GMO Myths and Truths

Recommendations

Info

3.3 Myth: Those who claim that GM foods are unsafe are being selective with the data, since many other studies show safety Truth: Studies that claim safety for GM crops are more likely to be industry-linked and therefore biased “In a study involving 94 articles selected through objective criteria, it was found that the existence of either financial or professional conflict of interest was associated [with] study outcomes that cast genetically modified products in a favourable light.” – Diels J, et al. Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products. Food Policy. 2011; 36: 197–203 When it comes to hazardous products, the bias of industry-sponsored or industry-linked studies is well documented. Every time industry-linked studies are compared with studies on the same product from the independent (non-industrylinked) scientific literature, the same verdict is reached: industry studies are biased towards conclusions of safety for the product. The best known example is tobacco industry studies, which successfully delayed regulation for decades by manufacturing doubt and controversy about the negative health effects of smoking and passive smoking. 53 More recently, studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical and mobile phone industry have been shown to be more likely to portray their products in a favourable light than non-industry-funded studies. 54,55,56 The case of GM crops is no different. Reviews of the scientific literature on the health risks of GM foods demonstrate that the studies that show safety are more likely to be industry-linked and are therefore inherently biased: ● A review of 94 published studies on health risks and nutritional value of GM crops found that they were much more likely to reach favourable 53 conclusions when the authors were affiliated with the GM industry than when the authors had no industry affiliation. In the studies where there was such a conflict of interest, 100% (41 out of 41) reached a favourable conclusion on GMO safety. 57 ● A literature review of GM food safety studies found that most studies concluding that GM foods are as nutritious and safe as non-GM counterparts were performed by the developer companies or associates. 58 In spite of the fact that industry-linked studies have been shown to be biased, approvals for GM crops are based solely on such industry studies. Another tactic used by GM proponents is to point to lists of studies which they say show that GM foods are safe, but which actually show nothing of the sort. An example is on the GMO Pundit blog site, which claims that the over 400 cited studies “document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods and feeds.” 59 But closer examination reveals: ● Most of the studies cited are not safety studies on GM foods. In other words, they are not animal feeding studies that look for health effects in animals fed GM foods. Some are compositional studies that compare the levels of certain major nutrients, such as fat or protein, in a GM crop with levels in a non-GM crop. Others are feed conversion studies that measure how efficiently a livestock animal converts GM feed into a food product, such as meat or milk. ● Many of the studies, on examination of the actual data, show problems with GM foods. These include unintended differences in a GM food compared with the non-GM counterpart and harmful effects in animal feeding trials. In fact, some of these studies are cited in this report as evidence that GM foods are not safe. Readers are encouraged to examine the original studies, where available, and form their own conclusions. In contrast with these lists on GM proponents’ websites, the two peer-reviewed literature reviews cited above identified and evaluated the studies that specifically examine the food safety and nutritional value of GM foods. Their conclusions were clear: industry-linked studies are more likely to conclude safety, whereas independent studies are more likely to find problems. 57,58 GMO Myths and Truths 46
3.4 Myth: GM foods have been proven safe for human consumption Truth: The few studies that have been conducted on humans show problems GM foods are not properly tested for human safety before they are released for sale. 60,19 The only published studies that have directly tested the safety of GM foods for human consumption found potential problems but were not followed up: ● In a study on human volunteers fed a single GM soybean meal, GM DNA survived processing and was detected in the digestive tract. There was evidence of horizontal gene transfer to gut bacteria. 