>The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, which represents companies that sell genetically modified seeds, said it was “pleased” that the study found “that agricultural biotechnology has many demonstrated benefits to farmers, consumers and the environment.’’

>But Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, which is critical of the crops, pointed to the lack of a significant increase in yield.

>“Despite industry claims, these crops are clearly not the answer to world hunger,” he said in a statement.

>Perhaps because of the sensitivity and complexity of the issue, many of the document’s conclusions are hedged by caveats.

>“We received impassioned requests to give the public a simple, general, authoritative answer about G.E. crops,” Fred Gould, a professor of entomology at North Carolina State University and chairman of the committee that compiled the report, wrote in the preface. “Given the complexity of G.E. issues, we did not see that as appropriate.”

>This is the latest of several reports on genetically modified crops by the National Academies, which are private, nonprofit organizations set up by Congress to give advice on issues related to science, technology and medicine.
...

>A previous report by the groups, released in 2010, found that genetic engineering had provided environmental and economic benefits to American farmers.

>The new report was written by a committee of 20, almost all of them from academia. There was no one from crop biotechnology companies like Monsanto or DuPont on the committee, though some members have developed genetically engineered crops and might have been consultants to the companies.

>The committee examined more than 1,000 studies, heard testimony from 80 witnesses in a series of public meetings and webinars, and analyzed 700 comments submitted by the public.

>The committee concentrated its review on the genetically engineered crops that account for the vast bulk of such plants grown in the United States. These are corn and cotton containing bacterial genes that make the crops resistant to certain insects; and soybeans, corn and cotton that are resistant to herbicides, particularly glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup.

>The report says that foods made from such crops do not appear to pose health risks, based on chemical analyses of the foods and on animal feeding studies, though it says many animal studies are too small to provide firm conclusions. Several other regulatory, scientific and health organizations have previously also concluded that the foods are safe.
...

>The committee also looked at the incidence of certain diseases, in some cases comparing rates in North America, where genetically modified crops have been part of the diet since 1996, and Western Europe, where food from biotech crops is not eaten much. It said it found no evidence that the crops had contributed to an increase in the incidence of cancer, obesity, diabetes, kidney disease, autism, celiac disease or food allergies.

>The document also says the regulatory system should be tiered, with potentially riskier products receiving greater scrutiny before they can be marketed, whether those products are made using genetic engineering or not. Other new products, regardless of how they are made, might need virtually no scrutiny. New techniques like DNA sequencing can be used to more closely analyze the molecular composition of food products, the authors write.

>“Clearly the report makes a bold statement in favor of greater transparency and modernizing the review system to make sure the regulatory tools are keeping pace with the technology,” said Scott Faber, vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, which advocates labeling.

>Regarding environmental effects, the report says there is “no conclusive evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship ship between G.E. crops and environmental problems. It says it has not been proved that the increased planting of such crops is indirectly responsible for the decline of the monarch butterfly.

>The report says use of the insect-resistant crops has clearly led to a decrease in the spraying of chemical insecticides. Conversely, the use of herbicide-resistant crops might have led to an increase in the spraying of chemical weed killers in some cases. Overuse of glyphosate has spurred evolution of weeds resistant to that chemical, vexing farmers.

>However, looking only at the pounds of chemicals sprayed per acre is misleading because different chemicals have different toxicities, it says.

>The committee concludes that the use of crops has generally provided economic benefits for the farmers and can increase their output in certain cases, for instance, by protecting crops from insect damage. Nonetheless, it says that nationwide, the introduction of the crops does not appear to have accelerated the rate at which corn, soybean and cotton yields were already improving.

>“There’s no change in the slope, at least no significant change in the slope,’’ Dr. Gould said in presenting the results Tuesday, saying the finding was somewhat puzzling. While the influence on yields could conceivably be greater in developing countries, the report questions how essential genetic engineering will be to feeding the world as the population grows.
...

>The report does not reach firm conclusions on two controversies: whether foods made from the crops should be labeled and whether glyphosate can cause cancer. It says there is no safety reason to label such foods, though it may be justified for other reasons like consumers’ right to know.

>Wayne Parrott, a professor of crop and soil sciences at the University of Georgia and a proponent of biotechnology, said in a statement distributed through the Genetic Expert News Service: “The inescapable conclusion, after reading the report, is the G.E. crops are pretty much just crops. They are not the panacea that some proponents claim, nor the dreaded monsters that others claim.”

>>45402
Good read OP, thanks

Thanks mOn.

>>45404
>Biotechnology Innovation Organization
>BIO

that's a bad joke

learn to grow your own plants you fucking dependents, youre the ones who go to the fema camp.

>>45402
>Genetically engineered crops appear to be safe to eat and do not harm the environment, according to a comprehensive new analysis by the advisory group the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.


