This new report says there is no evidence that GMO crops harms human health

Genetically Modified Organisms or genetically engineered crops do not pose any additional risks to people and even the environment when compared to traditional crops, scientists from the National Academies of Sciences say.


The research, published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, is the result of a sweeping review of nearly 900 publications on the effects of genetically modified crops on human health and the environment.

GMO has assisted agricultural producers in the U.S., including small farmers thrive, according to the report even though genetic modification is not all good news.

Widespread use of genetically modified crops, which are often engineered to resist the effects of pesticides, has contributed to concerning levels of pesticide resistance in weeds and insects. Researchers called for improved agricultural management to address the issue.

“There have been claims that [genetically engineered] crops have had adverse effects on human health,” the report says. “Sweeping statements about crops are problematic because issues related to them are multidimensional.”

The report comes as public health and environmental advocates continue to push for mandatory labeling of genetically modified food.

The results of the National Academy report suggest that such measures may not be necessary. Report committee member Michael Rodemeyer said at a press conference that without evidence of health effects from GMO crops, the Food and Drug Administration does not even have the authority to mandate such labels.

Will this report stop people from labelling GMO foods?  Will it settle the debate over GMOs?

“We’re hoping that our report is not this big tome but something that starts a conversation,” North Carolina State University professor Fred Gould, who chaired the committee behind the report. He also hoped the findings would help fuel an evidence-based discussion rather than a heated back and forth between. “It would nice not to have a debate, but maybe an eight-hour discussion,” Gould added.