# data[].attributes.body
GMOs allow for food to be produced in countries that have food shortages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Genetic engineering could play a role in making crops more resilient to climate change, but more research is still needed to understand the technology's potential uses, the National Academy of Sciences said yesterday.

In a sweeping 400-page report, the country's top scientific group found there was not evidence to support claims that genetically modified organisms are dangerous for either the environment or human health. At the same time, the introduction of genetically engineered crops had little apparent influence on the rate at which agricultural productivity was increasing over time.

In the future, the academy said, researchers and regulators should be sure to evaluate the safety and efficacy of specific crops, rather than focus on potential risk posed by the process of modifying the plants.

"The technology is changing so rapidly, we needed to see where it is taking us in the future," said Fred Gould, chairman of the NAS Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops, which conducted the report, and a professor of entomology at North Carolina State University.

The report takes an in-depth look at past research on and future potential of the often controversial application of genetic engineering to U.S. crops.

Supporters of the technology say genetically engineered, or GE, crops are necessary for meeting the nutritional demands of a growing global population. Opponents say that the crops could pose environmental and health risks, particularly over the long term.

Currently, most of the genetically modified crops commercially available have added traits that protect plants from pests and make them resistant to herbicides. But in the future, the technology could be used more to address crop vulnerabilities to climate change, by incorporating traits for drought resistance and for heat and cold tolerance, according to the report.

"Climate change will affect both the yields and the quality of produce in a number of ways. Increased temperatures will speed crop development and thus limit potential yields. In colder climates, increased temperatures may extend the growing season, particularly of crops with indeterminate growth such as cotton," the committee members wrote.

Some call report reassuring

Genetic engineering approaches could be used along with conventional breeding and changes in farm management to help plants better survive environmental changes, they said.

A major challenge is that adding traits like heat tolerance is much more complex than altering a single gene to make a plant herbicide-resistant, said Richard Amasino, a member of the NAS committee.

"If we had the basic knowledge to enable corn to grow at higher temperatures, then we've got a buffer to climate change. But do we understand the basic biochemistry of how that might work? No. There is no one magic little protein you put in. So these are all very complex issues. Basically, as we go to more complex biochemical things, we're going to have to have a lot more knowledge, and there is going to be a physiological limit," Amasino said.

To help close that knowledge gap, committee members called for continued public funding of basic research for better understanding of the "physiological, biochemical and molecular basis of these important traits."

They also noted that any benefits from the research would depend on the amount of social, political and economic support for genetic engineering.

Altogether, the committee members evaluated 1,000 scientific articles on GE crops; received input from scientists, industry and environmental groups during 80 presentations; and read more than 700 comments posted on the NAS website.

"I was really encouraged by the report; the process was extremely thorough," said Sarah Davidson Evanega, director of the Cornell Alliance for Science at Cornell University.

"The report concludes that there are no negative impacts of GE crops. It's encouraging to see a report from a trusted institution to come forward with that conclusion. That should be reassuring to the public that they are no less safe than their non-GE counterparts," she said.

Others blast it as 'schizophrenic'

According to Evanega, the high quality of the report could help improve the policy environment for GE crop use and to convince more people that there is scientific consensus about the safety of GE technology and that biotechnology can help the country respond to climate change.

Gould noted that as conventional plant breeding has become a more high-technology practice, the line separating GE and non-GE crops has blurred.

He emphasized the importance of evaluating genetic engineering based on the products created rather than based on the technological process itself.

"Would you want to say that genetically engineered crops are bad because there are herbicide-tolerant crops? Or would you want to say genetically engineered crops are great because it's going to save people from blindness?" Gould said.

"They're not the same. So the idea of putting them all in one basket, it's something that's easy to do, but that's not in our report. We tried very much to steer away from those broad, sweeping generalizations. I know some people would like to have them, but it didn't make sense to us after we examined the literature."

The report's findings drew criticism and some praise from the Consumers Union, which opposes the use of genetic engineering and has been lobbying for GMO labeling on foods.

Michael Hansen, an evolutionary ecologist and senior scientist at the Consumers Union, called the report "schizophrenic" in its stance on safety testing of GE crops.

"On the one hand, it says that we should regulate by the product, and not the process, but then goes on to admit that the newer GE techniques, such as gene editing and synthetic biology, will produce more diverse and complex traits in more crops that could raise new safety concerns, noting that even the newer gene editing techniques have off-target effects," he said.

