July 26, 2000
Around the globe, the scientific community is
becoming ever more united in support of agricultural biotechnology. The
consensus of leading scientific bodies with interest in health and
environmental safety worldwide is that crops produced through biotechnology
offer many benefits and pose no more risk than crops produced through
traditional crop breeding methods.
Among those who have spoken recently in support of
agricultural biotechnology are:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(Commissioner Jane Henney)
National Research Council (U.S.)
Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations
World Health Organization
Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development
National Academy of Sciences (U.S.)
Royal Society of London
Third World Academy of Sciences
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Mexican Academy of Sciences
Australia New Zealand Food Authority
American Society for Microbiology
(represents 42,000 microbiologists)
International Society for Plant
Molecular Biology (1,800 members)
Society for In Vitro Biology (1,200
members)
2,700 scientists who signed a
Declaration of Support, including three Nobel Prize winners.
EPA conducted a review of crops that have been
improved to control insects without the use of chemical insecticides and
stated: “EPA is aware of no data
indicating that unreasonable adverse effects on the environment have occurred.
Moreover, EPA has no reason to believe that such effects may occur during the
continued duration of the current registrations.” (1)
FDA Commissioner Jane E. Henney, M.D., recently
stated in an interview: “We have seen no
evidence that the bioengineered foods now on the market pose any human health
concerns or that they are in any way less safe than crops produced through
traditional breeding.” (2)
The National Research Council found “no strict distinction exists between the
health and environmental risks posed by plants genetically engineered through
modern molecular techniques and those modified by conventional breeding
practices.” (3)
The Food and Agriculture Organization and the
World Health Organization reported on a joint consultation, stating: “The Consultation was satisfied with the
approach used to assess the safety of the genetically modified foods that have
been approved for commercial use.” (4)
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, representing 29 developed nations, stated: “Risks associated with biotechnology-derived foods are not inherently
different from the risks associated with conventional ones.” (5)
The seven science academies listed above issued a
joint statement on biotechnology, concluding that biotechnology “should be used to increase the production
of main food staples, improve the efficiency of production, reduce the
environmental impact of agriculture, and provide access to food for small-scale
farmers.” (6)
The Australia New Zealand Food Authority stated: “The level of safety associated with GM
(genetically modified) foods is at least as high as that of all other available
foods because the safety assessment process undertaken for GM foods is far more
thorough than that undertaken for any other food. The safety assessment process
ensures that GM foods provide all the benefits of conventional foods and no
additional risks.” (7)
The American Society for Microbiology statement
says: “ASM is not aware of any
acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA
oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. Rather, plant varieties created
with biotechnology are grown more efficiently and economically than traditional
crops.” (8)
There is agreement in the scientific community in
regard to many biotechnology topics and issues:
Crops
produced through biotechnology have no greater risk than crops produced through
conventional breeding techniques and in fact may offer advantages over
conventionally bred crops.
“Conventional techniques
are often imprecise because they shuffle thousands of genes in the offspring,
causing them to have some of the characteristics of each parent plant…With the
tools developed from biotechnology, a gene can be inserted into a plant to give
it a specific new characteristic instead of mixing all o f the genes from two
plants and seeing what comes out.” – FDA Commissioner Jane Henney (2)
“The level of safety
associated with GM (genetically modified) foods is at least as high as that of
all other available foods because the safety assessment process undertaken for
GM foods is far more thorough than that undertaken for any other food. The safety
assessment process ensures that GM foods provide all the benefits of
conventional foods and no additional risks.” --
Australia New Zealand Food Authority (7).
“Because of the improved precision and
predictability of biotechnology, it can be anticipated that in the future food
will be more,
rather than less, safe.” – American Society for Microbiology (8)
“No strict distinction
exists between the health and environmental risks posed by plants genetically
engineered through modern molecular techniques and those modified by
conventional breeding practices.” -- National Research Council
(3)
“Both conventional and transgenic pest-protected
crops could impact so-called nontarget species such as beneficial insects, but
that impact is likely to be smaller than that from chemical pesticides.” – NRC (3)
“Conventional breeding often involves the transfer
of traits which are controlled by several interacting genes and often occurs
without specific knowledge of which genes and gene products are involved.
