Line 4Line 4 Copyic/close/grey600play_circle_outline - material
Answers

Question

If biotech industry leaders are scientifically confident that GMOs are 100% safe, then why do animals die and/or become infertile when not given the opportunity to avoid eating them?

Submitted by: gmosrock


Answer

Expert response from Community Manager

Friday, 17/04/2015 14:25

The biotech industry is confident that commercially available GM crops are safe because the weight of evidence accumulated on them, and documented in applications to independent regulatory reviewers, indicates that they are as safe as their conventional counterpart.

 

This weight of evidence comes from several studies that comprise the safety evaluation of both the new trait and the whole food containing the new trait. The new trait (i.e., the newly expressed protein) is thoroughly evaluated for safety by examining its biochemical function, homology to known allergens and mammalian protein toxins, homology to proteins with a history of safe consumption, in vitro digestibility, in vitro thermodynamic stability, and in vivo toxicity testing on a case-by-case basis. The GM crop undergoes a comparative safety assessment to its conventional (i.e., non-transgenic) counterpart to determine if there are differences between them. The GM crop is thoroughly evaluated for safety through detailed molecular (sequencing data evaluating the insertion site), compositional (nutritional data), phenotypic (efficacy of the added trait), and agronomic (field performance) analyses. In some cases a 90-day feeding study with the whole food from the GM crop will also be conducted as an additional assurance of safety. Biologically relevant adverse findings in any one of the protein or whole food assessments would halt product development. Thus, examining the safety of both the trait and the whole food provides a very high level of safety assurance and gives the biotech industry its confidence.

 

Studies alleging adverse effects from the presence of GM crops in the diet certainly exist, and the reasons for dismissing their results have been extensively discussed on this website here and here.

 

Please note that the criticism of these studies is broad in scope and includes national scientific agencies from several European countries (Belgium, Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, and the Netherlands), as well as independent, scientific professional societies (European Society of Toxicologic Pathology and the French Society of Toxicologic Pathology). That so many individuals felt compelled to provide public comment on the inadequacy of the publication illustrates the egregious nature of the study and its conclusions.