News | July '07 | Iffy science
Over the past five years, the European Union (EU) has put in place a system to regulate the marketing and production of GM foods, feed and crops.
The EU authorisation procedure is intended to ensure that only genetically modified organisms (GMOs) which are safe for human and animals consumption and for release into the environment can be placed on the European market.
EU rules also ensure clear labeling to allow consumers and farmers to choose whether or not to buy GM, and rules to ensure traceability at any stage of use.
The European Commission (EC) has long been under pressure from reluctant member states and environmental groups to reject GMOs and, at the same time, from GM-producing biotech companies, nations and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to approve them. The result is that it is trying to please both sides.
In April 2006 the Commission approved measures to improve the scientific consistency and transparency in decisions on allowing GM food and feed access to the European market.
It was proposed that, in the scientific evaluation phase, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) will “liaise more fully with national scientific bodies” to resolve divergent opinions. The EFSA will be asked to provide a more detailed justification in its opinions, and address explicitly the potential long-term effects and and biodiversity issues, besides clarifying the necessary protocols to be followed to demonstrate safety.
So far, so good, and long overdue. However, is the reality matching the intention? Judge for yourself.
A re-examination of the data supplied by Monsanto to the EFSA in support of an application to market a GM maize has raised doubts about both the safety of the crop and about the checking procedures used in the EU.
After obtaining raw data, the French research institute, CRIIGEN, re-analysed the results of a standard 90-day rat feeding trial. The maize fed to the test rats was NK603, engineered for herbicide tolerance.
CRIIGEN highlighted 60 significant differences between the test and control rats, including kidney, brain, liver and heart function, and body weight differences.
These all suggested possible toxicity, but every one had been dismissed by Monsanto and the regulatory committees as “not of biological significance”
(This term is commonly employed in the biotech world: it is undefined and has no scientific meaning).
As one CRIIGEN professor pointed out: “Further testing should always be carried out if the analyses of the data do not result in a clear outcome.”
This is the second such case in the last year. An earlier re-examination of Monsanto's 'safety' data on another GM maize, insect-resistant MON 863, revealed indications of liver and kidney toxicity in rats. These data were also accepted by the EFSA.
OUR COMMENT
The biotech industry and EU regulators are failing to follow normal scientific protocol: this requires that the trials be repeated and refined if results are unclear, and that statistics are used to judge whether observed differences are meaningful or not. Besides these failures, a more serious failure is evident: safety testing is not being taken seriously.
These two maize crops had been transformed with very different genes: the gene inserted in one was to neutralise a chemical weedkiller and that in the other produced an insect toxin. The indication is that it is the genetic transformation itself which is inducing toxic effects, not the foreign gene itself, nor the gene-product. This was also the conclusion reached by Dr. Arpad Pusztai during his more carefully designed feeding studies on rats fed GM potatoes: a conclusion which led him to talk urgently about his findings.
If the biotech industry can get these questionable GM maize strains past our regulators by re-inventing science, and onto our plates by feeding them to uncomplaining consumers (so far, mainly animals), be assured it has a host of new GM tricks up its sleeve to win the doubters over to its side. What consumer will be able to resist the promise of GM veg 'enhanced' with antioxidants and omega-3 fatty acids? What ethical consumer could withhold protein-rich cotton seeds to feed the starving of the Third World just because their natural production of toxins had been suppressed by genetic transformation?
Unfortunately, if the transformation process itself is generating toxic food, all the nutritional 'improvements' in the world will not make GM food fit to be eaten.
Iffy scientific methodology can only generate iffy data. Iffy data is useless because it can be used to justify any opinion. This, in turn, can only lead to divergent scientific views. Divergent views should be used to prevent industry from proceeding with a GM development (i.e. the precautionary principle) until the causes of the disagreement have been fully and scientifically investigated (not just re-read). They certainly should not be used to sanction products just because agreement can't be reached. Protocols need to be more than 'clarified' and consistent, they must also be refined and robust enough to reveal long term safety problems.
Demand the obvious: safety testing of GM foods must be openly continued and refined until unambiguous results are obtained, fully supported by statistics and independently peer reviewed.
SOURCES
- www.ens-newswire.com 12.04.06
- Greenpeace 15.06.07
- www.nutraingredients-usa.com 3.03.07
- www.timesonline.co.uk 19.11.06