Therefore some of the plants produced by this method could have unanticipated
properties. With transgenic (biotech) methods, there is often more knowledge
about the genes and gene products being transferred.” – NRC (3)
.. “Traditional plant breeding methods
include wide crosses with closely related wild species, and may involve a long
process of crossing back to the commercial parent to remove undesirable genes.
A feature of GM technology is that it involves the introduction of one or at
most, a few, well-defined genes rather than the introduction of whole genomes
or parts of chromosomes as in traditional plant breeding. This makes toxicity
testing for transgenic plants more straightforward than for conventionally
produced plants with new traits, because it is much clearer what the new
features are in the modified plant.” – Report of Seven Academies of Science (6)
“The potential occurrence of unintended effects is
not unique to the application of recombinant DNA techniques but is also a
general phenomenon in conventional breeding.” – FAO/WHO joint consultation
(4)
“In the past, numerous changes have been made in
cultivated plants during traditional breeding with very little associated
biochemical knowledge available to assist in their evaluation. If a gene
introduces into the plant an essentially novel metabolic function, it is
reasonable to assess its possible effects more carefully than normal.” – OECD (5)
“All plant breeding methods, traditional and
modern, have the potential to lead to unexpected or unintended changes in
concentrations of various substances in the plant. …None of these changes are
unique to GM plants.” –
OECD (5)
“Modern biotechnology,
like classical (breeding), has the potential to introduce allergens into foods.
Safety assessments of GM foods usually include an assessment of the allergenic
potential of newly introduced proteins…The aim (of biotech testing) is to
ensure that toxicant levels are within the range of those in the safely
consumed parent plant or related commercial species. Historically, such testing has not been
performed systematically for plant varieties produced by traditional breeding.” –
OECD (5)
Biotechnology will be an important
factor in global food security and addressing food and health needs of the
developing world.
“The majority of speakers
from developing countries stressed the crucial importance of GM technology as
part of the armory for feeding their population in the future. In China, with
20% of the world’s population and 7% of the land surface, GM is already playing
a major role in food production, and its importance was also emphasized by
speakers from Africa and Latin America….Most argued forcefully that GM is an
essential part of their future food production…GM technology for the developing
world should be carried forward through a mixture of public and private
funding.” -- OECD Edinburgh conference (9)
“For the least developed
countries in particular more food of improved nutritional quality will be
needed as population growth continues. Distribution problems are real, as are
post-harvest losses. But it is not
realistic to assume that a strategy that does not incorporate increased local
production of cheap food for consumers will work. In judging new technologies, one should also bear in mind
that the potential of present day agriculture to meet future demands is under
strain. The area of available arable land is decreasing with urban development,
and productivity growth is leveling off (partly due to the diminishing
potential of “traditional” breeding technology). GM technologies, if developed
under appropriate conditions, offer the potential of providing solutions.” – OECD (9)
“Biotechnology would
provide powerful tools for the sustainable development of agriculture and food
production. Biotechnology can be of significant assistance in meeting the needs
of an expanding and increasingly urbanized population in the new millennium.” – FAO/WHO (4)
.. “It is essential that we
improve food production and distribution in order to feed and free from hunger
a growing world population, while reducing environmental impacts and providing
productive employment in low-income areas. This will require a proper and
responsible utilisation of scientific discoveries and new technologies. The
developers and overseers of GM technology applied to plants and micro-organisms
should make sure that their efforts address such needs.” – Report of seven academies (6)
“Today
there are some 800 million people (18% of the population in the developing
world) who do not have access to sufficient food to meet their needs, primarily
because of poverty and unemployment. Malnutrition plays a significant role in
half of the nearly 12 million deaths each year of children under five in
developing countries. In addition to
lack of food, deficiencies in micro-nutrients (especially vitamin A, iodine and
iron) are widespread. Furthermore, changes in the patterns of global climate
and alterations in use of land will exacerbate the problems of regional
production and demands for food. Dramatic advances are required in food production,
distribution and access if we are going to address these needs. Some of these
advances will occur from non-GM technologies, but others will come from the
advantages offered by GM technologies.” – Seven academies (6)
“It
is important to increase yield on land that is already intensively cultivated.
