mrz
25-06-03, 15:31
GM food safety fear 'based on distortion'
14:06 25 June 03
NewScientist.com news service
The head of Britain's leading scientific academy has accused the former environment minister Michael Meacher of "severely distorting" the scientific facts and uncertainties surrounding genetically modified foods.
The furore over GM foods erupted once again on Sunday when Meacher published a newspaper article saying the government had ignored evidence that GM crops could be a hazard to human health. He had been environment minister for six years until losing his job on 13 June.
The latest row comes in the run up to a government decision on whether to end a three-year moratorium on the commercial growing of GM crops in the UK. The Prime Minister's contribution "has been to emphasise the importance of the biotech industry to the UK" Meacher wrote in the Independent on Sunday, but the scientific data on GM crop safety was "clouded with deep uncertainty" meaning the decision should be deferred.
But Robert May, president of the UK's Royal Society, said on Wednesday that Meacher had "very selectively" quoted from a Royal Society report to back his "ideological opposition". Now that his stance is clear, "the public can judge for themselves his statements on GM science," May said.
The controversy over GM crops was also stoked in US on Monday at a world biotechnology conference. US President George W Bush accused Europe of risking starvation in Africa by its rejection of GM crops. Public opposition to GM crops in the US has been minor.
Baby food
In arguing that GM crops have not been shown to be safe for human consumption, Meacher quoted from several major reports. In particular, he highlighted comments from a 2002 Royal Society report that said the health effects of GM foods should be rigorously investigated before allowing them into baby food or to be marketed to pregnant women or elderly or infirm people.
"But he conspicuously fails to mention its principal conclusion that there is no scientific reason to doubt the safety of foods made from GM ingredients that are currently available, nor to believe that genetic modification makes GM foods inherently less safe than their conventional counterparts," says May.
The report also pointed out that GM techniques might be used in the future to improve the quality of food, a point also omitted by Meacher.
But Meacher did note that, although millions of US citizens have consumed GM foods over many years with no ill effects seen, there have been no trials in which the health of people eating GM and non-GM food have been directly compared.
The way in which GM food is currently assessed - whether it is "substantially equivalent" to its conventional counterpart - is "scientifically vacuous", according to Meacher. May rejects this charge, saying it is the only practical way of evaluating the safety of GM foods.
Shaoni Bhattacharya
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993874
No scientific basis my ass. GM zou voedselprobleem oplossen? Load of crap. Enige wat het doet is mensen extreem wee gevoel geven op duur en beetje verbroedering daardoor misschien gedeelde smart wereld dorp maken, maja wel beetje saai teveel weten dus. Mensen die te open zijn hebben er gewoon WEL last van (soy gut-bacteria verhaal bijv.) daar moet niet hypocriet over gedaan worden hebben mensen toch alleen zichzelf mee.
Zolang er niet ongemerkt melk gemanipuleerd wordt (zoals in US bijv. geval is) en je niks opgedrongen krijgt zoals USA nu met europa wil doen nou vooruit. Misschien dat onze levertjes en andere orgaantjes dan nog zodanig blijven werken dat we nog tijdje mensen te noemen zijn. :p
14:06 25 June 03
NewScientist.com news service
The head of Britain's leading scientific academy has accused the former environment minister Michael Meacher of "severely distorting" the scientific facts and uncertainties surrounding genetically modified foods.
The furore over GM foods erupted once again on Sunday when Meacher published a newspaper article saying the government had ignored evidence that GM crops could be a hazard to human health. He had been environment minister for six years until losing his job on 13 June.
The latest row comes in the run up to a government decision on whether to end a three-year moratorium on the commercial growing of GM crops in the UK. The Prime Minister's contribution "has been to emphasise the importance of the biotech industry to the UK" Meacher wrote in the Independent on Sunday, but the scientific data on GM crop safety was "clouded with deep uncertainty" meaning the decision should be deferred.
But Robert May, president of the UK's Royal Society, said on Wednesday that Meacher had "very selectively" quoted from a Royal Society report to back his "ideological opposition". Now that his stance is clear, "the public can judge for themselves his statements on GM science," May said.
The controversy over GM crops was also stoked in US on Monday at a world biotechnology conference. US President George W Bush accused Europe of risking starvation in Africa by its rejection of GM crops. Public opposition to GM crops in the US has been minor.
Baby food
In arguing that GM crops have not been shown to be safe for human consumption, Meacher quoted from several major reports. In particular, he highlighted comments from a 2002 Royal Society report that said the health effects of GM foods should be rigorously investigated before allowing them into baby food or to be marketed to pregnant women or elderly or infirm people.
"But he conspicuously fails to mention its principal conclusion that there is no scientific reason to doubt the safety of foods made from GM ingredients that are currently available, nor to believe that genetic modification makes GM foods inherently less safe than their conventional counterparts," says May.
The report also pointed out that GM techniques might be used in the future to improve the quality of food, a point also omitted by Meacher.
But Meacher did note that, although millions of US citizens have consumed GM foods over many years with no ill effects seen, there have been no trials in which the health of people eating GM and non-GM food have been directly compared.
The way in which GM food is currently assessed - whether it is "substantially equivalent" to its conventional counterpart - is "scientifically vacuous", according to Meacher. May rejects this charge, saying it is the only practical way of evaluating the safety of GM foods.
Shaoni Bhattacharya
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993874
No scientific basis my ass. GM zou voedselprobleem oplossen? Load of crap. Enige wat het doet is mensen extreem wee gevoel geven op duur en beetje verbroedering daardoor misschien gedeelde smart wereld dorp maken, maja wel beetje saai teveel weten dus. Mensen die te open zijn hebben er gewoon WEL last van (soy gut-bacteria verhaal bijv.) daar moet niet hypocriet over gedaan worden hebben mensen toch alleen zichzelf mee.
Zolang er niet ongemerkt melk gemanipuleerd wordt (zoals in US bijv. geval is) en je niks opgedrongen krijgt zoals USA nu met europa wil doen nou vooruit. Misschien dat onze levertjes en andere orgaantjes dan nog zodanig blijven werken dat we nog tijdje mensen te noemen zijn. :p