Jan, as someone who works with turning medical research journals into code in software, it’s not really my job to provide answers to your queries.
Particularly when you couldn’t accept that any gene taken from a fish isn’t a “fishy gene”.
We share more genes with a lungfish than the lungfish does with most other fish species, such as a trout.
you need to research yourself.
As for where to start, a previous reply from another user was a uni library. I’d suggest google scholar, if you don’t want to travel.
Unfortunately, most of the research is done by the companies who make GM crops, this makes people suspicious.
A similar issue occurs with my work. The drug trials are funded by the drug companies. But they do double blind tests. People on cancer trials can get the standard chemo or the new drug. Neither the dr or the patient knows if they are traditional or new. Drug trials are done in many countries, on many patients, at the same time. Sometimes over years.
The research on GM food has been done over decades. It’s published & available.
Opponents go with what is basically a natural must be better response, when we’ve been modifying animals & plants for thousands of years & since the 50s with radiation to get random mutation (which is classed as both natural & organic, if labelling comes in)
I’m anti labelling as I find individuals to be smart but groups of people are dumb.
It was easy to get cellulose banned from subway bread, by an unqualified blogger starting a campaign that because cellulose was in yoga mats, it’s bad for you. Only problem is cellulose is in every plant, on earth. So yes, it’s in wood & in yoga mats, but it’s in bread anyway, as it’s in every piece of wheat. It’s in rice and in salad vegetables.
If labelling comes in it’ll lead to bans based on fear, not evidence & one day we will need to feed 9 billion people with some traditional farm areas receiving less rain.
Thanks for continuing to provide reasonable, balanced and scientific responses to questions. So much mis-information or pseudo science out there pushed by interest groups.
Sadly your faith in the GM Industry does not equate to reality. Much of the ‘research’ is unavailable to the public, and is not always peer-reviewed and published. For example I have just been making enquiries about an adjuvant used in glyphosate mixtures (Roundup), to be sprayed on food crops. The information that the approval was based on is not publicly available due to commercial interests. The use of the term ‘substantial equivalent’ is not a scientific measure, yet it is used to determine the safety of GM foods, and feeding trials are not required to determine the safety of a novel creation that has never been eaten before.
Jan
I’m sure you will never be swayed.
Just asking, where was your research? If you provide a link it is possible for others to see if it seems legit or not.
I am often involved in discussions where people claim drug companies are hiding research that cannabis cures cancer.
The most that anyone has ever provided to “prove” this is a study showing cannabis oil kills cancer cells in a Petri dish (on that score bleach would cure cancer, dishwashing liquid probably would to)
If you google it, you will get over 1/2 million pages showing cannabis cures cancer, though. Doesn’t mean it’s not complete BS.
My communications were directly with FSANZ and the OGTR. I’m not sure how much closer to the fact I can get? I’m thinking that you’re experience with pharmaceuticals may be clouding your views on GM crop techniques. They are poles apart as far as rigorous testing goes.
You won’t get information from FSANZ or OGTR as any information they would have received would have been lodged as part of the approval process to have the crops registered for use in Australia. Even with a RTI/FOI, these organisations would need to go back to the applicant to gain their written consent for the release of any information provided to these agencies. They won’t do this unless you commence with a RTI/FOI request which could be expensive and not result in any useful information. They will otherwise tell you they can’t give you the information.
As I outlined previously, I suggest that you go to a university library (preferably a university that teaches agricultural science or science/genetics). The library will contain journals which have many papers on bio-engineering of agricultural crops. Papers for research and also development and testing of plant species for commercial purposes. I can recall seeing many such papers a decade or so ago. They may not be written by Monsanto/the company holding the patented crop…but academics which have done similar precursor research or been paid by a company to validate the in-house research results.
You can also try the companies involved as well, but this is unlikely to be fruitful unless you know someone within these companies which can assist you. As the science by Monsanto, for example, will be patented. As a result, the elementary research associated with their commercial crops from any in-house research (or a research organsiation on their behalf such as a university) should be available…but they may impose a reasonable cost to provide the such information - you will note that many journal articles must be bought - why going to a library is cost effective.
The last avenue is to contact a molecular geneticist at one of the universities/CSIRO/State Government Agricultural Department to see if they can help. Depending on their specialty/area of research, they may also be able to point you in the right direction.