However, increasing production is only one part of the equation. Income
generation, particularly in low-income areas together with the more effective
distribution of food stocks, are equally, if not more, important. GM
technologies are relevant to both these elements of food security.” – Seven academies (6)
“Vaccines
are available for many of the diseases that cause widespread death or human
discomfort in developing countries, but they are often expensive both to
produce and use. The majority must be stored under conditions of refrigeration
and administered by trained specialists, all of which adds to the expense. Even
the cost of needles to administer vaccines is prohibitive in some countries. As
a result, the vaccines often do not reach those in most need. Researchers are
currently investigating the potential for GM technology to produce vaccines and
pharmaceuticals in plants…the development of transgenic plants to produce
therapeutic agents has immense potential to help in solving problems of disease
in developing countries.”—Seven
academies (6)
“Those
who resist the advance of biotechnology must address how otherwise to feed and
care for the health of a rapidly growing global population forecast to increase
at a rate of nearly 90 million people per year.” – American Society for Microbiology (8)
The concept of substantial equivalence is adequate
to ensure the safety of foods produced through biotechnology.
“The concept of
substantial equivalence contributes to a robust safety assessment framework.
The consultation was satisfied with the approach used to assess the safety of
the genetically modified foods that have been approved for commercial use. (Substantial
equivalence) embodies a science-based approach in which a genetically modified
food is compared to its existing, appropriate counterpart. The goal of this
approach is to ensure that the food, and any substances that have been
introduced into the food as a result of genetic modification, is as safe as it
traditional counterpart. (The substantial equivalence approach) is considered
the most appropriate strategy for the safety and nutritional assessment of
genetically modified foods…. There are no alternative strategies that would
provide a better assurance of safety for genetically modified foods than the
appropriate use of the concept of substantial equivalence.” – FAO/WHO (4)
“Safety assessment based on substantial
equivalence is the most practical approach to address the safety of foods and
food components derived through modern biotechnology. Analyses of key
substances provide increased assurance that substances important from a
nutritional or health perspective are present in acceptable concentrations.” – OECD (5)
“One important benefit of the substantial
equivalence concept is that it provides flexibility than can be useful in food
safety assessment. It is a tool, which helps identify any difference, intended
or unintended, that might be the focus of further safety evaluation. …it is a
comparative process (which) can be performed at several points along the food
chaine (harvested unprocessed, processed foods, individual fractions, or final
food product)” – OECD (5)
“The Food and Drug Administration is to be
commended for constructing a framework for safety evaluation that is product
based, and for taking the position that the critical consideration in
evaluating the safety of (bioengineered) foods should be the objective
characteristics of the food product or its components rather than the fact that
new development methods were used." – ASM (8)
The benefits of biotechnology,
especially when compared with other agricultural techniques, should be part of
any discussion about risk.
