London (13.10.2005)
– Just last Sunday, the newly-appointed Chair of the Food Standards
Agency gave her first press interview (1). Her comments were largely focused
on processed and convenience foods, and on labelling.
In touching upon organic food, she agreed with her predecessor that “at
the moment the ‘evidence does not exist' to show that organic food is
nutritionally superior”. Perhaps new evidence will be forthcoming: an
eye is being kept on a big study in Newcastle.
In addition, and close to CropGen’s own area of interest, she is reported
as saying “that scientific studies 'had not shown' that genetically
modified foods were unsafe, but the agency would continually review its position
when it came to new evidence”.
Now that is a curious use of the double negative. If scientific studies have
not shown GM foods to be unsafe, the conclusion has to be that they are
properly fit for consumption.
“Safe”, after all, is a negative concept, defined in the dictionary
as “unlikely to cause or result in harm, injury, or damage”. Negative
concepts cannot be proven because that would require knowing the future; there
may indeed be no evidence of harm or danger so far, but it might show up tomorrow
or the day after. One cannot be absolutely sure.
So while absolute safety can never be guaranteed, a lack of evidence for any
harm or danger is the closest one can ever get to something being safe.
Thus it is with GM foods. For ten years they have been consumed by hundreds
of millions of people without a single confirmed instance of a deleterious
health effect from any GM food approved for human consumption. That is pretty
convincing evidence for a lack of harm or danger, and hence for safety.
Four years ago CropGen attempted to put a figure on it (2). GM foods are not
100% safe; no foodstuff (or anything else) can ever claim that. Nevertheless,
using plausible data of North American consumption, the frequency of ill effects
was less than one event in 3 trillion GM-containing meals consumed: meals
containing GM ingredients were accordingly 99.9999999999% safe. By late 2005,
still with no adverse effects, the chance has lessened to fewer than one untoward
event in about 5 trillion meals.
How much further need one go before the Chair of the FSA is less hesitant?
Sources:
1. Anushka Asthana (9.10.2005). Food watchdog targets ready meals.
The Observer (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1588113,00.html)
2. V. Moses and M. Brannan (2001). One hundred percent safe? GM foods
in the UK. CropGen (http://www.cropgen.org/GM_Biosafety.pdf)
<<<back
