An official report on the safety of GM crops is expected Monday from a Government-appointed Science Review Panel (SRP) dominated by fervent supporters of GM.
The SRP not only includes scientists with financial links to the biotech industry but scientists directly employed by the industry, like Dr Andrew Cockburn of Monsanto UK.
Cockburn's published views on GM crops - that they "are as safe and nutritious as those derived from traditional crops" and that there is no evidence from current production and consumption of GM crops to contradict this - seems to chime in perfectly with the views expressed in the report.
According to The Times, the report says there is "no evidence of harmful health effects" from GM crops - "GM foods are as safe as conventional versions, with no evidence of harmful health effects from any product available worldwide" (item 2). And the BBC reports it as saying "there had been no proven harmful health impacts worldwide". (item 1)
That's hardly surprising. As the BBC notes, "A problem for the panel has been the relative lack of relevant science to review." (item 1)
And as Gundula Azeez comments (item 1), "Without more independent studies, all we have at the moment is an unproven hypothesis that GM foods are safe."
"Globally, there've been only 10 published studies of the health effects of GM food and feed. Five, done in collaboration with biotechnology companies, found no negative effects on body organs.
"The other five were independent, and four of those found potentially negative changes which have not been explained."
As Dr Chuck Benbrook commented at a recent international conference, "Many scientific societies... have been asked to look at the issue of GM food safety. When asked if there is evidence of harm, the answer is generally cautiously reassuring. Unfortunately, most reviews do not delve more deeply into the unresolved issues of food safety. The lack of pertinent data to review is one major reason why."
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1044
1.GM science review answers few questions - BBC
2.Eating GM foods will not harm you, says official report - Times
---
1.GM science review answers few questions
By Alex Kirby, BBC News Online environment correspondent
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3077491.stm
The long and bitter controversy in the UK over genetically-modified (GM) crops is coming to a head.
A government report last week concluded they offered poor economic prospects, because of popular opposition.
The public debate organised by the government has ended, and is expected to echo that scepticism.
And a government review of GM science, to be published on 21 July, is unlikely to provide any clear answers.
The review was led by Professor Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, working with Professor Howard Dalton, chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
Up to the wire
It was set up to look at the state of scientific knowledge, the areas of agreement, and the uncertainties, and has covered three main areas:
*human health implications
*gene flow to other crops and to wild relatives of the species planted
*environmental impacts.
Reaching agreement has proved difficult. Final comments from panel members were still coming in four days before publication, leaving the printers only the weekend to complete the job.
Even when members agreed on the science itself, they often took different views of how widely applicable it was, provoking "robust discussions".
Professor King's suggestion that the review will provide "neither a green nor a red light for GM crops" looks likely to be borne out.
Some campaign groups expect it to come down on the side of caution.
Gundula Azeez, of the Soil Association, told BBC News Online: "The review will provide more recognition of the uncertainties than we've had so far.
"Globally, there've been only 10 published studies of the health effects of GM food and feed. Five, done in collaboration with biotechnology companies, found no negative effects on body organs.
"The other five were independent, and four of those found potentially negative changes which have not been explained.
"Without more independent studies, all we have at the moment is an unproven hypothesis that GM foods are safe."
Appetite undimmed
But the review's section on human health is expected to say there is little if any cause for concern.
One scientist who has seen a draft told BBC News Online: "It certainly won't put me off eating GM food."
It said there had been no proven harmful health impacts worldwide, either nutritionally or in terms of toxicity.
The review is expected to say GM technology is as predictable and reliable as other crop-breeding methods, and that there is no evidence GM plants lead to the emergence of "superweeds".
And while it does highlight the remaining uncertainties, it is thought to conclude that those are not enough to stop the government deciding whether or not GM crops can be grown commercially.
Second bite
A problem for the panel has been the relative lack of relevant science to review. There is a feeling that, in a sense, there is nothing radically new for the panel to say.
One particular gap is the absence so far of any results from the farm-scale evaluations , a three-year trial programme to study the effects of herbicide-tolerant GM crops on farmland wildlife.
Three crops are involved: oilseed rape, beet and maize. The first results of the trials are expected to be published in September.
So Professor King and his panel will publish a second report later in the autumn, incorporating comments on the trial results as well as on the outcome of the public debate.
---
2. Eating GM foods will not harm you, says official report
By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-750156,00.html
The Times, July 19, 2003
THE risk to human health from genetically modified crops is 'very low', an expert panel appointed by the Government will rule on Monday.
The GM Science Review has concluded that GM foods are as safe as conventional versions, with no evidence of harmful health effects from any product available worldwide, The Times can reveal.
Environmental risks from the technology are also very limited, with the first varieties proposed for cultivation in Britain being 'very unlikely to invade our countryside or become problematic plants'.
The findings will be welcomed by ministers, who are keen to approve the commercial planting of GM crops later this year.
The panel of 24 scientists stops short, however, of giving the all clear on safety or environmental issues, noting that scientific uncertainties remain.
An absence of health effects does not mean that they can be ruled out, though the likelihood of this is slight. 'On balance, we conclude that the risks to human health are very low from GM crops currently on the market,' the report says. The full impact on biodiversity is also not yet known, but will be considered when the results of farm-scale trials are published in the autumn.
Rather than recommending a blanket ban or approval of GM crops, the review argues for a case-by-case approach in which each variety proposed for cultivation is assessed 'as an individual entity'.
The review does not state whether GM crops should be
Print
Back to the Archive
|