GMO Myths and Truths

of a protein (prion), a difference that would not be
picked up by a substantial equivalence assessment.
Yet few would claim that eating a BSE-infected cow
is as safe as eating a healthy cow.
When claims of substantial equivalence have
been independently tested, they have been
found to be untrue. Using the latest molecular
analytical methods, GM crops have been shown
to have a different composition to their non-GM
counterparts. This is true even when the two crops
are grown under the same conditions, at the same
time and in the same location – meaning that the
changes are not due to different environmental
factors but to the genetic modification.
Examples include:
● GM soy had 12–14% lower amounts of cancerfighting
isoflavones than non-GM soy. 22
● Canola (oilseed rape) engineered to contain
vitamin A in its oil had much reduced vitamin
E and an altered oil-fat composition, compared
with non-GM canola. 23
● Experimental GM rice varieties had unintended
major nutritional disturbances compared with
non-GM counterparts, although they were
grown side-by-side in the same conditions. The
structure and texture of the GM rice grain was
affected and its nutritional content and value
were dramatically altered. The authors said that
their findings “provided alarming information
with regard to the nutritional value of
transgenic rice” and showed that the GM rice
was not substantially equivalent to non-GM. 24
● Experimental GM insecticidal rice was found
to contain higher levels of certain components
(notably sucrose, mannitol, and glutamic
acid) than the non-GM counterpart. These
differences were shown to have resulted
from the genetic manipulation rather than
environmental factors. 25
● Commercialised MON810 GM maize had
a markedly different profile in the types of
proteins it contained compared with the non-
GM counterpart when grown under the same
conditions. 21
GM crops also have different effects from their
non-GM counterparts when fed to animals (see
3.1.1).
2.1.3. The US government is not
impartial regarding GM crops
The US government is not an impartial
authority on GM crops. In fact, it has a policy of
actively promoting them. 26 Through its embassies
and agencies such as the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the US government pressures
national governments around the world to accept
GM crops. This has been made clear in a series of
diplomatic cables disclosed by Wikileaks, which
reveal that:
● The US embassy in Paris recommended that the
US government launch a retaliation strategy
against the EU that “causes some pain” as
punishment for Europe’s reluctance to adopt
GM crops. 27
● The US embassy in Spain suggested that the US
government and Spain should draw up a joint
strategy to help boost the development of GM
crops in Europe. 28
● The US State Department is trying to steer
African countries towards acceptance of GM
crops. 29,30
This strategy of exerting diplomatic pressure
on national governments to adopt GM crops is
undemocratic as it interferes with their ability
to represent the wishes of their citizens. It is
also inappropriate to use US taxpayers’ money
to promote products owned by individual
corporations.
2.1.4. The regulatory process in
Europe and the rest of the world
“I suggest to biotechnology companies
that they publish results of studies on
the safety of GM foods in international
peer-reviewed journals. The general
population and the scientific community
cannot be expected to take it on faith that
the results of such studies are favourable.
Informed decisions are made on the basis
of experimental data, not faith.”
– Domingo JL. Health risks of GM foods:
Many opinions but few data. Science. 2000;
288(5472): 1748–1749. 31
Many governments, including those of the EU,
Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, have an
GMO Myths and Truths 25