GLP’s Jon Entine cautions National Academy of Sciences about views of anti-science NGOs | Genetic Literacy Project

Jon Entine's testimony:

EDITOR’S NOTE: The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences held two days of discussions this week on the controversial issue of crop biotechnology as it collects information for a spring 2016 report. Below are the remarks on September 16 from one of the invitees: Jon Entine of the GLP.

I’m Jon Entine, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project. We are a non-profit NGO. We receive no industry funding. We welcome writing contributions from anyone from any ideological perspective—supportive of or critical of human or agricultural genetics—including everyone on this panel and those testifying over these two days. I am also a Senior Fellow at the World Food Institute’s Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy at the University of California-Davis.

Agricultural biotechnology is an important and evolving issue. I make no pretense of being a scientist; I’m a science journalist dedicated to analyzing the politicization of biotechnology. I’ve written three books on genetics and more than a thousand articles, including in peer review journals.

I’m going to use the term “GMO” in this talk but want to make an important point: ‘Genetically modified organism’ is a meaningless term.

GM is a process. Each GM crop is unique. You cannot group nutritionally enhanced Golden Rice with herbicide tolerant corn: Different crop, different trait, different consumer.

There exists a range of viewpoints about whether genetic engineering promotes deleterious farming and ecological practices—the so-called dangers of corporate controlled industrial agriculture; or the over-production of commodity crops that some say contribute to our collective weight problem. Those are important issues; they just don’t apply specifically to GMOs.

The central issue that you must assess is the safety of GM foods. Hopefully you will focus not just on specific facts, but also on the process of science:
Reproducibility of studies
Skepticism of one-off research
Weight of evidence
Willingness to revise theories in the light of new, reproducible data

In that context, many of those who maintain that GMOs are potentially harmful, while sincere for the most part, are engaging not in science but in politics. Let me give you an example. Anti-GMO NGOs often claim that the safety of genetically engineered foods cannot be assured because Big Ag funds most GMO research and there have been almost no long-term safety studies. On its website, the Union of Concerned Scientists claims: “It is … an exaggeration … to state that there are no health risks associated with GE. … not enough is known; research on the effects of specific genes has been limited—and tightly controlled by the industry.

That is just wrong.

Biology Fortified’s GENERA database lists more than 1,000 studies with another 1,300 or so to add. GM crops have been investigated for more than 20 years. There are nuances in conclusions, but the evidence is consistent whether the study was funded by industry or the European Commission: GM crops are as safe as other conventional or organic crops and foods—or safer.

What about the claim made by Charles Benbrook and repeated endlessly by anti-GMO activists that there have been few or no long-term studies? That’s false. GENERA lists more than three-dozen examples of multi-year studies showing no unusual health consequences from consuming GMOs. A recent review of 24 of these studies led by Chelsea Snell found: “Results … do not suggest any health hazards … and there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed.”...And more @ GLP’s Jon Entine cautions National Academy of Sciences about views of anti-science NGOs | Genetic Literacy Project:



The Pundit's response: Read the whole thing-- it's compelling reading.