www.un.org/apps/news/stor...Cr1=safety
Genetically modified food can boost health but risk assessment must continue UN
23 June 2005 Genetically modified (GM) foods can contribute to enhancing human health and development, but continued safety assessments are needed before they are marketed to prevent risks to both human health and the environment, according to a new United Nations report released today.
We can hope to gain the health and nutritional improvements of GM foods when we can help countries to research how they can control and exploit the introduction of GM products for the benefit of their own people, the Director of the UN World Health Organization (WHO) Food Safety Department, Jorgen Schlundt, said in issuing the study.
The report Modern food biotechnology, human health and development presents the potential benefits and risks associated with GM foods, which can increase crop yield, food quality and the diversity of foods which can be grown in a given area, leading to better health and nutrition, thus raising health and living standards.
But some of the genes used to manufacture GM foods have not been in the food chain before and introduction of new genes may cause changes in the existing genetic make-up of the crop. Therefore, the potential human health effects of such foods should always be assessed before they are grown and marketed, and long-term monitoring must be carried out to catch any possible adverse effects early, the report stresses.
It notes that pre-market risk assessments have been performed on all GM products where these products are marketed and that to date no negative health effects have been found.
The report also recommends that in future, evaluation should be widened to include social, cultural and ethical considerations to help ensure there is no genetic divide between groups of countries which do and do not allow the growth, cultivation and marketing of GM products.
The GM food aid crisis in southern Africa in 2002, where a number of countries did not permit GM food aid as a result of mostly socio-economic concerns, illustrates the need for broader evaluations, it notes.
GM foods should be examined from many standpoints, including the social and ethical, in addition to the health and environmental. If we help our Member States to do this on a national level we can avoid creating a 'genetic divide' between those countries which permit GM crops and those which do not, Dr. Schlundt said.
###########
Does anybody else find this sentence a bit off? But some of the genes used to manufacture GM foods have not been in the food chain before and introduction of new genes may cause changes in the existing genetic make-up of the crop.
I think that he meant to say that gene insertions may cause a phehotype difference in the crop, because once you insert a gene you've changed the genome slightly.
Anyways, this is a step in the right direction for the UN. GMO crops can end hunger and malnutrition in a sustainable, logistically sound manner. Now if the EU would get off it's rear end and encourage the use of Golden Rice for those countries with chronic vitamin A deficiency. If anyone wants to point out how much Golden Rice it takes to satisfy daily vitamin A requirements, do your research before posting.
Jimro
A pdf copy of the "WHO study on modern food biotechnology, human health and development" can be found here: www.who.int/foodsafety/bi...index.html
But let me share the "Conclusions" here.
3.6 Conclusions
GM foods currently available on the international market have undergone risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health in any other form than their conventional counterparts.
The risk assessment guidelines specified by the Codex Alimentarius Commission are thought to be adequate for the safety assessment of GM foods currently on the international market. Guidelines for enviornmental risk assessment have been developed under the Convention of Biological Diversity.
The potential risks derived from outcrossing or contamination from GM crops, relevant consequences need to be investigated for specific crops, and strategies for risk management need to be explored.
As defined in the Codex Principles (27) the assessment of the potential of GM foods to elicit hpersensitivity reactions should be part of the risk assessment for GM foods. This incluedes a general analysis of the proteins expressed and assessment of the specific properties of the GM food under consideration to elicit hypersensitivity reactions. A better understanding of the impact and interaction of food with immune system required to decipher how and whether conventional and GM foods cause specific health and safety problems.
New methodology for the development of GM organisms may significantly reduce potential risks derived from the random integration of transgenes used in current methods.
####
Which is basically saying that they can't find anything wrong with GM crops. There will always be potential risks, but so far they are exactly the same as the conventional crops.
Whether the risks outweigh the benefits is a personal/national choice right now.
Anyways, the report is interesting reading.
Jimro
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_new...24,00.html
EU votes to continue ban on GM crops
Britain warns ministers of threat of trade war with US
Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Saturday June 25, 2005
The Guardian
The UK failed to persuade the rest of Europe to give in to American pressure and lift the ban on genetically modified crops and food yesterday.
Britain's Elliott Morley warned fellow environment ministers in Brussels that they were going against scientific advice and faced the threat of a trade war with the United States over the issue if the ban remained in place, but ministers voted overwhelmingly to continue with it.
The decision was also a blow for the European commission, which told ministers that there was no evidence on health or environmental grounds allowing a legal ban on the crops. The politicians clearly disagreed.
The bans on GM varieties of oil seed rape and maize, imposed on public safety and environmental grounds by Austria, Luxembourg, Germany, France and Greece, should have been backed by scientific evidence but none was produced before yesterday's meeting.
The group's objections were based on fears that genetically manipulated genes could escape into the wider environment and that non-target insects could be destroyed by crops with inbuilt insecticide.
Ministers from the five countries told the meeting that they simply did not accept that GM crops should be released, and the ban drew the backing of a sufficiently large majority of 25 member states to ensure that it remains in place.
In theory, because the bans cannot be legally justified, the commission could overturn them but is unlikely to do so because it fears an angry backlash from member countries and the public.
