GM FOOD SAFETY RESEARCH - Why has it not taken place?

[Guest guest]

GMW: GM FOOD SAFETY RESEARCH - Why has it not taken place?

" GM WATCH " <info

Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:20:56 +0100

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

Below is a letter from Robert Vint to Prof Mike Gasson from early

December 2004, querying " the almost total absence of long-term,

independent,

published, peer-reviewed studies of the effects of feeding GM foods to

humans or animals. "

 

Robert writes, " I received a reply on 13th June. It came after 2

reminders from me, 2 from my MP (Anthony Steen, Totnes) and the threat

of a

PQ [Parliamentary Question] asking why there was no reply. [in his reply

Gasson's] ...basically trying to argue the case against the one kind of

trial that could prove dangers or identify unsuspected or generic

problems with GM foods. "

 

Professor Gasson is Head of Food Safety Science at the Institute of

Food Research, a member of the Government's Advisory Committee on the

Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF) and since September 2003 he has

been

Chair of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP).

He also served on the UK Government's GM science review panel. Gasson is

also a member of the European Food Safety Authority's GMO Panel.

 

Gasson is a consultant to Danisco Venture - a venture capital company

that invests in biotechnology companies. It is also part of Danisco,

which together with Monsanto wants to market GM fodder beet in the EU. He

also has shares in Novacta – a pharmaceutical and biotechnology

company. Friends of the Earth Europe has questioned

whether scientists like Gasson who have financial links to biotech

companies should be participating in the decisions being made about GM

foods. (Throwing caution to the wind)

http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/publications/EFSAreport.pdf

 

For more on Gasson: http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=176 & page=G

------

1.GM FOOD SAFETY RESEARCH - Why has it not taken place?

 

GENETIC FOOD ALERT

A Campaign of the UK Wholefood Trade

Hope House, 75a High Street, Totnes TQ9 5PB

 

6th December 2004

 

Dear Professor Gasson,

 

GM FOOD SAFETY RESEARCH - Why has it not taken place?

 

As I was unfortunately unable to participate in the recent ACNFP open

day I hope that I can address in writing the matter that I had hoped to

raise on that occasion.

 

Browsing through the latest three editions of the British Journal of

Nutrition I found quite a few feeding studies assessing the effects of

whole foods on animals (usually without harming them) or on human

volunteers. One looked at the effects of Jarlsberg cheese on blood serum

levels in 22 human volunteers. Another assessed the effects of a new

barley

variety on cholesterol levels in pigs. A third looked at the effect of

Camembert cheese on intestinal microbiota in rats. A fourth compared

the effects of whole milk and fermented milk on eight human volunteers.

A fifth investigated effects of sesame oil on rats. A sixth assessed

the effects of pearl barley on starch digestion in piglets.

 

The latest edition of the (American) Journal of Nutrition likewise

reports on the effects of the Traditional Mediterranean Diet on

Obesity in

a Spanish Population - involving over 3000 human volunteers. Also

covered are the results of a three year study of the effects of an

Ovo-Lacto

Vegetarian Diet on pregnant women (involving over 100 volunteers). Also

assessed were the effects of olive oil on men, raw peas on pigs, Soy

Protein Isolate on rats and Flaxseed Protects on rabbits.

 

In the archives of both publications there are a vast number of such

reports. As all these studies are published in academic journals they

will have been peer reviewed and they are all available to the public and

the scientific community for further independent evaluation. It is

clear that professional nutritionists assess the long and short term

effects of a wide variety of whole foods in this manner as a matter of

course.

 

The safety of GM foods and the possible long-term effects on both

humans and farm animals of eating them has been, as you will know only

too

well aware, a burning issue since late 1998 - the date of the " Pusztai

Case " . For the last five years over 200 non-governmental organisations,

under the umbrella of the Five Year Freeze alliance, have been

demanding a moratorium on GM foods until they have been demonstrated

to be safe

beyond reasonable doubt. Virtually the entire population of Europe has

chosen not to eat such foods whilst such uncertainty remains. The

entire insurance industry has failed to obtain access to reassuring

research

data and so have advised their members to add exclusion clauses to

avoid liability for any health effects of GM foods. The European food

industry has decided not to use such ingredients. None of them want to

know

about gene expression or substantial equivalence, they want to know

what happens when you eat the stuff year on year.

 

And yet survey after survey continues to confirm the almost total

absence of long-term, independent, published, peer-reviewed studies of

the

effects of feeding GM foods to humans or animals. Major publications

such as Science, Nature and the Lancet have reached similar conclusions,

as has the Royal Society of Canada, a committee of Irish GPs and the

EU-US Biotechnology Consultative Forum. I'm interested to find out why

this research has not taken place.

 

One claim is that such research is unnecessary. It is claimed that US

citizens have eaten GM crops for years without any effect. Yet during

this period many health problems have increased in the USA (including

soya and maize allergies) and these have cost the US medical service

dearly. There has been no attempt to find out whether these correlate

in any

way with GM food consumption. There has been no post-release monitoring

of the population. No coroner or doctor is in a position to record any

symptoms, even death, as resulting from GM foods because no-one knows

what symptoms there could be. Whether or not the products are safe they

are being rejected by consumers and food manufacturers. Surely the

economic impact of this alone indicates the necessity of such research.

