Public needs to be re- educated on the safety of GM foods
Misinformation: Paper that claimed genetically modified corn caused cancer in rats has been discredited
Last year a French group of scientists led by Dr. GillesEric Séralini reported in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology that genetically- modified corn causes cancer in mammalian species. The media publicized the findings worldwide. Understandably consumers were alarmed at the thought that eating corn could kill them.
The corn in question was Roundup Ready corn that was introduced by Monsanto in 1998 to tolerate spraying with Roundup to control weeds in the corn fields. Subsequently it was approved for food and feed use in a number of countries, including Canada, following a detailed assessment of its safety, nutritional equivalence to regular corn and impact on the environment. Most of the corn now grown in North America is of this type. The assessment procedure is similar to that used in the approval process for new pharmaceutical drugs.
Within weeks of the publication several hundred letters critical of the quality of the research were sent to the journal, especially since the conclusions were of such potential importance. Regulatory agencies in several countries including Canada, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, as well as the European Food Safety Authority, stated the research was of insufficient scientific quality to be considered valid.
It is obvious from the Séralini data that deaths and incidence of cancers did not increase consistently as the amount of genetically modified corn in the rat diet was raised. His data suggest that the observed mortality was unrelated to the presence of GM corn in the diet and was related more to advancing age. The strain of rat used in his test is known to develop cancer spontaneously as it ages.
As Séralini conceded in a rebuttal to the critics: “The variability in rates of mortality can indeed, if looked at in isolation, arise in principle by chance.”
A logical interpretation of the Séralini findings is that much more detailed research would be required to prove that GM corn causes cancer. Neither he nor any other group has replicated his findings.
Last month the criticisms finally forced the journal to retract the paper. David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, is reported as commenting: “It was clear from even a superficial reading that this paper was not fit for publication, and in this instance the peer review process did not work properly.
“At least this has now been remedied and the journal has recognized that no conclusions can be drawn from this study, so I suppose it is better late than never. Sadly, the withdrawal of this paper will not generate the publicity garnered by its initial publication.”
With Séralini ( and a few others before him) discredited, can consumers be assured that GM foods are just as safe as regular foods? According to the available evidence this is so.
A colleague at Cornell University and I are writing a book on the topic and have reviewed all the relevant scientific evidence. We have not found a single case of any approved GM food or feed being detrimental to human or animal health. The facts that the 2013 World Food Prize was awarded to a group of scientists instrumental in the use of biotechnology to improve food crops and that GM foods have been on the market in North America since 1999 are further confirmation of the safety of GM foods.
Some consumers will need re- educating and convincing, though, since there is a push for GM labelling in several jurisdictions. No doubt the wish for a GM label is so that consumers can avoid GM foods when given a choice.
One concern that some people have about GM crops is that altering their genetic makeup using biotechnology is against nature. That opinion should be respected. However, some groups considered very traditional have accepted GM foods. Amish farmers in Pennsylvania have adopted GM crops and the Indonesian Ulemas Council ( MUI) has approved the importation and consumption of GM food products. There is also evidence of support within the Vatican for GM food production, particularly when it is useful in helping to alleviate hunger and malnutrition in poor countries.
The whole topic of biotechnology in modern food production raises one important question. Where does the ordinary consumer go to find unbiased and truthful answers to questions about food quality and safety? That is not an easy question to answer.
British Columbians have a current, direct, interest in GM foods in that an Arctic apple developed by Okanagan Specialty Fruits using genetic modification to resist browning after being sliced is awaiting regulatory approval in the U. S. and Canada. If it is approved and appears on the market, consumers can be assured that the new apple, like all other approved GM foods, will be just as safe to eat as regular apples.