# Has any harm been proven to be caused by GMO foods? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 25, 2016, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072 "2016-03-25T00:30:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/21 "2016-03-26T01:24:03Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > \*anti-GMOers are big on hyping alleged dangers of crops like GM corn; they are much quieter on the subject of (for example) GM cotton and GM brinjal, which have been enormously beneficial for Third World farmers and consumers which as a result have been exposed to far fewer pesticides. Not really true. Vandana Shiva has been trying to blame farmer suicides in India (caused by a host of economic reasons) on Monsanto cotton seeds for years, as for bt brinjal they made a [shitload of noise](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8506047.stm) resulting in a crop ban in India in 2010 (they seem to have lifted it as of 2013). ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/22 "2016-03-26T02:13:22Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You’ve tried to make the case in the past that the GMO issue should be resolved through definitive science, comparing it to climate change. Well, except that on the issue of climate change all the national academies of the major nations of the world have [repeatedly issued a clear and unequivocal position](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Academies_of_science_.28general_science.29). I have yet to find such an unequivocal position on GMOs from this same impeccable source. [Scientific consensus on GMO safety stronger than for global warming](https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/29/pewaaas-study-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety-stronger-than-for-global-warming/) from Pew Research and the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/23 "2016-03-26T02:45:27Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > [Scientific consensus on GMO safety stronger than for global warming](https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/29/pewaaas-study-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety-stronger-than-for-global-warming/) from Pew Research and the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. You may (or may not) have noticed that on the subjects of climate science, cognitive science, and AI I have been squarely and firmly on the side of science and scientific evidence, as I always am. In an area where I have little knowledge, like GMOs, I rely on proxies like the National Academy of Sciences to guide my views. The National Academies – of science, of engineering, and of medicine – were specifically established to be the unimpeachable advisers to the nation on matters of their expertise. And the same goes for their peer institutions in other nations. I have not found any statement from this august body on the matter of GMOs that is even close to the unequivocal statement made about climate change. The “even stronger” headline that you quote doesn’t pertain to any scientific finding of the kind that comes from the National Academies – it’s just a survey of what scientists in general happen to believe – the vast majority of whom have no expertise in the field at all. The difference between actual published papers from the National Academy of Sciences – and specifically the NAS National Research Council – and something like the AAAS is the difference between thorough and well-vetted research conclusions and just some casual opinions in a poll of mostly non-experts unfamiliar with the subject matter. Moreover, this comes from the Genetic Literacy Project whose _bona fides_ I have already cited in the previously mentioned thread as being tainted by commercial interests. Again, I’m no crackpot arguing for dangers in GMOs. I’m not concerned about it right at the present time. I’m arguing for prudent caution, especially with respect to future developments, and a justifiable cynicism for the claims of those standing to gain major commercial benefits from the massive deployment of biotechnology derived products. ---
**Author:** ![DtypeJag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@DtypeJag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DtypeJag)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/24 "2016-03-26T03:32:41Z")
IMHO the only real danger from GMO crops is the strong possibility that sometime in the future when a large proportiion of a countries corn, wheat, rice etc. crop is GMed to protect it against a certain pest or disease, that a different threat to that crop will evolve or be imported to which this crop has no resistance. Obviously this could and would have tragic, widespread and unforseen consequences. Monocultures exist for one crop or another in many places around the world that in the future perhaps may not have the sort of variety in their genetic makeup they and we now enjoy. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/25 "2016-03-26T05:28:02Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > This happened with the effectively unregulated US supplement market, not our general food stream. If anti-GMO people are turning this into an argument against GMOs then that is ironic since it is a bed they made to lie down in. Don’t really care why it happened. **It answers the OP’s question in the positive.