Genetically engineered (GE) crops are no different from conventional
crops.
“To date, no scientifically
valid demonstrations have shown that food safety issues of foods containing GE
ingredients are greater than those from conventionally or organically produced
foods,” according to a new publication released by the International Service
for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA).
ISAAA—based in the Philippines, Kenya and the United States—is a not-for-profit international organization which
promotes the benefits of crop biotechnology and shares science-based information
and appropriate technology to the public, including farmers and policy makers.
The safety of
genetically-engineered crops and foods, just as those created by classical
breeding and mutation and grown conventionally or organically, needs to be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis so that informed decisions can be made about
their utility, safety and appropriateness, ISAAA says in a primer,
“Agricultural Biotechnology (A Lot More than Just GM Crops)”.
Data and information from
peer-reviewed science on the safety of these products should be a part of the
information considered when growing and consuming foods from these crops, it
says, adding that factors beyond the technical, science-based facts should also
be considered during the decision-making process.
“Although scientific testing
and governmental regulation can reduce the safety risks of conventionally and
organically produced and genetically engineered crops and food, 100 percent
safety is not achievable,” it says.
However, before GE foods and
products made from GE crops are approved for use, they have undergone safety
testing by the companies or institutions that developed them. Data were
reviewed by government regulatory agencies and scientific reviewers based on
internationally-accepted protocols.
Frequently, GE foods are also
tested by outside groups and the results published in respected journals
reviewed by scientists. The process is comparable to safety assessments for
pharmaceutical drugs and biomarkers.
“All GE products in the
marketplace have undergone full reviews by regulatory agencies regarding safety
and content relative to unmodified forms. Submitting the safety data is in the developer’s best
interests given the legal liabilities incurred should a problem with the food
arise following market introductions,” ISAAA says.
In July 2007, the European
Food Safety Authority released statements on the fate of genes and proteins in
food and feed: “After ingestion, a rapid
degradation into short DNA or peptide fragments is observed in the
gastrointestinal tract of animals and humans”.
To date, it said, “a large number of experimental studies with livestock
have shown that recombinant DNA fragments or proteins derived from
gene-modified plants have not been detected in tissues, fluids or edible
products of farm animals”
According to the ISAAA,
gene-modified foods are tested in comparison with conventional counterparts in
terms of the nutritional composition: levels of protein, carbohydrate, fat,
vitamin, mineral, fiber, moisture and phytochemicals, and analyzed if the
composition is substantially equivalent.
Gene-modified crops and
conventional crops should have been grown in comparable conditions to eliminate
the effect of the environment in the nutritional composition.
There are also gene-modified
crops which are developed to change the nutritional profiles of the foods such
as those with increased Beta-carotene, flavonoids, calcium, folate and iron
availability.
According to the policy of
the US Food and Drug Administration, gene-modified foods with altered
nutritional traits must be labeled to indicate nutritional differences; one
example is a low-linoleic oil from gene-modified soybeans that can be used
instead of trans fat-containing oils. Such crops should be tested for
substantial equivalence to compounds unrelated to the introduced trait. (SciPhil)
Comments
Post a Comment