Scientist rallies behind Genetic Concern in build-up to GM debate

One of the most prominent scientists against genetically-modified foods is to provide his expertise to the Irish campaign group, Genetic Concern, in the run-up to the second of a series of national debates on GM food policy. Prof Joe Cummins, of the University of Western Ontario, who is against GM foods both on environmental and human health grounds, is also to address a number of public meetings in Ireland prior to the debate staged by the Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey, on June 3rd. Irish policy on the testing and development of GM crops is to be finalised after an independent chairing panel reports on the debates. Prof Cummins is one of 22 widely-published scientists who backed the controversial research on GM potatoes by Dr Arpad Pusztai which suggested they could damage the immune systems of rats.

The professor of genetics is an authority on "viral promoters", tiny components which trigger genetic activity and are used to make genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), and in turn GM crops. He has grave reservations about "Bt toxin" - used as insecticide in some crops. It is generated by the bacillus thuringiensis bacterium, and the gene triggering its production has been incorporated into GM maize and corn grown mainly in the US. Prof Cummins's intervention comes as it was reported that the British Medical Association is to tell the British government too little is known about the long-term effects of eating GM food to guarantee its safety. The BMA position, to be outlined in a report to be published tomorrow, concludes GM crops are a potential threat to human health and the environment, according to the In- dependent on Sunday. This contrasts with the verdict of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland report, which found current GM foods on the market were not a risk to human health.

Meanwhile, Genetic Concern has questioned the FSAI's independence as all it had done in relation to GM foods, it claimed, was "evaluate the research carried out by the industry itself". There had been little or no independent testing of GM foods, while the document issued by the FSAI failed to reflect the extent of division among scientists on their safety, it added.

A Genetic Concern spokesman, Mr Quentin Gargan, said: "This technology is being driven by large multinationals who carry out their own research. What the FSAI subcommittee has done is take that research and approve it."

GM-crop trials were little more than efficacy tests, he said. Accordingly, if one did not look in the right place for potential problems, one was unlikely to find them. In such circumstances, he questioned how long it would be before there would be "the same embarrassing U-turn on genetic engineering as we had with BSE, DDT and many other instances where science failed to detect potential problems".

Genetic Concern added that concerns about the vetting of GM food contained in the main FSAI report were not articulated in a leaflet aimed at consumers. The FSAI expert group had noted in its report that "while protein sequence databases homology data is useful for assessing allergenicity and toxicity potential, there is still a need for notifiers (developers of GMOs) to carry out toxicological and allergenicity testing on animals".

Mr Gargan added: "Thalidomide has proven that animal testing is inadequate and presents unnecessary cruelty at a time when public opinion is seeking cruelty-free alternatives. Testing must be carried out on humans, as happens with medicines."