>  No. 57
> Thursday March 23, 2000
> Page A-26
>   ISSN 1523-567X
>
> Regulation, Law & Economics
>
>  Biotechnology
> Genetically Modified Food Sales 'Dead' In EU Until Safety Certain, Says
> Consultant
>
> PHILADELPHIA--Sales of genetically engineered foods are 'dead' in Europe
> until manufacturers can convince consumers that the benefits outweigh any
> potential risk, a food safety consultant to the European Union said March 21.
>
> Bevan Moseley, a molecular geneticist, disputed the safety of genetically
> modified food during a debate between the Society of Toxicology and
> European Society of Toxicology (EUROTOX) held during SOT's meeting March
> 19-23.
>
> Moseley represented EUROTOX. He also chairs the Working Group on Novel
> Foods in the European Union's Scientific Committee on Food.
>
> Moseley opposed the idea that traditional tests, which show genetically
> modified foods are as safe as their traditional counterparts, are an
> appropriate way to assess the foods' safety.
>
> Ian Munro, who represented SOT, argued in favor of traditional tests.
>
> SOT asked both men to focus on food safety, not ecological issues that also
> are part of the debate.
>
> Unexpected Problems?
>
> "I support the technology," Moseley asserted. However, unless manufacturers
> conduct multigenerational safety studies that examine a multitude of
> possible risks, unexpected problems may occur, he said.
>
> Currently, companies that develop GM foods test the toxin and allergen
> levels of the new food as well as the safety of the genetic trait they are
> implanting, Moseley said. If both are safe, the companies assume the new
> food must be safe, he added.
>
> However, it is not that simple, Moseley continued. Creating genetic
> variations within a crop is not as specific a process as consumers are led
> to believe, he said. When companies introduce a genetic trait into a plant,
> they do not know where it will be added in the plant's DNA, so they do not
> know what effects it may cause, he said. Further, part of a transferred
> gene may be "lost," possibly causing later unforeseen effects, he said.
>
> This means companies must conduct tests to detect unanticipated problems,
> Moseley said. Because he is not a toxicologist, Moseley said he did not
> know exactly which tests are needed. However, he said, "we have to be ready."
>
> If companies are not prepared, problems may emerge, and "that would kill
> the whole science of genetically modified food," Moseley said. "I don't
> want that to happen. ... The public won't forgive us."
>
> Moseley described several problems companies face as they try to convince
> the public, particularly the European public, to buy genetically modified
> foods.
>
> 'Burned' by Mad Cow Disease
>
> First, Europeans do not trust scientists who tell them food is safe,
> because in the early 1990s scientists assured them British beef was safe,
> Moseley said. Since then 50 people have died and 12 people have been
> diagnosed with a new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), which has
> been associated with beef contaminated with bovine spongiform
> encephalopathy, commonly called "mad cow disease."
>
> "We don't know if this is the tip of the iceberg or most of the iceberg,"
> Moseley said. That experience has made European consumers worried about
> chronic illnesses they fear they may contract from food, he said.
>
> Genetically modified foods benefit farmers, but they offer "no perceivable
> benefit" to consumers, Moseley argued.
>
> Consumers would see a benefit if GM foods were cheaper or the quality
> significantly better, but most GM foods do not offer such advantages, he
> said.
>
> Developing "functional foods" might offer such advantages, Moseley said. He
> referred to foods that would be modified to have more vitamins or
> antioxidants. However, developing such foods will involve inserting
> multiple genetic variations into a plant, he said. Today, most GM foods
> involve only a single genetic modification, he added.
>
> As companies move toward these more complicated endeavors, Moseley said, he
> would be "very surprised" if they did not create inadvertent, unexpected
> health problems in these foods.
>
> Traditional Tests Can Work
>
> Traditional tests that examine the toxins and allergens in foods can
> determine whether genetically modified foods are safe, countered SOT Ian
> Munro. Munro is president of CANTOX Health Sciences International, a
> consulting firm based in Mississauga, Ontario.
>
> "Genetically modified food should be as safe as its traditional
> counterpart," Munro said. People know that some foods contain toxic
> constituents, he continued.
>
> "Raw cassava, a staple food crop for millions of people, is of course very
> toxic, but can be safely consumed with appropriate processing to remove the
> toxic constituent, hydrogen cyanide," he said.
>
> Another example is glycoalkaloid, which is found in potatoes, he said.
>
> High levels of glycoalkaloid have caused skin rashes on produce handlers.
>
> Increasingly, as plant breeders propagate new crops, they are aware of
> changes in chemical composition that could cause people to get sick, Munro
> said. Breeders try to develop a new strain that has desirable traits
> without producing unintended changes in either the pre-existing beneficial
> traits or composition of the resultant food, he said.
>
> Companies that develop genetically modified foods have the same goal, Munro
> said. They assess the safety of the introduced genetic trait and the safety
> of the remaining edible portions of the plant.
>
> That means companies make sure that the genetic material they are
> transferring does not come from a pathogenic source, a known source of
> allergens, or a known, albeit natural, toxin, he said.
>
> Substantial Equivalence
>
> Once they have assured the safety of the genetic material, they evaluate
> the potential toxicity and allergenicity of the gene product, such as the
> protein or enzyme, that the gene creates, Munro said. Finally, they make
> sure the edible portions of the plan are "substantially equivalent" to the
> traditional plant, he said.
>
> Substantial equivalence means that "the composition of the plant has not
> been changed in such a way as to introduce any new hazards into the food
> derived from that plant or to increase the concentration of inherent toxic
> constituents," Munro said.
>
> The genetically modified plant may be nutritionally different from the
> traditional plant and still be considered substantially equivalent, he added.
>
> This safety evaluation is consistent with the principles and procedures
> outlined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, World Health
> Organization, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
> Development, Munro said.
>
> It constitutes a "rigorous evaluation of the safety of a genetically
> modified food compared to its traditional counterpart and provides an
> appropriate paradigms for the assessment of the safety of genetically
> modified foods," he concluded.
>
> By Pat Phibbs
>
> Copyright (c) 2000 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington D.C.
>
>