Archived press release

Uncertainty over GM safety

21 July 2003

The Government's GM science review [1] published today raises serious questions about significant gaps in our scientific knowledge on the potential impacts GM food and crops on our health and the environment.

Friends of the Earth's GM campaigner Pete Riley said:

"Far from giving GM crops the green light, this report admits that there are gaps in our scientific knowledge and significant uncertainties about the long-term impacts of GM food and crops on our health and environment. The Government's GM review has already revealed that there is no market for GM food because people don't want to eat it. The Government must listen to the public and put safety first by refusing to allow GM crops to be commercially grown in the UK."

Notes

1. The review is one of three strands of the Government's GM debate which will help the Government decide whether or not to allow GM crops to be commercially grown in the UK. A decision is expected later this year. These are:

• A nationwide public consultation on GM issues which ended last Friday (18 July). The report on this, which is due in September, is expected to reveal widespread public scepticism.
• A Cabinet Office report on the economics of GM crops. This was published earlier this month and concluded that the public's refusal to eat GM food means that there is little economic value in the current generation of GM crops, and that continuing public opposition may also affect their long-term future
• Today's science review led by Professor Sir David King (the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser) working with Professor Howard Dalton (the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Secretary of State for the

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), with advice from the Food Standards Agency.

2. Despite concluding that "on balance the risks to human health are very low for GM crops currently on the market" the Review's Executive Summary list many areas where there is gaps and uncertainties in our scientific knowledge and the possibility that a novel allergenic protein could be missed by the regulatory process.

The review covers both health and the environment as well as the key issues of cross pollination. It confirms that "some new consequences of GM plant breeding may be unexpected."

Concedes that:

"In the hypothetical case, where an GM allergen was not recognised in regulatory screening, and its effects only emerged in the longer term, avoidance of the allergenic protein by the consumer could be difficult, because they would not be able to recognise its presence in the foodstuffs".

"absence of readily observable adverse effects does not mean that these can be completely ruled out and there has been no epidemiological monitoring of those consuming GM food"..."at present there is nothing yet available for GM foods in any country" by way of post-market surveillance of GM foods. "The complexity of the safety assessment process is likely to increase with the development of `second generation' GM crops."

"Our relative lack of knowledge about factors that are important in sensitisation and the elicitation of an allergic response suggest that we should continue to exercise caution when assessing all new foods, including foods and animal feeds derived from GM crops".

In animal feed, the Review states:

"rare, mild or long-term adverse effects are not easy to detect and could in future be subject of post marketing monitoring or surveillance".

On the potential impact on the environment, the Review concedes:

"We do not have an exact understanding of what changes in a plant's life history will affect its invasiveness. More knowledge on the potential effects of releasing GM plants with traits for pest and diseases resistance and stress tolerance is required"

On the impact on soil microbes "there is a need for larger, more agronomically realistic studies to be undertaken to demonstrate absence of harm to non-target organisms".

On weed populations it states:

"We do not yet have sufficient evidence to predict what the long-term impacts of GMHT [herbicide tolerant] crops might be on weed populations. An important uncertainty is how farmers will apply this technology in the field."

"The publication of the UK farm-scale evaluations of GMHT crops will clarify some of these uncertainties. Inevitably others will remain. The question would become more complex if farmers were to grow two or more herbicide tolerant crops in rotation".

In the longer term the review concludes

"Further ahead, it becomes more difficult to make confident predictions about the commercialisation of GM crops and their possible environmental impacts. The horizon scan has identified the paucity of baseline data and models at different scales, from field to landscape scale, which is needed as a basis for future assessment of large-scale environmental effects".

"Important gaps in knowledge include the possible rate of uptake of GM crops in the UK; detailed knowledge of farmland ecology; soil ecology".

The Review concedes that cross pollination between crops will create problems and to knowledge gaps "However, in other cases it may be difficult, if not impossible, to grow certain crops or use some existing farming practices (e.g. using farm-saved oilseed rape seed on farms where both GM and non-GM varieties are grown)".

"More information is needed about the mechanisms and management of seed dispersal in agricultural systems, along with diagnostic and sampling methodologies for determining the extent of gene flow early in the production/supply chain. In the longer term, it is possible that gene containment systems will be developed that significantly reduce gene flow".

On gene flow to wild relatives the Review states:

"However, there are gaps in our understanding of the potential consequences of gene flow, and the effect of particular traits on the fitness of the weed or wild relative, which may receive them, is an important target of ongoing research."

"Predicting the ecological behaviour of such plants in advance of their accidental and unintended production will provide scientific challenges to the regulatory system".

The Review concedes that the experiences of growing GM crops abroad must be used with caution

"We must be cautious in drawing general conclusions as these observations are based on relatively few field experiments. In addition, the findings may not be entirely relevant to the UK situation. This point about the difficulty in generalising confidently from one country to another also applies to evidence from the USA, China and India indicating that use of some, but not all, GM pest-resistant crops has resulted in significant reductions in pesticides, and the replacement of certain herbicides by others with a more benign environmental profile".

On future non food crops crops, eg ones producing pharmaceuticals the Review concludes:

"Such crops pose challenging regulatory issues and will also have to be judged on a case-by-case basis".

If you're a journalist looking for press information please contact the Friends of the Earth media team on 020 7566 1649.

Published by Friends of the Earth Trust