National Academies report draws criticism from anti-GMO groups

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

The panel . . . convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine and asked to review . . . the benefits and hazards of GE crops. The 388-page report is nuanced and, on some issues, equivocal, with comments from all sides of the issue.

. . . .

But the recommendation of a process-agnostic approach to new crops. . . drew immediate criticism from the technology watchdog organization ETC Group.

“In our view the report is inconsistent on the . . . question of whether or not to regulate the new techniques such as genome editing and synthetic biology. . . .” ETC spokesman Jim Thomas said by email. . . .

. . . .

Related on the SLP

National Academies of Sciences rebuke claim 2016 GMO crops report ‘tainted’ by conflicts of interest Crop biotech policy experts: Fallout from ‘equivocating’ National Academy of Sciences GMO report now being felt

Abortion rights opponents outraged after FDA says its “safety review” of the already-found-safe mifepristone abortion pill will continue into 2027

GAHA: The corporate-created “healthier America” movement challenging what it claims is MAHA misinformation about modern farming, chemicals, and food

9 wellness myths busted

Dana Perls, senior campaigner . . . with Friends of the Earth, said the biotech industry has long supported the National Academies.

“I’m concerned that their findings and recommendations are deceptive and even biased toward industry interests,” she said in advance of reading the report.

The National Academies did not appoint anyone from the biotech industry. . . nor use any money from the industry. .  . all committee members were required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

Read full, original post: Are GMO crops safe? Focus on the plant, not the process, scientists say.