On 2015 Aug 24, Andrew R Kniss commented:

This “Perspective” piece is basically a plea from Dr. Landrigan and Dr. Benbrook for “all aspects of the safety of biotechnology” to be “thoroughly reconsider[ed]”. However, in the two page opinion, they provide no evidence that crop biotechnology is harmful. In fact, Landrigan and Benbrook acknowledge that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) “has twice reviewed the safety of GM crops” and they do not dispute the scientific consensus expressed by NAS that “GM crops pose no unique hazards to human health.” The way I read it, the entire Perspective piece seems to be a muddled conflation of two separate (albeit related) issues; the use of GMO crops and the use of herbicides. A full critique here: http://goo.gl/IcZt2S

Dr. Landrigan and Dr. Benbrook cite glyphosate-resistant weeds as a primary reason why “fields must be now be treated with multiple herbicides,” but this point also deserves some scrutiny. In corn, for example, multiple herbicides have been a common practice since long before GMO crops were introduced. In the year 2000, before Roundup Ready GMO corn had gained widespread adoption in the US (and also before glyphosate-resistant weeds were growing in corn fields), corn growers were applying nearly three herbicide active ingredients per acre. The latest USDA data from 2014 show fewer than 3.5 active ingredients applied per acre. This suggests that while glyphosate-resistant weeds may certainly have increased the number of herbicides used per acre compared to 5 years ago, the change has been relatively modest when compared to herbicide use before adoption of GMO crops.

Another misleading statement made by Dr. Landrigan and Dr. Benbrook is that the “risk assessment gave little consideration to potential health effects in infants and children, thus contravening federal pesticide law.” This claim was also addressed explicitly by EPA in their FAQ document (http://www2.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/registration-enlist-duo). EPA concluded that after incorporating a 10X safety factor for children, and based on a “complete and very robust” data set, that the “risks were still acceptable for all age groups for all components of the assessment: dietary food and drinking water exposure, volatility, spray drift, residential, and aggregate assessment.” This claim is addressed in even more detail (600 words) in the EPA’s response to public comment (http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0195-2414&disposition=attachment&contentType=msw8).

On 2015 Sep 21, M Mangan commented:

It should be further noted that although disclosure documents were updated for Dr. Benbrook in August, following the publication of an article in the NYTimes in September, new issues of potential conflicts of interest were unearthed. Documents provided from a FOIA request by Eric Lipton illustrated that both Benbrook and Landrigan were actively working with the "Just Label It" organization and Gary Hirshberg of the organic food industry, during the time of preparation of this work. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/06/us/document-benbrook.html

My request to the NEJM to investigate this and update the disclosure documents, due to the new evidence, was declined by the NEJM.

On 2015 Aug 20, M Mangan commented:

This piece is astonishingly flawed on several levels, but most importantly has basic facts that are incorrect or blatantly misrepresented. Please see some capable assessments of the claims here, from a researcher who studies herbicides: http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/08/gmos-herbicides-and-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine/

I would also encourage readers to seek out the expert reactions from the Science Media Centre: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-gmos-herbicides-and-public-health/

But I would also like to note that the calls to provide information via labels do not indicate what label they think would apply to their herbicide concerns. None of the proposed labels in the US, or any other country I've seen, address herbicides in any manner. Since non-GMOs also use herbicides, and some GMOs do not, calling for a misleading label would be irresponsible for health professionals.

On 2015 Aug 20, M Mangan commented:

This piece is astonishingly flawed on several levels, but most importantly has basic facts that are incorrect or blatantly misrepresented. Please see some capable assessments of the claims here, from a researcher who studies herbicides: http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/08/gmos-herbicides-and-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine/

I would also encourage readers to seek out the expert reactions from the Science Media Centre: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-gmos-herbicides-and-public-health/

But I would also like to note that the calls to provide information via labels do not indicate what label they think would apply to their herbicide concerns. None of the proposed labels in the US, or any other country I've seen, address herbicides in any manner. Since non-GMOs also use herbicides, and some GMOs do not, calling for a misleading label would be irresponsible for health professionals.

On 2015 Aug 24, Andrew R Kniss commented:

This “Perspective” piece is basically a plea from Dr. Landrigan and Dr. Benbrook for “all aspects of the safety of biotechnology” to be “thoroughly reconsider[ed]”. However, in the two page opinion, they provide no evidence that crop biotechnology is harmful. In fact, Landrigan and Benbrook acknowledge that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) “has twice reviewed the safety of GM crops” and they do not dispute the scientific consensus expressed by NAS that “GM crops pose no unique hazards to human health.” The way I read it, the entire Perspective piece seems to be a muddled conflation of two separate (albeit related) issues; the use of GMO crops and the use of herbicides. A full critique here: http://goo.gl/IcZt2S

Dr. Landrigan and Dr. Benbrook cite glyphosate-resistant weeds as a primary reason why “fields must be now be treated with multiple herbicides,” but this point also deserves some scrutiny. In corn, for example, multiple herbicides have been a common practice since long before GMO crops were introduced. In the year 2000, before Roundup Ready GMO corn had gained widespread adoption in the US (and also before glyphosate-resistant weeds were growing in corn fields), corn growers were applying nearly three herbicide active ingredients per acre. The latest USDA data from 2014 show fewer than 3.5 active ingredients applied per acre. This suggests that while glyphosate-resistant weeds may certainly have increased the number of herbicides used per acre compared to 5 years ago, the change has been relatively modest when compared to herbicide use before adoption of GMO crops.

Another misleading statement made by Dr. Landrigan and Dr. Benbrook is that the “risk assessment gave little consideration to potential health effects in infants and children, thus contravening federal pesticide law.” This claim was also addressed explicitly by EPA in their FAQ document (http://www2.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/registration-enlist-duo). EPA concluded that after incorporating a 10X safety factor for children, and based on a “complete and very robust” data set, that the “risks were still acceptable for all age groups for all components of the assessment: dietary food and drinking water exposure, volatility, spray drift, residential, and aggregate assessment.” This claim is addressed in even more detail (600 words) in the EPA’s response to public comment (http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0195-2414&disposition=attachment&contentType=msw8).