** Turns out that yes, you can hurt yourself with some GMO products. Unsurprisingly, sloppiness by the manufacturer played a role in this case. I’d be shocked if in these days where such paragons as [Martin Shkreli](http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/263553-report-ceo-that-raised-drug-price-4000-percent-arrested) are involved in the drug development and distribution chain, we don’t see more such cases in the future. GMO can be a boon to mankind. That does _not_ mean it doesn’t also have a tricky side. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is _at best_ misinformed. Electricity too is our friend, but doesn’t mean it’s safe to develop the habit of sticking screwdrivers into light sockets. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/26 "2016-03-26T14:29:00Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Don’t really care why it happened. > \*\*It answers the. Technically having someone drop a GMO watermelon on person’s head would answer the OP. [Most of what I have read](http://www.nemsn.org/Articles/truth_about_tryptophan.htm) seems to indicate that it was a lack of filtration procedures to remove impurities that caused the issues. > [@](#): > > The production of L-tryptophan involves a bacterial fermentation process in which multiple secondary metabolites are formed. Before a pharmaceutical grade of L-tryptophan can be obtained, various purification steps are required. These include contact with activated carbon and reverse-osmosis filtration, in order to remove impurities, by-products, and cellular debris. Analysis of the manufacturing procedures at Showa Denko revealed several simultaneous changes in manufacturing protocols between December l988 and June 1989. These included the introduction of a new bacteria strain (strain V) of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens that had been genetically altered to increase the production of L-tryptophan. **Additionally, the purification procedure was altered. Reverse-osmosis filtration was partially bypassed, and the amount of activated carbon was reduced by about one-half. A significant correlation was subsequently found between the development of EMS and the reduction in powdered activated carbon** [8]. This is like taking a GMO lettuce straight from the farmer’s field, and eating it without washing it, then blaming GMOs when you get sick. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/27 "2016-03-26T15:07:20Z")
Nm ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/28 "2016-03-26T16:30:46Z")
Mr. Miskatonic: So the [toxic shock outbreak from Rely tampons in 79](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_shock_syndrome#Rely_tampons) never happened because “people were stupid” and the [Texas male sterile corn/ helminthosporium maydis blight of 1970](http://www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/sex/cornbl.htm) is unimportan because people were stupid enough to plant monocultures. That’s an interesting way of excluding facts you find inconvenient you have there. It could be used on all sorts of problems to render them “not real”. Someone made a supposed edible using GM technology, and killed a bunch of people when they put it on the market. Steps were taken and that particular problem will likely not arise again. I’d not be at all surprised to learn that the Tryptophan sold in vitamin shops these days were from a GM bacteria. Bacteria/fungi can be very efficient producers of useful molecules when you tweak them just right. The trick is in getting it right. Which the Japanese did not do, and people died as a result. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/29 "2016-03-26T17:14:24Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You may (or may not) have noticed that on the subjects of climate science, cognitive science, and AI I have been squarely and firmly on the side of science and scientific evidence, as I always am. It’s been hard to conclude that based on your previous pronouncements. Your reliance solely on not having what you regard as an unequivocal endorsement of GM crops by the NAS conveniently ignores a very strong consensus by scientists with specific expertise in agriculture, genetics, biotechnology and many other fields, that genetically modified crops are as safe as ones that are conventionally modified/bred. Numerous French science academies spoke out against the poorly conducted Seralini study that sparked fearmongering about GMOs. [More than 270 scientific institutions and organizations around the world](http://www.siquierotransgenicos.cl/2015/06/13/more-than-240-organizations-and-scientific-institutions-support-the-safety-of-gm-crops/) have come out in support of the technology (it’s not just the AAAS). > [@](#): > > In an area where I have little knowledge, like GMOs, I rely on proxies like the National Academy of Sciences to guide my views. You seem to be relying (very shakily) on one organization that has previously voiced support for GM technology and is due to issue an updated position statement later this year. > [@](#): > > I’ve already agreed that all the evidence is that at present, (GMOs) are perfectly safe. Really? In the GD thread you were all about implying they should be treated with suspicion because, ya know, industry does bad things (let’s ignore the science and concentrate on Corporations Are Bad), and sources that defend the science are really industry shills in disguise. For example: > [@wolfpup](#): > > …the Genetic Literacy Project whose bona fides I have already cited in the previously mentioned thread as being tainted by commercial interests… All you “cited” was your dislike of the non-profit GLP’s leader (an award-winning journalist with major media investigative experience) without ever once deigning to discuss, much less refute any of its myriad articles and references from professional contributors. The shill gambit, beloved as it is by pseudoscience and woo supporters of all kinds, should be beneath anyone claiming to endorse good science. > [@Mr. Miskatoni](#): > > Vandana Shiva has been trying to blame farmer suicides in India (caused by a host of economic reasons) on Monsanto cotton seeds for years You’re right…the [bogus hyping of Indian farmer suicides](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2012/05/09/how-seeds-of-a-false-story-took-root-and-spread/#.VvbBSlrO1Sp) supposedly tied to GM cotton was a staple of anti-GMOers for quite awhile there. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/30 "2016-03-26T17:22:08Z")
