Science Says Genetically Modified Food ISN’T Bad For You?

A new research study found a lack of substantial scientific evidence that there are health risks from eating GMOs.

 

The study was published by, The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. 20 experts spent two years reviewing more than 900 studies, and putting together this 408-page report.

 

It is important to note that this is a study of the scientific evidence currently written on GMOs, not an experiment looking for new definitive information. Based on the scientific studies available today, the panel of experts came to a conclusion.

 

Here are the main points of the summary shared by CBS News . You can read the rest of the article here.

 

The authors conclude that there’s “no substantiated evidence that foods from GE [genetically engineered] crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops,” and that regulators need to make their safety focus more on the end-product of the food that’s made rather than the nuts and bolts of how it’s made.

The report also found that when farms switched from conventional crops to the engineered varieties, there was no substantial change in their yield. Production in general is increasing in agriculture, but U.S. Department of Agriculture data don’t show that genetically engineered crops are increasing at a higher rate, despite experimental results suggest that they should, the report said.

 

 

Whether you agree or disagree with their findings about the safety of GMOs, one can’t help but notice that one of the main “benefits” of GMOs doesn’t even exist.

 

One of the large reasons for the push of GMOs was to be able to increase the yield of a crop. Crops have been modified in a number of different ways that are supposed to make crops stronger and easier to grow larger, more viable crops. But the research showed that total yield numbers haven’t increased as a result of GMOs. So what is the gain from growing genetically modified crops?

 

In the same CBS article, Marion Nestle, of New York University, says that the article is a better indicator that we don’t know enough about GMOs or their effects.

 

So what do you think? Does this hurt or help the case against GMOs? Let us know in the comments below.