• Question: As nothing in science is 100% certain, what steps can be taken to gather high quality evidence of effectiveness (or otherwise) of particular GM species, but reducing potential risks (e.g. of contamination etc) to an absolute minimum?

    Asked by ellie_russell to Andy, Cathie, Jules, Les, Ricarda on 26 Jun 2012.
    • Photo: Les Firbank

      Les Firbank answered on 26 Jun 2012:

      The question is very well phrased – it’s about looking at risks and benefits. In Europe, a company that wants to sell GM seeds has to submit evidence that it is safe to eat and does not harm the environment. They have to provide evidence from detailed studies of their own, and take note of evidence from independent scientific studies. They also have to make any recommendations for how the seeds and crops should be grown to reduce any potential risks. The EU has its own rules about this. Only if the European Food Standards AGency is satisfied, can the GM crop be grown commercially. Also, there must be a monitoring system in place so that if something goes wrong, it is spotted. THis is far more stringent that for any non-GM crop or food material.

    • Photo: Andy Stirling

      Andy Stirling answered on 27 Jun 2012:

      I agree with Les that Ellie Russell has put this very well. We do have to think about the uncertainties as much as about the evidence of ‘risk’ or ‘safety’. As I tried to answer in more detail in another question, this is something that the culture of risk assessment finds it very difficult to accept.

      But another issue that flows from this, is that this pervasive role of uncertainty around any particular food strategy – and the necessity for greater humility about this – reinforces the importance of not getting railroaded into a simple ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ GM position. GM is not the only viable innovation (or existing) option for producing required quantities and qualities of food. It is not even the only advanced biotech option.

      So one of the steps we can take in the face of uncertainty, that Ellie refers to, is to be more balanced in our consideration of the full diversity of possible alternative strategies that we face. This means escaping the current straitjacket, under which we are forced into artificially polarised argument about the one particular option (GM) that powerful interests are most keen to pursue, because of the private benefits they stand to gain from this. Here as elsewhere, uncertainty should foster greater balance and humility.

    • Photo: Ricarda Steinbrecher

      Ricarda Steinbrecher answered on 28 Jun 2012:

      1. The key issue here is “high quality evidence” and how we can expect to get it. A combination of public decisions to shift the majority of agricultural research and development funding explicitly to the private sector, or indirectly link it to commercial goals and innovation policies has made it difficult if not impossible for a scientist to have, or even expect to have, a productive career without being in some way beholden to commercial objectives or to particular companies (Heinemann, 2009, IAASTD, 2009, Kiers et al., 2008). While any given scientific study might be sheltered from the most obvious conflicts of interest, many public sector scientists are by choice or circumstances embedded in a culture that depends financially or politically on being perceived to be friendly to industry. This has clear impacts on the how the science comes out and how it is perceived even by those doing it (Diels et al., 2011, Graff et al., 2003, Lotter, 2009, Millstone and van Zwanenberg, 2002, Shorett et al., 2003).

      “[A]rticles where a [conflict of interest] was identified show a tendency to produce outcomes favorable to the associated commercial interests. These results support the overall view that all affiliations should be clearly acknowledged in scientific publications on the risk analysis of GM food or feed products, as the existence of such conflicts of interest is somehow interfering with study outcomes” (p. 201 Diels et al., 2011).
      “Career considerations, long standing personal scientific viewpoints, or value-based opinions over the role of science in society and faith in technology as a useful tool for solving global problems, may influence author perceptions and study outcomes” (p. 202 Diels et al., 2011).

      So the first answer is: society needs to reinvest in a science infrastructure that allows for career pathways free of reliance upon perceived friendliness to industry.

      Also the question seems to assume that the release of a particular GM organism is going to happen and that the aim of research should be to minimise the risk from it, whereas others might say that research should be directed at finding less inherently risky approaches to solving particular problems, such as working with given biological systems (encouraging the presence of predators of known pests for example, which often means increasing biodiversity within agricultural systems).

