In June 2012, a report compiled by a group of expert scientists investigated industry narratives on GM crops. The scientists said they wanted to get to the bottom of claims bandied between GM industry supporters and their adversaries. They also tried to move past the framing of the GM debate as being one between "emotional but ignorant activists on one hand and rational GM-supporting scientists on the other."

Published by transparency and sustainable food organisation Earth Open Source, their hard-hitting report looked in detail at GM crops' impacts on farm businesses and the farmed environment; it seriously questioned the touted benefits of growing the crops, citing examples of increased pesticide use, pest resistance and inconclusive yield benefits associated with switching to GM, as well as challenging manufacturers' claims that GM crops have a part to play in feeding the world's increasing population.

Speaking at the time, report author Dr Michael Antoniou of King's College London's School of Medicine – an eminent scientists who uses genetic engineering for medical applications – came out against the use of genetic modification for food and feed crops. Dr Antoniou said, "GM crops are promoted on the basis of ambitious claims – that they are safe to eat, environmentally beneficial, increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides, and can help solve world hunger.

"Research studies show that genetically modified crops have harmful effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials and on the environment during cultivation. They have increased the use of pesticides and have failed to increase yields. Our report concludes that there are safer and more effective alternatives to meeting the world's food needs."

GMO Myths and Truths: Genetic engineers' report slams GM crops  

On Monday, Earth Open Source released a follow up to its 2012 report, compiled by genetic engineer Dr John Fagan and researcher Claire Robinson, alongside Dr Antoniou. The second edition of the report is extended to 330 pages – almost three times the size of the first edition.

Contesting claims made by prominent supporters, including former environmentalist Mark Lynas, who attracted praise and suspicion in equal measure in January 2013, when he told the Oxford Farming Conference that, "The GM debate is over; we no longer need to debate whether GM is safe," report author John Fagan said, "The GMO debate is far from being over, as some GMO proponents claim. Instead, the evidence of risk and actual harm from GM foods and crops to health and the environment has grown in the two years since we brought out the first edition."

He added, "The good news is that GMOs are not needed to feed the world. The report shows that there are far better ways of ensuring a safe and sustainable food supply." Key research into global food security, including the World Bank-commissioned IAASTD report from 2008 and subsequent UN investigations into the 'right to food' view GM crops as a peripheral issue at best.  

The authors conclude that crop genetics are only part of the solution to our food and agriculture challenges; eminent researchers have repeatedly said that proprietary solutions to food insecurity, including GM crops, will have no major impact, as social issues play a much greater role in current food security failings. The principle part of the solution, they claim, is agroecological farming methods that build soil and focus on growing a diversity of naturally healthy and resilient crops.

In their report, the authors provide a counterpoint to the industry narrative that ramping up yields (and thereby increasing sales) will mean that the world's hungry are fed. They also include citations from respected scientists to illustrate this, including biologist and Campaign for Real Farming Founder Colin Tudge, and former Defra chief scientist Professor Sir Bob Watson.

Tudge, three-time winner of the Glaxo/ABSW Science Writer of the Year Award, notes, "UN demographers tell us that although human numbers are rising the percentage rise is going down and should reach zero by 2050 – so the numbers should level out. Nine and a half billion is as many [people] as we will ever have to feed – and we already produce 50% more than will ever be needed. The task, then, is not to increase output, but to produce what we do produce (or even less) by means that are kinder to people, livestock, and wildlife, more sustainable, and more resilient."

Although the issue is not limited to production of GM seeds, the authors pay special attention to the dangers that patenting laws and Intellectual Property Rights have for future agricultural production. They claim GM crops are easier to patent than conventionally bred varieties and suggested that this may be one reason manufacturers are keen to continue touting their supposed benefits. The authors conclude, "Patents have no place in the agricultural system. To protect the security of the food supply and to ensure food sovereignty for each nation, governments must establish policies that ensure that the control of food production remains in the hands of farmers."

Discussing her findings on Monday, Author Claire Robinson commented, "The GMO industry is built on myths. What is the motivation behind the deception? Money. GM crops and foods are easy to patent and are an important tool in the global consolidation of the seed and food industry into the hands of a few big companies. We all have to eat, so selling patented GM seed and the chemicals they are grown with is a lucrative business model.

"GMO Myths and Truths offers a one-stop resource for the public, campaigners, policy-makers, and scientists opposing the GMO industry's attempts to control our food supply and shut down scientific and public debate."

The report's authors are not alone in their concern; in late 2013, nearly 300 scientists and legal experts, supporting the group European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, signed a statement affirming that there is "No scientific consensus on GMO safety".

New findings in the updated report include:

• A review that is claimed by pro-GMO lobbyists to show that 1,700 studies show GM foods are as safe in fact shows nothing of the sort. Instead many of the 1,700 studies cited show evidence of risk. The review also excludes or glosses over important scientific controversies over GMO safety issues. (p. 102, though the study also deals with other contentious studies published since the 2012 edition, including the Séralini study on rats, which the authors conclude was more rigorous than industry studies, which are not subjected to anywhere near the same amount of scrutiny)
• Claims that Europe is becoming a "museum" of farming because of its reluctance to embrace GM crops are not supported, given new research showing that Europe's mostly non-GM agriculture out-yields the USA's mostly GM agriculture with less pesticide use. Instead, it is the GM-adopting USA that is falling behind Europe in terms of productivity and sustainability. (pp. 232–233)
• Risks from an important new type of GMO that is designed to silence genes are not being properly assessed by regulators. (p. 78)
• Contrary to claims by GMO proponents, the real reason GM golden rice isn't available has nothing to do with anti-GMO activists and everything to do with basic research and development problems. (p. 197)
• Conventional breeding continues to outstrip GM in delivering crops that yield well, resist disease, are nutritious, and tolerate drought and other types of extreme weather. (pp. 284, 318–321)

The GMO Myths and Truths report is available to read here.