the report summary noted. “The crops with the insect-resistant trait – based on genes from a bacterium (Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt) – generally decreased yield losses and the use of insecticides on small and large farms in comparison with non-Bt varieties.”

The widespread use of these crops in some cases has “decreased the abundance of specific pests in the landscape and thereby contributed to reduced damage even to crops that did not have the Bt trait, and planting Bt crops has tended to result in higher insect biodiversity on farms than planting similar varieties without the Bt trait that were treated with synthetic insecticides.”

Resistance management strategies important. In areas where resistance management strategies were not followed, the report noted there were cases where “damaging levels of resistance evolved in some target insects.”

Herbicide resistance. Farmers are continuing to grapple with herbicide-resistant (HR) crops and the use of the herbicide glyphosate, the report said, noting those who planted HR crops “often had small increases in yield in comparison with non-HR counterparts. Farm-level surveys did not find lower plant diversity in fields with HR crops than in those planted with non-GE counterparts.”

Where heavy reliance on glyphosate emerged, the report observed, “some weeds evolved resistance and present a major agronomic problem.” Hence the report said, “sustainable use of Bt and HR crops will require use of integrated pest-management strategies.”

GE crops and animal health. Claims of adverse impacts to human health from GE crops were noted, with the report pointing out that “many reviews have indicated that foods from GE crops are as safe as foods from non-GE crops, but the committee reexamined the original studies of this subject.” While they found the design and analysis of animal-feeding studies were “not optimal,” the NRC said, “but the large number of experimental studies provided reasonable evidence that animals were not harmed by eating food derived from GE crops. Additionally, long-term data on livestock health before and after the introduction of GE crops showed no adverse effects associated with GE crops.”

Human health and GE crops. Using epidemiological data on incidence of cancers and other human-health problems over time, the study said they found “no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops. The social and economic effects of GE crops depend on the fit of the GE trait and the plant variety to the farm environment and the quality and cost of the GE seeds. GE crops have benefited many farmers on all scales, but genetic engineering alone cannot address the wide variety of complex challenges that face farmers, especially smallholders.”

The future of GE crops. Research to increase potential yields and nutrient-use efficiencies is underway, but it is too early to predict its success. The committee recommends a strategic public investment in emerging genetic-engineering technologies and other approaches to address food security and other challenges.” The recommendation is that there needs to be “a strategic public investment in emerging genetic-engineering technologies and other approaches to address food security and other challenges.”

Further, those emergence genetic technologies “have blurred the distinction between genetic engineering and conventional plant breeding to the point where regulatory systems based on process are technically difficult to defend.”

“On the basis of its detailed examination of comparisons between currently commercialized GE and non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods, and epidemiological data, the committee concluded that no differences have been found that implicate a higher risk to human health safety from these GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts. The committee states this finding very carefully, acknowledging that any new food – GE or non-GE – may have some subtle favorable or adverse health effects that are not detected even with careful scrutiny and that health effects can develop over time,” the report said.

However, at a briefing Tuesday, Fred Gould, chair of the Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects, said there is a “big caveat” in this finding in that there may always be effects that could take far longer than the 20-year time span studied to show up. “With any new food – GE or non-GE – there may always be some subtle favorable or adverse health effect that is not detected even with careful scrutiny, and that health effects can develop over time. It’s been 20 years, maybe it will take 40 years for something to show up,” Gould said.

The report also calls for a tiered approach to regulation that is based in part on new -omics technologies that will be able to compare the molecular profiles of a new variety and a counterpart already in widespread use. In addition, GE crop governance should be transparent and participatory.”

Labeling foods for GE crops. The report has an extensive section on this hot-button issue, noting the costs involved with various routes of GE labeling. “The benefits of mandatory labeling depend on the extent to which consumers use the information to choose products that they want (or avoid ones that they do not want) and on their WTP (willingness to pay) for such attributes,” the report said. “The assumption is that consumers would use the information to avoid food derived from GE crops, although the percentage of consumers who would do so is likely to differ from country to country. Most of the economic studies that compared a mandatory-labeling requirement of GE foods with a voluntary ‘non-GE’ label have concluded that a voluntary ‘non-GE’ label is a more efficient way to provide information to consumers and to permit consumer choice.”

Given the science, the report noted, FDA has decided not to require mandatory labeling of food made from GE crops. “In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to require label information to ensure the safe use of a product or to prevent marketplace deception; because FDA has determined that all commercialized GE crops are not materially different from conventionally bred crops, it has not found cause to mandate labeling of GE foods under its authority,” the report says.

However, the report said there are societal factors that should be weighed beyond just the science. It notes that a 2013 poll should that 93% of American consumers believe GE foods should be required to include that information on their labels, up from 86% in a 2000 poll. The study goes on to say that voluntary labeling schemes for non-GE foods do not serve consumers well or fulfill the public’s “right to know.”

“For example, if non-GE labeling is voluntary, many products would have no label information about GE content. Consumers would not know whether the product contained GE ingredients and so would be deprived of the ability to make an informed choice about each product. Mandatory labeling provides the opportunity for consumers to make their own personal risk-benefit decisions (regardless of the regulatory determination of safety) and to express a preference for a method of production. A voluntary non-GE label places the burden on consumers who want to avoid GE foods to search for non-GE products and provides no information to consumers who may not be actively searching for the information but who might be informed by the label,” the report says.

Consumers’ “right to know” was the leading argument for lawmakers opposing a Senate measure that would have preempted states’ mandatory labeling laws like Vermont’s, which is set to go into effect July 1.

What food manufacturers would do. “If required to label, manufacturers would probably reformulate products to avoid labeling by using non-GE ingredients where possible instead of putting on a label that will lead to a loss of sales,” the report said.

Consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch questioned the veracity of report in an issue brief that notes the biotechnology industry is a major donor to the National Academies, and said 12 of the 20 members of the committee that produced the report have at some point had ties to genetically engineered crop producers like Monsanto.

“The agricultural and food sciences in the United States today are overrun with industry money, which has led to industry bias. Corporations have long used their deep coffers to successfully court public universities and institutions like the NRC, hoping to secure favorable science and high-profile allies in the scientific community. This has been a particularly important problem in the GMO debate,” alleges the Food & Water Watch issue brief, released a day before the National Academies report came out.

Gould said Tuesday that the non-governmental groups that helped fund the study were not tied to the biotechnology or genetically engineered food industries. Sponsors of the study include USDA, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and New Venture Fund, with additional support form the National Academy of Sciences.

The report and the National Academies also said the committee reviewed more than1,000 peer-reviewed studies, listened to 80 presentations from a variety of viewpoints and reviewed more than 700 public comments it received.

Comments: This report will be seized on by both sides of this debate over GE crops -- those backing labeling will cite the report’s components that labeling would provide a benefit to consumers while those opposed to labeling foods for such content will note the costs and the overall conclusion of the report -- GE crops have no measurable impact on human health than their non-GE counterparts. But this government-funded study should at least not be targeted as being “biased” by food companies or opponents to GMO crops, even though some groups have already done so, as noted above. Still, it may not push things in either direction in Congress relative to the issue of labeling foods for GE content.

NOTE: This column is copyrighted material; therefore reproduction or retransmission is prohibited under U.S. copyright laws.