Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

UK Expert Panel Split on GM Food Risks 51

Posted by michael from the invasion-of-the-body-snatchers dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Expert Panel Split on GM Food Risks More

UK Expert Panel Split on GM Food Risks

Comments Filter:

  • Don't confuse the two issues (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Yohahn ( 8680 ) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @02:17PM (#6502529)
    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
    • No one said one has a bearing on the other. If you read the post and the articles, the committee is divided on BOTH issues, but the chair is mainly concerned about environmental impact. The former environment minister is mainly concerned with the effects on human health and is pointing out they have done no scientific investigation to declare GM foods are probably safe for humans to eat. I don't see any confusion.
    • The question of the safety of GM foods for consumption varies depending on the GM plant. Many of these plants are modified genetically in such a way that the transgene is only expressed in the body of the plant - not the fruit. This would significantly lessen the intake of the protein generated by the transgene by humans. The safety also depends on what the transgene is. An insecticide, even a natural one, may be harmful to ingest. But many of the other types of transgenes are probably harmless to humans, s
    • The real issue is who gets to make your decisions.

      The FAA regulates air travel safety, but they don't authorize anyone to take you on a blindfolded flight.

      The FDA regulates food and drug safety, but they have been giving agribusiness permission to takes us for a blindfolded ride when it comes to knowing whether there's GMO in our food at the grocery store.

      Neither aircraft safety or GMO food safety is a decision for anyone else to make finally for you. They can decide what their best advice is, and regula

  • Basically a political issue (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ctr2sprt ( 574731 ) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @03:00PM (#6503284)
    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.

    • "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* reall
    • > 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. AFAI

    • labelling (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jmason ( 16123 )
      '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


    • maybe the US farmers should have determined what their CUSTOMERS wanted to buy before spending billions to grow the WRONG product?
    • 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 dome
    • Let's get a couple of things clear here: The EU consumer has a right to know what goes into their food, and I really can't see anyone seriously arguing against labelling.

      As for GM foods helping against hunger: Hogwash. Let me clarify that: Complete and utter nonsense. The vast majority of hunger in the world is caused by political instability, internal conflicts, and distributions problems. Nothing to do with the amount of food produced - we already have more than enough food to feed the world.

      Now if
    • As you described it, it's a market force

      EU requires a food be labeled as having contact with GM crops, if that is the case. It is then up to the individual to decide if he wants to buy it or not. That is a market force; the consumer makes a decision based on information given. The only problem comes in if the information given is too vague.

      I am uninformed on this, so those of you in Europe (or just in the know), please enlighten me...Do the labeling requirements differentiate between GM foods and foods that

    • "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
    • policies on GM foods amount to a boycott of US food exports:

      Nice to see that you do not have sufficient intelligence to understand the diference between a boycott and informing the populace. We, in Europe, want labels because we want to excercise our right to know what we are eating. If the pro-GM farmers, corporations etc. prove to a sufficient degree that GM foods are not harmful, or they make them significantly cheaper or taste much better then we will buy them. A free market is about INFORMED CHOICE -
  • Biotech has replaced nuclear power as a bogeyman.

    It is important to separate legitimate concerns, such as Monsanto engineering a 'terminator' into their seeds [bbc.co.uk], from tinfoil hat ravings about 'Frankenfood' causing cancer. There are more [bbc.co.uk] worrisome [usgs.gov] things [ecology.com] 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

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

      And I suppose if you are wrong you'll have the good grace to blush.

      Everything mankind does destroys the world as we know it.

      Some people prefer the change and call it progress, some don't.

      Is the sphinx better with or without the destroyed nose?

      The real issue is whether or not people want them, the next issue is if their reasons are valid to them, and then if they are valid to you. But valid or not,

      • And I suppose if you are wrong you'll have the good grace to blush.

        I don't blush. I'm shameless. ;)

        Everything mankind does destroys the world as we know it.

        My point, poorly phrased though it seems to be, is that, on the list of Stuff We Should Be Worried About, GM foods rank lower but get more press than a lot of other things.

