“The
‘Frankenfoods’ debate is coming to your dinner table. Just last month, a
mini-war developed in Europe, when the European Union’s chief scientist,
renowned biologist Anne Glover,
said that foods made through genetic engineering, such as soy beans—about 80
percent of US grown soybeans have been genetically engineered —are as safe as
organic or conventional foods. It’s a wholly uncontroversial comment—at least
among scientists. But it set off the usual scare mongering from Friends of the
Earth, and other like-minded advocacy groups that finds all
genetically engineered (GE) foods and crops to be, in their words ‘stomach
turning’.”Pamela Ronald, Rachel
Carson’s dream of a science-based agriculture may come as a surprise to those
who believe that sustainability and technology are incompatible.
Humans have been breeding and propagating edible foods for a
while, beginning with selecting seed from the plants with desired traits to
plant subsequent crops. Traditional hybridization and breeding techniques have
likewise long been used to modify plants and animals at a molecular level,
resulting in plants and animals that have been genetically modified.
These days however, when people refer to GMOs they typically
are referring to the use of relatively recent developments in biotechnology
more properly defined as genetic
engineering that have been employed to alter a plant or animal organism at
a molecular level. According to the National Academy of Science “Genetic engineering is one type of genetic
modification that involves the intention to introduce a targeted change in a
plant, animal or microbial gene sequence to effect a specific result” (page IX)
Next month, Californians will be voting on a ballot measure
requiring the labeling of all GMO foods. Notwithstanding
what you might read in hysterical foodie blogs or other vaguely sourced material, other
experts agree, and this should not be news. Before you vote on this
measure, please do your homework. Here is mine.
In 2004, the National
Academy of Science publication office, aka the prestigious National Academies Press, published a
report entitled Safety of
Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects
authored by the Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered
Foods on Human Health, Board on Life Sciences Food and Nutrition Board, Board
on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Institute of Medicine and National
Research Council of the National Academies of Science.
The
NAS report concluded, “All
evidence evaluated to date indicates that unexpected and unintended
compositional changes arise with all forms of genetic modification, including
genetic engineering. Whether such compositional changes result in unintended
health effects is dependent upon the nature of the substances altered and the
biological consequences of the compounds. To date, no adverse health effects
attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population”
(page 8). I should note that the report also identified the need “for a broad
research and technology development agenda to improve methods for predicting,
identifying, and assessing unintended health effects from the genetic
modification of food. An additional benefit is that the tools and techniques
developed can also be applied to safety assessment and monitoring of foods
produced by all methods of genetic modification” (page 13).
In
2004 the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development published the proceedings of a OECD Cooperative
research program workshop on the challenges and Risks of GMOs in Maastricht,
The Netherlands. Biological
Resource Management in Agriculture: Challenges and Risks of Genetically
Engineered Organisms which included a presentation by a UK biotech expert
Katherine Williams entitled “Challenges for the Media: Disseminating
Information by Avoiding Hysteria” in which she observed that such challenges
include “the audience that is targeted, selection of appropriate language, and
finding a balance between points of view. Other challenges that face the media
include identifying the stories that genuinely require attention and
recognizing those based on hype or false claims” (page 203). She warned
journalists reporting on the GMO food debates about the use of inflammatory and
unscientific terminolology like “Frankenfoods” and “mutant”. Alas.
In
2003, the International Council for
Science published New
Genetics, Food and Agriculture: Scientific Discoveries – Societal Dilemmas,
which concluded: “Currently available genetically modified foods are safe to
eat. Food safety assessments by national regulatory agencies in several
countries have deemed currently available GM foods to be as safe to eat as
their conventional counterparts and suitable for human consumption. This view
is shared by several intergovernmental agencies, including the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission on food
safety, which has 162 member countries, the European Commission (EC), and the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Further, there is
no evidence of any ill effects from the consumption of foods containing
genetically modified ingredients.”
So, how about we
heed the Food and Agriculture
Organizations of the United Nations and follow their 2012 recommendation
to support “a science-based
evaluation system that would objectively determine the benefits and risks of
each individual GMO”. And while we wait the results of ongoing scientific research to assess
safety of GMO foods on a case-by-case basis, I have concluded that I am more
likely to be harmed by a crocodile in my backyard pond that I am by eating GMO
foods currently available.
I
recommend that you refer to established reputable scientific sources for your
information on this controversial issue before you reach your own conclusions.
Even if you are what you eat, you can still decide what you think.
