2/13/2017 GMO safety debate is over | Cornell Alliance for Science

http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark­lynas/gmo­safety­debate­over 1/14

Fund a Fellow

Toggle navigation

Home /(current)Who We Are /

MissionCore Staff2015 Global Leadership Fellows2016 Global Leadership FellowsMembersPartnersOur StoryAlliance for Science Funding Sources

What We Do /What We DoLeadership TrainingRegional Leadership CoursesSpecial Events

Initiatives /Climate for ChangeWomen in AgricultureGrowing a Global NetworkEmbracing GMO ScienceAccess to InnovationFarmers' Voices

Resources /All ResourcesVideosBlogFall 2016 Speaker Series VideosGM Animal StoriesGlossaryDatabase of Emerging Agricultural Learning (DEAL)NewsNewslettersCase StudyUseful Links

Interact /Join the AllianceRequest Information from the Alliance#Tech4Ag Debate

GMO safety debate is over

Monday, May 23, 2016By Mark Lynas

2/13/2017 GMO safety debate is over | Cornell Alliance for Science

http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark­lynas/gmo­safety­debate­over 2/14

The GMO debate is over — again. Last week, the prestigiousNational Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicineissued what is probably the most far­reaching report everproduced by the scientific community on geneticallyengineered food and crops. The conclusion wasunambiguous: Having examined hundreds of scientificpapers written on the subject, sat through hours of livetestimony from activists and considered hundreds morecomments from the general public, the scientists wrote thatthey "found no substantiated evidence that foods from GEcrops were less safe than foods from non­GE crops."

The National Academies process was both impressivelyinclusive and explicitly consensual. As noted in the prefaceto their report, the scientists "took all of the comments" —however ludicrous — "as constructive challenges" and

considered them carefully. Thus the expert committee patiently gave yogic flyer­turned­anti­GMO activistJeffrey Smith a generous 20­minute slot within which to make his customary assertion that geneticallyengineered foods cause just about every imaginable modern ailment. Greenpeace also offered invited testimony.So did Giles­Eric Seralini, the French professor who suffered the ultimate scientific indignity of having hispaper claiming rats fed GMOs suffered tumors retracted in 2013.

Each of their claims was examined in turn. Do GE foods cause cancer? No —patterns of changing cancerincidence over time are "generally similar" between the US, where GMO foods are ubiquitous, and the UnitedKingdom, where they are virtually unknown. How about kidney disease? US rates have barely budged over aquarter century. Obesity or diabetes? There is "no published evidence to support the hypothesis" of a linkbetween them and GE foods. Celiac disease? "No major difference" between the US and UK again. Allergies?"The committee did not find a relationship between consumption of GE foods and the increase in prevalence offood allergies." Autism? Again, evidence comparing the US and UK "does not support the hypothesis of a link."

In a rational world, everyone previously fearful about the health effects of GMOs would read the report, breathea huge sigh of relief and start looking for more evidence­based explanations for worrying trends in health issueslike diabetes, autism and food allergies. But psychological associations developed over many years are difficultto break. A Pew Center poll in 2015 found only 37 percent of the public thought GE foods were safe, ascompared to 88 percent of scientists, a greater gap than on any other issue of scientific controversy, includingclimate change, evolution and childhood vaccinations. These entrenched attitudes are not about to disappear —especially since they are continually reinforced by a vocal and well­funded anti­GMO lobby.

There is also political path dependence. Vermont's GMO labeling law, scheduled to throw US foodmanufacturers and retailers into chaos when it comes into force on July 1, is predicated on the explicitassumption that GE foods may be unsafe. "There is a lack of consensus regarding the validity of the researchand science surrounding the safety of genetically engineered foods," Vermont's Act states in its preamble.Indeed, such foods "potentially pose risks to health [and] safety. Will Vermont's legislature reconsider its Actnow that it stands so clearly on the wrong side of a rock­solid scientific consensus? Of course not.

