Journal or Publishing Institution: British Medical Journal (BMJ)
Study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1114798/#!po=25.0000
Author(s): Holden, P.
Article Type: Journal Publication
Record ID: 1078
To the editor: The editorial by Derek Burke, former chair of the government’s Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACRE), certainly had a reassuring tone about it, but it also suffered from a fairly major dose of complacency.1 It would be surprising if a man who had for nine years chaired the committee that authorised the release of genetically engineered seeds for testing in trial plots had any serious doubts about the decisions he made. Most consumers now think otherwise. His article certainly covered the ground, but it did not do justice to many of the serious concerns about the potential risks of this new and unproved technology. For example, Burke describes the transfer of genes from one species into another as a well tried and tested and precise science, whereas much about it is still random and hit and miss. As a result, there have been a number of unpredicted consequences arising from the transfer of genes into unrelated species.
To say that “the public has accepted some [genetically modified foods] without hesitation” is misleading, to say the least. Most consumers were totally unaware of genetic engineering until very recently. Many of the foods containing genetically engineered ingredients or their derivatives have never been labelled, including much of the hard cheese that is produced using the genetically modified enzyme chymosin.
On the subject of safety, Professor Burke says that genetically engineered foods are safe because his committee says so. The Soil Association is not convinced and has written to each chairperson and chief executive of Britain’s leading multiple retailers, suggesting that they should set a date after which they should no longer use genetically engineered ingredients in the manufacture of their own-label products.
The premise on which most modern medical science has been based is that health is the product of the absence of disease and can be achieved through use of a vast array of drugs and, more recently, medicines derived from genetic engineering. The opposing view is that health is not merely the absence of disease but is in fact a dynamic equilibrium, which occurs when an organism is in a harmonious balance with its environment. Healthy plants, animals, and people are the result of sound husbandry and management, not the product of prophylactic doses of pharmaceuticals and genetically engineered drugs. The medical world would do well to entertain these types of ideas more seriously.
Keywords: genetically engineered foods, safety, health
Citation: Holden, P., 1999. Safety of genetically engineered foods is still dubious. British Medical Journal (BMJ), 318(7179), p.332.
