DIRECTIONS: Choose the best answer for each question.Scienti…

DIRECTIONS: Chооse the best аnswer fоr eаch question.Scientists Sаy GE Foods are Safe, Public Doubts Remains[A] Genetically-engineered crops are as safe to eat as non-GE crops, they have no negative environmental impacts, and they have reduced the use of pesticides. That's according to a report released by the National Academy of Sciences today. The report admits that beyond safety, other issues need to be addressed, including earning the public's trust. It recommends a more transparent conversation about GE crops going forward. The report, two years in the making, is a 388-page look at every aspect of genetically engineered crops. [B] For those of you who want the report in a nutshell, here's a summary: •    GE crops are safe to eat. There are always questions about safety, of course, but there's no evidence of harm. •    The GE crops in our food system don't produce a larger harvest. However, because they have been introduced, farmers are better able to protect their harvests from insects and weeds.  •    Small-scale farmers may have trouble seeing economic gains because of the price of seed and lack of access to credit. •    Appropriate regulation is needed, and that regulation should be based on the characteristics of the crop, rather than the technique used to develop it, whether GE or non-GE.[C] For those of you who interested in chapter and verse of the report, here are details of the committee's findings: Human Health[D] The committee doesn't find evidence that eating the GE foods increase food allergies. It also doesn't find any increases in cancer. The report's discussion of human health also includes some hope that both GE and non-GE crops with increased concentrations of some nutrients could result in "favorable effects on the health of millions of people."Harvests [E] There's no evidence that GE crops have increased harvests, which had been steadily increasing before GE crops were introduced, and have continued to increase afterward. GE crops can, however, help protect harvests from pests. Pesticide Use [F] Crops with a built-in organic pesticide, called Bt, have not just caused the reduction of the use of pesticides, they have, in some cases reduced the pest population so dramatically that pesticide spraying has gone down on non-GE fields. The report notes, however, that insects can develop a resistance to Bt. Environmental Impact [G] There's no evidence of negative effects of Bt crops on bees. Although crop diversity has been declining since 1987, the report didn't find a cause and effect relationship with GE crops. Social and Economic Effects [H] The report makes the point that, when we're talking about introducing a new kind of crop into our food system, we have to look beyond matters of human and environmental health, and take social and economic issues into consideration: •    Overall GE crops have worked out well, economically, for the farmers who have chosen them, but there is a lot of variation in results. •    Benefits of GE crops aren't always available to small-scale farmers, because of the high price of seed and lack of money, among other issues.•    It's important to prevent the accidental presence of GE crops in non-GE fields, for both social and economic reasons. "Farmers want the freedom to decide what crops to grow," and non-GE crops command a higher price. The committee notes that this is often happening: "many areas are successfully growing organic, non-GE, and GE crops."•    One important economic issue are trade problems. As different countries approve different GE crops at different times, trading becomes complicated. •    The report also tackles the very issue of trust. It's difficult to add up "the cost of a loss of public trust in a product."Regulation [I] The report says that regulation of GE crops should achieve "the maximum societal benefits ... at given levels of acceptable risk." The committee knows that it's difficult to achieve, because both risks and benefits vary among crops. Other issues include: •    Although the labeling issue is complex and there are strong arguments and considerable public support for labeling, the committee "does not believe that ... labeling of foods with GE content is justified to protect public health."•    "Policy regarding GE crops has scientific, legal, and social dimensions, and not all issues can be answered by science alone." The values and priorities of everyone involved have to be considered. •    "The lack of public access to the health and safety data" creates doubt in some people because "the public cannot judge for itself the quality, objectivity, and comprehensiveness of the materials submitted." The committee urges as much sharing as possible. Looking Forward [J] The report sees an important role for genetic engineering, and "the committee expects that its potential use in crop improvement in the coming decades will be substantial." Increased nutrition and a decrease in greenhouse gases are just some of the ways GE crops can improve human and environmental health and farmer well-being, it says. Match this cause with its effect according to information in the passage: the price of seed and lack of access to credit.