| WEEKLY WATCH number 137 (19/8/2005) | |
|
from Claire Robinson, WEEKLY WATCH editor Dear all: There's a special focus on food safety this week, with Prof Mike Gasson giving some bizarre and improbable reasons why GM foods should not be tested for safety! (FOOD SAFETY) Meanwhile, the people who helped create the atom bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are combining two risky technologies, nanotechnology and genetic engineering, to make GM trees for the US paper industry (NANOTECHNOLOGY). What timing! The website of the Japanese newspaper, The Mainichi Shimbun, has recently been publishing copies of their front pages as they were printed 60 years ago. This is from the front page of an article about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima: "The new-type bombs dropped by enemy planes on Hiroshima on Aug. 6 are, after all, not so powerful as to cause great anxiety, declared Lieut.-Colonel Akatsuka on his arrival in Osaka on Aug. 8 after inspecting the stricken area in Hiroshima." As with the biotech brigade, a case of eyes tight shut. Claire [email protected] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- FOOD SAFETY ------------------------------------------------------------ + MICHAEL MEACHER CONDEMNS SEVEN YEARS OF SECRECY OVER GM SAFETY Meacher is supporting calls for freedom of access to the data used by the government to approve GM foods. He points out: ***In 1998 a GM maize, called T25, was approved in the EU as a cattle feed. Only one feeding study looked at the effects of eating the whole maize; a short 10 week trial - on chickens - even though the active life of a dairy cow is over six years. 50% more chickens eating GM maize died than in the control group fed non-GM maize, but the Government felt this was not significant. The research was not peer-reviewed and was not of a quality suitable for academic publication, but the crop was approved. ***The latest GM feed crop to be approved was MON 863 maize in July. This was despite the eventual disclosure of a secret Monsanto feeding study on rats that suggested harmful effects on kidneys and levels of white blood cells. Now, despite these concerns, it is about to be approved for human consumption. + GM FOOD SAFETY RESEARCH - WHY HAS IT NOT TAKEN PLACE? Robert writes, "I received a reply on 13 June [2005]. It came after 2 reminders from me, 2 from my MP and the threat of a PQ [Parliamentary Question] asking why there was no reply. [In his reply, Gasson is] ...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." 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. EXCERPTS from Gasson's mealy-mouthed reply: 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. ... The papers highlighted in your letter [animal feeding studies on whole foods] 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. GM WATCH comment on Gasson's reply: ***Gasson says there's "no scientific justification" for testing GM foods with feeding trials. Surely, the justification of any scientific experiment is that you want to know something, e.g. "Are GM foods safe?" People do want to know. Why not find out? ***Next, Gasson says we can only test GM foods if we "plausibly anticipate" some effect on health. What Gasson seems to be saying is that to justify testing GM foods, there has to be more evidence suggesting an effect on health. But how can there be more evidence when there have been so few studies? Gasson has constructed a convenient circular argument. In addition, ill effects from GM foods have not only been plausibly anticipated, but *found* in the tiny number of existing studies. ***What can Gasson mean by saying that feeding trials with GM foods a |
|