Risk assessment commentaries on GE feeds (Van Eenennaam) plus Systematic review of crop impacts (Qaim) from ISB

RISK ASSESSMENT

Prevalence and Impacts of Genetically Engineered Feedstuffs on Livestock Populations  Alison Van Eenennaam and Amy Young

The media has given extensive coverage to a handful of highly controversial studies that claim deleterious health effects in a small number of animals that have consumed GE feed. These studies, despite being widely criticized for experimental design and methodological flaws, in combination with anecdotal stories on the internet, have been used to suggest that there is a need to label milk, meat and eggs from animals that are fed GE crops. A recent review by Van Eenennaam and Young summarizes published animal feeding studies and commercial livestock productivity and health using data from publicly-available databases for a period before the introduction of GE crops and through 2011, a period with high levels of GE crops. Overall, the results did not reveal unfavorable or perturbed trends in the performance or health of livestock that consume GE feed.

A Systematic Review of GM Crop Impacts  Wilhelm Klumper and Matin Qaim

Despite the rapid adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops by farmers in many countries, public controversies about the risks and benefits continue. Numerous independent science academies and regulatory bodies have reviewed the evidence about risks, concluding that commercialized GM crops are safe for human consumption and the environment. There are also plenty of studies showing that GM crops cause benefits in terms of higher yields and cost savings in agricultural production. However, some argue that the evidence about impacts is mixed and that studies showing large benefits may have problems with the data and methods used. Uncertainty about GM crop impacts is one reason for the widespread public suspicion towards this technology. We have recently carried out a meta-analysis that may help to consolidate the evidence.