Existing genetically modified crops and foods pose a 鈥渧ery low鈥� risk to human health and are 鈥渧ery unlikely鈥� to rampage through the British countryside, concludes a major UK report.
The independent review of over 600 scientific papers was commissioned by the UK government and will help inform its decision on whether to end its three-year moratorium on the commercial growing of GM crops later in 2003.
The report, published on Monday, admit gaps in scientific knowledge and highlights crucial areas requiring further research. These include possible allergic effects of GM crops, impact on soil ecology and farmland biodiversity and the consequences of any 鈥渆scape鈥� of genes from GM crops to conventional ones.
Advertisement
鈥淕M is not a homogenous technology on which scientists can make blanket assurances on safety,鈥� says David King, the government鈥檚 chief scientific adviser and chair of 25-strong panel that produced the report. 鈥淎pplications of GM technology will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.鈥�
The report also stresses that existing uncertainties should not be allowed to hold back scientific advances. 鈥淲e cannot know everything and if we were paralysed by gaps in knowledge we would never get anywhere new,鈥� it states.
Human guinea pigs
But Greenpeace鈥檚 chief scientist Doug Parr attacked the report: 鈥淭his committee was deliberately stacked with GM flag-wavers, but its so-called findings still come nowhere near justifying the risks. The report makes it clear there are areas of huge uncertainty.鈥�
Sue Mayer, director of GeneWatch UK, says the review is unlikely to reassure a skeptical public. 鈥淧eople across the world are effectively being used in unmonitored testing of GM food safety according to the Government鈥檚 Science Review,鈥� she says. 鈥淎nd there are no plans to start collecting hard evidence from the human guinea pigs.鈥�
But many scientists welcomed the report鈥檚 conclusions as 鈥渨ell-balanced鈥�. 鈥淲e cannot generalise about GM crops 鈥� the risks and benefits depend on the genes you put in,鈥� says Mark Tester, a plant scientist at Cambridge University. 鈥淭his is a completely logical position, and it is reassuring to see the Science Review state this so clearly, and with the authority of a large and eminent group of both pro- and anti-GM scientists.鈥�
The UK鈥檚 leading scientific academy, the Royal Society, also backed the review鈥檚 findings, adding that it shows attempts by sections of the media to create public anxiety 鈥渉ave been ignoring the scientific evidence鈥�.
鈥淣o toxic effects鈥�
The review examined 17 areas of concern. Among the key conclusions were that:
聲 there have been 鈥渘o verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects鈥� from the worldwide consumption of GM foods by humans and livestock over the last seven years
聲 the most important issue for the current generation of GM crops is their possible effect on UK farmland and wildlife. The panel is awaiting the results of UK farm scale experiments. For now they conclude GM plants are 鈥渧ery unlikely to invade our countryside or become problematic plants鈥�
聲 there will be 鈥渧ery little gene flow鈥� from GM crops like beet and oilseed rape to wild relatives
聲 there is 鈥渘o compelling evidence鈥� for gene transfer from GM food eaten by humans to bacteria in the gut
聲 gene flow between GM plants and soil bacteria or viruses is 鈥渢heoretically possible, but extremely unlikely and without precedent鈥�
However, the report cautions that: 鈥淎bsence of evidence of harm is not evidence of absence of harm.鈥�
Michael Reiss, a review panel member from the Institute of Education, University of London, said of the report鈥檚 balance of conclusions: 鈥淭he flag is not green and it鈥檚 not red. It waves too slowly for some and too fast for others.鈥