If you approach any contact with the purpose to cause conflict, doors will shut quickly.
And pharmaceutical and GM testing are closer than you think. Pharmaceuticals need to prove efficacy and safety, GM crops for registration also need to do the same. There are also environmental/biological impacts of GM crops which also need to be considered. Where the use of GM products as human therapeutics (e.g. Golden Rice for source of Vitamin A), such is regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The anti-GMP camp tend to spread myths that the science is not robust.
For general information for someone not familiar with genetic engineering, the text highlighted in one of the above posts (or similar) will be useful as a background on the subject matter.
I am a member of the public, not a researcher. If I enquire about how my food is produced, and how it is approved I do not expect to have to take myself off to a university library or engage my own molecular scientist to find out the answers. Can you see that there is a very real problem here, and it is to do with lack of transparency?
Why would I not expect to get answers from these regulatory bodies. They are acting on my behalf, and should be able to show me that their approval methods are thorough, not tell me that it is commercially confidential. Is it any wonder that people have concerns about the safety of these novel foods.As for the State Government their conflict of interest is their partnership with Monsanto via InterGrain so there has been no success there either.
Please remember that we are discussing GM foods and not pharmaceuticals which have totally different safety regimes so the TGA would not be useful.
The trouble here is that GM foods are placing protein combinations into the food chain that human beings have never encountered before. If it’s so safe, then why has Monsanto tried so very hard to have themselves made immune from prosecution in so many countries?
@jan60gro, I can’t help you any further.
As a footnote, requesting information from a government agency or GOC is treated no different than asking the ATO for copies of tax returns for others, other than yourself. There are laws which protect the private and commercial information held by government, GOCs and government agencies. Having no such protections would mean that most would be reluctant to share any information or their affairs with the regulators as it would automatically become public. I am sure that you tax return, , medical records or other sensitive information was not publically accessible…
If you or a company choses to make one’s own information public, than that is the choice of the individuals in question.
All I can suggest is follow the advice above if you want to try and get the information yourself.
A bit of research will also show that there are many similarities between gm crop approval and pharmaceuticals.
As outlined above, gm crops also need to get TGA approval for any crop which claims health benefits, no different to pharmaceuticals. The golden rice would be one such example should approval be sought in Australia.
Currently GM crops don’t create new protiens/protein combinations. These already exist elsewhere in the environment/nature. What it does is transfer traits from one living organism to another.
The ones which have been approved, humans have been exposed to these compounds in the past.
(Noting we are yet to travel to other planets to see what exists there which may be new to humans.)
AS mentioned before there is a chasm between the safety regimes needed to approve pharmaceuticals and GM foods, one of the main ones being that feeding trials are not required in the latter
Again, a concept and not a commercial entity.
The Food Allergy Research and Education (FARE) website does look reputable – here’s their list of medical and research advisors, who are largely professors of allergy and immunology from leading US universities (Stanford, UNC, UCSD etc). with senior roles at their teaching hospitals. The peak body here in Australia is Allergy and Anaphylaxis Australia.
It’s good to see everyone bringing evidence to this conversation, and to see a convergence of views (even if you still feel pretty far apart). Maybe I’m pedantic but it helps to use more precise language. “May” is not the same as “will”. And “does not necessarily” is not the same as “does not”. On many aspects of this debate I suspect you are in furious agreement.
So: It sounds a lot like some genes could cause the expression of proteins causing unexpected allergic reactions, and other genes would not. As the parent of an anaphylactic child, I would want to see “Contains hazelnut proteins from gene transfer” on a packet of flour made from GM wheat where that was the case. And I know this is weird but for ethical reasons I’d also like to know if my flour is patent-encumbered. Just a “GMO” label feels like a very blunt instrument to me: it doesn’t tell me what I need to know.
I also had commented saying the paper she quoted saying fish allergies could appear in food, a point I accept depending on what you are adding & why, just not in all cases, was using e-coli to grow the fish genes.
e-coli if in food, will cause food poisoning, it’s not an example to use saying genetic engineered food do anything.
E-Coli is an excellent host for experiments, as they clone so well . It won’t show what adding a gene to a potato will do.