The National Academies report should make particularly uncomfortable reading for the environmentalmovement, many of whose leading member groups now exhibit all the hallmarks of full­scale science denialismon the issue. A spokeswoman from Friends of the Earth dismissed the report as "deceptive" before she had evenread it. The group's website claims that "numerous studies" show GE foods can pose "serious risks" to humanhealth. Another environmentalist group, Food and Water Watch, issued a pre­publication rebuttal thatconspiratorially accused the National Academies of having undisclosed links with Monsanto, before reassertingits view that "there is no consensus, and there remains a very vigorous debate among scientists... about the safetyand merits of this technology."

2/13/2017 GMO safety debate is over | Cornell Alliance for Science

http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark­lynas/gmo­safety­debate­over 3/14

But despite these shrill denials, the truth is that there is no more of a debate on the safety of GE crops than onreality of climate change, the scientific consensus on which all these same green groups aggressively defend.And the irony goes deeper: many of the strategies now being employed to demonize GMOs come straight out ofthe climate denialist playbook. There's the same promotion of false 'no consensus' statements by groups of self­appointed experts. Why, more than 300 "scientists and legal experts" signed a 'no consensus on GMO safety'statement last year, Greenpeace reminds us. That sounds like a lot, until you compare it with the 30,000"American scientists" who have supposedly signed a petition claiming that there is "no convincing scientificevidence" linking CO2 with climate change, which Greenpeace (rightly in my view) ignores.

There's also a worrying trend towards the harassment of bona fide scientists. Just as senior Republicans haveshamefully targeted climate experts with politically­motivated subpoenas, so an anti­GMO group called USRight to Know has slapped dozens of geneticists and molecular biologists working at public universities withrepeated Freedom of Information Act requests demanding access to thousands of their private emails. In somecases, scientists have as a result of subsequent campaigns received death threats, and had their laboratory andhome addresses circulated menacingly on social media.

There is still plenty of room for genuine dissent moreover. The National Academies report is zealous in pointingout some of the experienced difficulties and drawbacks of GMOs. The overuse of GE crops has indeed led to theevolution of resistance, both in weeds and insects, it finds. Also, industry domination of the technology mightrestrict access of small farmers in poorer countries to improved seeds. And mandatory GMO labelling mightwell be a good way to raise public trust in a more transparent food system.

But these real areas of debate do not include GMO safety. That issue has now been definitively put to bed. Solet's be clear once again: the safety debate is over. If you vaccinate your kids and believe that climate change isreal, you need to stop being scared of genetically modified foods.

Mark Lynas is a writer and campaigner on climate change and a visiting fellow at the Cornell Alliance forScience

Region: EuropeTopic: GE Crop StudyGMOGMO debateGMO policy

405 Comments http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/ Login1

Share⤤ Sort by Best

Join the discussion…

Larkin Curtis Hannah • 9 months ago

Just to be clear, dealing with mutations occurring in pests that overcome genetic resistance in theplant to the pest is an age­old problem plant breeders have been fighting since the beginning of plantselection. The plant resistance gene can be endogenous (as it was up until 1996) or trans. the origin ofthe gene is irrelevant. Resistance is resistance and natural selection will work to favor pests withgenes that overcome the plant defense mechanism. And secondly, one should remember that labelingfoods with the GMO designation implies an intrinsic danger that clearly does not exist. Also, if labelingis the law, then it must be policed. How do sample all the foods consumed (both with the organic labeland the conventional label) for a transgene when we do not know which transgene might be in the

Recommend 9

2/13/2017 GMO safety debate is over | Cornell Alliance for Science

http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark­lynas/gmo­safety­debate­over 4/14

• Reply •

and the conventional label) for a transgene when we do not know which transgene might be in theproduce? The issues clearly have not been thought through. But any method devised will cost moneyand will delay the movement of food into the market. This is a particular problem with perishableproduce. For all these reasons, labeling is just a bad idea. 10

• Reply •

nothingmuch • 9 months ago> Larkin Curtis Hannah

It's not just the transgenes, because a lot a lot of the FUD stems from the splicing techniques,not just the genes that end up there. I can't wait till the media finds out where parts of our noncoding DNA came from...

