GM CROP SAFETY TESTS 'FLAWED', NEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER SHOWS

[Guest guest]

GM CROP SAFETY TESTS 'FLAWED', NEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER SHOWS

" GM WATCH " <info

 

Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:59:39 GMT

 

GM CROP SAFETY TESTS 'FLAWED', NEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER SHOWS

http://www.gmwatch.org

-----

" This paper blows a hole in the myth that GM foods are well tested and

well regulated in the United States. It also raises serious question

marks over the safety of genetically modified foods that the European

Commission is forcing onto the market. "

------

GM CROP SAFETY TESTS 'FLAWED', NEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER SHOWS

EU Approval of Monsanto's GM Corn Questioned

 

Brussels, November 16, 2004 – A peer-reviewed scientific paper

published today in Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews

debunks the

myth that genetically modified (GM) crops are thoroughly tested,

regulated and proven safe.

 

The paper, " Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered

Foods " [1], includes a comprehensive case study of two types of

insecticide-producing GM corn (chiefly the MON810 variety of biotech

giant

Monsanto Co.), showing how flawed testing and regulation permitted these

varieties onto world markets despite evidence that they could cause food

allergies. The European Commission recently approved 17 corn hybrids

derived from MON810. A number of countries including Poland, Austria,

Italy, Germany, Greece and Denmark have recently criticised the

Commissions

approval of the corn. [2]

 

The scientific paper reveals fundamental flaws in how biotech companies

test and the U.S. government regulates GM crops. The paper thus raises

serious questions about whether GM foods, which have been on the market

since 1994, are in fact safe, as claimed by the biotech industry and

U.S. regulators.

 

Authors Dr. David Schubert (cell biologist and medical researcher at

California's Salk Institute) and William Freese (research analyst with

Friends of the Earth U.S) base their meticulously documented, 25-page

paper on nearly 100 sources, including little-known U.S. regulatory

documents and unpublished studies by biotech companies. [3]

 

" One thing that surprised us is that U.S. regulators rely almost

exclusively on information provided by the biotech crop developer, and

those

data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review, " said

co-author Schubert.

 

Added Freese: " In one case, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ignored a published study by an Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

scientist suggesting that GM corn could cause food allergies, and instead

asked Monsanto and Syngenta to essentially re-do FDA's analysis. "

 

The US is the world's largest exporter of GM crops and accounts for

nearly two-thirds of all biotech crops planted globally. GM soy and GM

corn account for 83 percent of all GM crops planted on the planet.

 

" The picture that emerges from our study of U.S. regulation of GM foods

is a rubber-stamp `approval process' designed to increase public

confidence in, but not ensure the safety of, genetically engineered

foods, "

said Schubert. " We outline a testing scheme that would be a first step

toward putting regulation of GM foods on a scientific footing, " he

added.

 

Geert Ritsema of Friends of the Earth Europe said: " This paper blows a

hole in the myth that GM foods are well tested and well regulated in

the United States. It also raises serious question marks over the safety

of genetically modified foods that the European Commission is forcing

onto the market. "

 

See " Key Findings " below for more information on the paper,

 

NOTES TO EDITORS:

 

[1] E-mail one of the contacts above for a copy of the article, which

forms part of Volume 21 of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews

(http://www.intercept.co.uk/gb/not.asp?id=RS6LS3L6S6ROFD & rec=oui & pos=0 & referer=%\

2Fgb%2Fdetail.asp%3Faction%3Dcurrent).

 

[2] At the Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting on 18 october 2004

a number of countries voiced their concerns

ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/agricult/82235.pdf

 

[2] About the authors:

David Schubert, Ph.D is on the faculty of the Salk Institute of

Biological Studies in San Diego, California, where he is head of the

Cellular

Neurobiology Laboratory. He has a B.A. in chemistry and a Ph.D. in

cell biology. Dr. Schubert's fields of scientific expertise are

molecular

genetics, cell biology, and protein chemistry. He has published over

200 reviewed manuscripts in these areas and has written and lectured on

the potential health hazards associated with genetically modified

crops.

William Freese has worked as research analyst with Friends of the Earth

since July 2000. He was part of the team that discovered GM StarLink

corn, unapproved for human consumption, in the food supply. He has

helped inform the public and the food industry about the irresponsible

practice of " biopharming " (www.foe.org/biopharm), and has written and

lectured on many aspects of GM crops and their regulation. Freese has a

B.A. in chemistry from Grinnell College.

 

[3] In the U.S. regulatory system, the EPA, not the FDA, has primary

responsibility for GM plants that produce insecticides.

 

CONTACT INFORMATION:

 

David Schubert (co-author) in California: +01 858-453-4100 ext. 1528;

e-mail: schubert

 

William Freese (co-author) in Washington, DC: +01 301-985-3011; e-mail:

billfreese

 

Geert Ritsema, Friends of the Earth Europe, Brussels (Belgium),

+31-6-29005908; e-mail: geert.ritsema

 

Juan Lopez, Friends of the Earth International, London (UK),

+39-333-1498049; e-mail: juan.lopez

 

Clare Oxborrow, Friends of the Earth in London (UK), +44-20-75661716;

e-mail: media

 

Key Findings

" Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods "

By William Freese & David Schubert

 

Deficiencies in U.S. government regulation:

* The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require testing

of GM foods, but rather has a " voluntary consultation " process.

Companies that voluntarily consult with the FDA sometimes fail to

respond to

FDA requests for additional information. FDA reviews " summary data, "

not full studies, making a critical review impossible. FDA does not

approve GM crops as safe; instead, the GM crop developer is made

responsible for the safety of its product.

* The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates

insecticide-producing GM plants. EPA often fails to collect data for

review of

potential human health impacts and accepts substandard testing by biotech

companies. EPA has ignored evidence from independent researchers that

conflicts with company-provided information. EPA raises the maximum

permissible levels of herbicide residues on crops to facilitate

introduction of herbicide-tolerant GM crops.

* The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) has not established rigorous

rules to prevent GM crops from contaminating conventional crops, even

when

the contamination could lead to creation of difficult to control

" superweeds. " USDA permits cultivation of GM pharmaceutical crops,

despite

two contamination incidents necessitating destruction of large

quantities of corn and soybeans. The USDA does not test neighboring

fields for

GM contamination or require companies to supply test kits.

 

Flaws in biotech company testing practices:

* The use of surrogate GM proteins for testing rather than the GM

plant-produced proteins that people actually consume

* The failure of companies to test for most possible unintended effects

of the unpredictable genetic engineering process; in particular, there

is a lack of long-term animal feeding studies

* The tendency of companies to manipulate test conditions to get the

desired results, facilitated by the failure of regulatory agencies to

establish test protocols

 

Case study of GM corn:

* Evidence that insecticide-producing GM corn may cause food allergies

has been ignored by the EPA

* Increased lignin levels in some GM corn varieties was not detected

before commercial sale and has still not been explained (lignin is the

woody substance in stalks)

* FDA has fundamentally flawed molecular information on Monsanto's

MON810 corn, reflecting the weakness of its voluntary consultation process

 

Outline of science-based testing scheme:

* Long-term animal feeding trials with the whole GE crop to test for

carcinogenic, reproductive and other adverse effects

* Test for potential of GM crop compounds to cause mutations

* Test for full range of unintended effects with metabolic profiling

* Test for allergenic potential according to strict, internationally

accepted protocol

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------