@jan60gro, Golden Rice is not a concept. It exists, has been trialled and is in the last stages of commercialisation. It has had challenges getting commercialisation due to well organised campaigns from organisations such as Greenpeace. See this link: Golden Rice Project
There are also numerous articles which have been published on the research and trials, and potential benefits fir correcting vitamin a deficiencies, particularly in Asian countries (why rice was selected).
I suggest again that you visit a library to carry out your own research rather than relying on the internet to try and substantiate your own views.
Your information about feeding trials are not required is not fully incorrect. GMO goes through the same rigorois testing that any new food product/additive goes through before being approved. The anti-gmo camp think that gmo foods should be subject to long term trials of 5 or greater years (one claim is at least one generation/30 years) before any approval is even considered. If this is done, then any new food or food product for human consumption, either gmo or non-gmo should also go through the same process. This would automatically stifle innovation in the food industry.
There are also journal articles about human trials of/impacts on gmo foods. These are dimissed by the anti-gmo camp as not being relevant as they are temporal in nature.
The term related to the extent of testing is ‘substantial equilivance’. Where substantial equivalence can not be demonstrated, additional testing is required. The OECD has guides which sets out testing principles where substantial evidence can’t be demonstrated. These guides have been adopted in many countries, including the US and Australia from what I undunderstand. The anti-gmo camp also dispite substantial equivalence, as from my own reading, it appears they think that since gmo is not natural, the substantial equivalence test does not apply. Using this ideological principle, it could be argues that any plant breeding where new genetic material is cross breed into a new species is also unnatural. In such cases, it woipuld further stifle agricultural innovation by breeding methods.
For GMO medicines, the TGA requires testing of this.
There are many websites about gmos which look trustworthy (even have .org extensions), have names which indicate scientific basis for their claims or which are run by people with no experience or scientific knowledge of genetics. There are also news websites which also report contradictory information about gmos. These have been set up by the anti-gmo camp to muddy the gmo waters/science. That is why it is important to look at scientific journal articles which are peer reviewed and often verified by further independent research. Doing google searches and using any link for an argument is problematic, especially when ones does not check the facts.
It also sounds like a better label, would be to label the proteins that are in the food.
Similar proteins could be an issue, but if part of a hazelnut genome that didn’t add a protein, would likely have no impact, (well that’s based on a dr who just dropped in to have a chat - who suggested most nut allergies are to the nut proteins)
It is still a concept as it is not even proven that the GM rice will be able to deliver the necessary amount of vitamin A successfully.
How do you explain this from FSANZ’s website relating to ‘Feeding Trials’?
While FSANZ doesn’t require animal feeding studies, we do acknowledge that there may be future GM foods where these studies may be useful.
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/pages/roleofanimalfeedings3717.aspx
Yet, until now none have been called for. Even the recently submitted GM Innate potato has not been required to have feeding trials.
I cannot emphasise how differently pharmaceuticals are tested compared to GM foods.
Golden rice is not a concept as it exists. A concept is an abstract idea or plan. Neither of which apply to golden rice. There is substantial research currently being carried out around the world to try and further increase concentration of beta carotine (vitamin a) in the rice. Current gmo golden rice varieties has been trialed in the field. Just because it has not fully been commercialised, it does not mean it is a concept.
In relation to your FSANZ quote see my comments about substantial equivalence. It is slso inappropriate to use one quote to paint a broad brush over gmos testing/approvals in the rest of the world.
FSANZ is an Australuan and New Zealand body. It does NOT represent all other similar bodies in the world. It will also not require retesting of foods which have been tested overseas by similar organisation to gain similar approvals (which I believe is why FSANZ hasn’t requested any such testing itself - existing testing has satisfied the requirements for its approval process ). I understand that the TGA has a similar approach to pharmaceuticals. One needs to look broadly and holistically before selective quoting information,
Also, I am a scientist (have basic genetics understanding through my time at university) and have done some reading/research of my own in the past to satisfy my own curiosity.
I still have an open mind to gmos and recognise to feed the ever growing world population, gmos must play a part. I also appreciate the challenges posed by gmos.
This will be my last reponse to any of your comments as it appears that you are unwilling to do your own research to resolve your own concerns on gmos. I have spent considerable time providing you with information on how to get facts for making ones own mind up on gmo.
I am sorry that you do not wish to continue this discussion, as there are still many of my questions that have not been answered or have fobbed off down some other pathway.