Either way, getting new foods into the market will not solve the existing market failures, andirresponsible consumption and distribution of foods.

I think we're missing labelling. Not GMO or non­GMO labelling, which is utterly meaningless,but actually relevant information such as the origin, production/cultivation techniques, socialequity (fair trade is another example of an utterly failed label), transparency about processing,etc etc. There is a lot of information about food that is detrimental to selling food as acommodity, because it makes it less marketable.

My hope is that transparency in food production, via labelling but also broader and deeperaccountability will become something that consumers demand, and in that respect having redherring labels that only serve to declare who one a fallacious argument is really just doing us(humanity) a disservice. Informing a consumer what they're getting and how it was producedshould not cause delays, and fortunately it is slowly gaining traction as an idea, even thoughthe labels in use today are mostly useless/stupid (commercial cultivar names and country oforigin are not much better than "non GMO"). 3

• Reply •

Larkin Curtis Hannah • 9 months ago> nothingmuch

I am not sure what "FUD" means and what is it about the insertion mechanism that is aproblem. A lot of transgenes now go with with an Agrobacterium vector that normallyintegrates into plant DNA. commercial sweet potatoes contain a natural insertion of thisvector. So, please let me know what the problem is with splicing/integration. 4

nothingmuch • 9 months ago> Larkin Curtis Hannah

FUD = Fear, Uncertainty and Doom. It's not real, it's a perception issue. I don'tsee anything inherently wrong with that (edit: genetic engineering in general)personally, but a lot of people get irrationally uncomfortable at the thought thatsome sequence of bases that once belonged to a virus (OH NO!!!) is in theirfood (RUNAWAAY!)

A GMO label would not address the problem of people misunderstanding thisstuff, it would exacerbate it, like I think you are saying.

My point is that while a GMO label is utterly useless and arguably a disservice(edit: because it perpetuates the FUD instead of addressing it), that doesn't

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

2/13/2017 GMO safety debate is over | Cornell Alliance for Science

http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark­lynas/gmo­safety­debate­over 5/14

• Reply •

(edit: because it perpetuates the FUD instead of addressing it), that doesn'tmean that labeling of food is necessarily bad, and I'd argue that having moreinformation and more transparency about the origin of food would benefit us,they just have to be meaningful labels is all. 2

• Reply •

Larkin Curtis Hannah • 9 months ago> nothingmuch

Agreed. I wish everyone had to take a biology/genetics course in high schooland/or college. Perhaps lots of these problems would go away. 5

• Reply •

nothingmuch • 9 months ago> Larkin Curtis Hannah

When I'm dictator, the education system will be consist of philosophy ofscience, statistics, and open access ;­) 2

• Reply •

JoeFarmer • 9 months ago> nothingmuch

Perhaps you should enrich yourself with such an education before aspiring to bedictator. 2

• Reply •

nothingmuch • 9 months ago> JoeFarmer

Way to go! Just a 2 more subthreads for you to police. You should go throughmy profile a nitpick through every bad joke just for good measure.

• Reply •

Christina Shetrone • 9 months ago> Larkin Curtis Hannah

I am a nurse I took every biology, Chemistry class offered and I in no way buythis BS!? 3

• Reply •

Larkin Curtis Hannah • 9 months ago> Christina Shetrone

Your comment reminds me of a time when I heard an MD tell his patent that herproblem with gluten was GMO wheat. One tiny problem with that. There is noGMO wheat on the market. Upon reflection, it is probably asking too much toexpect a person with a Doctorate of Medicine to know much about plantagriculture and plant biology. If I had a problem with my car, I would not ask myGP about how to fix it. The same is true with plant genetics/biochemistry,breeding and agriculture. MD's really are not experts as Dr. Oz proves on adaily basis. 4

Anne Temple • 7 months ago> Larkin Curtis Hannah

The wheat we eat today has been hybridized with a strain from Asia that wouldhave never come to be naturally. AND they are now spraying Roundup on thecrop to make it easier to harvest. So if you are not buying organic wheat,

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

2/13/2017 GMO safety debate is over | Cornell Alliance for Science

http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark­lynas/gmo­safety­debate­over 6/14

• Reply •

crop to make it easier to harvest. So if you are not buying organic wheat,chances are you are ingesting Roundup, or glyphosate, which comes with it'sown problems. 3

• Reply •

Larkin Curtis Hannah • 7 months ago> Anne Temple

So how much Round Up do you get in the conventional bread you eat and thencompare that to the amounts of Round Up you have to consume for it to be aconcern. And are you arguing that hybrids should be labeled a GMO?

