GM Foods -
Part 2 Genetically Modified Foods(GM) and Substantial Equivalence
The Risks of Genetically Modified Foods
GM foods are not healthy for you or the environment. So why are companies producing them? The risks of genetically modified foods and genetically modified plants are actively being researched.
Substantially equivalent GM foods are considered safe - maybe!
'Substantial equivalence', the test by which genetically modified foods are declared safe or otherwise, holds that that if a GM product is very similar to its non-GM counterpart then it is safe for human and animal consumption.
This rule, as set out by The Life Sciences Network, makes interesting (and mind-boggling) reading:
...the concept of substantial equivalence contributes to a robust safety assessment framework. The consultation was satisfied with the approach used to assess the safety of the genetically modified foods that have been approved for commercial use. (Substantial equivalence) embodies a science-based approach in which a genetically modified food is compared to its existing, appropriate counterpart."
The goal of this approach is to ensure that the food, and any substances that have been introduced into the food as a result of genetic modification, is as safe as its traditional counterpart.
The substantial equivalence approach is considered the most appropriate strategy for the safety and nutritional assessment of genetically modified foods...
There are no alternative strategies that would provide a better assurance of safety for GM foods than the appropriate use of the concept of substantial equivalence.
GM Foods: Stop Quibbling - It's Red, Isn't It?
Safety assessment based on substantial equivalence is the most practical approach to address the safety of foods and food components derived through modern biotechnology.
Analyses of key substances provide increased assurance that substances important from a nutritional or health perspective are present in acceptable concentrations.
Genetically Modified Foods
One important benefit of the substantial equivalence concept is that it provides flexibility than can be useful in food safety assessment. It is a tool, which helps identify any difference, intended or unintended, that might be the focus of further safety evaluation.
...it is a comparative process (which) can be performed at several points along the food chain (harvested unprocessed, processed foods, individual fractions, or final food product).
The Food and Drug Administration is to be commended for constructing a framework for safety evaluation that is product based, and for taking the position that the critical consideration in evaluating the safety of (bioengineered) foods should be the objective characteristics of the food product or its components rather than the fact that new development methods were used.
A summary document from a bio-analytics lab in the US, provides a short description of how the FDA is applying substantial equivalence to its management of food.
This extract states that substantial equivalence "is considered the most appropriate strategy for the safety and nutritional assessment of GM foods". There are no alternative strategies that would provide a better assurance of safety.
But of course there are alternative and better strategies, but they involve the biotechnology companies forking out a lot of cash and time, neither of which fits their modus operandi.
So, we have two tomatoes, one of them the offspring of a genetically modified plant. Certain tests will be carried out on it regarding composition, and the findings will be compared for similarity with its naturally produced counterpart.
Remember, it only has to have 'substantial' equivalence. A few discrepancies here and there can be disregarded. The trouble is, as Professor Janet Bainbridge notes:
... we do not know what we may have missed. The presumption of safety of novel GM plants on the basis of substantial equivalence lacks scientific credibility, given modern expectations of standards of evidence.
What is the Risk of GM Foods?
To read more, review two further documents: the discussion paper on Substantial Equivalence and the Royal Society Update, which is more of a question and answer document.
Spot the GM tomato
... which one do you think is GM?
So, what's the damage?
Go to Part 3 - Risks of Genetically Modified Foods (link below), to find out.
Despite many warnings, such as the one in Germany, the mass planting of genetically modified plants and crops has gone ahead. By 2005, 222 million acres of the planet's land were GM cultivated. 55% of this was in the US.
Additional Reading:
