Issues in GM food regulation in the UK
Michael Meacher recently resigned from the environment portfolio in the UK. Government policy on GM foods was one of his concerns. This report from the Institute of Science in Society documents some of the recent concerns on GM foods in the UK and contains a summary of a recent speach by Michael Meacher
From The Institute of Science in Society, Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk
Meacher Calls for Enquiry into GM Safety
Michael Meacher joined the ISP to call for an extended enquiry into GM safety, transparency and independence in scientific research, and an end to the victimisation of scientists whose research findings are ‘inconvenient’ for industry. Lim Li Ching reports
The ISP had its day in Parliament. The 100-seater room was filled almost to capacity. The crowd had begun gathering outside the Grand Committee Room almost an hour before the two-hour special briefing was due to start. The event, which took place on 29 April 2004, was jointly organised by ISIS and MP Alan Simpson’s office. It was oversubscribed weeks after the first announcement, and has had to be moved to a bigger room.
Alan Simpson made the opening speech, thanking ISIS for organising the event, and for our crucial contribution to turning the tide on GM by getting quality scientific information to the public and policy-makers.
Former environment minister Michael Meacher was the first speaker. Among other MPs attending were Peter Ainsworth (chair of the Environmental Audit Committee), Joan Ruddock, Jeremy Corbin, David Drew, Roger Williams and Dr. Evan Harris.
Despite the welcome fact that GM crops are unlikely to be grown in the UK in the near future following the withdrawal of Chardon LL by Bayer, the ISP still feels that there are broader issues at hand. Not least that the UK government, in approving the GM maize in principle, leaves the door open for future approvals. Approvals of GM crops, food and feed are pending in Europe, and could occur anytime. In any case, the GM train is still steaming ahead, particularly in developing countries.
The ISP is especially concerned that the push to get GM crops approved and commercialised has distorted and corrupted science, and resulted in many scientists being victimised for trying to tell the truth about their research findings or about what they know.
Michael Meacher spoke directly to those concerns, highlighting the lack of good research into the long-term effects of GM foods on human health. More worryingly, when research turns up evidence of potentially adverse impacts, the results have been rubbished by the scientific establishment, and have not been followed up with further tests to confirm or refute the original findings.
Meacher called for a new, full-scale expert GM enquiry in the UK. As the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs) had been extremely narrow, a new enquiry is needed that would “systematically and rigorously test the impact of GM crops and food on the environment and on human health”.
He also demanded a more open and transparent scientific process, and an end to the suppression and vilification of scientists whose work may produce results that are inconvenient for the government or the biotech industry. (Dr. Arpad Pusztai was mentioned more than once in that context in the course of the briefing.) He called on the UK’s advisory committees and regulatory bodies not to deny or dismiss the evidence of GM hazards.
Finally, he said that decision-making in the UK should not be influenced by the biotech industry, stressing that “No scientist with industry links should be appointed to regulatory bodies”. He called on the government to ensure the integrity of research by fully funding independent research, and to abandon the current practice of encouraging the private sector to contribute 25% of research funding.
Peter Saunders stressed that the ISP is in favour of good science. Unfortunately, the UK government’s decision to give Chardon LL approval for commercialisation was reliant on poor science. Doubt had been cast on the maize FSEs because of the impending EU ban on triazine herbicides (atrazine had been used on the majority of plots planted to non-GM maize), but shortly after, a paper was published in Nature claiming that the ban would be likely to “reduce but not negate relative benefits of GMHT maize”.
However, because only four fields had not been sprayed with triazines, the paper included in its analysis data from fields that had been sprayed post-emergence with triazines, to predict what would happen in fields where these chemicals would not be used at all (See “Bogus comparison in GM maize trial”, this issue). Despite its obvious flaws, the paper passed the peer review process and was published online in an advanced version of Nature, right around the time that the government announced the go-ahead for the GM maize. Is this what they call ‘sound’ science?
Stanley Ewen, co-researcher with Arpad Pusztai, has also been on the receiving end of the treatment meted out to those who dare raise questions about GM safety. Their research, which found changes in the gastro-intestinal tract of young rats fed GM potatoes, has been further elaborated by new evidence published in 2003. When the villi - the finger-like projections in the gut involved in absorbing and secreting – of the small intestine were examined, there was clear elongation of the crypts in rats fed GM potatoes. The findings are similar to that found by Egyptian scientists, who described changes in the small intestine of mice fed Bt potatoes.
Ewen also explained that they found an increase in the number of cells in the crypt and the mitotic rate (number of cells dividing) in the small bowel of young rats fed GM potatoes. He highlighted other research findings, such as gastric erosions in female rats fed GM Flavr Savr tomatoes, changes in the nuclei of liver cells in female mice fed GM soya, the persistence of GM maize grains in the rumen of sheep, and the transfer of transgenes to human gut bacteria. Ewen concluded by saying, “Much more scientific investigation is necessary before I can be satisfied that eating GM foods is not likely to provoke health problems in the long term”.
Adding to the list, Mae- Wan Ho cited other evidence that casts doubt on the safety of GM food and feed, such as reported illnesses in villagers living near Bt maize fields in the Philippines and recent disclosure in the French newspaper Le Monde that there were kidney abnormalities and changes in blood sugar and blood cells in rats fed Bt maize resistant to corn rootworm. She stressed that there are reports in the scientific literature documenting problems with Bt toxins. The regulatory process not only ignores all that, but also allows toxicological tests to be done using the natural bacterial toxin instead of that produced by the GM crop. Consequently, most, if not all Bt toxins in crop plants are untested and unknown for toxicity.
She highlighted transgenic instability as a key safety issue. Recent event-specific molecular characterisation of commercial transgenic lines has shown that all the inserts analysed have changed from the original structure reported by the companies concerned, rendering the safety tests submitted earlier invalid. Many break-points involve the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter. The research also showed scrambling of the host genome at the insertion site, and a tendency for the inserts to land in retrotransposons.
Lim Li Ching exploded the myth that poor countries need GM crops and could benefit greatly from them. She described the socio-economic impacts of GM crops especially in Argentina, and also in Indonesia and India.
In Argentina, small farming families have been pushed off their land, unable to compete with large plantations growing herbicide tolerant Roundup Ready (RR) soya. Traditional food crops have been displaced by RR soya monoculture, leaving food insecurity in its wake. In addition, large-scale destruction of the environment has occurred with double the rate of deforestation. Glyphosate use on RR soya, double that on conventional soya, has led to tolerant and resistant weeds, necessitating ever more herbicide use, with farmers resorting to older and more toxic chemicals such as Paraquat and 2,4 D. These agrochemicals have been devastating on local communities, with serious health impacts, and loss of crops and livestock. The situation for some farmers in Indonesia and India has also been dire, with many who planted Bt cotton bearing the brunt of crop failure and pest attacks on the crop.
Brian John ended the briefing with an indictment of the scientific establishment for insisting that genetically modified organisms are safe. He stressed that there are still many questions about GM safety that need to be asked and that we need to “bring science with integrity to the fore”. John reminded the government that ‘the public’ included many scientists who were concerned about GM safety. He urged for a holistic scientific approach to the issue and concluded by echoing the ISP call for “good and independent science, free of commercial interests”.