Michael Meacher: Are GM crops safe?

[Guest guest]

Michael Meacher: Are GM crops safe? Who can say? Not Blair

 

The Independent (UK)

22 June 2003

 

At Prime Minister's Questions in the Commons last Wednesday Tony Blair

stated that "it is important for the whole debate [on genetic modification]

to be conducted on the basis of scientific evidence, not on the basis of

prejudice".

 

Exactly so. But what does the science actually indicate? Not, I think, what

he appears to believe.

 

A public debate is now taking place before the Government decides later this

year whether to allow food from GM crops to go on sale commercially. Blair's contribution has been to emphasise the importance of the biotech

industry to the UK.

 

Contrary to the assurances of the biotech companies that genetic engineering

is precise and simply extends traditional breeding techniques, it is

actually quite different. When genetic crops are engineered, the gene is

inserted randomly, out of a sequence that has evolved over hundreds of

millions of years.

 

But genes don't operate in isolation; they interact with each other. Genetic

engineers have assumed that each gene has one function, but the recent

discovery that human beings have only some 30,000 genes to produce the

quarter of a million proteins in the human body shows that this premise was

wrong. Most genes are multi-functional. It is not known how to determine

artificially a single function of a gene without triggering other

unpredicted and undesired effects.

 

The random position and lack of control of the gene's functions could change

any character of the plant and might not be evident immediately. One example

is the increased lignin in GM soya which only became apparent in hot weather

when the stems began to split. In the United States there are already many

examples of undesired effects only being identified after approval had been

given - again one example is GM cotton where the cotton boils became

deformed.

 

Another problem is that genetic engineers usually introduce other material -

viruses or bacteria - into the plant which have the role of inserting the

gene, activating it, and identifying where transfers have been successful.

Viruses in particular are good at inserting their genetic material into

other organisms. But that opens up the risk of "horizontal gene transfer"

whereby genes transfer out of the genetically modified organism (GMO) and

into other organisms. But we don't know how frequently or intensively this

might occur, or what the safety implications might be.

 

GM technology also often involves producing novel substances which may cause

allergic reactions. If such substances are used in food, consumers may quite

often be exposed to this risk. It was recently found, for example, that a GM

soya with a brazil nut gene could cause allergic reactions.

 

A further health risk is that creating herbicide (weedkiller) resistant

plants allows the application of much more toxic herbicides to the growing

plants. People therefore become exposed to more toxic residues than

previously. In the recent case of the GM forage maize, Chardon LL, the

herbicide used was glufosinate, a neurotoxin and a teratogen (ie it damages

embryos). What is particularly worrying is that there seems to be a 10 per

cent reconversion rate of the degraded herbicide back to the original toxic

form in the gut.

 

Given that there is so much uncertainty, it might be expected that there

would be routine testing of GMOs for healthy effects as a legal requirement.

This applies to new pharmaceutical drugs which are subjected to lengthy

trials so that all side-effects can be uncovered. However, whilst it is

often claimed that all GMOs have been "rigorously tested", all that this

testing amounts to is deciding whether a GM crop is similar in terms of its

composition to the non-GM plant. This is justified under the rubric of

"substantial equivalence", which was originally a marketing term, and is

scientifically vacuous. It wholly misses the point that health concerns are

focused, not on known compounds, but on the effects of the GM technology

which are unpredictable.

 

It is really extraordinary that there have so far been virtually no

independent studies of the health effects of GM. What there is has mostly

been done by the companies themselves. We are constantly told that there is

no evidence of any greater health risk from a GM crop than from its non-GM

counterpart. What is not added is that there have been no health checks to

find out. Indeed, the only Government-sponsored work ever carried on the

health impacts of GMOs was Dr Pusztai's work on rats and GM potatoes, and

then, when it found negative effects, it was widely rubbished in government

circles, even though his paper had been peer-reviewed six times before

publication.

 

These uncertainties have been acknowledged by some of the leading UK

institutions. The Royal Society, in its reports last year, said that the

potential health effects of GM foods should be rigorously investigated

before allowing them into baby food or to be marketed to pregnant or

breast-feeding women, elderly people, and those with chronic disease. This

was because GM "could lead to unpredicted harmful changes in the nutritional

state of foods".

 

Any baby food containing GM products could lead to a dramatic rise in

allergies, and unexpected shifts in oestrogen levels in GM soya-based infant

feed might affect sexual development in children. Infants, the report said,

are very vulnerable because they have such a narrow diet. If there were any

nutritional deficiencies in their food, such as fewer fatty acids, their

health would suffer, especially the infant bowel function since even small

nutritional changes could cause bowel obstruction.

 

Similarly, the only human GM trial, commissioned ironically by the Food

Standards Agency, found that GM DNA did in fact transfer to bacteria in the

human gut. Previously many scientists had denied that this was possible. But

instead of this finding being regarded as a serious discovery which should

be checked and re-checked, the spin was that this was nothing new and did

not involve any health risk - a Nelsonian putting the telescope to the blind

eye if ever there was one.

 

A recent BMA report noted that "any conclusion upon the safety of

introducing GM materials into the UK is premature as there is insufficient

evidence to inform the decision-making process at the moment". In their

report to the Scottish Parliament six months ago, the BMA stated that "there

has not yet been a robust and thorough search into the potentially harmful

effects of GM foodstuffs on human health... In the UK not enough is known to

enable us to give an accurate risk of assessment of the health impact of GM

crops on the health of local communities".

 

Equally, a recent report from the General Medical Council stated that GM

could switch on "silent" genes whose effects we know little about or know to

be toxic. They also noted that GM elements in food might be taken up by

bacteria in the gut, and this could alter the balance of bacteria in the

gut, leading to possible instability or further modification of GM food in

later generations. Their conclusion was that more knowledge was needed of

the effects of GM on metabolism, organ development, immune and endocrine

systems, and gut flora.

 

Finally, it is often claimed by the biotech companies that there have been

millions of people consuming GM foods over several years in the US, but

without any ill-effects. However, there have actually been no

epidemiological studies to support this claim. What is known is that

coinciding with the introduction of GMOs in food in the US, food-derived

illnesses are believed by the official US Centres for Disease Control to

have doubled over the past seven years. And there are many reports of a rise

in allergies - indeed a 50 per cent increase in soya allergies has been

reported in the UK since imports of GM soya began. None of this of course

proves the connection with GM, but it certainly suggests an urgent need for

further investigation of this possible link. Typically, however, this has

not been forthcoming.

 

As the Prime Minister said, we should act on the basis of science, not

prejudice. Quite so. But since the science is still clouded with such deep

uncertainty, that means deferring decisions till the science is clear and

reliable, not rushing to desired conclusions which cannot be scientifically

supported.

 

Michael Meacher MP was, until the recent government reshuffle, Minister for

the Environment