Since the OP was directly asking about whether there’s any “real science” demonstrating harm from GM foods, [here’s an example](http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/) of unreal - or more precisely, junk science of the sort that anti-GMOers trumpet in support of their position. The article refers to the 2013 Carman and Vlieger study that purported to show that pigs given GM feed had more stomach inflammation than pigs on non-GM feed. The study was a disaster on grounds of design, statistics and reporting (not to mention ethics). The part that struck me most strongly as a pathologist is that the authors _never bothered to confirm inflammation on a microscopic (tissue) level._ All they did was look at pig stomachs at autopsy by the naked eye and decide which were inflamed based on how red they looked (a measure guaranteed to yield dubious and bogus results, as any trainee can attest from doing autopsies and initially mistaking postmortem changes from actual inflammation). Add in Seralini and a scattering of other published studies over the years, and you get a sense of the extremely low quality of the small minority of research papers alleging GMO harms. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/31 "2016-03-26T17:25:50Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Mr. Miskatonic: > So the [toxic shock outbreak from Rely tampons in 79](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_shock_syndrome#Rely_tampons) never happened because “people were stupid” > and the [Texas male sterile corn/ helminthosporium maydis blight of 1970](http://www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/sex/cornbl.htm) is unimportan because people were stupid enough to plant monocultures. To be honest I have no idea what you are on about or what relevance the above links have to the matter at hand. > [@](#): > > That’s an interesting way of excluding facts you find inconvenient you have there. It could be used on all sorts of problems to render them “not real”. What facts am I ignoring? The majority of indicators say that it was the failure to filter impurities ( a standard santitation procedure) that caused the problem, not the specific use of a biotech process. Unless you can show otherwise, blaming the biotech for the outbreak is like blaming the store you bought chicken from for making you sick after you left it raw and sitting in the sun for 8 hours. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/32 "2016-03-26T20:34:06Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I have not found any statement from this august body on the matter of GMOs that is even close to the unequivocal statement made about climate change. The “even stronger” headline that you quote doesn’t pertain to any scientific finding of the kind that comes from the National Academies [snip] Well that is odd, because the National Academy has also reported on this issue before. > **[The Evidence on GMO Safety](https://rameznaam.com/2013/04/28/the-evidence-on-gmo-safety/)** > > This page started as a followup to an appearance I made on NBC's Melissa Harris-Perry show in April of 2013, speaking about GMOs. You can see the video at the show's website or embedded below. > [@](#): > > The US National Academy of Sciences > > This is the premier scientific body in the United States. They have repeatedly found genetically modified food safe, [noting that](http://www.nap.edu/read/10977/chapter/9) after billions of meals served, “no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.” > > They’ve also found that genetically engineered crops are kinder to the environment than non-genetically engineered crops. [The National Academy of Science’s 2010 report, Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States](http://www.nap.edu/read/12804/chapter/1), found that GM crops planted to date had reduced insecticide use, reduced use of the most dangerous herbicides, increased the frequency of conservation tillage and no-till farming, reduced carbon emissions, reduced soil runoffs, and improved soil quality. The report said that, “Generally, GE (GMO) crops have had fewer adverse effects on the environment than non-GE crops produced conventionally.” AFAIK there is an even larger and more detailed study coming from the academy in a few months, it is not very likely to give us a different answer. