http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/article_a7ffbe9a-5848-5826-aa28-6b75b3c947d2.html The National Academy of Science found that GM crops pose no risk for "cancer, obesity, gastrointestinal tract illnesses, kidney disease, allergies and autism spectrum disorders." They also save farmers money. However, they note that there is little evidence that they directly improved crop yields, and there are concerns about mismanagement of pesticides and herbicides leading to resistance. Any pesticide or herbicide can be mismanaged, however, just like antibiotics- yet we don't abandon those. Some have suggested that the study is bought by Monsanto of course, but there's no evidence for that. As the researchers point out, the funding for the study comes from non industry sources. Furthermore, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine get about 85% of their funding from the federal government. There is some private funding, as there should be, but certainly not on a level that is monopolistic. It's a nonprofit organization, and clearly has no bones about taking on fossil fuel companies on the subject of climate change. The fact that people are calling them puppets of Monstanto is just proof that there's no pleasing some people, particularly conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theories really have no place in science because they're unfalsifiable. If you provide evidence against a conspiracy, then your name is simply added to the list of conspirators, and *poof* your evidence vanishes. Or so they imagine. In reality, the evidence is still there. It's worth noting that the field of GM crops are fairly new. It's hard to say what further benefits we could get from things like drought resistant crops. There have been some success stories, such as GM papaya in Hawaii. Commercially though, we mostly have just two types of genetic modification right now; herbicide resistance, and pest resistance. That's what the study focused on. The herbicide resistance is arguably a problem, because it could set a precedent for increased agrochemical use, and because there is still some debate about the safety of glyphosate (well, according to the IARC. Other institutions disagree.) However, like I said, it could set a bad precedent for an arms race between plants and herbicides. Then again, crops can also be bred for chemical resistance, so it's not really the fault of GM technology itself. This is true for most issues with GM crops: the risks are real, but not the imagined difference that exists between risks for GM and selectively bred crops. Bt toxin on the other hand is obviously harmless.It is easily digested, and even if it wasn't, it would be well outside of its operational pH range in the human gut. We also lack the necessary receptors for it to attack, as do all animals outside of a narrow spectrum of insect. Replacing other pesticides with Bt toxin is clearly a win for health and the environment. The only issue is that mismanagement may decrease the usefulness of this valuable protein. It would be nice to see other poisons replaced with similar, degradable high-specificity biomolecules. The future of this field is potentially very bright. Drought resistance, enhanced vitamin content, RNA-silencing pesticides- it would be hasty to dismiss all of the potential benefits. Overall, the report seems to show a net positive impact from GM crops, and one that we should all take note of.
