GM SAFETY TESTS 'FLAWED' NEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER SHOWS

[Guest guest]

GM safety tests 'flawed' - new scientific paper

Wednesday 17 November 2004 9:28

Clare Oxborrow clareo

 

Immediate Release: Tuesday 16 November 2004

 

GM SAFETY TESTS 'FLAWED' NEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER SHOWS

EU approval of Monsanto GM corn questioned

 

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 maize (chiefly the MON810 variety of biotech

giant Monsanto), 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 maize varieties derived

from MON810, a move that was criticized by a number of EU states

including Poland, Austria, Italy, Germany, Greece and Denmark [2].

 

Friends of the Earth has also raised concerns with UK Environment

Secretary, Margaret Beckett about the prospects of Monsanto's GM maize

being grown in the UK. The British Government has assured the public

that GM crops would only be grown in Britain following rigorous testing

and under tough controls. But unless the Government takes preventative

action, Monsanto's GM maize (MON810) could be grown in the UK by farmers

as early as next spring [3].

 

The scientific paper reveals fundamental flaws in how biotech companies

test GM crops, and the way the U.S. government regulates them. The paper

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 and William Freese base their meticulously

documented, 25-page paper on nearly 100 sources, including little-known

U.S. regulatory documents and unpublished studies by biotech companies

[4].

 

" 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 Dr David Schubert.

 

William Freese said: " 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 soya and GM

maize 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.

 

Friends of the Earth's GM campaigner, Clare Oxborrow, said:

" This paper undermines claims that GM foods are well tested and well

regulated in the United States, and raises serious question marks over

the safety of GM products that the European Commission is forcing onto

the market. The Commission must put the safety of people and the

environment ahead of the profits of biotech firms and refuse to licence

any new GM food or crops. "

 

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

 

NOTES TO EDITORS:

 

[1] The report 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 & refere

r=%2Fgb%2Fdetail.asp%3Faction%3Dcurrent). A copy can be obtained from

Friends

of the Earth.

 

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

a number of countries voiced their concerns

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

 

[3] Friends of the Earth's letter to Margaret Beckett is available from

Clare Oxborrow - 020 7566 1716.

 

[4] 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.

 

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

responsibility for GM plants that produce insecticides.

 

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

 

----------------------