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/33 "2016-03-26T21:25:28Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Since the OP was directly asking about whether there’s any “real science” demonstrating harm from GM foods, [here’s an example](http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/) of unreal - or more precisely, junk science of the sort that anti-GMOers trumpet in support of their position. > > The article refers to the 2013 Carman and Vlieger study that purported to show that pigs given GM feed had more stomach inflammation than pigs on non-GM feed. The study was a disaster on grounds of design, statistics and reporting (not to mention ethics). The part that struck me most strongly as a pathologist is that the authors _never bothered to confirm inflammation on a microscopic (tissue) level._ All they did was look at pig stomachs at autopsy by the naked eye and decide which were inflamed based on how red they looked (a measure guaranteed to yield dubious and bogus results, as any trainee can attest from doing autopsies and initially mistaking postmortem changes from actual inflammation). > > Add in Seralini and a scattering of other published studies over the years, and you get a sense of the extremely low quality of the small minority of research papers alleging GMO harms. Ah, yes, the rat studies with the tumors. As soon as I saw it, even before the paper had been debunked publicly, I saw the fishiness (as did I assume every laboratory animal veterinarian or pathologist). The problem with many of the anti-GMO arguments is that they seem to have the same zeal and lack of interest in science as the anti-vaxxers. I don’t particularly like the companies, but my dislike of them does not extend to the technologies they have. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2016, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/34 "2016-03-26T23:46:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well that is odd, because the National Academy has also reported on this issue before. **GIGO** , I always appreciate your cites and your insights, but in this case the two National Academy links in that quote are not helpful. The first one is a link to a different chapter of the exact same 2004 paper that I linked to, the one which speaks of 7 essential requirements that are prerequisites to assuring continuing GMO safety. The statement that it does make is that no known harms have so far been demonstrated, which I agree with, but we’re speaking of the long-term future of transgenic biotechnology and potential long-term effects. The second link simply speaks of the agricultural advantages of GMOs, a fact which is not in dispute either. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > AFAIK there is an even larger and more detailed study coming from the academy in a few months, it is not very likely to give us a different answer. I’ll be interested to see what it says, and I’m prepared to adopt an even more accepting attitude toward GMOs than the one I already have. So far, however, I have yet to see the NAS make the same kind of strong and unequivocal statement about the matter that they have made about climate change. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/35 "2016-03-27T00:20:56Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > **GIGO** , I always appreciate your cites and your insights, but in this case the two National Academy links in that quote are not helpful. The reason why I quoted that is because you claimed that nothing like an unequivocal statement like “no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.” had been reported by the NAS. And item that is on point with the OP. As noted before the cite I made also points to several other science groups that are not opposed to GMOs, remarking once again about the overwhelming consensus that exists among the experts. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/36 "2016-03-27T10:28:16Z")
There is a legitimate opposition to GMO crops, which is different to the opposition to GMO foods. The structure and skeleton of the opposition to GM organisms is provided by people who are opposed to GMO crops: opposition to GMO foods provides the muscle, but not the brains. > [@spamforbrains](#): > > Unless you forage for wild plants nothing, and I mean nothing, that you eat has NOT been genetically modified in some way. Do people think wild plants haven’t been “genetically modified”? That is a religous belief about the nature of origion of species, strongly tied to the creation myth of the English upper class, but which has no scientific validity. Putting aside the fact that foods are genetically modified by cooking, and that genetic modification takes place in the re-arrangement of the DNA in the production of sperm and eggs, and that injection of DNA into an cell was one of the earliest forms of “genetic engineering”, it still remains that life as we know it is the result of genetic modification, not just breeding. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/37 "2016-03-27T14:08:35Z")
To get back to the National Academy of Sciences (which **wolfpup** evidently views as the only scientific organization whose views are worthy of consideration, never mind the 270 others I linked to\* which have also weighed in in support of GM crop technology) - the NAS’ National Resource Council issued a position statement in 2010 on GM’s impact on farm sustainability and had the following conclusion: _“The rapid adoption by U.S. farmers of the first generation of GE soybean, cotton, and corn varieties illustrates the speed and scope with which agricultural systems can be improved if appropriate products and systems are available. This report documents how GE varieties contribute to the sustainability of agriculture related to the production of those major crops. Expanding the effects to additional crops and further improving the technology will require an expansive program of R&D. Private companies are already working to develop additional traits that will improve the productivity and sustainability of agriculture in the United States and worldwide. However, both the private and public sectors must play vigorous, if often times different, roles if the full potential of genetic-engineering technology to foster a more sustainable agriculture is to be realized.”