Special parliamentary briefing on GM food

A special all-party briefing for MPs was held last night in a House of Commons committee room, given by scientists concerned about the introduction of genetically modified foods. Professor John Fagan, an eminent molecular biologist with 23 years' experience at the cutting edge of molecular genetics techniques in cancer research, called for greater caution in the introduction of genetically modified foods.

"If genetic engineering is to be used in agriculture and food production, its implementation should be guided by the same kind of rigorous science and testing that is now used to assess new pharmaceuticals and food additives. Stringent short-term and long-term safety testing and environmental assessment are essential," Dr Fagan told MPs.

"In addition, all genetically engineered foods should be clearly labelled as such. No testing regimen can guarantee 100% safety, and therefore consumers should have the ability to choose for themselves whether or not to accept the risk associated with genetically modified foods."

An imprecise and uncontrolled process

Using detailed charts to explain the process of genetic engineering, Dr Fagan showed how the insertion of specific new genes into an organism is an imprecise and uncontrolled process that may impact biological functioning in unpredictable ways. "There is always the risk that genetically engineered foods may contain unintended allergens and toxins, and may be reduced in nutritional value. Furthermore, genetically engineered crops may disrupt the ecosystem by reducing bio-diversity, damaging soil fertility, inducing the development of new pathogens, pests, and weeds, and increasing the use of toxic and carcinogenic agrochemicals." Dr Fagan is Professor of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry at Maharishi University of Management, Fairfield, Iowa, USA. He initiated world-wide debate on genetics research in 1994 when he returned almost $2m grants from the US National Institutes of Health because of concerns about the dangers of genetic engineering and the hazards of releasing GM organisms into the environment.

Dr Fagan is also chief scientific adviser to Genetic I.D., a company that provides genetic testing services to food, nutritional, and agricultural industries throughout the world, including supermarket chains in the UK. The tests Dr Fagan has devised are significantly more sensitive than any currently utilised by British authorities and can detect the minutest trace of any GMO.

Medical and agricultural applications of genetic engineering

Dr Michael Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Pathology and head of a research group at one of London's leading teaching hospitals, said that this is an issue that concerns him very deeply. He explained the difference between clinical and agricultural applications of genetic engineering. "Genetic engineering in medicine tries to correct a genetic defect that is either inherited, as in muscular dystrophy or cystic fibrosis, or acquired, as in cancer. Strict regulations quite rightly demand that the use of genetic modification (GM) in medicine does not result in the intentional release of viable GM organisms (GMOs) into the environment," Dr Antoniou said. "In marked contrast, the use of GM in agriculture tries to 'repair' plants that have nothing inherently wrong with them. In agriculture, GMOs are produced specifically for their intentional release into the environment.

"In medicine a new drug or therapy produced using GM must undergo pre-clinical and, more importantly, clinical trials to assess not only efficacy but also to detect any unexpected, undesirable side-effects. However, for GM food no tests with human volunteers are required by law for either toxicity or allergic reactions prior to marketing. "Medicines are clearly labelled, and they are taken voluntarily, and the effects are carefully monitored. None of this applies to GM foods. Under current EU regulations most foods (90%) containing GMO-derived ingredients need not be labelled. The lack of effective segregation means the public has no choice as to whether to eat GM foods or not, and finally post-release monitoring is non-existent. Any problem that subsequently arises would therefore be virtually impossible to trace," he said.

Respecting natural boundaries

"If BSE has taught us anything it is that we should think twice about using a technology in a manner that violates well established natural boundaries. Nature works according to the principle of 'least action' (maximum economy) suggesting that everything exists for a purpose. Natural boundaries or laws can be seen as the means by which the evolutionary direction and integrity of life is maintained. "We should not lull ourselves into a false sense of security: we should not think that by regulating something which is inherently unpredictable and uncontainable it automatically becomes safe," he said. Dr Antoniou is the author/co-author of more than 50 publications and is biotechnology adviser to many organisations including the Soil Association and the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy.

Inadequate knowledge

Dr Geoffrey Clements, leader of the Natural Law Party and a physicist by training, emphasised that the scientific knowledge behind the so-called technology is totally inadequate to guarantee that the GMOs now being produced are free from hazards. "It is like expecting a physicist trained under Newton to operate a nuclear reactor," Dr Clements said. "The actual methods employed are intrinsically dangerous and highly unnatural," he said, referring to the fact that genetic modification can involve pieces of DNA from scorpions, fish viruses, bacteria and other species being implanted in the DNA of cereals, vegetables, fruits and animals.

"Contrary to the arguments being put forward, these are mutations of the DNA that could never occur in Nature. They are being made to occur in isolated species over a time scale of one or two years. In Nature, evolution of the DNA usually takes place over millions of years, in a natural environment of all species living together in balance. "This means that we have no way at all of predicting any adverse results that may happen. When the methods of genetic modification are understood - that they involve pieces of virus and bacterial DNA, for example - it is clear that we are unleashing potential disaster for all life forms. "The only safe way forward is a total ban on all new GM crops and foods, and a recall of all crops and products already being grown and prepared." The Natural Law Party was the first political party to declare itself opposed to GM foods, and it is now actively campaigning on the issue in 80 countries.

Current policy punishes the food producers and retailers

Dr Clements highlighted the fact that current policy is jeopardising the economic health of our food producers. "Ironically, the hardest hit are those who care about keeping food GM free. The main responsibility for maintaining standards is being placed on food producers and retailers, who will inevitably suffer when any negative effects of GM foods are discovered. The government must take action now, and not demonstrate yet again that it is ultimately governed by policies from the White House. "Unless we are 100% certain that there is no risk to health and environmental safety, there is no reason at all to allow GM foods on our shelves or for crops to be grown on any scale."

Please see right hand panel for press contacts