SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Industry Influence Clouds New GMO Report
New National Research Council study trumpets the safety of GMOs, but how much confidence can we have in these findings given the many conflicts of interest involved?
Jun 01, 2016
Last month, Food & Water Watch correctly predicted that the National Research Council's (NRC) far-reaching ties to the biotechnology industry would greatly weaken the organization's forthcoming report on genetically modified (GMO) foods and crops. We all saw the headlines the next day: Most news reports led with the top-level messaging of the NRC's press materials, that there is no evidence that GMOs are unsafe to eat or present risks to the environment.
But this message is not in line with the wider scientific discourse.
A peer-reviewed study published last year detailed the concerns of hundreds of expert scientists who concluded that there is no "scientific consensus" on GMO safety. While that's not diametrically opposite to what NRC said, it sends a far different message than last week's headlines.
These hundreds of scientists highlighted the available evidence indicating safety concerns (but did not declare GMOs safe or unsafe) and prominently cited the need for more research because of the many scientific gaps. They noted that "genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding" and, as such, "safety assessments should be required." And they made a point to note that the biotechnology industry has played a very large a role in the science on this issue, which has enormous potential to bias research.
These scientists issued this statement because they worried about the irresponsible use of the term "scientific consensus" around GMOs, which they said is inaccurate and "encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment."
The NRC avoided using the word "consensus," but the message it sent to the media clearly supported the safety of GMOs, evident in almost every headline written about the report.
Dr. Philip Landrigan, a dean at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, is one of several scientists to offer criticism of the report, calling NRC's "failure to look seriously at potential health hazards of increased herbicide use [with GMO production] to be a serious omission."
In the places where NRC does address this issue, health concerns tend to be dismissed, such as this statement: "The most detailed epidemiological study that tested for a relationship between cancer and glyphosate [an herbicide widely used with GMOs] as well as other agricultural chemicals found 'no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate.'"
NRC doesn't note that the study referenced here was funded by Monsanto. A few pages later, NRC cites Monsanto-funded studies five times in one passage (again without disclosure) to arrive at the determination that glyphosate is not linked to cancer in farmworkers.
Does that mean glyphosate definitely causes cancer in farmworkers? No (not necessarily), but it is a good illustration of several blind spots in NRC's work, including its failure to meaningfully consider how much influence the biotech industry has over science--and how this can introduce bias. This omission might have had something to do with NRC's own far-reaching ties to industry.
Did the NRC's favorable safety messaging have anything to do with the millions of dollars it receives from companies like Monsanto and DuPont? The fact that the GMO study was authored by an unbalanced panel of scientists, many of whom have ties to the biotechnology industry? Or that a representative from Monsanto sat on the NRC board overseeing the GMO project?
The NRC report isn't all bad, and there's plenty of nuance if you have time to wade into its 400 pages. But I think it's fair to say that a more balanced group of scientists, working under the auspices of an organization with no ties to the biotechnology industry, would have arrived at different safety findings--and top-level messaging--than the NRC did.
Read more in our new report, Under the Influence: The National Research Council and GMOs.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2021 Food & Water Watch
Tim Schwab
Tim Schwab is a food researcher at Food and Water Watch. With a background in journalism, Tim worked as a reporter and as a researcher on a variety of projects before joining Food and Water Watch. He has a master's degree in journalism from the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. He can be reached at tschwab(at)fwwatch(dot)org.
Last month, Food & Water Watch correctly predicted that the National Research Council's (NRC) far-reaching ties to the biotechnology industry would greatly weaken the organization's forthcoming report on genetically modified (GMO) foods and crops. We all saw the headlines the next day: Most news reports led with the top-level messaging of the NRC's press materials, that there is no evidence that GMOs are unsafe to eat or present risks to the environment.
But this message is not in line with the wider scientific discourse.
A peer-reviewed study published last year detailed the concerns of hundreds of expert scientists who concluded that there is no "scientific consensus" on GMO safety. While that's not diametrically opposite to what NRC said, it sends a far different message than last week's headlines.
These hundreds of scientists highlighted the available evidence indicating safety concerns (but did not declare GMOs safe or unsafe) and prominently cited the need for more research because of the many scientific gaps. They noted that "genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding" and, as such, "safety assessments should be required." And they made a point to note that the biotechnology industry has played a very large a role in the science on this issue, which has enormous potential to bias research.
These scientists issued this statement because they worried about the irresponsible use of the term "scientific consensus" around GMOs, which they said is inaccurate and "encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment."
The NRC avoided using the word "consensus," but the message it sent to the media clearly supported the safety of GMOs, evident in almost every headline written about the report.
Dr. Philip Landrigan, a dean at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, is one of several scientists to offer criticism of the report, calling NRC's "failure to look seriously at potential health hazards of increased herbicide use [with GMO production] to be a serious omission."
In the places where NRC does address this issue, health concerns tend to be dismissed, such as this statement: "The most detailed epidemiological study that tested for a relationship between cancer and glyphosate [an herbicide widely used with GMOs] as well as other agricultural chemicals found 'no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate.'"
NRC doesn't note that the study referenced here was funded by Monsanto. A few pages later, NRC cites Monsanto-funded studies five times in one passage (again without disclosure) to arrive at the determination that glyphosate is not linked to cancer in farmworkers.
Does that mean glyphosate definitely causes cancer in farmworkers? No (not necessarily), but it is a good illustration of several blind spots in NRC's work, including its failure to meaningfully consider how much influence the biotech industry has over science--and how this can introduce bias. This omission might have had something to do with NRC's own far-reaching ties to industry.
Did the NRC's favorable safety messaging have anything to do with the millions of dollars it receives from companies like Monsanto and DuPont? The fact that the GMO study was authored by an unbalanced panel of scientists, many of whom have ties to the biotechnology industry? Or that a representative from Monsanto sat on the NRC board overseeing the GMO project?
The NRC report isn't all bad, and there's plenty of nuance if you have time to wade into its 400 pages. But I think it's fair to say that a more balanced group of scientists, working under the auspices of an organization with no ties to the biotechnology industry, would have arrived at different safety findings--and top-level messaging--than the NRC did.
Read more in our new report, Under the Influence: The National Research Council and GMOs.
Tim Schwab
Tim Schwab is a food researcher at Food and Water Watch. With a background in journalism, Tim worked as a reporter and as a researcher on a variety of projects before joining Food and Water Watch. He has a master's degree in journalism from the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. He can be reached at tschwab(at)fwwatch(dot)org.
Last month, Food & Water Watch correctly predicted that the National Research Council's (NRC) far-reaching ties to the biotechnology industry would greatly weaken the organization's forthcoming report on genetically modified (GMO) foods and crops. We all saw the headlines the next day: Most news reports led with the top-level messaging of the NRC's press materials, that there is no evidence that GMOs are unsafe to eat or present risks to the environment.
But this message is not in line with the wider scientific discourse.
A peer-reviewed study published last year detailed the concerns of hundreds of expert scientists who concluded that there is no "scientific consensus" on GMO safety. While that's not diametrically opposite to what NRC said, it sends a far different message than last week's headlines.
These hundreds of scientists highlighted the available evidence indicating safety concerns (but did not declare GMOs safe or unsafe) and prominently cited the need for more research because of the many scientific gaps. They noted that "genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding" and, as such, "safety assessments should be required." And they made a point to note that the biotechnology industry has played a very large a role in the science on this issue, which has enormous potential to bias research.
These scientists issued this statement because they worried about the irresponsible use of the term "scientific consensus" around GMOs, which they said is inaccurate and "encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment."
The NRC avoided using the word "consensus," but the message it sent to the media clearly supported the safety of GMOs, evident in almost every headline written about the report.
Dr. Philip Landrigan, a dean at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, is one of several scientists to offer criticism of the report, calling NRC's "failure to look seriously at potential health hazards of increased herbicide use [with GMO production] to be a serious omission."
In the places where NRC does address this issue, health concerns tend to be dismissed, such as this statement: "The most detailed epidemiological study that tested for a relationship between cancer and glyphosate [an herbicide widely used with GMOs] as well as other agricultural chemicals found 'no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate.'"
NRC doesn't note that the study referenced here was funded by Monsanto. A few pages later, NRC cites Monsanto-funded studies five times in one passage (again without disclosure) to arrive at the determination that glyphosate is not linked to cancer in farmworkers.
Does that mean glyphosate definitely causes cancer in farmworkers? No (not necessarily), but it is a good illustration of several blind spots in NRC's work, including its failure to meaningfully consider how much influence the biotech industry has over science--and how this can introduce bias. This omission might have had something to do with NRC's own far-reaching ties to industry.
Did the NRC's favorable safety messaging have anything to do with the millions of dollars it receives from companies like Monsanto and DuPont? The fact that the GMO study was authored by an unbalanced panel of scientists, many of whom have ties to the biotechnology industry? Or that a representative from Monsanto sat on the NRC board overseeing the GMO project?
The NRC report isn't all bad, and there's plenty of nuance if you have time to wade into its 400 pages. But I think it's fair to say that a more balanced group of scientists, working under the auspices of an organization with no ties to the biotechnology industry, would have arrived at different safety findings--and top-level messaging--than the NRC did.
Read more in our new report, Under the Influence: The National Research Council and GMOs.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.