“The consensus emerging
from conference is that benefits of GM food need to be considered as well as
the risks…. Novel products and their production technologies should be compared
with products of existing technologies and not just looked at in absolute
terms.” -- OECD (9)
“Concerted,
organized efforts must be undertaken to investigate the potential environmental
effects, both positive and negative, of GM technologies in their specific
applications. These must be assessed against the background of effects from
conventional agricultural technologies that are currently in use.” – Seven academies (6)
“The widespread application
of conventional agricultural technologies such as herbicides, pesticides,
fertilizers and tillage has resulted in severe environmental damage in many
parts of the world. Thus the environmental risks of new GM technologies need to
be considered in the light of the risks of continuing to use conventional
technologies and other commonly used farming techniques.” – Seven academies (6)
“Both conventional and
transgenic pest-protected crops could impact so-called nontarget species, such
as beneficial insects, but that impact is likely to be smaller than that from
chemical pesticides. In fact, when used in place of chemical pesticides,
pest-protected crops could lead to greater biodiversity in some geographical
areas.” – National
Research Council (3)
“EPA does not believe
that there are any valid data demonstrating specific adverse impacts of plants
expressing Bt endotoxins on beneficial non-target organisms. To the contrary,
EPA believes that available scientific data and information indicates that cultivation
of Bt crops has a positive ecological effect, when compared to the most likely
alternatives.” – EPA
(1)
Biotechnology
offers many current and potential benefits.
“GM food-based oral
vaccines and nutritional supplements offer potentially great benefits. Though
other technologies may be available, biotechnology potentially offers a more practical and affordable option for least
developed countries in the short and medium term.” – OECD Edinburgh conference (9)
“Genetically modified foods with intentional
nutritional effects may provide improved products for developed and developing
countries.”
– FAO/WHO (4)
The
seven science academies that studied biotechnology (6) identified many areas in
which biotechnology is providing benefits or could solve important problems in
the future. The academies recommended continued research and development to
produce crops that will improve food production, give nutritional benefits,
reduce environmental impacts of intensive agriculture and increase the
availability of pharmaceuticals and vaccines.
Here are some of the benefits the seven academies identified:
.... “It is possible that farmers in
developing countries could benefit considerably from crops with delayed
ripening or softening as this may allow them much greater flexibility in
distribution than they have at
present. In many cases small-scale farmers suffer heavy losses due to excessive
or uncontrolled ripening or softening of fruit or vegetables.”
.... “(The dwarfing technology that drastically
increased wheat yields and led to the Green Revolution) can now potentially be
used to increase productivity in any crop plant where the economic yield is in
the reproductive rather than the vegetative parts.”
.... “Resistant
transgenic varieties are currently entering field trials to test the
effectiveness of their resistance to Rice Yellow Mottle Virus (RYMV). This
could provide a solution to the threat of total crop failure in the sub-Saharan
African rice growing regions…Numerous other examples (of virus resistant crops)
could be given.”
.... “Vitamin
A deficiency causes half a million children to become partially or totally
blind each year (Conway and Toennissen 1999). Traditional breeding methods have
been unsuccessful in producing crops containing a high vitamin A concentration
and most national authorities rely on expensive and complicated supplementation
programs to address the problem. Researchers have introduced three new genes
into rice: two from daffodils and one from a micro-organism. The transgenic
rice exhibits an increased production of beta-carotene as a precursor to
vitamin A and the seed is yellow in color (Ye et al 2000). Such yellow, or
golden, rice may be a useful tool to help treat the problem of vitamin A
deficiency in young children living in the tropics.
.... “Iron
fortification is required because cereal grains are deficient in essential
micro-nutrients such as iron. Iron deficiency causes anemia in pregnant women
and young children. About 400 million women of childbearing age suffer as a
result and they are more prone to
stillborn or underweight children and to mortality at childbirth. Anemia has
been identified as a contributing factor in over 20% of maternal deaths (after
giving birth) in Asia and Africa (Conway 1999). Transgenic rice with elevated
levels of iron has been produced using genes involved in the production of an
iron-binding protein and in the production of an enzyme that facilitates iron
availability in the human diet (Goto et al 1999, Lucca et al (it). (1999).
These plants contain 2 to 4 times the levels of iron normally found in
non-transgenic rice.”
