UK Expert Panel Split on GM Food Risks

Factomatic writes "The U.K. government's chief scientist and chairman of a panel of experts charged with assessing the risks of genetically modified (GM) foods says he is concerned about the environmental and wildlife impact of GM foods. But in its first report, published on July 21, the government's divided GM Science Review Panel found the risk GM foods pose to humans is probably low. Former environment minister Michael Meacher said the report is a "public scandal" because "they say that they have found no evidence that eating GM food causes a health risk but... no-one has actually looked for the evidence; it is just assumed." Still, the report is "neither a green light nor a red light to GM crops," said Sir David King, chair of the panel. A press release about the report is also online, and the panel is seeking public comment on the report and on GM foods in general."

Comments

Don't confuse the two issues

[Yohahn]

There is the question of safety for consumption.

and

There is the question of safety for the environment.

Just because one is true or false dosen't really have any bearing on the other

Re:GM is a control issue, not an environmental iss

[Yohahn]

I think the key question is one of control.

The biggest environmental problmes comes from the problems nobody saw, or accidents. So yes.. there is no study with the problem that WILL happen.

American Killer Bee's are a classic accident of biology.

There are many cases in the past where one organism was introduced to fight another, and nobody foresaw that they would become the pest organism as well.

Don't mistake me for somebody who is completely against GM food's. I just have a heealthy skepticisim.

There are good reasons for them, especially given population growth: More food per acre, More nutrients in regional foods (golden rice), Easier to take Medicines (vaccine in a banana).

I just think there is alot of economic insentive to move forward. So I bias against to try and stay balanced. Let's not rush in.

And THEN there is the patent issue. I am 100% with you there.

Basically a political issue

[ctr2sprt]

The problem here is, as always, politics. The US is a big backer of GM crops, and we use them already. The EU's (I use "EU" here basically to mean both the EU and the UK) policies on GM foods amount to a boycott of US food exports: all their FUD (I'm sorry, that's what it is when you say "We don't know what effect this might have, but it could be catastrophic," by definition) ensures that EU customers will never buy anything marked as GM or GM-derived. In other words, because you have to mark as GM anything that even could have come into contact with GM crops - this is 99.9% of American crops - nobody in the EU will buy any food exports from the US. (Obviously this is an oversimplification. Europeans will still buy Cheetos or whatever. Just not wheat.) So European farmers, who would normally be driven out of business in a free market economy, get to stay alive.

This is a serious issue, because the anti-GM types dominate most of the world organizations, like the UN. The regulations all restrict our ability to provide food not just to those who would have it anyway (e.g. Europeans), but also to those who desperately need it and can't get it via any other means (e.g. Africans). Is GM a cure for world hunger? Maybe some day, but not now. It is, however, an important step on the road to the solution, and burying our heads in the sand isn't going to help.

All this said, there obviously are legitimate concerns about GM foods, and so I think it's good that we're seeing more and more studies on their safety and effects. But it's becoming increasingly obvious that the EU is more concerned about its own economic well-being and not about any potential consequences of widespread GM adoption. Even if the price is prolonging starvation all over the world.

Re:Basically a political issue

[unapersson]

"All this said, there obviously are legitimate concerns about GM foods, and so I think it's good that we're seeing more and more studies on their safety and effects. But it's becoming increasingly obvious that the EU is more concerned about its own economic well-being and not about any potential consequences of widespread GM adoption. Even if the price is prolonging starvation all over the world."

There is a lot of concern here, mainly due to introducing a lot of genetically modified products *before* really understanding the effects.

They're not so necessarily they need to be rushed in, it's just a number of large multinational corps. trying to push them in. World starvation is just a propaganda issue, there's more than enough food to feed the world now, that's just an issue of distribution. GM crops won't solve that, especially when they're modified with terminator genes that mean they have to be repurchased every year (subscription model?). Or made immune to a certain fertiliser, which by sheer coincidence, they also sell. It's a lock in strategy applied to agriculture.

So these corps have bought and sold the US, that was the decision of the US, it doesn't mean the rest of the world just has to roll over. Once the research has been done, and the effects are known, then a better decision can be made. It's not something you can easily step back from one the crops are in the wild. I don't think the US should have accepted it so readily, putting the agriculture industry in the hands of big corps isn't a great idea, patent infringement for cross pollenisation of crops?

This issue hasn't been driven by the governments, but by activism and public opinion, something that democracy is meant to be all about. Once the research is done a proper debate can be had.

Re:Basically a political issue

[Yokaze]

> FUD (I'm sorry, that's what it is when you say "We don't know what effect this might have, but it could be catastrophic," by definition) [...]
> All this said, there obviously are legitimate concerns about GM foods, and so I think it's good that we're seeing more and more studies on their safety and effects. [...]

So, it is not FUD. Fear, likely. Uncertainity, sure. Desinformation?
The EU has democratically decided on precautious measures, while there are still, as you wrote, legitimate concerns. AFAIK, it is not prohibited to import GM, or GM-derived food. They have just to be labelled as such. When the EU public doesn't buy them, it not only a democratic decision, but also one of the free market.

