Spotlight: GE crops safe to eat but don't have higher yields: U.S. experts

Genetically engineered (GE) crops are safe to eat, and do not harm the environment, according to a major report released Tuesday by an influential U.S. panel of experts.

However, the report cautioned that the technology does not, as many supporters claimed, lead to higher yields.

NO HEALTH PROBLEMS

The 408-page report, issued by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, said it found "no substantiated evidence" of linking GE food consumption to higher incidence of specific health problems including cancer, obesity, gastrointestinal tract diseases, kidney disease and such disorders as autism and allergies.

"We have 20 years of people in the U.S. and Canada eating genetically engineered crops, ... (but) we didn't see any evidence of that (higher health risks)," Fred Gould, chairman of the study committee on GE crops, told reporters at a news conference in Washington, D.C.

"We compared the patterns in the U.S. and Canada to the patterns in the U.K. and the EU, because in those countries people are not eating genetically engineered foods, we did not see a difference (in health risks) in those patterns," said Gould, also professor and co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University.

But the report noted that there is some evidence that GE insect-resistant crops have had benefited human health by reducing insecticide poisonings.

In addition, several GE crops are in development that are designed to benefit human health, such as rice with increased beta-carotene content to help prevent blindness and death caused by vitamin A deficiencies in some developing nations.

NO HIGHER YIELDS

The report also said it found no conclusive cause-and-effect evidence of environmental problems from the GE crops.

However, it did find that evolved resistance to current GE characteristics in crops is becoming "a major agricultural problem," including both insect and weed resistance.

Generally, GE crops have had favorable economic outcomes for producers, said the report, but noting that this technology has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields, an apparent blow to supporters of GM crops.

The committee examined changes over time in overall yield per hectare of maize, soybean, and cotton reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) before, during, and after the switch from conventional to GE varieties of these crops.

"No significant change in the rate at which crop yields increase could be discerned from the data," it wrote in the report.

"Although the sum of experimental evidence indicates that GE traits are contributing to actual yield increases, there is no evidence from USDA data that they have substantially increased the rate at which U.S. agriculture is increasing yields."

NEITHER PANACEA NOR MONSTERS

The report also found that new technologies in genetic engineering and conventional breeding are blurring the once clear distinctions between these two crop-improvement approaches.

As a result, the committee recommended that regulating new crop varieties should focus on a plant's characteristics rather than the process by which it was developed.

"New plant varieties that have intended or unintended novel characteristics that may present potential hazards should undergo safety testing -- regardless of whether they were developed using genetic engineering or conventional breeding techniques," it said in a statement.

The report, entitled Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects, was written by a committee of 20 experts, all from universities and research institutes. The committee examined almost 900 studies since the 1980s, heard from 80 speakers at three public meetings and 15 public webinars, and read more than 700 comments from members.

Many outside experts in this field lauded the report as "thorough and objective."

Wayne Parrott, professor at the University of Georgia said the report presents a sober assessment of GE crops.

"The inescapable conclusion, after reading the report, is the GE crops are pretty much just crops," Parrott said. "They are not the panacea that some proponents claim, nor the dreaded monsters that others claim." Enditem