"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 13:03:26 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 12:16:35 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:
Can you name any other food product that has been studied more than GE
maize?

The FDA has reviewed more than 100 toxicological and clinical studies
with aspartame. How does that compare to the average GM event in
maize?

It does not compare at all with GE maize.

Why now avoid the question? I mean, you brought it up, and it is
rather straightforward, a simple count. How many toxicological and
clinical studies have been done on the average GM event in maize?

Why dont you answer my question first Torsten. Tell me ONE natural food
product that has undergone as much toxicological studies as GE products.

It is a man-made substance and is not made in living organisms.

A GM event is also man-made, so there.

How about information about tomato?
What toxicological data was known about the tomato
before human began consuming it?

It's a very long time ago, I don't think
that will ever be known.

Because there weren't any. How about just giving me one example of a
natural food product having to undergo toxicological studies. I will even
accept an example of a product developed by chemical mutagenesis. All I
want is one. With your fingers on the pulse on the scientific community,
that should be an easy request.

Dave



Dave

-----------

Excerpt from " Toxicological and allergological safety evaluation of
GMO - Summary Spoek A., Hofer H., Valenta R., Kienzl-Plochberger K.,
Lehner P., Gaugitsch H.., Monograph 109, Federal Environment Agency,
Austria http://www.ubavie.gv.at

"Out of 28 applications for placing on the market of GMP which are
presently under review or are already approved, eleven applications
were selected: applications for intended use for cultivation and as
feed stuff (RR-fodder beet A5/15, potato EH92-527-1, Bt-cotton 531,
RR-cotton 1445), "twin applications" (first application for import,
second application for cultivation; maize Bt11, RR-maize GA 21), one
application intended for cultivation as well as use as food and feed
stuff (rape Topas 19/2), applications for use as ornamental plants
(carnation 66, carnation 959A etc.). Besides the actual application
dossiers also correspondence, additional information from the
notifiers, opinions of the national competent authorities as well as
the Scientific Committee on Plants, and - if available - decisions
of
the European Commission were considered.

TOXICOLOGY:

In general toxicological information is rather a minor part of the
dossiers. Differences in the intended use of the GMP do not affect
the
extent of the toxicological evaluations. Most toxicity tests are
displayed as summaries or are just references to the literature and
can therefore not be verified and reviewed. Internal references are
often used improperly. Statements which are closely related to each
other are sometimes scattered over the dossier.

Apparently, toxicological tests were carried out rather
sporadically,
most likely in cases of Bt-plants, as Bt-toxins had already been
approved before as an insecticide in some countries. Data on the
toxicity of the whole GMP are not provided in any dossier.

Toxicological acceptance is often justified by three arguments:
- low toxicity of the gene product,
- substantial equivalence of the GMP to their conventional
counterparts, and
- low exposure.

Potentially toxic effects resulting as a secondary effect from the
gene insertion are not considered in any case.

Most of the toxicological testing were not carried out in compliance
with quality assurance programs such as Good Laboratory Practise
(GLP).

GMP are very often declared as being safe just by assumption based
reasoning. Furthermore these assumptions are sometimes not easily or
not at all verifiable.

Risk assessment procedures which are carried out in a systematic way
consisting of a hazard assessment of the GMP on one hand and of an
analysis of exposure on the other hand, are lacking in the dossiers.

ALLERGOLOGY:

No direct testing of potentially allergic properties of GMP and
products derived therefrom was carried out.

The absence of allergenic properties was justified solely in an
either
argumentative way and/or by giving rather indirect evidence (e.g.,
digestion studies, sequence homology comparisons).

Some quotations of literature intended to confirm the safety of the
GMP in the dossiers are cited wrongly or are outdated or are even
suspected to be selectively quoted.

The usual way of arguing is as follows:
(i) no homology could be detected between the newly introduced
protein
and known allergens,
(ii)the expression level of target protein in the GMP is rather low,
(iii) the protein will rapidly be digested in the intestine,
(iv) the newly introduce protein originates from a non-allergenic
source,
(v) the protein is not glycosylated and will therefore less likely
exhibit allergic properties,
(vi) the protein will less likely exhibit allergenic properties
because it is not new.

Each of these arguments and their underlying assumptions have to be
questioned in the light of recent scientific data. Furthermore,
unintended secondary effects possibly caused by the gene insertion,
such as the possible upregulated expression of other allergens
through
insertion and expression of the foreign gene in the GMP, are not
considered at all. A safety evaluation which is based exclusively on
the above described approaches is insufficient.

SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE:

Analysis and comparisons of plant compounds are part of each dossier
with the exception of carnation. However, no connection can be
established between the nature and extent of these analysis and the
intended use of the GMP or GMP products.

Compositional analysis are largely restricted to macro-nutrients and
known plant specific anti-nutrients as well as known toxins. A
detailed characterisation of macrocompounds is however, rarely done.

Substantial equivalence is referred to in each dossier in order to
argue for the safety of the particular GMP. The parameters chosen in
composition analysis are however, not comprehensive enough to
justify
substantial equivalence and/or to detect probable unintended
secondary
effects.

In each dossier some significant differences between the GMP
and conventional counterparts were either reported or could be found
by reviewing the displayed data. However, these differences did not
lead to a repetition of the analysis including an extension of
parameters investigated. In contrast, these differences were
argumentatively attributed to naturally occurring ranges, effects
from
back-crossing, climate conditions etc.

Detailed descriptions of cultivation conditions, single examination
sheets and statistical data interpretation, information on storage
and
preparation of samples as well as detailed data on the results of
compound analysis are lacking in most cases.

Detailed explanations on summaries of compound analysis are often
fragmentary or even missing.

On the ground of information given and data shown, substantial
equivalence often cannot be verified.

In case of herbicide resistant GMP it is often not quite clear if
the
herbicide was applied during cultivation.

As a matter of comparing average values of different cultivation
sites
the variance of analysed compounds is sometimes quite high, and
might
be covering any unintended secondary effects e.g. resulting in
changes
in plant metabolism.

Nutritional considerations in general and especially with respect to
substantial equivalence (e.g. vitamin profiles, characterisation of
fibre, analyses of different types of proteins) apparently do not
play
a role in the dossiers and are just occasionally considered in
comparative composition analysis.

Composition of food products derived from animals fed on GMP was not
considered in any dossier."
[End quote]