title: Tempest in a tea pot: How did the public conversation on genetically modified crops drift so far from the facts?
abstract: The debate over genetically modified (GM) crops has raged in Europe since 1996, but had barely risen above a whisper in the USA until recent labeling debates raised public attention. This article will explain GM crops and traits discuss safety assessment provide a view on safety from authoritative organizations discuss selected issues of current debate, and provide the author's perspective as to why the public debate has drifted so far from scientific reality. The economic and environmental benefits of GM crops are beyond scope, but references are provided. GM food and feed undergo comprehensive assessments using recognized approaches to assure they are as safe as the conventional congener. Issues of food safety and nutrition, unrelated to the GM process, may arise when GM foods display novel components or composition. Unanticipated genetic effects in GM crops appear to be limited in contrast to existing variations among conventional varieties resulting from breeding, mutation, and natural mobile genetic elements. Allergenic potential is assessed when selecting genes for introduction into GM crops and remains a theoretical risk to date. Emerging weed and insect resistance is not unique to GM technology and will require the use of integrated pest management/best practices for pest control. Gene flow from GM crops to wild relatives is limited by existing biological barriers but can at time be a relevant consideration in gene selection and planting practices. Insect-resistant GM crops have significantly reduced use of chemical insecticides and appear to have reduced the incidence of pesticide poisoning in areas where small scale farming and hand application are common. Changes in herbicide patterns are more complex and are evolving over time in response to weed resistance management needs. Recent public debate is driven by a combination of unfounded allegations about the technology and purveyors, pseudoscience, and attempts to apply a strict precautionary principle.
authors.affiliation: Regulatory Affairs, Monsanto Company, Monsanto, Mail Zone C3ND, 800 N.Blvd. St. Louis, Lindbergh, MO, 63167, USA, daniel.a.goldstein@monsanto.com.
authors.forename: Daniel A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Goldstein
mesh_terms: D000821:Animal Feed / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000191:economics / Q000592:standards; D000818:Animals; D003258:Consumer Behavior / Q000191:economics; D018556:Crops, Agricultural / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000191:economics / Q000235:genetics / Q000592:standards; D004777:Environment; D055317:Evidence-Based Practice; D005515:Food Labeling; D030841:Food, Genetically Modified / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000191:economics / Q000592:standards; D058015:Health Communication; D057220:Health Literacy / Q000191:economics; D006801:Humans; D030821:Plants, Genetically Modified / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000235:genetics; D011639:Public Opinion; D018570:Risk Assessment; D014481:United States; D014486:United States Food and Drug Administration