European Union
January 6, 2005
Source: CORDIS News
While the US, Canada and Argentina
have planted millions of hectares of genetically modified (GM)
crops, the EU only has 58,000 hectares of insect protected GM
maize in Spain. One reason for this difference is the lack of
European societal acceptance of agricultural biotechnology.
To address this issue, the European Commission funded a thematic
network on the safety assessment of genetically modified food
crops, the ENTRANSFOOD
project, in order to stimulate the debate.
Funded under the Fifth Framework Programme (FP5), ENTRANSFOOD
sought to identify prerequisites for introducing agricultural
biotechnology products in a way that is largely acceptable to
European society.
'ENTRANSFOOD has, in particular, evaluated issues of the safety
of GM crop derived foods and has also paid attention to issues
like detection and traceability and public attitude towards GM
food crops,' explains the consortium, which consists of 65
partners from 13 different European countries, including
representatives from academia, regulatory agencies, food
manufacturers, retailers and consumer groups.
'Risk assessment of GM foods has focused on adverse health
effects for humans and the environment, but public concern is
much broader, focusing not only on risks, but also on who
benefits, what are the needs and how does it contribute to a
sustainable agriculture. It is important to explicitly address
public concerns and to develop new methods for stakeholders'
involvement and public consultation,' states ENTRANSFOOD.
The project found that existing test methods for safety
assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are
efficient and ensure that GM foods that have passed the test are
as safe and nutritious as plant-derived foods.
It recommended, however, that in the future, 'based on our
improved understanding of molecular biology, toxicology and
nutrition, further improvement of test methods may be considered
that will render the safety assessment of foods even more
effective and informative.'
In addition, it recommended the development of novel methods to
predict the allergenicity of food components.
ENTRANSFOOD also noted that process-based labelling of all foods
containing GM crops is a necessity in order to dispel the fears
of EU citizens, but recognised that difficulties are unavoidable
in implementing the EU's labelling requirements. For example, it
will be a challenge to achieve international agreement on
standards for the labelling and traceability of foods
originating from or containing GM crops across countries and
even businesses.
On the subject of detection of unintended effects and gene
transfer, ENTRANSFOOD emphasised that there is no indication
that unintended effects are more likely to occur in GM foods or
that there is any inherent risk in the transfer of DNA between
organisms, since DNA is not toxic. It did, however, call for
further development and validation of profiling methods before
they are used in routine risk assessment. ENTRANSFOOD also
recommends that the use of bacterial DNA in elaborating GM
plants should be kept to a minimum in order to reduce the risk
of gene transfer to the microbial population in the gut.
Finally, ENTRANSFOOD recommended the creation of an evaluation
and discussion platform combining a range of diverse
perspectives on new food technology to formalise public
engagement and consultation in the GM debate. |