GM/GE OK

I have quite a few colorful Facebook friends - Pink or Green, or Rainbow Colored, depending on the issue.  These are good folks, and although we usually disagree, I do not doubt their sincerity. 

Lately, one of their favorite issues is genetically modified (GM) or genetically engineered (GE) crops.  Somehow, these folks have become convinced that Monsanto is the AntiChrist, a corporation that will happily give us all cancer, cause strange mutations and turn us all into zombies just to add a dollar to their insatiable bottom line. 

The strident, often unsupportable  and outrageous claims, of this movement have gained some traction.  Several countries in Europe and Asia have now banned GM seeds.

These folks are on a speeding bandwagon, and unlikely to be swayed by truth, but the truth is that globally, food-producing animals consume 70% to 90% of genetically engineered crop biomass, mostly corn and soybean. In the United States alone, animal agriculture produces over 9 billion food-producing animals annually, and more than 95% of these animals consume feed containing GE ingredients. The numbers are similar in large GMO producing countries with a large agricultural sector, such as Brazil and Argentina.

Estimates of the numbers of meals consumed by feed animals since the introduction of GM crops 18 years ago would number well into the trillions. By common sense alone, if GE feed were causing unusual problems among livestock, farmers would have noticed.

If that wasn’t enough evidence, there is now a comprehensive study that debunks the myth.

Writing in the Journal of Animal Science, in the most comprehensive study of GMOs and food ever conducted, University of California-Davis Department of Animal Science geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam and research assistant Amy E. Young reviewed 29 years of livestock productivity and health data from both before and after the introduction of genetically engineered animal feed. 

The field data represented more than 100 billion animals covering a period before 1996 when animal feed was 100% non-GMO, and after its introduction when it jumped to 90% and more. The documentation included the records of animals examined pre and post mortem, as ill cattle cannot be approved for meat.

What did they find? That GM feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There was no indication of any unusual trends in the health of animals since 1996 when GMO crops were first harvested. Considering the size of the dataset, it can reasonably be said that the debate over the impact of GE feed on animal health is closed: there is zero extraordinary impact.

Unfortunately, I’m afraid my colorful friends are not the sort to allow truth to affect their devotion to a cause.