GMW: Alarm bells over GM food approval

[Guest guest]

GMW: Alarm bells over GM food approval: part 1

" GM WATCH " <info

Sat, 6 May 2006 14:36:30 +0100

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

EXCERPT: Animal toxicity tests often only assessed the effects of

feeding a substitute source of the GM products, not the GM plant

itself, for

just 7 to 14 days. Carman says if cigarettes were examined under the

same system they would be deemed safe. Despite this, adverse effects

have

still occasionally been found. And yet in no cases have tests been

performed on humans. These GM plants, however, all still got the

green

light from FSANZ [Food Standards Australia New Zealand].

---

Alarm bells over GM food approval: part 1

The Press, 5 May 2006

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/0,2106,3658115a12935,00.html

 

Recent developments in the approvals process for genetically

modified

foodstuffs have caused alarm with two Canterbury University [New

Zealand] researchers. They outline their concerns.

 

VICTORIA METCALF writes that large gaps exist in our understanding

of

what genetically modified foodstuffs might mean for our health.

 

[Dr Metcalf is a geneticist and affiliate of the Centre for

Integrated

Research in Biosafety, University of Canterbury.]

 

We, as consumers, take for granted that the food we eat is safe. But

is

it really?

 

We might expect that any new food product developed, particularly

genetically modified (GM) food, would go through a detailed process

of

testing similar to the United States Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)

system for pharmaceutical drugs, but it does not.

 

In a recent presentation at the University of Canterbury, Judy

Carman,

the director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research

and

a spokeswoman on GM foods for the Public Health Association of

Australia, reminded her fellow scientists what we don't know about

the safety

of GM food.

 

Food Standards Australia New Zealand, or FSANZ, is an independent

statutory authority with responsibilities to protect the health and

safety

of people from both countries.

 

However, FSANZ does none of its own safety testing on food and has a

policy that GM food is safe until it is proven to be harmful.

 

GM modified foods are regularly eaten in New Zealand, often with the

consumer unaware they are eating them.

 

Companies use a technicality that they need not declare if an

ingredient has been unintentionally contaminated below 1 per cent

(with the GM

equivalent) of each ingredient. " Unintentional " means the company

should

have tried its best to source non-GM ingredients.

 

But lapses are notoriously difficult to prove. And if a food product

contains several unintentionally contaminated ingredients, the total

amount of GM substance present in the product may be at a more than

inconsequential level.

 

A food labelled as non-GM is no guarantee that the food is GM-free.

In

Australia and New Zealand, various GM varieties of soy, canola, corn

and potato have all been approved as safe to eat by FSANZ.

 

These crops are parts of many foods, found in bread, pastries, snack

foods, fried foods, oil, confectionary, baked goods and soft drinks.

In

addition, food sold in bakeries, restaurants, takeaways, and highly

refined foods such as oil, sugars and starches do not need to have

their GM

content labelled. It is nigh on impossible to currently avoid the

consumption of GM food.

 

How do we ensure public health and safety over the consumption of GM

food? Scientists rely on a peer- review publication process to

ensure

both the accuracy of and to instil confidence in the results of

their

studies. Carman found in a review of 28 GM plants produced as

commercial

crops that their safety testing was rarely published in the peer-

reviewed

scientific literature. In fact, the information had to be extracted

from FSANZ documents.

 

In nearly all cases, the safety testing was not performed by

independent scientists as we might expect but came from the very

producers of GM

foods, such as Monsanto and Bayer.

 

What was of even more concern was the low number of tests for each

type

or variety of the GM plant.

 

For example, just two reports were submitted to cover four different

GM

soy plants, with testing not performed on all varieties.

 

In addition, low sample sizes in many of the reports reduce their

statistical validity. One report for a GM corn variety from Monsanto

stated

that it was substantially equivalent to non-GM corn despite a 44%

difference in amino acid composition. Yet this particular variety

was

declared safe for human consumption by FSANZ.

 

The types of analyses performed are also of concern. Some of the GM

plants have had animal studies performed by the companies that

produce

them, but animal feeding studies are generally not required by FSANZ.

 

Animal toxicity tests often only assessed the effects of feeding a

substitute source of the GM products, not the GM plant itself, for

just

seven to 14 days. Carman says if cigarettes were examined under the

same

system they would be deemed safe.

 

Despite this, adverse effects have still occasionally been found.

And

yet in no cases have tests been performed on humans. These GM

plants,

however, all still got the green light from FSANZ.

 

It took generations to determine that smoking was directly linked to

human diseases such as lung cancer.

 

However, is there a reason to be similarly suspicious of GM food? Is

GM

corn really any less safe than non-GM corn?

 

The answer at the moment is that we simply don't know. Very large-

scale

and broad-ranging studies are needed to determine if GM food poses a

risk to the consumer.

