Meta-Study Exonerates GMOs

A team of Italian scientists just released a meta-study that looks at more than 1,700 reports on genetically modified crops over the past decade; by and large, it gives the technology a clean bill of health. Real Clear Science reports:

Led by Alessandro Nicolia, an applied biologist at the University of Perugia in Italy, the team collected and evaluated 1,783 research papers, reviews, relevant opinions, and reports published between 2002 and 2012, a comprehensive process that took 12 months to complete. The records covered all aspects of GM crop safety, from how the crops interact with the environment, to how they could potentially affect the humans and animals who consume them.

“Our goal was to create a single document where interested people of all levels of expertise can get an overview on what has been done by scientists regarding GE crop safety,” Nicolia told RCScience. “We tried to give a balanced view informing about what has been debated, the conclusions reached so far, and emerging issues.”

Overall, the scientific literature was heavily in favor of GM agriculture.

It’s been said before that the left’s opposition to GMOs (largely on the grounds that they’re strange and unnatural) is similar to the right’s denial that human’s have anything to do with climate change; that is, both positions ignore current scientific understanding for political or emotional expediency.

A prominent green and former rabid anti-GMO advocate saw the light earlier this year and acknowledged the good that the technology can do: namely, growing more and more resilient crops that can feed the world’s hungry. That it can do so without putting people’s health at risk is excellent news. If it forces some green introspection, then that’s good news too.

Features Icon
show comments
  • Andrew Allison

    Given that there’s no such thing as a non-GMO, the only thing surprising about this report is that it got published.

    • Corlyss

      So true. That’s what I mean when I characterize the opposition as “scientifically and historically ignorant.” We’ve been eating GMO foods for the last 10,000 years. They just don’t get it.

      • Andrew Allison

        We too are GMOs, and there’s also no such thing as an inorganic food! LOL

  • AnnSaltzafrazz

    The problem for some of the most avid greens is that they don’t want GMO’s precisely because they *will* feed people. These are the sorts of people who have themselves sterilized and would look on with joy at anything which would decrease the surplus population. The questions I would like to see answered are: How many greens are in this camp? And how many of them are in powerful positions within the green movement?

  • Corlyss

    Maybe, but fear not. That will not affect Eurotrash ideological hatred for GMOs one little bit. Those elites (which include America’s own organic-crazed scientifically and historically ignorant elites) know what’s best for us and By G_d they’re going to see that we get it whether it makes no sense and costs 4X as much or not!!!

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    “is similar to the right’s denial that human’s have anything to do with climate change; that is, both positions ignore current scientific understanding for political or emotional expediency.”

    I object, the fact that you are using the bogus “climate change” in place of “global warming”, is proof that even the alarmists know that the Scientific Basis of global warming is Wrong. Science is very black and white, if your Hypothesis isn’t predictive, then it is wrong. And all the climate models being used by the alarmists, have been wrong to the upside by 2 to 9 times, so they haven’t even been close. So it isn’t the right that is ignoring current scientific understanding, it is the alarmist left that desperately needs everyone to keep believing the sky is falling, so their grants, donations, and government largess doesn’t dry up.

    How many hundreds of billions of dollars have already been lost to green energy boondoggles? How much is still being wasted on electric cars, alcohol fuels, and uneconomical solar and wind power schemes?

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service