.... “Soils
subjected to extensive tillage (plowing) for controlling weeds and preparing
seed beds are prone to erosion, and there is a serious loss of water content.
There is a need to develop crops that thrive under (low tillage) conditions,
including the introduction of
resistance to root diseases currently controlled by tillage and to herbicides
that can be used as a substitute for tillage.”
.... “Vaccines are available for many of the
diseases that cause widespread death or human discomfort in developing
countries, but they are often expensive both to produce and use. The majority
must be stored under conditions of refrigeration and administered by trained
specialists, all of which adds to the expense. Even the cost of needles to
administer vaccines is prohibitive in some countries. As a result, the vaccines
often do not reach those in most need. Researchers are currently investigating
the potential for GM technology to produce vaccines and pharmaceuticals in
plants…the development of transgenic plants to produce therapeutic agents has
immense potential to help in solving problems of disease in developing
countries.”
.... “The
real potential of GM technology to help address some of the most serious
concerns of world agriculture has only recently begun to be explored.”
Regulatory
systems in place around the world are adequate to ensure that foods produced
through biotechnology are safe, and there is no evidence that foods are not
safe.
“The safety assessment process
for GM foods is based on concepts and principles that have been developed
through international orgasnizations such as the World Helath Organization and
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and the
Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development…The level of safety of GM
foods is at least as high as that of all other available foods because of the
safety assessment process undertaken for GM foods is farm more thorough than
that undertaken for any other foods.” –Australia New Zealand Food Authority (7)
“With regard to health issues, tests on toxicity
and allergenicity have been and are being conducted. So far none has shown
significant toxic or allergenic harm. No peer-reviewed article on clinical
trials or epidemiological study reporting adverse effects on human health has
yet appeared. Where there have been indications of potential unacceptable
effect, the present mechanisms have enabled us to identify them and prevent
such products coming to the market.” – OECD (9)
“Overall, national food safety systems are doing
an effective job of protecting public health.” – OECD Ad Hoc Council on Food
Safety (10)
“(The researchers are)
not aware of any evidence suggesting foods on the market today are unsafe to
eat as a result of genetic modification. ..The federal agencies responsible for
regulating transgenic plants have generally done a good job.” – National Research Council (3)
“The Consultation
acknowledges that for genetically modified foods, the premarketing safety
assessment already gives assurance that the food is as safe as its conventional
counterpart.” –
FAO/WHO (4).
“Much experience has been
gained in the safety assessment of the first generation of foods derived
through modern biotechnology, and those countries that have conducted
assessments are confident that those GM foods they have approved are as safe as
other foods...Most attention in the safety assessment of GM foods has been
given to the detection and prevention of potentially occurring toxic effects,
allergic reactions, unfavorable changes in nutrient composition, and the issues
associated with antibiotic resistance genes.” – OECD (5)
“Considerable confidence
exists that modern sophisticated analytical chemistry and biochemistry
techniques and food safety assessment procedures can ensure that GM foods are
as safe as traditional ones.” – OECD (5)
“There is no reason to
suspect that the long-term safety of GM foods will be any less than that of
conventional foods. The safety assessment process is designed to ensure that
these foods provide all of the benefits of conventionally produced foods and no
additional risks.” –
ANZFA (7)
There is much scientific agreement that properties of foods should be the target
of risk assessment, not the process
by which foods are produced.
