In case you thought that those opposed to genetically modified foods are merely tree-hugging Luddites, real evidence exists that GM foods pose risks to human health.

How foods are engineered

Engineers introduce genes from other organisms to express desirable properties in the host plant. For example, by inserting a flounder gene into a tomato, scientists are capable of creating a tomato that withstands storage at low temperatures (Joseph Mendelson III, The Fatal Harvest ). The introduction of the foreign gene is accomplished by attaching the gene to a vector, usually a kind of antibiotic resistant bacteria when modifying plants. This is not an exact science. It is impossible to predict where the introduced gene will end up and how it will express itself.

The whole operation is performed thousands of times, largely because there is so much uncertainty about the outcome. There's no way of telling where in the genome the new DNA will land, and if it winds up in the wrong place, the new gene won't be expressed (or it will be poorly expressed) or the plant may be a freak. I was struck by how the technology could at once be astoundingly sophisticated and yet also a shot in the genetic dark. (Michael Pollan, Playing God in the Garden, 1999).

This process yields food that is intrinsically unstable. This genetic instability increases the risk that the food may be toxic or produce toxins yet unknown to scientists. In spite of the unknown dangers, the FDA ignores the recommendations of its own scientists, who urge that extensive tests are necessary before untested GM foods hit the general market.

Tomato test case

Genetically modified tomatoes were the test case for GM foods in the early 90’s. Experiments with Calgene FlavrSavr, a tomato less apt to spoil off the vine and one that softens slower than conventional varieties, showed stomach lesions in rats. Still, those with a vested interest in pushing the FlavrSavr insist that the tomato was substantially equivalent to non-GM varieties. A preliminary review conducted Dr. Arpaz Pusztai showed glaring flaws in the tests:

• The unacceptably wide range of rat starting weights (±18% to ±23%) invalidated these findings.

• No histology on the intestines was done even though stomach sections showed mild/moderate erosive/necrotic lesions in up to seven out of twenty female rats but none in the controls. However, these were considered to be of no importance, although in humans they could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent thrombosis.

• Seven out of forty rats on GM tomatoes died within two weeks for unstated reasons.

• These studies were poorly designed and therefore the conclusion that FLAVR SAVRTM tomatoes were safe does not rest on good science, questioning the validity of the FDA's decision that no toxicological testing of other GM foods will in future be required.

(Action Bioscience, June 2001)

The FDA approved Calgene's request to put the GM tomato out on the market in 1993. Calgene faced troubles with the tomato because the crop did not grow or ship as well as anticipated. Biotech giant Monsanto hit Calgene with a lawsuit for patent infringement, impoverished the struggling company, and eventually swallowed what was left. The termination of FlavrSavrs was all about business, not public welfare (Cornell geo-pie project).

FDA's willful disregard of safety

Such cases are not isolated to bad tomatoes. Any google search will yield thousands of similar examples of unsafe GM food sold nearly unregulated in the United States. If it isn't criminal, it ought to be. Steven S. Druker and the Alliance for Bio-Integrity assert that the FDA is violating its own laws since additives from new technologies must be proved safe through extensive testing before it is available to the public. The FDA exempts GM foods from the testing process because it is “generally recognized as safe”:

The requisite consensus for GE foods has never existed, and the FDA is well aware of it because the predominant consensus among its own experts was that these foods entail unique risks and cannot be presumed safe. This was revealed when my organization brought a lawsuit against the FDA that forced it to divulge its files. As these files show, the FDA's scientists repeatedly warned their superiors that genetic engineering can disrupt the organism in unpredictable ways and cause the production of unintended harmful substances that are difficult to detect. For instance, an FDA toxicologist cautioned that GE plants could contain unexpected toxins that might "...be uniquely different chemicals that are usually expressed in unrelated plants." (Photocopies of 24 key FDA documents are in a numbered set on our website www.biointegrity.org) (Bio-integrity)

.

The U.S. District Court ruling in a lawsuit between Bio-integrity and Shalala confirmed Druker’s assertions about the FDA. That is, FDA bureaucrats are not regulating GM foods although their own scientists repeatedly express concerns about safety risks. The regulatory agency justifies this on "substantial equivalence,” a legal concept with no measurable criteria and invented by biotech companies. It asserts that GM and non GM-varieties are legally indistinguishable. That is, unless you talk about patents.