As you stated yourself:
> [...] nobody in the EU will buy any food exports from the US [...]

So, it is not a matter of oppression, not on the import side, and neither on the consumer side, who has the choice to buy GM food.

> So European farmers, who would normally be driven out of business in a free market economy, get to stay alive.

That is not a matter of GM or no GM. Or do you thing European farmers cannot afford buying the necessary crops, but developing countries can?

> Is GM a cure for world hunger? Maybe some day, but not now.

So, not even is a reason. Actually, quite the contrary might be the truth, considering that developing countries might be sued by patent owners, for seeding crops from the last year.
What reasons are left they have to buy GM food? It's not like they can't research without selling it to the public.

So, why is the (democratic and market-driven) decision in the EU as worse than the (democratic and market-driven) decision in the US?

> (I use "EU" here basically to mean both the EU and the UK)
Nothing wrong here, the UK is still part of the EU.

Re:Basically a political issue

[jpop32]

So European farmers, who would normally be driven out of business in a free market economy, get to stay alive.

-1, Misinformed.

I find it funny you see it this way... You obviously lack some crucial insight.

Like, for example, that the US farmers stay in bussiness because, and _only_because_ of the _HUGE_ government subsidies awarded. US agriculture would perish if it was operating in a free market economy. Third world farmers would 0wn the US market if they were allowed to play on a level field with domestic farmers. But, instead the US farmers get to export corn, for example, for one quarter of it's production costs. The rest is subsidised (Europe is more or less the same way).

So don't for a second think that you live in a free market economy. Yes, it's allowed to be if that's beneficial to the US economy. If it's not, the government is there with tariffs, subsidies and strongarming at a drop of a hat.

And let's not even start with the GM foods, which is basically the equivalent of pushing M$ products on the world because it gives you (the US companies) complete control over the whole industry that uses them.

Get informed, people, that's the only way to really understand what's going on.

Re:Basically a political issue

[mickwd]

"I use "EU" here basically to mean both the EU and the UK"

Well that's good, because the UK is part of the EU.

"all their FUD (I'm sorry, that's what it is when you say "We don't know what effect this might have, but it could be catastrophic," by definition)"

We in the UK didn't know what effect feeding cattle with the brains and spinal cords of other cattle (in an effort to save money) would have. But as a result, dozens of people have died of BSE (and it is, by all accounts, a truly horrible way to die). The disease has a long-term gestation period, and hundreds or thousands may end up dying from it. But hey, let's take that risk again, in an effort to make more money (errr, I mean, feed the starving millions in Africa) !

And after all, there's nothing to fear, because someone on Slashdot says that it's FUD when "we don't know what effect something might have, but it could be catastrophic". Come to think of it, why do we test drugs before approving them for use ? Maybe you should have a word with the FDA, telling them not to bother ensuring new drugs have been properly tested. After all, it's just FUD to say "we don't know what effect these new drugs might have, but it could be catastrophic". That Thalidomide business was all made up, right ?

"So European farmers, who would normally be driven out of business in a free market economy, get to stay alive."

Hmmmmm.......so GM food is more efficient, right ? So it's cheaper to produce, right ? So why not sell that GM food to everywhere in the world except the EU ? After all, it's more efficient and cheaper to produce, so the EU are only making their food more expensive, more difficult to sell, and pricing themselves out of the world food market. And if the EU won't buy your GM food, surely there's much, much more of it to sell to the starving millions in Africa.

Or is it all about money ?

"This is a serious issue, because the anti-GM types dominate most of the world organizations, like the UN."

So if most of the world believes one thing, then the few that believe something else (or who stand to make money from it) must be right ? Nice concept of democracy you've got there.

"The regulations all restrict our ability to provide food"

What UN regulations ? As if the USA is going to let the UN tell it what it can and can't sell to who. Just like the UN prevented the USA from invading Iraq, right ?

GM is a market issue not Re:GM is a control issue,

[samjam]

British customers do not want GM food, for variety of poor, good and debatable reasons.

But they do not want it, they want to avoid it.

Supermarkets know this and most (if not all) have declared their own brands of food will not contain GM food (apart from leaked genes no doubt).

Are any big brands going to risk using GM ingredients? I think not!

So in the UK who actually wants GM food? If anyone, it's mostly not the people eating it.

Mostly its the people who want to sell/control it.

I'm sure I don't know who they think their market is going to be whether or not they get a "green light".

And the USA can bandy around trade-threats all they like, if the UK is forced to take GM food from US based multi-nationals it will be tipped in the harbour. The fishing industry is already ruined so no danger of it entering the food chain.

I don't care so much whether or not permission be given, as long as clear labelling is a requirement.

I'm certain of this, if the food is clearly labelled with any GM ingredients, very little GM food will be grown for UK consumption whatever other endorsement may be given.

Any profit sneaky farmers may hope to get through mislabelled increased-yeild crops will be offset by burning and vandalism from anti-GM activists.

And the police are so busy these days with stretched resources, they'll all be around the inner cities when these incidents happen.

Its the state of the world!

The sky is falling.

[Unknown Kadath]

Biotech has replaced nuclear power as a bogeyman.