“There is a widespread
scientific consensus that in assessing risks, it is not the process applied in
breeding but the genetic outcome and the trait it confers to the plant that
matters.” – OECD (5)
“I must emphasize that we believe it is the
properties of a genetically modified plant, not the process by which it was
produced, that should be the focus of risk assessments.”—Perry Adkisson,
committee chair, National Research Council committee on biotechnology (3)
“The ASM has long held the position that oversight
and regulation should be based on the risk associated with products of
biotechnology, and not on the processes used to create or produce these
products. This is necessary not only to protect public health and the
environment, but also to encourage continued biotechnological research and
development which is in the national interest,and in the interests of the
health and welfare of people worldwide.” – American Society for Microbiology (8)
“To label a product only because it is genetically
modified would be punitive.” – ASM (8)
“Traditional
and bioengineered foods all are subject to the same labeling requirements. All
labeling for a food product must be truthful and not misleading. If a
bioengineered food is significantly different from its conventional counterpart
– if the nutritional value changes or it causes allergies – it must be labeled
to indicated that difference.” – FDA Commissioner Jane Henney (2)
“There is no scientifically valid reason to treat
possible gene transfer events involving GM organisms differently from those
involving naturally occurring organisms. In any case, it is the gene and the
trait it confers, and whether or not it brings a reproduction or selection
advantage to the recipient organism that are crucial concerns when possible
impacts of potential gene transfer are being considered.” – OECD (5)
Crops produced
through biotechnology can reduce the use of chemical pesticides.
“Human health and
environmental benefits could arise from reductions in the application of
chemical pesticides resulting from the commercial production of certain
transgenic pest-protected plants.” – National Research Council (3)
“Transgenic crops containing insect resistance
genes from Bacillus thuringiensis have made it possible to reduce significantly
the amount of insecticide applied on cotton in the USA. One analysis, for
example, showed a reduction of five million acre-treatments
(two-million-hectare-treatments) or about one million kilograms of chemicals
insecticides in 1999 compared with 1998.” – Seven science academies (6)
“Transgenic
varieties have benefited many farmers in the form of reduced production costs,
higher yields, or both. In many cases, they have also benefited the environment
because of reduced pesticide usage or by providing the means to grow crops with
less tillage…Genes for pest resistance…provide alternative opportunities to
reduce the use of chemical pesticides in many important crops. In addition,
lowering the contamination of our food supply by(insect-caused) pathogens that
cause food safety problems (eg mycotoxins) would be beneficial to farmers and
consumers alike.” –
Seven science academies (6)
“The overall result of cultivation of
plants expressing Bt is that the number of chemical insecticide applications for
non-target pest control is reduced…Densisties of (non-target, beneficial)
insects are generally higher on Bt…crops than non Bt crops solely because the
Bt crops are not subjected to spraying with nonspecific pesticides.” – EPA (1)
“Analysis by USDA's Economic Research
Service indicates that adoption of GE corn, soybeans, and cotton is associated
with a decrease in the number of acre-treatments of pesticides (number of acres
treated multiplied by number of pesticide treatments).”—Agricultural Outlook
Summary, ERS-AO-273, July 21, 2000, approved by the World Agricultural Outlook
Board
There is no
greater potential for allergens to occur in biotech foods than in foods
produced through traditional breeding. Furthermore, testing of biotech foods
pays special attention to identifying potential allergens.
“Modern biotechnology, like classical
biotechnology (conventional breeding techniques), has the potential to
introduce allergens into foods. Safety assessments of GM foods usually include
an assessment of the allergenic potential of newly introduced proteins…No
allergy risk has been established at present for the GM products that have
already been approved.” – OECD (5)
“In considering the safety of new proteins in
food, the possibility that a new protein may cause an allergic reaction in some
individuals should be assessed…If the gene originated from a source known to
cause allergic reactions, the assessment should include in vitro analysis (of
the reactivity of the protein) with…blood serum of individuals with known
allergies to the source of the transferred material. If serum reactivity is
observed, a second tier of in vivo study should be performed (skin prick test).