The United States claims that the bans are a barrier to trade and is making them the subject of a complaint to the World Trade Organisation, demanding sanctions. The WTO is expected to adjudicate in August.
Mr Morley, who was attacked by environmental groups for his stance, defended the UK's position after the meeting. He told the Guardian: "We are not an advocate for GM. We have always said we would deal with each case on its merits having first taken scientific advice.
"In this case all these crops had been approved individually by the commission on scientific advice and we felt bound to accept that. If any country had come forward with scientific information which showed that in their case, in their country, any individual crops should not be grown we would have listened to the evidence. None came forward with evidence."
Mr Morley said it was quite clear that ministers were reflecting the public concerns in their countries rather than re lying on science to inform their decisions. But he did not accept that this helped the American case at the WTO.
"Clearly Europe should be allow to take a precautionary approach to safeguard health and environment. That is not a restraint of trade," he said.
One of the most contentious issues at the meeting was a variety of Bt Maize produced by Monsanto called MON 863, which caused unexplained kidney damage to rats, according to research conducted by the manufacturer.
Monsanto has refused to release all the results of its own tests on the maize, although it has now been ordered to do so by a German court.
Mr Morley said that while he was concerned about the findings, British scientists who had seen the data had concluded that this one study was not sufficient grounds to ban the crop. As a result the government had again voted for it to be introduced.
Friends of the Earth's UK campaigner on the GM issue, Emily Diamand, said: "Today's vote is a vote for common sense, and a victory for European consumers, who are overwhelmingly opposed to GM food.
"The actions of the UK today have been appalling.
"It is bad enough that Elliot Morley should ignore public opinion on this important issue. But it is outrageous that he should try to prevent other countries saying no to GM.
"His actions will do nothing to improve the UK's battered reputation on this issue, or help its poor image in Europe."
############
Should note that the "rat kidney study" revealed smaller kidneys in the experimental group than in the control group, not kidney damage. Organ size is interesting, but needs followup studies to determine if it was a statistical artifact or real data.
Jimro
On a side note, I think it might be better to use the edit button in future. *shrug* Still.. that aside.
Interesting stuff. Personally I can see the benefits and how it could potentially end malnutrition worldwide (only potentially mind you.. this stuff ent gonna end poverty completely). I'm gonna remain on the fence for this though until a proper opposing argument, with scientific backing can be produced. o_o It seems a little too good to be true for me..
I didn't want to edit for history purposes. I'd rather have a clear line of events than a continually edited post, but that is solely my preference.
As far as waiting on the fence, you'll be waiting for a long time.
A counter argument with scientific backing hasn't come up yet, and GM crops are working into their third decade.
Most of the criticisms of GM crops come from NGO's with impressive sounding names and very little science education amongst it's members.
Jimro
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1166039,00.html Sounds fun, dunnit? X_x
And eh, I might not be sitting around on the fence too long. 😛 A major flaw could be found any time, but when it is found I hope there's the scientific data to back it up. I'm cynical, I just can't believe that these crops can be as perfect as these people are making them out to be. If it is, then wonderful, eh? Might well need the things if we suffer a major climate change (or to terrorform mars? I believe GM crops are a part of that plan, or it might be colonisation of distant celestial bodies, I'm uncertain).
Some of the anti GM arguments that exist just tire me.. o_O the bulk to me just seem to be "OMG MUTANT PLANS!! EVIL!!"..
These crops are not perfect, just a better alternative. A useful way of reducing herbicide and pesticide use and increasing crop yield.
What would you describe as a "major flaw"?
Jimro
Media hype, you gotta 'love' it...
Dude, I don't personally know any major flaws with it. Only know the risks that I've heard through hearsay that have little to no scientific backup. *shrug*
Plants that have been modified to be hardier or multiply more rapidly have the potential to take over entire ecosystems. Seeds with an artificial suicide gene, or terminator seeds, are a tragedy of corporate invention.
Interesting.. Course that might not be the case under say carefully controlled harvest, but whose to say everyone's gonna be real careful with this stuff?
Plants that have been modified to be hardier or multiply more rapidly have the potential to take over entire ecosystems. Seeds with an artificial suicide gene, or terminator seeds, are a tragedy of corporate invention.
Hold up, first you are afraid of plants spreading out of control, and then you complain that companies produce seeds that produce sterile offspring? You appear to be talking out of both sides of your mouth, but that is not like you, you have a point but I don't know what it is yet.
No one if forcing farmers to use "terminator" seeds. They use them because it is cheaper to buy good seed than to scrounge through your harvest looking for plants who's phenotype you THINK will give you a good harvest next year. As anyone who has studied Mendelian genetics knows, phenotype does not necessarily guaranty genotype. As far as GM crops for traditional farmers in the rest of the world, blame Europe for the fact that people are starving.
Jimro
I, for one, refuse to eat any food that isn't genetically modified. 😛
Since the 70's there's been exceptional progress with new rice crops and other grains in South Asia, the "Green Revolution." It's contributed to India's crazy economic growth, like 7% per year (taking even population growth into account). India gets richer by 7% per year. What does that mean? Kids aren't going blind because of Vitamin A deficiency anymore. It's amazing.
I don't know that there are any concrete studies showing that GM crops are bad for you, but there's definitive evidence that they work.
