Hope Not Hype - Third World Network
Hope Not Hype - Third World Network
Hope Not Hype - Third World Network
- No tags were found...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
42 <strong>Hope</strong> <strong>Not</strong> <strong>Hype</strong><br />
Regulations cannot ensure the safety of unknown or recalled GMOs in human food.<br />
The case study reported in Box 4.1 describes how unknown varieties can result in human<br />
health concerns and trade disruptions (Heinemann et al., 2004). In summary:<br />
The movement of transgenes beyond their intended destinations is a virtual certainty. It is<br />
unlikely that transgenes can be retracted once they have escaped. Human error can foil even<br />
the best designed strategies for risk management (Marvier and Van Acker, 2005, p. 99).<br />
<strong>Not</strong> all GMOs are intended to be safe as food (Ellstrand, 2003; Heinemann, 2007;<br />
Marvier and Van Acker, 2005; Schubert, 2008). The track record on containing regulated<br />
and potentially unsafe GMOs, much less GMOs not designed to be safe, is not reassuring<br />
(Fox, 2003; Ledford, 2007; Lee and Natesan, 2006; Vermij, 2006; Zapiola et al., 2008)<br />
and thus, even when regulatory requirements are met, it is possible for future potentially<br />
“unsafe” GMOs to enter the food chain (Schubert, 2008). This is the point elegantly made<br />
by the editor of Nature Biotechnology when discussing so-called “pharma crops”, GM<br />
food plants that produce industrial or pharmaceutical products that are not intended to be<br />
safe in food:<br />
The production of drugs or drug intermediates in food or feed crop species bears the potential<br />
danger that pharmaceutical substances could find their way into the food chain through<br />
grain admixture, or pollen-borne gene flow (in maize, at least) or some other accidental<br />
mix-up because of the excusably human inability to distinguish between crops for food and<br />
crops for drugs. The ‘contamination’ of soybeans and non-GM corn in 2002 with a corn<br />
engineered by Prodigene to produce an experimental pig vaccine shows just how plausible<br />
this is. This position is not anti-GM (something industry should appreciate) – we should be<br />
concerned about the presence of a potentially toxic substance in food plants. After all, is this<br />
really so different from a conventional pharmaceutical or biopharmaceutical manufacturer<br />
packaging its pills in candy wrappers or flour bags or storing its compounds or production<br />
batches untended outside the perimeter fence (Editor, 2004, p. 133)...Although industry<br />
organizations, such as the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), continue to support<br />
The Assessment text<br />
Synthesis Report (p. 42)<br />
GMOs made from plants that are part of<br />
the human food supply but developed<br />
for animal feed or to produce<br />
pharmaceuticals that would be unsafe as<br />
food, might threaten human health.<br />
(From Agriculture at a Crossroads: The<br />
Synthesis Report by IAASTD, ed.<br />
Copyright © 2009 IAASTD. Reproduced<br />
by permission of Island Press,<br />
Washington, D.C.)<br />
food crops for PMP/PMIP [plant-made<br />
pharmaceuticals and plant-made industrial<br />
products] expression systems, we hold to<br />
our original view that they pose too many<br />
problems (Editor, 2007, p. 167).<br />
A related reason to consider presence<br />
comes from differences in the context of<br />
safety testing and actual use of a GMO. A<br />
GMO that is by design substantially<br />
different from the same conventional<br />
organism may be deemed safe in one context<br />
but pose risks in another. An example of<br />
such a case is provided by a GM variety of