Historically, many controversies over scientific advances are based on ethical concerns and some research into GM foods raises deeply-felt objections by scientists, medical practitioners and consumers.

An international agreement on bio-safety, the Cartagena Protocol, defines a genetically modified organism (GMO) as any recipient of manipulated nucleic acids, including DNA.

A wide range of opposition has arisen to the use of GM foods, with many questions raised over their scientific viability / Image: Istockphoto

According to Jack Heinemann, professor of molecular biology and director of the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, the definition of a GMO is important.

“Genetic modification is not breeding, which is why the regulations on GMOs are fundamentally different,” Prof Heinemann says.

“Breeding modifies phenotypes of populations over time, genetic engineering/modification modifies genotypes of individuals and the process is entirely different.”

Professor Heinemann says eight is the average number of species that contribute pieces of DNA to commercial GM genes.

“Breeding does not just take parts and put them together in strange and potentially unsafe combinations.

“Both the species barrier and the general process behind the creation of GMOs is what causes concern, as does the change in intellectual property laws that transfer ownership of germ plasm to the private sector.”

The Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) says a precautionary principle should be applied in developing GM food because it is not certain whether there are serious risks to the environment or human health.

“GM foods should not be assessed as safe to eat unless they have undergone long-term animal safety assessments utilising endpoints relevant to human health and conducted by independent researchers,” the association said in a statement.

Mike Daube, Curtin University professor of health policy and president of the PHAA, says at this stage the precautionary principle would not allow the commercialisation of GM crops to proceed until there have been longer term assessments.

“And the precautionary principle has served us very well in public health over the years.”

Professor Daube says this is an area where the commercial and other pressures to move ahead can be understood but decisions made now could have ramifications over time that are unknown in the absence of longer-term research.

“This isn’t a matter of holding back progress, this is a matter of saying, just before we move in these areas, let’s make sure we’ve taken every possible appropriate precaution because the moves to GM food are very big moves.

“These are more than generational shifts, these are absolutely massive shifts in terms of the way we live and eat so that’s why we want to see independent research, that’s why we want to see long term assessments, that’s why we want to see strong and effective labelling.”

Professor Heinemann says there are too many important, although often preliminary, studies, which have revealed valid unanticipated, or anticipated but underestimated, harms.

“Unfortunately, there is a severe imbalance between funding for the commercial companies and commercially-motivated public scientists on the one hand, and the public safety-motivated scientists on the other.

“This imbalance makes it difficult if not impossible in practice to get impartial follow-up studies on the preliminary studies that are providing reasons to be concerned, and almost no opportunity for public scientists to gain access to the commercial GMO to do any kind of new risk discovery work.”

Comments (0)