• Reply •

Christina Shetrone • 8 months ago

see more

> Larkin Curtis Hannah

Do yourself a favor and watch this documentary and then come back to thisdiscussion!

2

• Reply •

Christina Shetrone • 8 months ago> Larkin Curtis Hannah

Who me? Chemistry is the basis of all this gmo crap!? And as for biology Iunderstand the human body and to say that GMO has no effect on the humanbody it would be helpful to understand the human body(hence the biologycourses) My point tho even without any medical background is this is BS!? Sovaccines are good and GMO is good and its just a coincidence that Autism,auto immune diseases, cancer and much more have tripled over the last 2decades!? Biology! Chemistry all of it!!? 2

Pasta • 6 months ago> Christina Shetrone

Cancer is on the rise because the older you are, the more chances you have toget the disease. And people have been living much longer because of vaccines

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

2/13/2017 GMO safety debate is over | Cornell Alliance for Science

http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark­lynas/gmo­safety­debate­over 7/14

• Reply •

get the disease. And people have been living much longer because of vaccinesand other medical breakthroughs. 3

• Reply •

Jeffreies • 6 months ago> Pasta

Cancer is on the rise because of the chemicals pumped into the water, thechemicals sprayed in the air, the chemicals bred into our livestock, meat supply,and vegetation, plus the fact that so many human beings are consuming food"product" that lacks necessary nutrition (along with lack of physical activity) tokeep the body's immune system up to par. Also, the Polio vaccine given to aLOT of folks last century contained a chemical that purposefully activatedcancer cells later in life. Coincidence? Nothing to see here, folks... If you don'tthink population control has been happening for a long time then you need help.People are not actually living longer at all. Between bad food, chemicals,dormant lifestyles, and the added stress brought on by the PTB, people aredying sooner, and it's most obvious in places like the US.

Your comment, in theory it makes sense, but it's actually the opposite since theagenda of mass genocide really took off in the late 90s. Older people (as in,OLD, not just older) are healthier than young folks because they're more likelyto have received breast milk instead of GMO/chemical laced formula. They aremore likely to have spent a life eating normal, non­bastardized food, meaningreal, cooked­at­home food, before the introduction of "convenience" and the highfructose corn syrup. Old people experienced life before food and waterunderwent massive experimentation. They also didn't have the US Air Forcefumigating the skies on the daily basis with aluminum, barium, and a concoctionof bacteria, viruses, fungi, and other other plague­ridden garbage. 3

• Reply •

Pasta • 6 months ago> Jeffreies

Wow. It's amazing how brainwashed you are. Sure, there is a policy of genocidein the government. That's why life expectancy has been continously on the rise.And people are dying sooner. Another reason life expectancy is on the rise. Ihope you enjoy hiding in your basement with your tin foil hat. 2

• Reply •

Jeffreies • 6 months ago> Pasta

I'm not hiding anywhere. I'm fortunate to be awakened, and therefore don't haveto live a life of fear like everyone else, despite knowing everything I wrote hasbeen proven already. I assume you're unaware that the fumigating gas used tokill Zika mosquitoes is what's ACTUALLY causing the deaths and birth defects.But alas, pay no attention to the sinister puppet masters behind the curtain.Enjoy your sleepy time. I have a hunch you'll be in it for years to come... 1

Thomas Schmitzer III • 2 months ago> Pasta

Take out the zeroes from infant mortality. Think life expectancy is still on the

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

2/13/2017 GMO safety debate is over | Cornell Alliance for Science

http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark­lynas/gmo­safety­debate­over 8/14

• Reply •

Take out the zeroes from infant mortality. Think life expectancy is still on therise? http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/...

