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)
For more on Gasson: http://www.lobbywatch.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.
Go to a Print friendly Page
Email this Article to a Friend
Back to the Archive