_ Among various recommendations of the Council (which include more study of environmental and economic impacts of genetic modification technology) I do not see any alarums about “prove it’s safe”. There are concerns that many of us share - for instance, the tendency of many farmers to rely on a particular herbicide-resistant crop without doing proper crop rotation, which speeds weed resistance to that herbicide and is likely to result in farmers going back to older, more toxic herbicides which have already produced resistant weeds of their own. Most, if not all of those concerns also applied to pre-GM agriculture (environmental impacts, corporate concentration, maintaining seed diversity etc.), a fact which anti-GMOers consistently fail to appreciate. \*I remain curious why the NAS would be considered by anyone to be the only source of reliable scientific information on GMO safety. Seems kind of America-centric. What about the organizations/institutions in other countries that have similarly supported the safety and usefulness of GM crops/produce, including the Academies of Sciences from Cameroon, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Indian National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Philippines National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST), French Academy of Sciences, Union of the German Academies of Science and Humanities (8 academies) Joint statement of 21 scientific intitutions of Italy Coexistence of Traditional, Organic and Genetically Modified Crops (2006), Royal Society of London, British Medical Association, European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) , Nutrition Society of Argentina (SAN), Mexican Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, USA Institute of Medicine (IOM) & National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies., American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods (2012), USA Society of Toxicology, American Society for Cell Biology, Australian Academy of Science, World Health Organization (WHO), Third World Academy of Sciences, International Union of Nutritional Sciences (IUNS), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) UNDP Report Supports Biotechnology (2001), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) The OECD Edinburgh Conference on the Scientific and Health Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods (2000). …and about 250 more such groups that support agricultural biotechnology. > **[More than 280 scientific and technical institutions support the safety of GM...](http://www.siquierotransgenicos.cl/2015/06/13/more-than-240-organizations-and-scientific-institutions-support-the-safety-of-gm-crops/)** ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/38 "2016-03-27T17:41:12Z")
One correction to my previous post: that should be the NAS’s National Research (not Resource) Council. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/39 "2016-03-27T17:44:13Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > the NAS’ National Resource Council issued a position statement in 2010 on GM’s impact on farm sustainability and had the following conclusion … Among various recommendations of the Council (which include more study of environmental and economic impacts of genetic modification technology) I do not see any alarums about “prove it’s safe”. That seems like a bizarre observation, since a report on GMOs with respect to farm sustainability involves a completely different set of scientific specialties than one which assesses food health and safety, much as a crop science specialist is not a physician. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > \*I remain curious why the NAS would be considered by anyone to be the only source of reliable scientific information on GMO safety. Seems kind of America-centric. What about the organizations/institutions in other countries that have similarly supported the safety and usefulness of GM crops/produce, … It would be America-centric if I had meant exclusively the NAS, but you’ll note that when I first brought up the NAS in the context of climate change, I provided [this link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Academies_of_science_.28general_science.29) to multiple joint statements on the subject issued by 34 national academies or equivalents of the world’s major nations plus two international science bodies. So, no, I’m not focused on exclusively the NAS or US-centricity, but as a matter of expediency I was searching to see what position the NAS took on the issue, being arguably one of the most prominent of the national academies and instituted in a country in which GM is a particularly big industry. It may be instructive to ask why the national academies issued these joint statements. It’s because they recognized that there were widespread public misconceptions on a very important issue, namely the belief that the reality of anthropogenic climate change was “controversial” or even doubtful, and that this misconception was being deliberately promulgated by those with vested commercial interests and fobbed off on the scientifically ignorant using misleading or outright false information. It was a clear-cut case of setting the record straight. The