Hansen lauded the report for saying that GMO labeling is not just about the science behind the technology but also an issue of the public's "right to know."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetically Engineered Crops Are Safe and Possibly Good for Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetic engineering could play a role in making crops more resilient to climate change, but more research is still needed to understand the technology's potential uses, the National Academy of Sciences said yesterday. In a sweeping 400-page report, the country's top scientific group found there was not evidence to support claims that genetically modified organisms are dangerous for either the environment or human health.

# data[].attributes.body
GMOs are good for marginal farmland

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you've eaten anything today, chances are you've snacked on GMOs. GMO stands for genetically modified organism. Genetically modified (GM) foods are made from soy, corn, or other crops grown from seeds with genetically engineered DNA.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), GM seeds are used to plant more than 90 percent of corn, soybeans, and cotton grown in the United States. Unless you consciously avoid them, GM foods likely find their way into many of your snacks and meals.

Some people believe GM foods are safe, healthy, and sustainable, while others claim the opposite. Read on to learn about the pros and cons - and what the research says.

Scientists genetically engineer seeds for many reasons. For example, they sometimes make changes designed to increase a plant's:

resistance to insects

tolerance to herbicides

tolerance for heat, cold, or drought

crop yield

They also engineer seeds to give GM foods stronger colors, increase their shelf life, or eliminate seeds. That's why we can buy seedless watermelons and grapes. Some GM foods also have been engineered to have higher levels of specific nutrients, such as protein, calcium, or folate.

Proponents of GM food contend that genetic engineering can help us find sustainable ways to feed people. Specifically, in countries that lack access to nutrient-rich foods. The heartiness of some GM crops makes it so they can grow in marginal environments. The longer shelf life of some GM foods allows them to be shipped to remote areas.

On the other hand, some people wonder if GM foods are safe and healthy to eat. Genetic engineering is a relatively new development. As a result, research on the long-term health effects of GM foods is limited.

GM foods have to meet the same safety requirements as foods grown from non-GM seeds. But critics suggest there's more to be concerned about. Some people worry that GM foods may be linked to allergies, antibiotic resistance, or cancer. Others suggest these concerns are unfounded. Here's what the research says.

Allergies

Food allergies are a growing problem in the United States. According to the , food allergies in children under 18 years of age have increased; from 3.4 percent between 1997 and 1999 to 5.1 percent between 2009 and 2011.

Some people believe that spike is linked to GM foods. But there's no evidence that GM foods in general are more likely to trigger allergic reactions than non-GM foods, according to a study from Harvard University.

Others raise concerns about the transfer of specific proteins from one plant to another in genetic engineering. Proteins found in a relatively small number of foods cause most allergic reactions. Tree nuts are one of the most common triggers.

In the mid-1990s, researchers examined a strain of GM soybean that was engineered to contain protein from Brazil nuts. According to their report in the New England Journal of Medicine, the soybeans triggered allergic reactions in people with Brazil nut allergy. Those soybeans never entered the market and aren't sold to consumers.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) have since established protocols for GM foods. They require GM foods to be tested for their ability to cause allergic reactions. According to the Mayo Clinic, none of the GM foods that are currently on the market have been found to have allergenic effects.

Antibiotic resistance

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria can resist antibiotics, making them hard to kill. According to the , antibiotic-resistant germs infect two million people each year. Those infections kill at least 23,000 people per year.

Scientists often modify seeds using antibiotic-resistant genes in the genetic engineering process. Some people wonder if there's a link between these GM foods and rising rates of antibiotic resistant bacteria. No studies have confirmed this claim, but more research is needed.

Cancer

In 2013, the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted a paper that linked the herbicide Roundup and Roundup-tolerant GM corn to cancer and premature death in rats. Due to concerns about the paper, the journal's editor reviewed the researchers' raw data and the peer-review process. They found the researchers had used too few rats, the specific strain of rats was prone to cancer, and the results were inconclusive.

Since then, the paper has been republished in another journal, Environmental Sciences Europe. The controversy surrounding the study's findings has continued.

According to the American Cancer Society, more research is needed to assess the potential long-term health effects of GM foods.

The European Commission requires GM food products in Europe to be labeled as such. But in the United States, no federal mandate exists for labeling GM foods. As a result, it can be hard to know if you're buying and eating GM foods.

If you decide to avoid GM foods, look for products that are USDA certified organic. Certified organic foods are grown and handled without the use of GMOs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetically modified foods are made with plants grown from seeds with genetically engineered DNA. Learn what the research has to say about their safety and if you should be incorporating them into your diet. If you're trying to avoid GMOs, we'll show you what labels to look for and how to best find GMO free foods.