Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn?
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 09:55:01 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: Myth: GM is the most contorled and studied thing we have ever done in agricluture. Fact: It isn't. Take just the dossier of the average pesticide, if you want to see a more controlled and studied thing. Can you name any other food product that has been studied more than GE maize? 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] |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
[IBC] Non-traditional forms {WAS: [IBC] good quote (non-bonsai, but related)} | Bonsai | |||
NW: Best grass for a non garden/non mowing kind of guy | Gardening | |||
GM crop farms filled with weeds (Was: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?) | sci.agriculture | |||
Comparison photos of GM/non-GM (Was: Paying to find non-GE wild corn?) | sci.agriculture | |||
Paying to find non-GE wild corn? (Was: Soy blocked in NZ) | sci.agriculture |