national academies – the US National Academy of Sciences being a case in point – were the natural agencies to do this because they are the nation’s premiere science bodies, the US NAS specifically having been established by Congress to be “advisers to the nation” in the matter of guiding public policy with sound science – often to counteract the well-funded lobbying of commercial vested interests. And that’s why I find it significant that no such definitive statement about GMOs has been forthcoming from that body. They’ve told us that no harms have thus far been identified, and that GM crops have important agricultural benefits, both of which I think most are willing to acknowledge. But they have also indicated specific actions required to assure that safety going forward, which is exactly the same position as the paper in the toxicology journal I cited in the other thread. Which is all I’m saying. I think some are too sanguine about a field which is still rapidly developing and where the only thing that seems predictable is that it’s affecting more of what we eat in increasingly fundamental ways. > [@Melbourne](#): > > Do people think wild plants haven’t been “genetically modified”? That is a religous belief about the nature of origion of species, strongly tied to the creation myth of the English upper class, but which has no scientific validity. > > Putting aside the fact that foods are genetically modified by cooking, and that genetic modification takes place in the re-arrangement of the DNA in the production of sperm and eggs, and that injection of DNA into an cell was one of the earliest forms of “genetic engineering”, > > it still remains that life as we know it is the result of genetic modification, not just breeding. That is a syllogistic fallacy. Applying a term like “genetic modification” to a broad class of natural things is no guarantee that all transgenic bioengineering in the future will be safe. It could perhaps be regarded as analogous to artificial food additives, the stuff we put in foods as preservatives, colorants, artificial sweeteners, or for whatever other commercially motivated reasons. The vast majority of which are reasonably harmless as far as we know, but some of which have turned out to be harmful. Even today, with all we know and all the FDA testing and approvals, food additives exist that have known harms, and ordinary products like processed meats are coming under increasing scrutiny. What could be more natural and harmless than ordinary bacon? Yet [the World Health Organization has deemed that processed meats — such as bacon, sausages and hot dogs — can cause cancer](http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/10/26/451211964/bad-day-for-bacon-processed-red-meats-cause-cancer-says-who). Does this mean I’m going to throw out all my bacon and take it to a hazardous waste disposal? Hell, no, but neither is it all organic-farming motivated woo. It just pertains to the public’s right to know, so they can try to make informed choices and moderate the intake of the less desirable stuff. ---
**Author:** ![sbunny8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@sbunny8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sbunny8)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2016, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072/40 "2016-03-27T19:42:06Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > Also, I understand that selective breeding _is_ genetic modification, and no horror stories have ever been written about that. Hogwash. You’re trying to redefine “genetic modification” to mean something it doesn’t mean. There are many mechanisms by which an offspring’s DNA is different from its parent’s DNA. The vast majority of these processes have been going on for hundreds of millions of years, if not billions. These processes work very slowly, and actually led to the evolution of our species. It would be rather silly to criticize such processes. Then there’s selective breeding, where one species deliberately attempts to interfere with another species’s reproduction in order to gradually change the characteristics of that other species, or produce a new variety. This has been does extensively by humans, on basically everything we eat, including both plants and animals. It’s been going on for merely thousands of years, not millions. The long-term side effects are still being studied. Then there’s genetic modification, which specifically refers to humans using modern technology to extract DNA fragments from one species, in a laboratory, and insert it into the DNA of a completely unrelated species, hoping to rapidly produce a new variety which has drastically different characteristics. This process has been used for only a few decades. To argue that all those processes are the same because each of them has the end result of shuffling genes around, or to pretend that the phrase “genetic modification” refers to all of those processes and not just the recently invented one is naive at best and dishonest at worst. To suggest that mistrusting genetic modification is the same as mistrusting selective breeding ignores the vastly different time scales involved. You might as well mock someone who is concerned about fire safety by telling them that oxidation is a natural process (true) which happens all the time all around us (such as rust) and that they shouldn’t be afraid of warmth because without warmth we’d all be dead (also true). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-any-harm-been-proven-to-be-caused-by-gmo-foods/750072.md?page=3)