61,62 Horizontal gene transfer is a process by which DNA is transferred from one organism to another through mechanisms other than reproductive mechanisms. These mechanisms enable one organism to incorporate into its own genome genes from another organism without being the offspring of that organism. ● In a study on humans, one of the experimental subjects showed an immune response to GM soy but not to non-GM soy. GM soy was found to contain a protein that was different from the protein in non-GM soy. This shows that GM foods could cause new allergies. 63 ● A GM soy variety modified with a gene from Brazil nuts was found to react with antibodies present in blood serum taken from people known to be allergic to Brazil nuts. Based on current immunological knowledge, this observation indicates that this soy variety would produce an allergic reaction in people allergic to Brazil nuts. 64 ● A study conducted in Canada detected significant levels of the insecticidal protein, Cry1Ab, which is present in GM Bt crops, circulating in the blood of pregnant women and in the blood supply of their foetuses, as well as in the blood of non-pregnant women. 65 How the Bt toxin protein got into the blood (whether through food or another exposure route) is unclear and the detection method used has been disputed by defenders of GM crops. Nevertheless, this study raises questions as to why GM Bt crops are being commercialised widely, when existing research raises serious concerns about their safety and yet no systematic effort is under way to replicate and thereby assess the validity of that research. These studies should be followed up with controlled long-term studies and GM foods and crops should not be commercialised in the absence of such testing. GMO Myths and Truths 47
Page 1 and 2: GMO Myths and Truths An evidence-ba
Page 3 and 4: About the authors Michael Antoniou,
Page 5 and 6: 3.1.5. Regulators currently do not
Page 7 and 8: Truth: Co-existence means widesprea
Page 9 and 10: 1. THE GENETIC ENGINEERING TECHNIQU
Page 11 and 12: 1.2 Myth: Genetic engineering is pr
Page 13 and 14: ornamental plants. 9 It also includ
Page 15 and 16: successfully incorporate the GM gen
Page 17 and 18: “conventionally bred” varieties
Page 19 and 20: inspection. Their scrutiny cannot e
Page 21 and 22: Conclusion to Section 1 GM proponen
Page 23 and 24: 2. SCIENCE AND REGULATION 2.1 Myth:
Page 25 and 26: of a protein (prion), a difference
Page 27 and 28: data on GMOs available on the Inter
Page 29 and 30: 2.1.8. GM corporations and the US g
Page 31 and 32: the defamation and intimidation cam
Page 33 and 34: lacked proper controls. Both claims
Page 35 and 36: 18. Pusztai A, Bardocz S, Ewen SWB.
Page 37 and 38: 3. HEALTH HAZARDS OF GM FOODS 3.1 M
Page 39 and 40: their lambs showed cellular changes
Page 41 and 42: well known to have different effect
Page 43 and 44: developing multi-trait crops becaus
Page 45: 3.2.2. Schrøder (2007) 23 A study
Page 49 and 50: However, the authors of a 1990 stud
Page 51 and 52: 3.6 Myth: GM Bt insecticidal crops
Page 53 and 54: 3.7 Myth: GM foods are properly tes
Page 55 and 56: acute allergenicity problems to a l
Page 57 and 58: 3.9 Myth: Genetic engineering will
Page 59 and 60: poor and hungry in the Global South
Page 61 and 62: 30. European Food Safety Authority
Page 63 and 64: sheep and pigs fed Roundup Ready ca
Page 65 and 66: 4.1 Myth: Roundup is a safe herbici
Page 67 and 68: 100% of air and rain samples taken
Page 69 and 70: 11. Romano RM, Romano MA, Bernardi
Page 71 and 72: “Over the past decade, corporate
Page 73 and 74: supposedly high-yielding GM soybean
Page 75 and 76: often use more glyphosate herbicide
Page 77 and 78: 5.4 Myth: GM Bt crops reduce insect
Page 79 and 80: has called GM crops “pesticide pl
Page 81 and 82: 5.6 Myth: Roundup is a benign and b
Page 83 and 84: fixation and reduce the growth of r
Page 85 and 86: 5.9 Myth: GM crops bring economic b
Page 87 and 88: 5.10 Myth: GM crops can “coexist
Page 89 and 90: 5.11 Myth: If GM contamination occu
Page 91 and 92: acterium, thereby creating a “sup
Page 93 and 94: een found to be unreliable and inco
Page 95 and 96: emergence of resistant and secondar
Page 97 and 98:
mycorrhizal symbiosis in experiment
Page 99 and 100:
Canada: Organic Agriculture Protect
Page 101 and 102:
6.1 Myth: GM will deliver climate-r
Page 103 and 104:
6.3 Myth: GM will solve the nitroge
Page 105 and 106:
Agriculture cannot continue to depe
Page 107 and 108:
7.1 Myth: GM crops are needed to fe
Page 109 and 110:
A 2003 report on the project calcul
Page 111 and 112:
Previously, agricultural markets we
Page 113 and 114:
and the Caribbean have found that o
Page 115 and 116:
7.3 Myth: GM is needed to provide t
Page 117 and 118:
King produced this example when und
Page 119 and 120:
IAASTD report, commissioned by the
Page 121 and 122:
LifeScientist. 12 March 2012. http:
Page 123:
mixtures of chemicals in an attempt
show all

GMO Myths and Truths

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?