 

It is something of a needle in a haystack approach because

scientists

have no idea what potential adverse effects might occur.

 

Could GM foods cause cancer, skin disorders, immune disorders etc?

In

our view, better studies are needed to determine if GM food poses a

risk

to the consumer.

 

In our quest to move towards a knowledge society, we lack detailed

knowledge of potential risks that GM food may pose towards our

health.

 

While GM food may be as safe as other foods, consumers have a right

to

know about the risks through appropriate and detailed testing.

 

We know that too much fat and sugar is bad for us. It is our choice

whether we consume too much.

 

We can't make this decision with GM food because we don't even know

how

much we are eating. We are really no different to guinea pigs.

Perhaps

it is time for better food labelling and a need for enforced

policing

of food content.

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

Alarm bells over GM food approval: part 2

The Press, 5 May 2006

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/0,2106,3658117a12935,00.html

 

Recent developments in the approvals process for genetically

modified

foodstuffs have caused alarm with two Canterbury University

researchers.

They outline their concerns.

 

JACK HEINEMANN writes that plans to introduce a new genetically

modified corn to New Zealand are troubling.

 

[Jack Heinemann is an associate professor at the Centre for

Integrated

Research in Biosafety at the University of Canterbury. ]

 

A new kind of genetically modified food may be about to join you at

the

dinner table.

 

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is considering

recommending that the Food Code be changed to include a GM variety

of corn called

LY038, high lysine corn. This product differs in substantial ways

from

non-GM corn because it, at the very least, accumulates high levels

of

an amino acid called lysine, a normal constituent of protein. While

the

lysine concentration is not above that found in other foods, such as

red meat, eggs and cheese, it is about 50 per cent above the normal

concentration of lysine found in non-GM corn. And the level of free

lysine –

that not incorporated into protein – is 50 times greater than that

found in ordinary corn.

 

It is not the absolute amount of lysine that is concerning here, but

the unusually high concentration of lysine in the same place as all

the

sugars that are found in corn.

 

Lysine as an amino acid or as a normal component of protein can

react

with sugars to form what are called advanced glycoxidation end-

products

(AGEs). Dietary AGEs have been implicated in causing symptoms of

Alzheimer's disease, diabetes (and related autoimmunity), kidney

disease and

with ageing. In Western societies, these diseases are more

frequently

called epidemics.

 

While AGE content is a general concern of food safety, doubling the

concentration of lysine in the corn we eat should be viewed with

particular concern, at least until detrimental AGE effects can be

ruled out.

 

AGE content increases in foods stored for long periods, as well as

in

cooked or processed foods. For example, infant formula, which often

contains corn, also has higher concentrations of AGEs than human or

cow

milk. AGEs are found at higher concentrations in cereals relative to

raw

grains, because cereals are produced by a high temperature and

pressure

process.

 

High lysine corn in place of non-GM corn well might increase the AGE

content of these and other foods.

 

New studies demonstrate that AGEs may also cause allergic reactions,

which are increasingly common health complaints. The incidence of

coeliac

disease, an allergic reaction to components of wheat, barley, rye

and

oats, is estimated at 1 in 300. Studies in Australia and New Zealand

have confirmed equal or greater rates in local populations; adult

prevalence is as high as 1 in 83 in the Christchurch area.

 

Another danger for coeliac sufferers would develop if they became

sensitised to AGEs in high-lysine corn that made them allergic to

all corn,

effectively removing this important food source from their already

limited diets. The special dietary requirements of this large

section of

the population reaffirm the importance of carefully screening the

introduction of new ingredients into the food supply.

 

While vegetable sources probably contribute the least amount of AGE

content in the diet, high-lysine corn has the potential to boost

exposure

from all foods that have a corn component, including many foods that

are heated or processed at high temperatures. Like us, FSANZ

believes

that high-lysine corn is significantly different from non-GM corn.

But it

disagrees that a study of AGEs produced when high-lysine corn is

cooked

is necessary before amending our Food Code for a product that may

increase the AGE content in processed foods and infant formula.

 

International agencies for food safety seem to side with us. The

Codex

Alimentarius Commission of the UN World Health Organisation and Food

and Agriculture Organisation says: " The potential effects of food

processing, including home preparation, on foods derived from

recombinant- DNA

plants should also be considered (in a safety assessment. "

 

But no such study has been requested by FSANZ. Instead, they have

accepted a study in which whole raw product was fed to chickens and

allude

to a secret study using rats. When was the last time you ate raw

corn?

 

On May 3, your opportunity to comment to FSANZ about their

recommendation to amend the Food Code ended. If you share our

concerns, consider

contacting the Minister for Food Safety, Annette King, who has a

seat on

the ministerial council. They will accept or reject the FSANZ

recommendation. For more information on high-lysine corn, visit our

website

(www.inbi.canterbury.ac.nz).