No, "science" has not confirmed that GMOs are safe to eat

http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16963-no-science-
has-not-confirmed-that-gmos-are-safe-to-eat

First, and most importantly, the NAS doesn't hold an "umbrella" view on the safety of GMOs. Along with many other international bodies, it recognises that such a view is untenable, given that the GM process can give rise to different and unpredictable effects in each case. The committee points out that it has received "impassioned requests" to give the public a simple, general, authoritative answer about GM crops, but that given the complexity of GMO issues, it did not see that as appropriate. Following that, in a 400-page document, the committee develops its view on the issue. That view is undoubtedly more favourable to the use of GMOs in agriculture than that of most environmental groups – but it is also much more conservative than that of many GMO promoters (including El País). Far from stating that "science has confirmed that GMOs are safe", the report could be more accurately summarised as stating, "There’s a lot that we don’t know, which isn’t surprising, because no one is looking."

The US National Academy of Sciences is deceiving the public

How the National Academy of Sciences misled the public over GMO food safety →

“GM food safe to eat, say world’s leading scientists”, ran the headline in The Times in the wake of the publication of the US National Academy of Sciences report on GM crops. In almost all the mainstream media the story was the same, from Nature World News trumpeting, “Scientists declare GM food safe”, to The Guardian’s “GM food generally safe for humans”.

In reality, the part of the report that deals with animal feeding studies on GM crops is a subtly treacherous mix. Scattered among some sound statements and useful recommendations are a plethora of strategic omissions, gobsmackingly unscientific assertions, wishful thinking, pulled punches, and outright lies. Below I consider just a few.

- GM Watch

Charles Benbrook: NAS Report on GMOs Gives Spin New Life and Pulls Too Many Punches

https://medium.com/@chuckbenbrook/nas-report-on-gmos-gives-spin-
new-life-and-pulls-too-many-punches-2b659ab18420#.r7urszry2

As I worked through Tuesday’s report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) titled “Genetically Engineered Crops: Experience and Prospects,” I was at times pleasantly surprised by what I read and what the Committee recommends. But I was more often disappointed that the Committee passed up opportunities to drive home how serious many GE-crop triggered problems have become.

To its credit, the report does a good job describing the problems and challenges that have arisen over the last 20 years in the wake of widespread adoption of GE crops. These include the emergence and spread of resistant weeds and insects, inadequate pre-approval safety testing, the U.S. government’s disjointed regulatory framework, loss of trust and confidence in the quality of U.S. food and rigor of U.S. regulation, rising costs on the farm for GE seed and associated pesticides, and the public health and environmental consequences of the intensification of herbicide use.

National Academies of Sciences Calls for Greater Transparency on GMOs

http://civileats.com/2016/05/18/national-academies-of-sciences-calls-
for-greater-transparency-around-genetically-engineered-crops/

New report says genetically engineered crops are safe to eat but weed resistance and other unanswered environmental questions should be cause for more regulatory oversight.