        The real issue is whether or not people want them, the next issue is if their reasons are valid to them, and then if they are valid to you. But valid or not, I hope the majori
        • Who, thought, judges whether or not someone understands science enough to participate in scientific decision-making?

          I'm saying because the UK populace don't want GM for a variety of reasons, the scientific debate is without effect, the decision has been made - perhaps on poor basis, but thats the right of the wise man and the wise guy.

          Sam

    • Re:The sky is falling. (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Are there risks associated with GM organisms? Yes. Will GM orgamisms destroy the world as we know it? No.
      'Safe' nuclear power gave us several major accidents. The difference between 'safe' nuclear power and 'safe' GM foods is one doesn't sprincal itself over the entire world for all eternity when it goes wrong. Mucking around with GM food is like screwing around with a hex editor and a trojan wrapper. Stupid arrogant humans.
  • The European paranoia concerning GM foods is entirely unjustified and irrational, much more so than even the American paranoia concerning nuclear power (for a funny satire of which see The Hazards of Solar Energy [lhup.edu]). The problem with GM foods, however, is the current control of and potential for abuse of GM crops by corporations. However, since it's a lot easier to do scare-mongering by saying that GM crops cause cancer, thyroid problems, premature aging, nearsightedness, tire sidewall blowout, and loss of b
    • Oh, and also, as somebody pointed out elsewhere, the European practice of using a ban on GM food as a way to boost the EU's already ludicrous agricultural subsidies is at least as large a factor in the debate as any concern for the environment or peoples' health.
      • As opposed to the US's equally ludicrous subsidies? I don't want to defend the CAP, but I can't see how anyone (apart from Monsanto et.al.) would benefit from GM foods in the EU or US.

        Higher yields? Err - we have too much of the stuff already, thanks too ludicrous subsidies.
        • It's not like I'm a fan of the US subsidy system either. It's a menace. One firsthand example- I live in a mostly-desert state which has had 5+ years of drought, and yet you find huge green alfalfa fields in the middle of the sagebrush, sustained at the expense of the rest of the economy.

          However, there are plenty of benefits of all sorts to be realized from GM foods (assuming that they don't bring in a Monsanto IP crop control as well). Lower water use, reduced or eliminated need for pesticides, increased
          • However, there are plenty of benefits of all sorts to be realized from GM foods

            There COULD be benefits to be realised, just as there could be dangers. Importing GM foods to the EU is not illegal - we just want labelling so we can choose whether we have the benefits/risks.

  • Legitimate concerns (Score:4, Insightful)

    by riptalon ( 595997 ) on Tuesday July 22, 2003 @06:41PM (#6506290)

    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.

  • My favorite comment on this subject comes from Thomas Friedman, the NYT Foreign Affairs columnist, who made an interesting observation the last time he was in Geneva:

    The menu at a top restaurant he dined in was very explicit at the bottom to note that "no GM products" are used in any of the foods prepared. Meanwhile, everybody around Mr. Friedman was smoking like a chimney. For all the problems in the US, Europe outsmokes us by an, excuse the pun, (un)healthy margin.

    Point being: let's be really, really co

    • The menu at a top restaurant he dined in was very explicit at the bottom to note that "no GM products" are used in any of the foods prepared. Meanwhile, everybody around Mr. Friedman was smoking like a chimney. For all the problems in the US, Europe outsmokes us by an, excuse the pun, (un)healthy margin.

      Sh*te analogy - it's all about choice - people who smoke know the risks and choose to do so. If GM food was labelled as such then people who choose to eat it can do so. However, if the US government gets i
      • Well, if that's the argument, then it's already being done. Unless you buy "organic" food (which maybe you do, and that's almost always non-GM), then you're getting food with pesticides on them. Or beef with hormones (which also doesn't have to be labled). What's needed is a campaign which lables food as "NON GM" not a campaign which labels food as "GM" -- much like organic/hormone free food today. And it should cost a premium, because in a very short time it will be much more expensive (than GM food) to pr
  • becuase nobody is letting us grow or eat the darn things :)

  • 2 Types of GM Food (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JGski ( 537049 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @04:44PM (#6515827) Journal
    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

Slashdot Top Deals

Computers don't actually think. You just think they think. (We think.)

Close