London (16.11.07)
– For only £10 (or $20 or €15 or ¥2,190 as may be your
choice) you can embark upon a new adventure: paying for other peoples’
advertisements.
The Soil Association, the lobby group for “organic” food encompassing
many of the high priest advocates of those arcane products, have product a
“report” with all the attributes of an advertisement for their
own products – an advertisement, moreover, which is 60 pages long (1).
In it, the authors give us the startling news that GM products are widely
used in UK animal feeds. Did we not know that already? Do not some of the
largest UK supermarket chains, not necessarily renowned for their willingness
to put GM products on their shelves for human use, nevertheless accept that
to feed animals at a reasonable price demands the use of GM ingredients in
the feed? Indeed, when one of them – for a premium – offered milk
from animals fed only with non-GM fodder, it seems that customers were not
that impressed because, before too long, the milk was withdrawn.
The Soil Association report makes dubious statements unsupported by reliable
scientific evidence: “New scientific evidence shows that small quantities
of GM material can end up in food produced from GM-fed animals, and that the
use of GM feed can cause a range of negative impacts on animal health”.
One of the sources they quote, offered only in non-peer reviewed statements
at conferences and on activist websites, has recently come under heavy criticism
for poor experimental design and an inability to draw conclusions from the
evidence provided (2). Another (3) was similarly demolished years ago by a
Royal Society working party (4), a third more recently by the European Food
Safety Authority (5). The Soil Association ploughs on regardless.
The Soil Association say they believe that most members of the public are
not aware that GM crops are being widely used to feed farm animals, and would
be shocked to know that the supermarkets have been allowing this use of genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) behind their backs. We cannot comment on the Soil
Association’s state of belief; suffice to say, the facts have been in
the public domain for years and are well known to anyone interested (6, 7).
Whether or not members of the public would be shocked at the information is
a matter of opinion; we doubt it.
And then for the message, what you really paid your £10 ($20, €15
or ¥2,190) for: “To be sure of avoiding products from GM-fed animals,
we recommend people buy their milk and meat from retailers that guarantee
that their food is produced without GM feed, or buy organic food
which is always produced without GMOs (their emphasis, not ours).
Got it?
Sources:
1. Gundula Azeez And Cóilín Nunan (November 2006). Silent
invasion - the hidden use of GM crops in livestock feed. Soil Association.
2. Andrew Marshall et al. (September 2007). GM soybeans and health safety—a
controversy reexamined. Nature Biotechnology (http://ealerts.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/egEY0SqFpL0HjC0Bbys0EB)
3. Stanley Ewen and Arpad Pusztai (October 16, 1999). Effect of diets
containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin
on rat small intestine The Lancet, 354(9187), 1353-1354 (http://www.biotech-info.net/galanthus.html)
4. Review of data on possible toxicity of GM potatoes. The Royal
Society (June 1999) (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=6170)
5. Statement on the analysis of data from a 90-day rat feeding study with
MON 863 maize by the Scientific Panel on genetically modified organisms (GMO).
European Food Safety Authority (25.6.07)
(http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753824_1178621169104.htm)
6. Genetically modified food (2005). J Sainsbury plc (http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/files/reports/cr2005/?pageid=52)
7. Genetically modified foods (18.6.07). Tesco (http://www.tescocorporate.com/page.aspx?pointerid=6A750D771BFE4E98A3F0741AA32E5489)
<<<back
