WASHINGTON, May
18, 2016 - A landmark study of genetically engineered crops provides some timely
assurance to the public about the crops’ safety. But the report released
Tuesday by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine also
cast doubt on some of the loftiest claims and predictions for the technology.
The study,
conducted by a panel of 20 scientists over two years, had a mixed message on the issue of biotech labeling. While there
is no safety justification for labeling, the panel said there may be other
societal concerns for doing so. “There clearly are strong non-safety arguments
and considerable public support for mandatory labeling of products containing
GE material,” the study said.
But the 408-page
report also warned that mandatory labeling is likely to encourage food
companies to stop using GMOs.
The study affirmed the safety of biotech crops that
are now on the market based on an
extensive review of animal studies and allergenicity testing – and by comparing
health data between North America, where genetically engineered (GE) foods have
been eaten since the 1990s, and Europe, where they aren’t officiallyconsumed. The scientists said they found no differences
in cancer and rates of other health problems between North America and Europe.
The chapter on
health effects had more than 200 references to various studies. “We really
looked at that as carefully as we could,” said the panel chairman, Fred Gould,
professor of entomology and co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society
Center at North Carolina State University
A NAS “study stating that foods and ingredients made
from GM crops don’t have any health risks or impacts associated with them is
clearly an important finding that I hope will alleviate concerns that members
of the public may have,” said Greg Jaffe, director of biotechnology for
the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group.
Brian Baenig,
executive vice president of food and agriculture for the Biotechnology
Innovation Organization, said the study “reiterates what the world’s scientific
authorities have repeatedly concluded over the years: that agricultural
biotechnology has many demonstrated benefits to farmers, consumers, and the
environment.”
But the study also
will provide ammunition to critics of biotechnology who question whether it is
needed, safe or not. The scientists reviewed USDA data and found no
evidence that biotech varieties had substantially increased the rate of U.S.
yield growth, which Gould said came as a surprise to the scientists.
Traits that could have a significant impact on yields in the
future, including nitrogen efficiency and enhanced photosynthesis, were very
difficult to develop and were a long way from getting to the market, the study
said.
“There is great uncertainty regarding whether traits
developed with emerging genetic-engineering technologies will increase crop
potential yield by improving photosynthesis and increasing nutrient use. Including such GE traits in policy planning
as major contributors to feeding the world must be accompanied by strong
caveats,” the study said.
The two main existing traits that have been commercialized
so far, pest resistance and herbicide tolerance, will likely be added to new
crops, said Gould.
Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs for the
Environmental Working Group and a leading lobbyist for mandatory biotech
labeling, said the finding that biotechnology hasn’t increased crop yields “flies
in the face of popular perceptions of GMO crops.”
Still, the
scientists said there was evidence that Bt crops had decreased yield losses as
well as the use of synthetic insecticides. In fact, the Bt toxin has been so
successful in fighting the European corn borer in parts of the Midwest that it
no longer makes economic sense for farmers to use the trait, the study
said.
The report
said herbicide tolerances offer different benefits to farmers, including
savings in labor and herbicide costs.
The study said that planting of herbicide-tolerant soybeans had increased at
the same time as no-till conservation practices had spread, but the scientists
said it was not clear that one caused the other.
The most
immediate impact of the study may be on the GMO labeling issue. Consumers Union immediately seized on the
report to support its push for mandatory labeling. “When it comes to GMO
labels, the NAS report points out that there are value choices that consumers
want to make when they shop for food. We’re pleased to see that the report
cites the wealth of polling data showing consumers want GMO labeling,” stated
Michael Hansen, senior scientist for the group, which publishes Consumer
Reports.
The study warned
that the short-term cost of labeling biotech products would be small, but the
long-term impact could be significant, because companies would be forced to
ensure that ensure that their supply chains keep non-biotech commodities
separate from GMO versions.
Panel member
Michael Rodemeyer, a science policy specialist who founded the Pew Initiative
on Food and Biotechnology after serving as a science adviser in Congress and
the Clinton administration, told Agri-Pulse that the researchers
couldn’t find good estimates of the cost.
“The cost of just putting a label on
a can is trivial. That’s not the issue. The
issue is if the label is viewed as a warning label by consumers, companies are
going to want to reformulate their products as they have in Europe to get rid
of GM ingredients so they don’t have to label,” Rodemeyer said. “If they
do that, they also have to monitor the supplies coming in.… The result of that
is that there is this pressure downstream to say, ‘Let’s just get rid of GM
content entirely.’”
Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said he
remains optimistic that he can reach an agreement on the biotech disclosure
issue amid signs that companies will reformulate products to avoid GMO
labeling.
Roberts told Agri-Pulse
that an executive with Coca-Cola warned him that the company could change its
sweetener so it didn’t have to label. High fructose corn syrup and beet sugar
are both genetically engineered. “Reformulation is happening, which is what
I’ve been saying for a long time,” Roberts said.
A spokesman for Coca-Cola would only say that a senior
executive from the company had recently visited Senate offices. The company’s
official statement is that it supports national labeling standards. “Until
Congress adopts the best uniform approach for consumers, we will continue to
comply with all applicable labeling requirements,” the statement says.
USDA
said Tuesday that it was increasing imports of cane sugar to deal with U.S.
demand for non-GMO sweetener.
The latest compromise proposed by the committee’s ranking
Democrat, Debbie Stabenow, includes some provisions that are still
“problematic,” Roberts said. He didn’t specify what they were, but he did
provide one detail of what is likely to be in a final agreement: USDA will be
assigned to decide what language or symbols should appear on food labels.
#30
For more news, go to: www.Agri-Pulse.com