      2. When it comes to risk assessment and risk management, there should be a general expectation that the latest international guidance will be used in full, and not “cherry picked”. The international guidance is not extreme in its formulation. Indeed these documents are developed under strong representation from the industry and governments that promote the modern biotechnology industries. Moreover, there is the danger of further diluting the effectiveness of the guidance by “picking and choosing” the standards applied at the national level, especially when at this level the regulator or its expert committees may also have the kinds of conflicts of interest discussed by Millstone and van Zwanenberg (2002).

      Diels, J., Cunha, M., Manaia, C., Sabugosa-Madeira, B. and Silva, M. (2011). Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products. Food Pol. 36, 197-203.

      Graff, G. D., Cullen, S. E., Bradford, K. J., Zilberman, D. and Bennett, A. B. (2003). The public–private structure of intellectual property ownership in agricultural biotechnology. Nat. Biotechnol. 21, 989-995.

      Heinemann, J. A. (2009). Hope not Hype. The future of agriculture guided by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (Penang, Third World Network).

      IAASTD, ed. (2009). International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (Washington, D.C., Island Press).

      Kiers, E. T., Leakey, R. R. B., Izac, A.-M., Heinemann, J. A., Rosenthal, E., Nathan, D. and Jiggins, J. (2008). Agriculture at a Crossroads. Science 320, 320-321.

      Lotter, D. (2009). The genetic engineering of food and the failure of science – part 1: the development of a flawed enterprise. Int. Jrnl. of Soc. of Agr. & Food 16, 31-49.

      Millstone, E. and van Zwanenberg, P. (2002). The evolution of food safety policy-making institutions in the UK, EU and Codex Alimentarius. Soc. Pol. Admin. 36, 593-609.

      Shorett, P., Rabinow, P. and Billings, P. R. (2003). The changing norms of the life sciences. Nat. Biotechnol. 21, 123-125.

Comments

  • Photo: dingo

    dingo commented on :

    I’d start with long-term toxicological testing of the GM food compared with the non-GM isogenic variety (ie everything’s the same except the genetic modification). In fact, GM foods are only tested on rodents for 30-90 days (a mid-term, not long-term study) and any significant differences often appear to be ignored! Plus, the tests are carried out by the companies that want to market the GM food and the studies are often not peer reviewed or published. Have a look at what happened when independent scientists got hold of some of these industry feeding trials and analysed the data for themselves: http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

  • Photo: joseph110

    joseph110 commented on :

    It should be pointed out that the Euro Food Safety Authority (EFSA) mentioned by Les Firbank is NOT objective and has been accused of bias and conflicts of interest over its positive opinions of GM foods from the start, including by Members of the European Parliament, who this year refused to sign off on EFSA’s budget over its conflicts of interest. See example criticism below:

    EFSA GMO-Panel: Still biased
    Test Biotech, 25 June 2012
    http://www.testbiotech.de/en/node/681

    *Majority of experts back genetically engineered plants

    Munich/ Parma – The revised GMO expert panel at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) still has a majority of experts in favour of using genetically engineered plants in agriculture. Testbiotech estimates that eleven of the twenty panel members have links to industry or are known as proponents of the controversial technology.

    Amongst its members are some well-known experts like Gijs Kleter who worked with the International Life Science Institute (ILSI) for many years. ILSI is funded by industry and has influenced EFSA standards for the risk assessment of genetically engineered plants. Huw Jones is involved in the development of genetically engineered wheat, and has cooperated with companies such as Bayer and Dow AgroSciences. The interests of the experts are not always made evident: Patrick Du Jardin, for instance, is associated with the Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI), which is lobbying to lower standards of risk assessment and labelling, something that was not mentioned in his Declaration of Interest (DoI) at EFSA. The German members of the panel are Achim Gathmann and Christoph Tebbe, who are known for downplaying the risks of genetically engineered plants.

    “We still cannot trust the GMO panel. It seems that the authority still has a long way to go in establishing its independence from the interests of industry. We are not currently expecting a change of policy in their approach to risk assessment and authorisation of genetically engineered plants,” says Christoph Then for Testbiotech.