A paper to be published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature on 7th October demolishes the key assumption underlying the international safety regulation of GM food. The concept of "substantial equivalence" [1] has formed the basis of many food safety systems around the world (including the UK) but three scientists [2] writing in Nature have condemned this assumption as a 'pseudo-scientific concept' serving the interests of big business. The critique could destabilise America's aggressive stance on GM food and crops at World Trade Organisation negotiations.
The concept of 'substantial equivalence' assumes that GM and non-GM crops are broadly the same when assessing their safety for human consumption. In the UK 'substantial equivalence' is an important basis for deciding upon the safety of GM food including Monsanto's Roundup Ready soya bean. The value of 'substantial equivalence' to multinational companies is demonstrated by the Monsanto application to the UK Novel Food committee: "Following the principles for the application of substantial equivalence, there should be no further safety or nutritional concerns of any significance". This is despite the fact that independent scientists had previously criticised the concept [3].
Dr Douglas Parr, Campaign Director at Greenpeace UK, said: "This article reveals that much of the supposed safety regulation of GM food is based on flawed assumptions and dodgy science. The Government will now have to take the public's concerns seriously and follow the lead set by supermarkets in banning GM food."
The article is yet another serious blow to the UK Government which is trying to promote genetic engineering in agriculture. Last Sunday it was revealed that Professor Arpad Pusztai's research on GM potatoes and their deleterious effects on rats will be published "soon" in the Lancet. This means that of the peer-reviewed scientific papers assessing the safety of GM food, the count will be 1 for and 1 against.
Notes to Editors:
[1] "Substantial Equivalence", as pointed out in the Nature article, lacks a usable definition. The nearest is that from the OECD which says "The concept of substantial equivalence embodies the idea that existing organisms used as foods, or as sources of food, can be used as the basis for comparison when assessing the safety of human consumption of a food or food component that has been modified or is new".
In practice it does this by making the assumption that if, after a limited range of tests has shown no difference in composition between the modified crop and the ranges of variation of constituents of the natural versions, they can be treated similarly from a safety assessment point of view. For a number of technical reasons this may not pick up the unpredictable effects of genetic engineering including unexpected changes, the testing deals only with known toxicants, the new gene products cannot be properly tested for allergenicity, and other issues.
[2] The three scientists are Erik Millstone, Eric Brunner and Sue Mayer
[3] See for example Prof. WP James and Dr. A. Chesson, Evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee enquiry into scientific advice on genetically modified foods; Michael Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Pathology, London "The Conceptual flaw of 'substantial equivalence'.)
Further information:
Contact:
Greenpeace press office on: 020 7865 8255