As for Golden Rice, the concept is that a rice will be engineered to deliver Vitamin A to offset blindness in impoverished societies. This has not happened, and is still very much in its trial stages. The proof has not been established, so it is still a concept. Millions Spent and No Vitamin A Deficiency Relieved
I explained that feeding trials were not needed by FSANZ, which you refuted, so when presented with the evidence you change the direction of the conversation! I did not say that it represented every country, and made it clear that I was referring to Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ).
And finally you have presented the ‘emotive’ card, that we will need GMOs to feed a ‘growing world population’. As you have decided to terminate this discussion I would like to end with these articles which show that we already know how to feed a growing world, and it is being done on small farms already http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/colin-todhunter/small-farms-world-impact_b_11671490.html and according to the IAASTD and Olivier de Schutter (Former Special Rapporteur to the UN) this is the future of agriculture, not GMOs. http://www.srfood.org/en/report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
Those scientists who claim GM has been fully tested need to do a bit more investigation. It is also a bit weird that the discussion hasn’t noted that genes code for proteins. It is the protein that causes an allergic reaction. One of the issues is that there is no guarantee the the bacterial gene that is put in a gene cassette with a promoter from a virus (and many other things to make it expressed) and is infected into a plant via a soil bacterium will actually make the same protein as it did in the bacteria (or the fish etc). These GM plants are assumed to be ‘substantially equivalent’ to the non-GM plant and so do not undergo rigourous testing but a few simple comparisons with the non-GM plant. The Royal Society of Canada has called this 'Scientifically unjustifiable and inconsistent with the precautionary regulation of the technology."
There is no agreed standard of testing for GM foods anywhere in the world. EFSA (EU food authority) has listed a few OECD protocols it thinks ‘relevant’ to GM food safety testing. They include 90 day feeding trials adapted from chemical testing. The number of animals used, the endpoints (what they test for) the control groups, the diets used and which data is reported can vary widely. I don’t know about you but this does not sound like science to me. If it does sound like it to the scientists on the list then I’d like to know why.
The US FDA does no testing itself, the GM company is supposed to do the research and tell the FDA it’s all fine at which point the FDA sends them a letter saying there is no need to do a pre-market assessment. Once again this is not science. It is companies that own patented technology with political power forcing their product onto people. There was a court case where FDA internal memos were revealed. It showed that FDA toxicologists said they had no idea how to test GM as it was so new and they were worried about the possibility of allergic reactions. Once again to any scientist on the list can you explain how this is scientific?
Our regulator FSANZ does no research themselves on GM crops. They accept the data from the GM companies. They do not require any animal feeding studies. Monsanto couldn’t identify and characterise the GM protein in the RR canola we grow in Australia. FSANZ allowed them to give details of a different protein. Once again this is significant as proteins are what cause allergic reactions.
I find it very depressing that ‘scientists’ defend GM crops having been duped by PR letters signed by unqualified Nobel Laureates (none in agriculture, one dead, another an economist whose company nearly crashed the global economy). GM golden rice is still not ready after 24 years in development and millions of dollars.
If you are scientists please start asking for real science around GM.
@frances, most of what you have posted is information from anti-GMO websites/commentators. I don’t have time to respond to all of your points, but suggest you read this as it addresses most of them.
There are also hundreds of peer reviewed journal articles which refute many of the GMO myths. These are not articles by Monsanto or other GMO companies, but independent research organsiations such as universities and government research institutions. The anti-GMO camp tend to focus on things like you have raised to try and refute any independent research carried out.
In relation to animal feed studies, there has been one massive one running for more than a decade as most of the world’s livestock is fed on GMO crops or their byproducts (e.g. biomass from GMO). The sensationalist revelations by the anti-GMO camp are unfounded, not based on science and misinformed. There is no point is running more and more animal feed studies as it will not provide any more information than currently exists. Current world lifestock populations have not collapsed, shown signs of poor nutrition or increased disease as a result of eating GMO food sources.
Like pharmaceuticals where the TGA does not do the research on new medical devices/compounds/drugs (where companies are ultimately responsible for such), the same applies to the FSANZ.
Scientists also have not been duped by GMO company letters. There are many scientists, some which I know quite well, who would be offended by such suggestions.
