www.raupp.info

News that a variety of GM corn produced signs of liver and kidney
toxicity in rats should be a wake-up call for better testing and more
transparency from biotechs, if GMOs are to be accepted by increasingly
sceptical consumers, March 2007.

Last week, amid much media fanfare in France and media silence
elsewhere, French researchers from CRIIGEN (Committee for Independent
Research and Genetic Engineering) based at the University of Caen
reported their findings from a 90-day rat study that indicated liver and
kidney toxicity in the rats, as well as differences in weight gain
between the sexes as a result of eating the transgenic maize, MON863.

MON863 is a transgenic maize genetically modified to express the
Bt-toxin (Cry3Bb1) which enables the plant to be insect repellent
against the corn rootworm pest. It is different from other GM corns of
the market since these express the Cry1Ab toxin which is toxic to the
European corn borer.

The research was supported by Greenpeace Germany and published in the
peer-review journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology.

The scientists also questioned the methods used by Monsanto to initially
show the safety and non-toxicity of the corn, saying that the
statistical methods used were insufficient to observe any possible
disruptions in biochemistry.

And what is Monsanto doing to redress the balance and build confidence?
Well, it has remained relatively tight-lipped and has not responded
directly to the statements by the French researchers about possible
shortcomings in their initial methodology, and suggestions of incomplete
data collection. Instead it has stuck to the line "that the overwhelming
opinion of expert authorities is that MON863 is safe for human and
animal consumption."

But the opinion of these expert authorities was based on data provided
by Monsanto, and led to approvals for the maize for animal and human
consumption in, to name but a few, Australia, Canada, China, the EU,
Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines and the USA.

And according to the French researchers, this data does not stand up to
rigorous scrutiny, with doubts raised over the statistical protocols
used, questions over why no sufficient analysis of animal weight was
performed, and why "crucial" data from urine tests were allegedly
concealed in Monsanto's own publications.

Does this mean we should now condemn all GM foods and require that all
authorised GMOs undergo a reanalysis of their safety, like Greenpeace
and other environmental groups want?

I would hope not. What it should do is spur the biotech companies to be
more rigorous in the studies and ensure that their data stands up to
scrutiny.

Food authorities should also demand more complete data from biotech
companies before approving any crop. It's all a question of
transparency.

In the past I have taken a "let's wait and see" approach to GMOs,
refusing to pitch my tent in either camp until I had seen more science,
but this latest study has raised some serious doubts. Not about GMOs in
general, but about GMOs engineered to contain these Bt-toxins.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has revealed that it will
review the new data at the end of this week, and also revealed that this
was not the first time that such concerns have been raised about this
variety of corn.

Campaigners in New Zealand have demanded a removal of the corn from the
market and a re-analysis of how such crops are approved.

If such reviews lead to banning of MON863, expect increased pressure to
re-evaluate other crops, expect decreased consumer confidence, and
expect an increase in anti-GM protests.

Monsanto needs to address these concerns, prove to us all that its
methodology is sound for this and other varieties, if it is to win the
hearts and minds of consumers.

If not, the benefits that GMOs promise - increased yields, better pest
resistance, increased nutritional contents, ability to grow in
unproductive soils and all the rest - will be irreparably damaged

A wide-sweeping knee-jerk reaction is not what is needed, but in an area
with such polarised opinions, will we get the perspective needed?


[www.foodproductiondaily.com]