Close to Home: GMO study is not as conclusive as it sounds

The May 18 edition of The Press Democrat featured the headline, “Experts: Gene-altered food safe, not a savior” on a front-page article about a report issued by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine.

While newsprint and online headlines across the country have blared the misinformation that GE (genetically engineered) food is safe, the truth is that this report does not come to this conclusion.

The executive summary states:

“The committee also examined epidemiological data on incidence of cancers and other human-health problems over time and found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops.”

This does not equate to a statement that GE crops are safe. It is also difficult to imagine how this report could possibly have cited research proving GE crops to be safe since this food is not labeled in the United States, and there have been no human epidemiological studies conducted on GE food safety in the long term. Numerous animal studies, however, indicate that eating GE food can result in numerous negative health outcomes. These include disruption of hormonal systems and beneficial gut bacteria, damage to DNA, developmental and reproductive toxicity, birth defects, cancer and neurotoxicity.

Several sources have praised this National Academies report as being more comprehensive and more transparent than previous reports from this group about GE crops. In contrast, Food and Water Watch, a national nonprofit, recently published an “issue brief” titled, “Under the Influence: The National Research Council and GMOs.” The first paragraph reads as follows:

“The National Research Council - the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences - enjoys a reputation as one of the elite scientific bodies in the United States, an independent institution that Congress calls upon for impartial scientific advice about topics like genetically engineered crops (commonly called GMOs). However, the NRC’s far-reaching ties to biotechnology and other agricultural corporations have created conflicts of interest at every level of the organization, which greatly diminish the independence and integrity of NRC’s scientific work.”

The article goes on to provide specific information about some of these ties, with more than 100 references cited. A chart details the biotech connections of 12 of the 22 present and recent members of the NRC committee addressing GE issues from 2014-2016, stating that more than half of the authors of the new report have ties with biotech.

The last paragraph of The Press Democrat article lists the funders of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine report including “the academy itself” and reports that none of the organizations mentioned have direct connections to the biotech industry. The folks at Food and Water Watch would beg to differ from this conclusion, citing evidence that Monsanto, Dupont and Dow Chemical have all given millions of dollars to the National Academies. This fact alone gives lie to the notion that the reports on GMOs provide unbiased conclusions about the safety of GE food.

The article quotes Professor Bruce Chassy from University of Illinois, “… There was never any scientific basis to believe GM plants should be viewed any differently than any other.”

It turns out that Chassy has received Monsanto research grants and is a long-time spokesman for Monsanto and biotech. He was even enlisted by Monsanto to lobby the EPA against tightening their regulation of pesticides.

The Press Democrat article mentions the initiative to prohibit growing GE organisms in Sonoma County likely to be put on the ballot for voter approval in November. Voters are reminded once again to follow the money before believing headlines and reports such as the ones discussed in this article.

Pamela Gentry is a coordinator for Citizens for Healthy Farms and Families, the lead group in support of the anti-GMO ballot measure that supervisors decided this week will go before Sonoma County voters in November. She lives in Sebastopol.

“Trust me, sweetheart. A shotgun wedding

Is the perfect thing to restore

your reputation. It’s huge!”

Edy Sallee, Guerneville

“I do. And she does, too.

Believe me folks, she does!”

Clayton Smith, Sonoma

“Trust me, Babe. This is just

for the paparazzi!”

Lynn Caruso, Cloverdale

“Don’t sweat it. We’ll get an

annulment in December.”

Mark Bowman, Santa Rosa

“Scary to think what our baby

will look like, huh?”

Brooke Clyde, Santa Rosa

“Don’t worry. I’m used to bad marriages.”

Bob Charbonnier, Santa Rosa