 

Another claim is that such research is expensive - but surely the food

manufacturers and importers and the major insurance companies can

afford to pay for independent research that could open up an entire new

market to them? After all, the examples of research that I have listed

above would not appear to be especially expensive. And how much will it

cost the economy if we make the wrong decisions in the absence of such

research?

 

Another claim (made verbally by GM industry lobbyists) is that such

research would be 'Luddite' and 'anti-science' because it would slow or

obstruct the introduction of food and crop biotechnology. Make of that

claim what you wish! I for one am pro-science in the sense that I would

like more rigorous safety research, not less.

 

Yet another claim is that no-one is interested in carrying out or

publishing such research - yet it has been by far the most significant

food

controversy of the last decade. The UK Government was certainly

interested enough at one point to employ Dr Pusztai to carry out its

official

feeding studies. At that time the Government felt that such long-term

whole food feeding studies were possible, necessary and affordable. Why

does the Government no longer think this?

 

At the time Dr Pusztai was sacked, silenced and publicly disgraced, a

key argument used by the Government was that research was not valid

until it was published and peer-reviewed (I refer to the time before Dr

Pusztai had the research peer-reviewed and published in the Lancet,

despite threats to the editor). Does this not strengthen the case for

ensuring that the public and consumer groups, the food manufacturers and

insurers have direct access to published and peer-reviewed feeding

studies

to provide reassurance? Yet the reality seems to be that the sacking of

Dr Pusztai marks the final end of public GM safety research in the UK.

The Government terminated the research programme, decided not to repeat

or improve Dr Pusztai's experiments and has never since commissioned

any such research.

 

Not only has such Government research been terminated but independent

scientists wishing to carry out such research have been made to

understand that their department or institute may lose funding if they

are

involved in 'irresponsible' research. Scientists have been denied

access to

the GM crop varieties and null cassette isotopes. Of the very few

published papers on GM food safety that we have been able to identify,

half

were industry-funded and reported negative results, the other half were

independent and all raised safety concerns. All the scientists raising

concerns have subsequently been subjected to campaigns of intimidation

or ridicule. The only two independent scientists on the Government's GM

Science Review panel, Dr Andrew Stirling and Professor Carlo Leifert,

were likewise threatened as a result of raising their concerns.

 

The two hundred or more organisations in the Five Year Freeze alliance

have demanded a moratorium on GM foods until adequate research has been

published to confirm its safety beyond resaonable doubt. My impression

- and it is a widespread impression - is that the UK government and the

biotech industry has instead decided that there will be a moratorium on

the safety research until the products are on the shelves.

 

We would welcome reassurance that the ACNFP and related bodies are not

trying to hide the facts and that such research will be published -

because it must now be clear to you that there is no hope of these

products ever being sold in Europe in the absence of public access to

this

data.

 

Yours sincerely,

Robert Vint,

------

2.The reply

 

13 June 2005

 

Dear Mr Vint

 

GM FOOD SAFETY RESEARCH

 

Thank you for your letter of 6 December regarding the use of animal

studies in the safety assessment of GM foods. As described previously by

the ACNFP Secretariat, your letter was discussed by the Committee at its

meeting on 26 January. I apologise for the lengthy delay in replying to

you. This was due to an oversight by the Committee Secretariat, coupled

with the fact that staff in the relevant part of the Food Standards

Agency were diverted to deal with other urgent food safety incidents.

 

In your letter you questioned why research on the safety of GM food has

not been carried out on humans and animals, referring to a number of

recent papers published in the British Journal of Nutrition and in the

Journal of Nutrition reporting the effects of whole foods in animal

feeding studies and in human studies.

 

In January, Committee members noted that feeding trials are an

important tool under specific circumstances but re-iterated that there

is no

scientific justification for insisting that novel foods (including GM

foods) should routinely be tested in this way. In some cases, feeding

trials are in fact carried out in laboratory or farm animals by the

company

that has developed a GM crop. These are normally designed to test the

precise nutritional qualities of the crop (eg maize grain) when used as

a major part of an animal's diet, as small differences in feed

efficiency can be of considerable economic importance to the animal feed

industry. The Committee's view is that these studies may provide some

limited

confirmation that that foods derived from these crops are not overtly

toxic, but they do not provide evidence of safety.

 

The papers highlighted in your letter reported on studies that were

conducted to test specific hypotheses concerning the effects of the

relevant foods and food ingredients. It would be reasonable to conduct

similar studies in the case where a novel or GM food is plausibly

anticipated

to have a specific biochemical effect that is relevant to human health.

 

It has been accepted since the earliest discussions on testing of

'whole' foods that feeding trials with novel and GM foods are not a

practical way of gathering evidence of their general safety. Instead, the

safety evaluation focuses on detailed examination of the observed

differences between the novel or GM food and its existing counterparts

- for

example by isolating novel constituents and testing them at high doses in

animal models.

 

This approach has been confirmed at various times following reviews of

the procedures for safety assessment of novel or GM foods. You may be

interested to know that the value of animal feeding trials is currently

being re-examined by the GMO Panel of the European Food Safety

Authority, which is now responsible for GM food safety assessments in the

European Union.

 

The ACNFP is not able to comment on other issues raised in your letter,

such as the reference to campaigns to intimidate or ridicule scientists

who have raised concerns over the safety of GM food or the suggestion

that the Government has decided on a moratorium on safety research until

GM foods are on the shelves,

 

Yours sincerely,

Mike Gasson

 

 

 

 

 

 

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