Another Bad Week for the Anti-GMO Movement

By Julie Kelly

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Mounting evidence continues to discredit the anti-GMO (genetically modified organism) movement. This week has been a particular bruising one for anti-GMO activists, with the release of two reports that disprove most of their claims that GMOs are bad for people and the planet.

On May 17, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) issued a lengthy study, “Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects,” that supports the safety of GMO foods and finds no evidence of harm to human health or the environment. The 20-member committee studied research on genetically engineered (GE) crops from around the world, focusing primarily on three varieties — corn, cotton, and soybeans — that have been developed to fight off pests or tolerate herbicide application. American farmers have adopted this technology in droves over the last 20 years, to the point where nearly all the corn, soy, cotton, and sugar beets grown here are genetically modified. The NAS report explains why: “The available evidence indicates that GE soybean, cotton, and maize have generally had favorable economic outcomes for producers who have adopted these crops,” including a decrease in pesticide use and continued rise in annual yields (although the NAS report shows yields only until 2011, the USDA reported record bushel-per-acre yields for corn and soy in 2014).

It’s not just in the United States that farmers are seeing results. One study looked at the benefits of genetically engineered soybean, maize, and cotton crops in 19 countries: “They found that profit increased by an average of 69% for adopters of those crops, largely because [of] increased yields (21.5 percent) and decreased insecticide costs (39 percent).”

Some benefits of these crops extend to other farming methods as well. Insect-resistant crops (commonly known as Bt varieties) actually help non-GMO crops, a claim noticeably overlooked by the organic crowd that worries about so-called “contamination” from GE crops: “There is evidence that some pest populations are reduced regionally and that benefits both the adopters and non-adopters of Bt crops.” Once the scourge of corn growers in the Midwest, the European corn borer is now “uncommon,” resulting in lower pesticide use even by non-GE farmers.

Perhaps most frustrating for anti-GMO activists is the lack of evidence tying GMOs to health or environmental woes, which seriously undermines most of their talking points. The committee found “no conclusive evidence of cause-and-effect relationship between GE crops and environmental impacts,” with the exception of some problems due to built-up resistance to the weed killer used on herbicide-tolerant plants.

GMOs don’t make people sick, either. Activists have blamed genetically engineered crops for any number of diseases in an effort to scare consumers (mothers in particular) away from GMO products. But the NAS concluded there is “no evidence of adverse health effects attributable to consumption of foods derived from GE crops.” The report found no link between genetically engineered crops and many illnesses, including cancer, obesity, celiac disease, autism, kidney disease, or food allergies. In fact, the adoption of GE cotton in some poor countries has been associated with reduced insecticide poisoning.

The committee also addressed the potential of GE crops to boost global food security. Testing is underway to improve many staple crops in developing nations, including disease-resistant cassava, Vitamin A–fortified rice and bananas, and virus-resistant sweet potatoes. Despite claims from global GMO foes that those same crops can be developed with traditional methods, the NAS bluntly concludes that “many traits being developed with genetic engineering are not attainable with conventional breeding or agroecological approaches.”

On this issue, anti-GMO activists should hang their heads in shame. The effort to stop farmers from adopting these crops in poor countries is immoral and unconscionable. No one — particularly wealthy American organic executives or left-wing environmentalists — should stand in the way of that.

Another report released this week by the World Health Organization blows a major hole in the anti-GMO movement’s biggest talking point over the past year, which is that the weed-killer used on some GE crops supposedly causes cancer. In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (under the purview of WHO) concluded that the weed killer glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.” This finding contradicted nearly all other scientific evaluations of the chemical and raised issues about cherry-picking research and conflict of interest (read about it here).

WHO scheduled an “extraordinary meeting” with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations to reevaluate glyphosate. On May 16, in what can only be viewed as a rebuke of IARC, they concluded that “glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans through the diet.” This is of particular importance as a European Union panel meets this week to decide whether to reapprove glyphosate use for the next nine years (the issue is far more contentious in Europe, where most countries don’t grow GE crops).

As bad as this week has been for the anti-GMO movement, it will only get worse. Mandatory GMO labeling is stalled in Congress. New gene-editing techniques such as CRISPR/Cas9 that don’t swap genes between species hold tremendous potential and will ease fears about transgenic “Frankenfoods.” GMO foes, who are already on shaky scientific ground, will continue to be backed into a corner to defend their increasingly indefensible position.