• Reply •

Pasta • 2 months ago> Thomas Schmitzer III

The fuck does "Take out the zeroes from infant mortality" mean?

• Reply •

Thomas Schmitzer III • 2 months ago> Pasta

Hmmm...I thought it was because they didn't die when they were infants.http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/... Add to that the fact that antibiotics allow people to live after trauma. Those 2account for >90% of the increase in life expectancy.

• Reply •

Pasta • 2 months ago> Thomas Schmitzer III

Its physically impossible for life expectancy to rise without a very significantamount of the population living past the new life expectancy. 1

• Reply •

Bryan Atinsky • 2 months ago> Christina Shetrone

Ben Carson was a brain surgeon and is a creationist...and that is among hisless ridiculous beliefs....so your argument from authority is meaningless.

• Reply •

nothingmuch • 9 months ago> Christina Shetrone

So based on that, what makes a transgene inherently more dangerous than nonhorizontal gene transfers? And how do those risks compare with say, the risksof conventional medicine, which we rationally accept because on the whole theyimprove our health outcomes?

• Reply •

Peter Olins • 9 months ago> Larkin Curtis Hannah

Science classes typically teach information, which rapidly becomes out of date.Presumably, the emphasis on testing for the ability to recall information onlymakes this situation worse.

What we need is to train people to think scientifically, so that they can evaluatethe masses of new information that they will be bombarded with after they leavethe class. (Of course, this also requires a higher quality of teacher.)

Along the same lines, how about a class on “How to use Google to get closer tothe truth”. Or a module on “Association is not the same as causation”. 3

Larkin Curtis Hannah • 9 months ago> Peter Olins

totally agree

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

2/13/2017 GMO safety debate is over | Cornell Alliance for Science

http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark­lynas/gmo­safety­debate­over 9/14

• Reply •totally agree 1

• Reply •

kevin • 4 months ago> nothingmuch

No, it's not going to end world hunger any more than the super­grain hardy cultivars ofthe late 50s did. It may make a tasty tomato with a long shelf­life, which is reasonenough to endorse it.

• Reply •

Sater Felix K. • 9 months ago

A guy actually cited the seralini study in the comments... the idiocy never ends it seems. *Sigh* 6

• Reply •

grinninglibber • 9 months ago> Sater Felix K.

Never mind that was pulled by Monsanto shills and republished latter. 6

• Reply •

E.W. Modemac • 9 months ago> grinninglibber

So, "Food and Chemical Toxicology" is actually a Monsanto shill? This is the paper thatinitially published the study, then retracted it. http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... It wasthen republished in "Environmental Sciences Europe," which of course has the sameexcruciating standards as the original journal: http://retractionwatch.com/201... 5

• Reply •

razorjack • 9 months ago> E.W. Modemac

The Hammond study that Monsanto used to underpin the approval of GMOswithout any safety testing used Sprague­Dawley rats. The Hammond study wasnot peer reviewed so the government took Monsanto's word on the science.

The Seralini study was patterned after the Hammond study the only differencewas that it was for a longer duration. Seralini found that the toxicology resultsshowed that abnormalities started to show up AFTER 90 days. The Seralinistudy was peer reviewed three times and remains in the literature today.

Your corrupt industry like to focus attention on the tumors because it distractsfrom the seriously troubling toxacollogy results. Seralini's study was not lookingfor tumors or cancers, yet there was a significant difference between the controlgroup and the test subjects.

The corrupt GMO pesticide industry is very paranoid about this study that's whythey went so far as to corrupt the process and the journal that published it whenthey tried to suppress it.

You can read the truth about the retraction the Monsanto corruption of thejournal, the three peer reviews and the republication of the Seralini study here:http://www.sgr.org.uk/resource... 4

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

2/13/2017 GMO safety debate is over | Cornell Alliance for Science

http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark­lynas/gmo­safety­debate­over 10/14

• Reply • 4

• Reply •

Joshua Marc LeHoux • 5 months ago> razorjack

And I'm sure all the people who are even more familiar with it than you, who aremore educated than you, who listened to more claims than you, never onceconsidered any of this.

