Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 33, 1 (2001) doi:10.1006/rtph.2001.1455, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on
COMMENTARY Elevating the Terms of the GM Food Debate W. Gary Flamm Flamm Associates, 622 Beachland Boulevard, Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Received January 16, 2001
It is the first comprehensive article that clearly sets forth a sound scientific basis for concluding that BTprotected foods are safe and wholesome. This report lays out safety data on the BT protein itself along with those about GM foods that carry and express the BT gene. The article makes clear the health and safety advantages of BT-protected crops versus traditional agricultural practices, and how they should be taken into consideration in any decisions to permit their uses. The framework to interpret the data and assess safety is explained and utilized to conclude that currently approved BT-protected crops are safe for human consumption. The article also provides convincing data on the economic, agronomic, and environmental advantages of these products. In so doing, it offers a significant step forward in elevating the scientific underpinning of the current debate, and confirms that data are available to reach a sound regulatory framework. Science and policy will continue to explore both sides of the risk/benefit equation, as they should. Nevertheless, time has come for speculation about theoretical risks to take a back seat to real data, to the demonstrated presence of real benefits, and to the certifiable absence of harm to people or the environment. While it would be na¨ıve to think all interested parties will come together any time soon, the coherent presentation of safety information should and will change the terms of the debate, resulting in a more productive exchange of views and concerns. The sooner the better, for there is no other alternative; the GM foods genie is out and will not be bottled again.
The Green Revolution following World War II addressed some of the world’s food shortage problems and the attending human agony. Solutions to global problems, however, are always at a cost. The cost of heavy pesticide use was soon felt and helped, among other things, to launch the worldwide environmental movement as we now see it. Small wonder that the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods has raised questions, and that the intentional positioning of such questions has raised concerns among consumers. Still, the potential and conceivable benefits of GM foods are staggering and a dream come true for humanity’s survival. Thus some voices caution against, while other voices say let’s move as fast as we can to reap the benefits. Environmental groups and certain food activists have been vociferous in raising fears and making demands which often would effectively end the marketing and the benefits of GM foods. All this happens even though the technologies so decried are mere accelerations of traditional solutions widely implemented by earlier and much slower agricultural practices. Much of the criticism leveled against GM foods argues that safety has not been demonstrated, and that regulatory agencies lack the authority to keep such foods off the market. Left out in these arguments is how difficult or impossible it is to demonstrate that these foods are unsafe in normal diets and conditions of use. The article “Safety and Advantages of Bacillus thuringiensis-Protected Plants to Control Insect Pests” by Betz et al., published in the October 2000 issue of this journal (Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 32, 156–173) clearly addresses these questions.
1
0273-2300/01 $35.00 C 2001 by Academic Press Copyright ° All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
