GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • Daily Digest
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Cornell videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
    • How donations will help us
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
      • 2021 articles
      • 2020 articles
      • 2019 articles
      • 2018 articles
      • 2017 articles
      • 2016 articles
      • 2015 articles
      • 2014 articles
      • 2013 articles
      • 2012 articles
      • 2011 articles
      • 2010 articles
      • 2009 articles
      • 2008 articles
      • 2007 articles
      • 2006 articles
      • 2005 articles
      • 2004 articles
      • 2003 articles
      • 2002 articles
      • 2001 articles
      • 2000 articles
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • How donations will help us
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Cornell videos
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About
  • Donations

LATEST NEWS

  • Farmers and rights groups boycott food summit over big business links

  • EU Commission breaking own rules to give green light for new GMOs?

  • Australia: New South Wales ag minister sacrifices GMO discretion

  • The Monsanto Papers: Deadly secrets, corporate corruption, and one man's search for justice

  • Researchers want GMO transparency

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE-EDITED CROPS & FOODS

Help stop the new threat

GM Fed pig

LATEST VIDEOS

  • Seed keepers and truth tellers: From the frontlines of GM agriculture
  • Myths and Truths of Gene-Edited Foods
  • Dangers of gene-edited foods

News Menu

  • Latest News
  • News Reviews
  • Archive
  • Languages

Please support GMWatch

Donations

You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card.

Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. This is greatly appreciated as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

Risk assessment of GM plants deemed insufficient

Details
Published: 31 October 2019
Twitter

 Plants of potato in lab

International project RAGES presents its results

The EU Parliament has in recent years adopted around 40 resolutions against further approvals for the import of genetically modified (GM) plants. One of its criticisms was a lack of adequate risk assessment. Experts from several member states raised similar criticisms. Nevertheless, the EU Commission gave the green light to all these imports. The results of the international research project RAGES now show that the concerns of the EU Parliament are fully justified.

The RAGES project (Risk Assessment of Genetically Engineered Organisms in the EU and Switzerland) was carried out between 2016 and 2019. It critically evaluated risk assessment practice of GM food plants at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and its Swiss counterpart. RAGES focused on the risks of transgenic GM plants intended for food production and also took some new methods of genetic engineering (genome editing) into account. The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), its Swiss branch CSS (Critical Scientists Switzerland), GeneWatch UK and Testbiotech participated. The project was funded by the Mercator Foundation, Switzerland and is independent of the interests of the biotech industry.

Findings of the RAGES project include:
* Risk assessments of herbicide-tolerant (HT) GM crops largely ignore the residues from herbicide spraying and their effects on the overall safety of food and feed;
* Risk assessments of HT GM crops do not take into account the application of high dosages and repeated spraying of the complementary herbicides, which is the current practice in commercial cultivation;
* Animal feeding safety studies are conducted with HT GM crops that are not sprayed in accordance with current practice in commercial cultivation;
* Risk assessments of Bt crops ignore the complexities (and uncertainties) of the modes of action of the toxins and their interactions with co-factors and other stressors;
* Risk assessments of Bt crops largely ignore the fact that the selectivity and efficacy of Bt toxins can be modified by changes in their structure that occur when they are produced in the GM plants;
* If traits are combined in GM crops, such as tolerance to various herbicides and/or the production of several Bt proteins (so-called ‘stacked events’), EFSA fails to require the whole food and/or feed and its mixed toxicity to be tested and assessed;
* If several GM plants are mixed in a diet, the cumulative and combined effects and their mixed toxicity are not investigated;
* Metabolic pathways are often multifunctional and complex and can affect plant growth or nutritional composition. But even if a pathway is directly affected by the genetic intervention, EFSA does not require more detailed assessment of the overall effects;
* Only a relatively small fraction of the biologically active compounds naturally produced in the plants and their composition are considered in EFSA risk assessments;
* Many relevant health effects, such as reproductive and immune system effects, as well as the gut microbiome, are neglected in current EFSA risk assessments;
* Even though environmental stressors can influence the expression of the inserted gene constructs, such processes and their impacts are not systematically assessed by EFSA;
* Only a small selection of relevant geo-climatic conditions and regions are taken into account in the field trials required by EFSA;
* EFSA assessments of impacts on ecosystems and food webs suffer from major gaps in the selection of relevant organisms, and also from neglect of relevant pathways of exposure;
* If GM plants can persist, propagate and spread via uncontrolled gene flow, data on the next generation effects are not required and so are not assessed by EFSA.

Discussions on risks dominated by agbiotech industry

Discussions on the risks of GM crops and foods are largely dominated by the perspective of the agbiotech industry. These companies fund and control most research projects on transgenic plants and also generate data for the approval process. In addition, they have considerable influence on regulatory authorities. At the same time, they are trying to create the impression that all risks associated with GM organisms can be strictly managed and controlled, and that the safety of their marketed products has been demonstrated. Consequently, there is a high probability that risks are disregarded and/or relevant findings are overlooked by the current regulatory system. In this context, RAGES provides an urgently needed counter-perspective, giving priority to the protection of health and the environment.

Currently, more than 70 GM plants are approved for import into the EU as food and feed. Most of these genetically engineered plants have more than one genetically engineered trait. One typical example is “SmartStax” maize, developed and marketed by Monsanto (Bayer) and DowDupont (Corteva): it produces six insecticidal Bt toxins and is tolerant to several herbicides. The gaps in current risk assessment can be exemplified by the fact that this maize was allowed for import into the EU without a single animal feeding study with the whole food and feed to assess its potential health effects.

"Don't look, don't find"

The outcomes of the RAGES project show how risk assessors in the EU and Switzerland are failing to deal with the real and more recent problems. In many cases, they are following a "Don't look, don't find" approach that does not take the limits of knowledge into account; nor does it identify crucially important uncertainties or knowledge gaps. EFSA assessment does not by a long way look at all the relevant risks; it is mainly concerned with the risks that can be examined most easily.

Consequently, current standards of risk assessment are not sufficient to fulfil the legal requirements determining the safety of genetically engineered organisms or the food and feed derived thereof. The law says that safety has to be “adequately and sufficiently demonstrated” by applying the “highest possible standard” of risk assessment to identify “any risks which they present”.

The results of the RAGES project were presented at a conference on 29 October in Switzerland in which the EU Commission, EFSA and Swiss authorities participated. The final project reports will be published in early 2020.

Background with summary of the results:
https://www.testbiotech.org/node/2424

Menu

Home

News

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

How Donations Will Help Us

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

RSS

Content 1999 - 2021 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design