IT SOUNDS VERY BELIEVABLE! I MEAN, AN INDEPENDENT SCIENCE COMMISSION COULD NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE BOUGHT FOR ITS OPINION, RIGHT?

>>45402
>IF IT'S NOT ALL NATURAL, IT'S EEEEEEVIL
Fucking hippies.

>>45471
Enjoy your HFCS, clappyfat.

>Study finds pros and cons to GMO crops
>Each side focuses on their agenda
>Ignores other side and cites as proof to support their claims

Increased crop yields is not a necessary goal of GMO crops, sometimes nutrition and drought resistance, among other attributes, is more important to farmers and consumers.

And this is a newly born craft, it is going to take time to see the true benefits and costs.

>did yet another study to prove the obvious
>going to have to do another one to support it again in a year
>all the while hippies are preventing agricultural booms that could feed millions if not billions of starving people

I think those emaciated kids we see in media would rather not starve, than not eat GMO, you pricks.

>>45545
>However, it is somewhat unclear whether the technology has actually increased crop yields.

Do you even read?

>>45549
Yields may not be higher in these cases on a per hectare basis but being able to grow them on more hectares, due to drought resistance for example, would obviously lead to more crops.

Do you even think or do you just read?

studies and analyses usually come to the result that is favored by those who pay for the study/analyses

So, who paid for this one?

>>45565
congress.

>>45549
>what is crop disease
>what is enhanced nutrition
Nigger, crop yields are one aspect. If the flat yield doesn't increase, then it can still rise due to stuff like healthier plants and resistance to common causes of crop failure.

Don't ask if I didn't read if you don't even think beyond what an article tells you, fucking slimy hippy.

>>45471
it's only processed in a way that are called trade secrets by some...

>>45578
>resistance to common causes of crop failure
And when all of the crops are replaced by one super crop it's only a matter of time before an incurable super blight emerges to wipe it all out.

>>45549
Farmers planting GMO crops is more about risk management than simply higher yields. For example: a GMO wheat variety resistant to drought might yield at 4 tons/ha during a wet year while a nonGMO might yield at 5 tons/ha. However during a drought year the drought resistant GMO yields at 3 tons/ha while the non-GMO yields at 2 tons/ha. By diversifying from common crop varieties and planting a small amount of (typically) more expensive GMO varieties that are resistant to drought or frost damage, they are essentially insuring themselves against this damage and spreading their risk.

Given that: in Australia frost damage and drought cannot be insured against; Australia's agriculture industry is collapsing and will continue to be negatively affected by predicted climate change; govt subsidies and insurance that Aus farmers have access to is probably 1% of US farmers.
This hippy opposition to GMOs has so far resulted in farmers not having access to grains which could help them make a living. Not being able to adapt quick enough to unpredictable and changing weather patterns has so far meant that a lot of farmers here in Aus are going broke and have no option other than to sell their land to the Chinese due to their compounded debt.

organic = pay more for the same shit? who knew?

>>45402
Obviously all GMOs are equally safe, just like all programs are equally free from bugs.

I have yet to hear an anti-GMO advocate explain why GMO crops are dangerous in a coherent manner. They usually offer some vague pseudoscientific bullshit about modded DNA causing cancer or some other nonsense with no evidence to back it up.
They routinely fail to explain how naturally occurring random mutations are safer than intentional edits, and typically try to deflect by complaining about Monsanto's unethical business practices. They seem to think that Monsanto is the only producer of GMOs in the world or something.

>>45549
Google "golden rice."

to 45620
what worries me is the goals of sellers are mainly that the product grows easy, is insect resistant, looks pretty, and has a long shelf life;
consumers don't have the ability to check if produce has the vitamins and minerals it should, nutrition promotes instects, nutrition shortens shelf life, and something nutritious might look less appealing.
worries about GMO's are worries about loss of nutrition; GMO's with superior nutrition are only seem likely to be developed by non-profits

>>45602
>t. someone with very little knowledge on agriculture

>>45620
Dna deletion causes repair dna activation. Resulting in ???

>>45623
>to 45620

>>45623
>to 45620

>>45493
>it is going to take time
That's right, and this is an update in the meantime

>>45493
I would be all for GMOs if those were the primary results we see for them. As it is, the ability to withstand increased use of pesticide is the most abundant use of GMOs. The increase of monoculture practice is probably the greatest contributor to environmental issues over the last 50 years, and the way we have implemented GMOs drastically adds to that.

>>45623
Nutritious food only looks less appealing if you can't cook and decide to stick everything together with some kind of binder... like honey. Stick a bunch of crappy cereals together with honey and sell it. Throw in a couple berries and double whammy, two of nature's candies mixed with dry crumbly grains that looks like a two year old's first art project.

And every consumer in the US has the ability to check the nutrition of any food they consume, assuming it is not a small home seller who is exempt from providing nutrition information, as far as I know.