• Reply •

Joshua Marc LeHoux • 5 months ago> Joshua Marc LeHoux

Even if there was significant difference with the control group, other, BETTERstudies have been done by organizations around the world and his results havenot been reproduced. That's the most damning thing about Seralini's study byfar. Poor methodology and outlier results does not a fact make. Even if the studyhad been conducted perfectly, outliers happen.

These people looked at all the evidence available, including Seralini, andconcluded that no, the evidence isn't strong.

You don't get to assume they're all corrupt. That's not how critical thinkingworks. 1

• Reply •

razorjack • 5 months ago> Joshua Marc LeHoux

I'm sure they did. That is how institutional corruption happens. That is why theywent to the lengths they did to try and destroy the Seralini study. In the endSeralini is still in the science and the corrupt GMO pesticide industry and it'sland grant university partners are trying to cover the facts their ass withpropaganda.

• Reply •

Michael J. Riser • 9 months ago

Doesn't matter whether they're safe or unsafe, IMO. The fact that corporations could have such directlegal control and ownership over food is something that can't be allowed to happen without disastrousresults. We have all the evidence we need and more of what abuses would come from that world. 14

• Reply •

Angel • 9 months ago> Michael J. Riser

Companies patent all kinds of seeds and plants all the time. Yes, those bred with othermethods as well, not just GMOs.There may or may not be an argument against companies doing that, but either way this is nota valid argument against GMOs. 10

• Reply •

Larkin Curtis Hannah • 9 months ago> Michael J. Riser

Who do you think sells non­GMO seed? Answer: the same people who sell GMO seed. Theability to patent plants goes back to 1940. Plants were patented long before biotechnology. 7

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

2/13/2017 GMO safety debate is over | Cornell Alliance for Science

http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark­lynas/gmo­safety­debate­over 11/14

• Reply • 7

• Reply •

hyperzombie • 9 months ago> Michael J. Riser

What are you talking about? Farmers own the food till they sell it to someone. 8

• Reply •

nothingmuch • 9 months ago> hyperzombie

Monsanto v. Schmeiser 3

• Reply •

hyperzombie • 9 months ago> nothingmuch

Schmeiser was a seed farmer, he didn't sell food. Just seeds with stolen traits inthem. 4

• Reply •

StopGMO • 9 months ago> hyperzombie

He didn't steal them 5

• Reply •

hyperzombie • 9 months ago> StopGMO

Yes he did. Supreme Court of Canada said so, along with Schmeiser himself. 6

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›Tags: Mark LynasGMO

Share this:

Join the Alliance or Become a Member

Our Partners

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri­biotech Applications (ISAAA)

Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa (OFAB)

Uganda Biosciences Information Center (UBIC) and the National Agricultural Research Organization(NARO), UgandaAll Our Partners >

The Cornell Alliance for Science is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

2/13/2017 GMO safety debate is over | Cornell Alliance for Science

http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark­lynas/gmo­safety­debate­over 12/14

Home /Contact Us /RSS Feed

Cornell University. B52 Mann Library Ithaca, NY 14853Fund a Fellow

2/13/2017 GMO safety debate is over | Cornell Alliance for Science

http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark­lynas/gmo­safety­debate­over 13/14

2/13/2017 GMO safety debate is over | Cornell Alliance for Science

http://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/mark­lynas/gmo­safety­debate­over 14/14

The Cornell Alliance for Science is an initiative based at Cornell University, a non­profit institution. The CornellAlliance for Science has no affiliation with any biotechnology industry organizations. In the interest oftransparency, all of the funding organizations, along with the total amounts accepted, are listed below and isupdated regularly: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation $5.6 M / American Endowment Foundation$5,000 / Ian Gazard $5,000 / The Triad Foundation $2,500 / John Hilliard $2,000 / John Crary $1,000/ Surveillant LLC / John Friedrich Behringer $1,000/ Professor Larry P. Walker $1,000