GE Free New Zealand in Food & Environment,
11th November 2003
Scientists warn of risk to consumers from lack of tests on GE food
Moves by Britain�s food authorities to have GE corn approved for sale in
Europe has prompted scientists to repeat warnings that insufficient testing is being done on GE foods
before some governments - including New Zealand � allow them for
According to a report in The Independent (below) the attempt to approve GE
corn has caused conflict with the UK Ministers for the environment and
agriculture and has again revealed that GE foods are being �assessed� and
approved without proper testing, creating a potentially serious public
health risk.
New Zealand authorities have refused to undertake independent testing of
GE products approved for sale here. In New Zealand up to 20 GE foods are
allowed to be sold without authorities being able to say when or where
they have been imported and with no labeling required for any sales through
take-aways, cafes and restaurants.
"The pressure that they are waging to release grow and sell their products
seems to know no bounds. It is bullying to the nth degree," says Claire
Bleakley of GE Free NZ In food and environment.
"What is so awful is they are refusing to do any safety testing to find
out if these products are detrimental in any way. Syngenta, Seminis and
other large seed companies are not allowing data to become freely available to the regulators of the countries they are entering. The data
they are providing cannot be verified and they are refusing to acknowledge
data that is coming from good independent sources," says Ms. Bleakley.
The government is �picking losers� by backing GE food projects with public
funds. It is a disgrace to waste so much money and valuable resources. We
already have a system in place for reduction in pesticide use through IPM
(Integrated Pest Management) and organic. If Organics had 100 million
dollars of FRST taxpayer funded money the whole country would be able to
see the benefits of the method.
�There are clearly benefits from a GE Free positioning for New Zealand
that must be preserved, as it encompasses both conventional and organic
methods. The government policy to allow GE release continues to threaten
our economic well being because of flawed market research and biotech
industry lobbying,� says Jon Carapiet.
Contact Jon Carapiet - 09
815 3370
Back
to Press Release Directory
references:
TITLE: UK to fight European embargo on GM corn
SOURCE: The Independent, UK, by Geoffrey Lean
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=461997
DATE: Nov 9, 2003
Extracts:The move to approve the sweetcorn - developed by the biotech firm
Syngenta and incorporating an insecticide - will be made by a European
Union committee. The Food Standards Agency, which represents Britain on
the committee, is pushing for it to be given the green light, against the
wishes of environment and agriculture ministers. ...
But the Austrian government report shows that the applications - including the one for the sweetcorn to be considered tomorrow - fail even
this undemanding requirement. It says that the concept is used "to argue
for the safety" of every GM product it considered, but added: "The parameters chosen ... are not comprehensive enough to justify substantial
equivalence and/or to detect probable unintended secondary effects."
November 10, 2003
Study Raises Doubt About Allergy to Genetic Corn
By ANDREW POLLACK
New York Times
Remember StarLink corn? Three years ago this genetically engineered corn was found in taco shells and other foods, even though it had not been
approved for human consumption. The discovery prompted food recalls and
disrupted farm exports. Dozens of consumers claimed they had suffered
potentially dangerous allergic reactions after eating food thought to
contain the corn. But a paper appearing today in the Journal of Allergy
and Clinical Immunology reports that one vocal consumer who complained
about allergic reactions turns out not to have been allergic to StarLink
corn after all.
The report casts further doubt on whether StarLink caused
allergies, and it is likely to buttress contentions long made by biotechnology supporters that the dangers of StarLink
were overblown. The journal article discusses the allergy testing of a 58-year-old man at
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center who had complained of at
least three allergic reactions to StarLink. The paper does not identify
the man, and the authors declined to comment, citing medical confidentiality.
But Keith A. Finger, a Florida optometrist, said in an
interview that he was the subject and that he had asked to be tested. Dr.
Finger, along with two others, sued the developer of StarLink and some
food companies, winning a settlement in which the companies pledged to
provide $6 million worth of food discount coupons. Dr. Finger said he
received $10,000 because of the suit. In the test, the subject was given
StarLink corn, other corn and a placebo on different days, without him or
the doctors knowing which was which. There was no sign of an allergic
reaction on any day. The test is the "gold standard" of food allergy
testing, said Dr. Marc E. Rothenberg, a professor and allergy expert at
the medical center and an author of the report. The new evidence, he said,
"supports the view that there was no problem in terms of allergy," although he said it would be better to
test more people. StarLink, developed by Aventis CropScience, contained a bacterial gene to make the
plant pest-resistant. It was withdrawn from the market, even for its
previously approved use as animal feed.
StarLink Logistics, a company
Aventis set up to handle legal claims, had no comment Friday. But even the
new results are not likely to lay the issue completely to rest. Scientists
still cannot predict in many cases whether a genetically modified food
will cause allergies. And Dr. Finger says he is still sure that he is
allergic to StarLink. "I'm glad they did the test," he said of the Cincinnati doctors. But he added, "I was really perplexed as to why
nothing happened."
More clone data needed FDA advisory committee not satisfied with available data on cloned animal
products By Merrill Goozner
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is promising to come up with
more studies on the safety of food products derived from cloned animals
after half the members of a key advisory committee said last week that
they didn't have enough information to sanction the move.
�We promised to get the information out to the committee by the end of
this year,� said Stephen Sundlof, director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine. The FDA is under pressure from the nascent cloning
industry to treat meat and dairy products from cloned animals and their
offspring the same as other food. A staff report released in late October
said that the FDA's review of the scientific literature turned up no
evidence that food products derived from cloned animals should be regulated, or even labeled.
But several scientists at last week's Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee meeting were deeply troubled by the lack of scientific evidence
backing the staff report.
�The assumption made was that there would be no problem, but they didn't
present any real evidence one way or the other,� said Sherman Jack, a
professor of pathobiology at the College of Veterinary Medicine at Mississippi State University. �The FDA made a plea several times during
the hearing that [the industry] come up with more data.� The FDA usually
follows the recommendations of its outside advisory committees.
Top FDA officials are confident that they will be able to answer the
questions raised by the 12-member advisory committee. Sundlof said the FDA
still plans to make its final cloned foods risk assessment available for
public comment before the end of the year. If the assessment concludes the
risks are minimal, the FDA's risk management strategy, which it hopes to
release next spring, could forgo additional regulation or labeling.
�We have not identified any hazard that is contributed by the cloning
process to this point,� Sundlof said. �We still need to know if the food
is identical. The information presented this week suggested it is not
different from traditional foods.�
The major roadblock is the paucity of studies. There are only a handful of
companies involved in cloning. And since cloning a single cow or pig under
existing technology costs nearly $20,000 and companies have voluntarily
held off from introducing the progeny of cloned animals (their most likely
use) into the food supply, there are very few animals to test.
�Most of the data presented this week was based on the result of one
company's work,� said Jack. �There's no evidence yet to base a go/no-go
decision.�
The one consumer advocate on the committee, Richard Wood of the Chicago-based Food Animal Concerns Trust, echoed Jack's concerns about the
lack of data on food safety. He also questioned whether the FDA was the
only agency with the authority to regulate food derived from clones.
Several outside consumer groups that testified at the hearing suggested
the Department of Agriculture should require labeling on food products
derived from clones. Even the Environmental Protection Agency may be asked
to get involved. �Does this cloning process change the flora in the guts
of the clones, and does this change the pathogen mix in such a way that it
represents a threat to humans once it is in the environment?� Wood asked.
�We need more data.�
Demands for more studies and the specter of court challenges to the FDA's
sole jurisdiction over cloned foods could postpone their arrival until
2005 or later.
Links for this article
US Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/default.html
Back
to Press Release Directory
|