If this test is negative or equivocal, a…double blind, placebo-controlled food
challenge with patients sensitive to the allergenic source of the gene is
recommended. If the source of the GM food does not suggest the presence of
proteins with allergenic potential, a comparison of certain properties of known
allergens with those of the newly expressed protein(s) in the food is necessary
in order to assess its allergenic potential. If a protein exhibits
characteristics similar to a known allergen, further evaluation is
recommended.” -- OECD (5)
“Food allergens are
typically large proteins. They are often glycosylated, and are relatively
stable to food processing and digestion. Of the huge number of proteins in the
human diet, few are allergens.” – OECD (5)
“If a genetically modified food contains the
product of a gene form a source with known allergenic effects, the gene product
should be assumed to be allergenic unless proven otherwise. The transfer of
genes from commonly allergenic foods should be discouraged unless it can be
documented that the gene transferred does not code for an allergen.” – FAO/WHO (4)
“If (there is) scientific evidence that any new
protein in a GM food were allergenic, it is unlikely that the food would be
permitted to be sold…even with appropriate labeling. This is because it is
considered inappropriate to increase the level of exposure of the community to
allergenic proteins in the food supply.” – ANZFA (7)
“It is important to know that bioengineering does
not make a food inherently different from conventionally produced food. And the
technology doesn’t make the food more likely to cause allergies…To be cautious,
FDA ha specifically focused on allergy issues. Under the law…companies must
tell consumers on the food label when a product includes a gene from one of the
common allergy-causing foods unless it can show that the protein produced by
the added gene does not make the food cause allergies.” – FDA Commissioner Jane Henney
(3)
Antibiotic resistance markers in some
currently registered products are safe, and new techniques will allow the
phase-out of such markers in future products.
“Antibiotic resistance
markers currently used in genetically modified plants have been previously
reviewed for safety. (The consultation) concluded that there is no evidence
that the markers currently in use pose a health risk to humans or domestic
animals.” – FAO/WHO
(4)
“The marker gene commonly used in biotechnology,
kanamycin resistance, does not confer resistance to antibiotics that are in
(oral) therapeutic use. Furthermore, bacterial strains resistant to the
antibiotics in questions are common in the environment and in the human
intestines, and large numbers of naturally resistant bacteria are acquired when
ingesting fresh foods…In the case of antibiotic resistance, there is good
reason to think that GM strains pose much less of a threat than naturally
occurring resistant bacterial strains, because the former represent old,
narrow-spectrum and less mobilizable resistance genes not involved in the
present problems in hospitals.” – OECD (5)
“For most of the antibiotic resistance genes
currently present in GM foods, the overall threat to the therapeutic use of
antibiotics in humans is effectively zero…It is extremely unlikely that new
genetic material will transfer from GM foods to bacteria in the human digestive
tract because of the number of complex and unlikely steps that would need to
take place consecutively. It is equally unlikely that new genetic material will
transfer from GM foods to human cells via the digestive tract.” ANZFA (7)
(1) “Response of the Environmental Protection
Agency to Petition for rulemaking and collateral relief concerning the
registration and use of genetically engineered plants expressing Bacillus thuringiensis endotoxins.”
April 20, 2000. www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/news/news-greenpeace.htm
(2) “Are Bioengineered Foods Safe?”, FDA Consumer
magazine, Jan.-Feb., 2000. www.fda.gov
(3) “Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants:
Science and Regulation,” NRC press release, May 2000,
www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf
(4) “Safety aspects of genetically modified foods
of plant origin,” Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation, May 29-June2,
2000.
(5) “Report of the task force for the safety of
novel foods and feeds,” OECD, May 17, 2000
(6) “Transgenic plants and world agriculture,”
report of seven science academies, July 2000. www.royalsoc.ac.uk
(7) “GM Foods and the Consumer,” Australia New
Zealand Food Authority, June 2000 http://www.anzfa.gov.au/Documents/pub02_00.pdf
(8) Statement of the American Society for
Microbiology on Genetically Modified Organisms, July 2000
(9) “GM Food Safety: Facts, Uncertainties and
Assessment”, OECD Edinburgh Conference on Genetically Modified Foods, Feb. 28-
March 1, 200
(10) “Overview of Food Safety Systems and
Activities,” OECD Ad Hoc Group on Food Safety, May 4, 2000.