It is important to separate legitimate concerns, such as Monsanto engineering a 'terminator' into their seeds, from tinfoil hat ravings about 'Frankenfood' causing cancer. There are more worrisome things happening in agriculture than pest-resistant strawberries or drought-resistant wheat.

Are there risks associated with GM organisms? Yes. Will GM orgamisms destroy the world as we know it? No.

-Carolyn

Legitimate concerns

[riptalon]

In terms of food safety I think there is real issue in that non-GM plants have been extensively tested (in a trial and error sort of way) for the last 7,000 years or so, and as a result we have a very good idea about which plants are safe to eat or which are not. GM foods have not undergone this testing and so I think it is quite reasonable that anyone who wants to sell them should demonstrate on a case by case basis that they are safe to eat.

In terms of enviromental safety there is also an issue. There are many examples of humans introducing foreign organisms into a particular enviroment and causing absolute havoc. I do not see any difference between a plant from another continent and a genetically modified version of a native plant. They both have the potential to interact in unexpacted ways with enviroment and so should be treated with extreme care.

However the most important question that should be asked in my opinion is why these crops are needed in the first place. Most of the use of GM crops at the moment appears to be in developed countries but these are the places that need them the least. Certainly in the UK the government pays farmers not to use land and buys up surplus production to stop prices from falling, and this seems the norm for the developed world. Farming in developed countries is already too efficent for its own good.

There just doesn't appear to be any need for GM crops in the developed world, although in the developing world a case might be made. So why if they aren't needed are GM crops being introduced. I would guess because their developers are pushing them and individual farmers don't want to be left behind. For an individual farmer the extra efficiency will help him compete better in a tight market but overall it is bad for farmers since the extra efficiency will mean the need for fewer farmers and some will be driven out of business.

In an ideal world things should be going the other way. Without GM crops and with less use of fertiliser and pesticides efficiency would fall but since modern agriculture is crisis because it is too efficient this is a good thing. The enviroment will be cleaner, and food will purer and less harmful. However in reality it looks like a small number of biotech companies are going to hijack world agriculture and collect a tax on every plant grown despite the fact that GM crops are entirely unneeded.

labelling

[jmason]

'because you have to mark as GM anything that even could have come into contact with GM crops - this is 99.9% of American crops - nobody in the EU will buy any food exports from the US'.

Come on. Is this really a good argument? Why would you be against labelling a foodstuff as to its origin and provenance?

Sorry, I don't agree. IMO, the more info a consumer has on where their food comes from, how it was grown, what pesticides were used, whether it may contain GM pollen, how it was treated after picking, etc. -- the better.

It's simply called informing the consumer. Then the consumer can use their judgement instead of trusting some big, faceless organisation who Knows What's Good For You.

And then interested parties can persuade the consumers that GM is safe, and eating the tomatos with the GM sticker is fine. That's OK, that makes sense. But don't use this 'information is bad' line, it's crap.

PS: re GM patents, etc. IMO the GM industry at the moment is acting like the RIAA; there's lots of good ways to use GM, but they're focused on the short term gain -- make $$$$ fast.

2 Types of GM Food

[JGski]

It's important to realize that there are two kinds of GM Food: transgenic and non-transgenic. This has to do with whether genes from a completely unrelated organism have been added to the food plant or animal, or not, respectively. Unfortunately, the biotechnology industry obfuscates (intentionally?) this difference. They typically talk about non-trangenics safety but push transgenics into their policies.

Non-transgenic GM food isn't significantly different from conventional crossbreeding and hybridization. There are several millenia of experience and natural evolutionary correction to suggest this type isn't a big deal.

Transgenic GM food involves inserting DNA of completely unrelated (evolutionarily speaking) species into a food plant or animal. The problem is that we know surprisingly little about metabolic pathways and their dynamics. The total experience with this type of modification is less than one human generation and only dozens of animal generations.

The standard defense is that any "badly selected" gene inserted will simply result in the quick death of the organism preventing any bad from resulting. Unfortunately 40 years ago they said something similar about the certainty and effacacy of antibiotics and bacteria. We all know now that those assurances of certainty were misplaced. The bigger system response was more complicated.

The whole reason biologist were surprised by the low human genome count that resulted from the Human Genome Project is because they didn't understand the complexity and extra degrees of freedom that metabolic pathways provide to biological systems. So now they want us to give them anonymous (no labeling), carte blanche (no regulations) to insert alien genes and create alien enzymes and proteins in systems no biologist yet understands well enough to predict behavior of under normal operating conditions. Don't get me started about how unprepared 99% of all biologists are in mathematics to even begin comprehend high-order, nonlinear system topologies, let alone what happens when you throw a monkey wrench into one!

There is a lot of research in this area; I'm still involved in some projects relating to metabolic pathway simulation so I know what the state of the art is right now. Moving ahead while the research is so undeveloped yet still doing transgenic GM food is like developing the atom bomb without understanding the dangers of radiation on the human body - oh yeah, that's is how we did that - but given that we are mucking with the "internals" of the system now rather than an external "application", you'd hope we'd be more careful and less arrogant.

A recent biotech employee