LAUSR

VOLUME 35 NUMBER 4 APRIL 2017 NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY Giddings and Henry Miller2 published in your December issue. After reading their Correspondence, we wish to share our assessment of the NAS report with your readers. We represent a subset of Forum participants. Although our views have not been formally endorsed by all of our respective scientific societies, we represent a wealth of diverse scientific expertise and experience. As a whole, our professional assessment is that the NAS report offers an extensive and authoritative review of peer-reviewed scientific literature on a wide range of topics related to the agronomic performance of GE crops, the social, economic, political, health, safety, and regulatory context that guides the trajectory of GE technological innovation, and the costs and benefits of these technologies. We broadly agree with key conclusions of the NAS report that: • “...no differences have been found that implicate a higher risk to human health safety from these GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts” (p. 19); • GE crops “have generally had favorable economic outcomes for producers who have adopted these crops, but there is high heterogeneity in outcomes” (p. 20); • the ability of GE crops “to benefit intended stakeholders will depend on the social and economic contexts in which the technology is developed and diffused” (p. 22); and finally, • the scientific evidence suggests that “it is the product, not the process, that should be regulated” (p. 26). The NAS report notes that most of the extant peer-reviewed scientific research is focused on resistance to herbicides (mainly glyphosate) and resistance to insect pests (via Bacillus-thuringiensis-derived Cry proteins). We concur with the committee’s conclusion that GE crops have been adopted on millions of hectares without the emergence of scientific evidence of serious health and environmental problems that were expected by early critics of the technology. At the same time, we applaud the report for not overstating what is known about potential shortand long-term health, environmental, and socioeconomic implications of emerging GE traits. Giddings and Miller criticize the qualified language of the report because they were hoping for the NAS to “overtly back GE crops.” But in our view, the more nuanced phrasing in the NAS report represents a balanced and objective reading of the peer-reviewed evidence. The NAS committee reported that, on a national scale, rates of yield increases in maize, cotton, and soybean were the same before the advent of GE crops as afterward, concluding Science and Policy, Jaharis Family Center for Biomedical and Nutrition Sciences, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 11Purdue University, Dept. of Food Science, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA. 12University of California, Los Angeles, Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, Los Angeles, California, USA. 13Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, Washington, DC, USA. 14Oregon State University, Dept. of Crop and Soil Science, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. 15CIMMYT (Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo), Texcoco CP, Edo. de México, Mexico. 16University of Richmond, Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Richmond, Virginia, USA. 17University of Virginia, Dept. of Engineering and Society, Charlottesville, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. 18Texas A&M University, Dept. of Soil and Crop Sciences, College Station, Texas, USA. 19University of Tennessee, Dept. of Plant Sciences, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA. 20Produce Marketing Association (PMA), Newark, Delaware, USA. e-mail: [email protected]