GM foods as safe as conventional counterparts, food safety report says

The "key message" is that GM foods on sale in Ireland are as safe as their conventionally-grown counterparts, according to a Food Safety Authority of Ireland report.

A committee including leading public health specialists, nutrition experts and plant biologists has found GM foods on the market do not provide any additional nutritional benefit for consumers, though this may change in time coinciding with massive increases globally in GM crop production.

While the report published yesterday finds that most available GM products are essentially equivalent to their unmodified versions, it concludes, nonetheless, that gene technology (which is used to generate GM foods) "requires careful regulation to ensure there is no threat to human or animal health".

The group, which advises the FSAI on GM and novel foods seeking access to EU markets, has endorsed the safety of available products - essentially GM soya and maize, and their derivatives - but also suggests where regulations need to be strengthened in the interests of consumer health.

The FSAI chief executive, Dr Patrick Wall, acknowledged there was widespread concern about genetic modification technology. This was due to a wide range of factors, including lack of knowledge and misinformation, he said.

Others had, for example, genuine environmental, "pro-organic" or ethical concerns, which could not be considered within the remit of the report. "These concerns have nothing to do with food safety. But irrespective of their reasons, people have a right to know the origins of the food they are buying."

To reinforce this, the report says consumers have a right to "clear, unambiguous labelling in order to make informed purchasing choices". The FSAI is working with the State Laboratory to provide a facility to test for GM foods which will include the ability to carry out spot checks in retail outlets to enforce EU labelling regulations, its head of operations, Mr Alan Reilly, confirmed.

There may be "justifiable claims of associated benefits to human health" with current GM crops in the reduced use of pesticides or herbicides, or economic benefits such as reduced loss of food due to spoilage, the report notes.

Dr Colin Hill of UCC, chairman of the expert group which compiled the Food Safety and GM Foods report, underlined its independence, in that none of the scientists who worked on it was employed within the GM food industry. While it entailed an evaluation of research data provided by multinationals who had developed the products, it was possible to determine the merits of the science.

Genetic Concern accused the authority of "merely rubberstamping industry research", and highlighted the absence of independent testing of GM foods. The FSAI was not reflecting divided scientific opinion on the issue, with many geneticists claiming not enough is known about the genetic make-up of plants to understand possible risks, its spokesman, Mr Quentin Gargan, said.

"The truth is that we currently have no way of assessing the effects of genetically engineered foods. What the FSAI should do is seek funding for independent epidemiological studies, instead of reassuring the public with ill-informed reassurances," he said.

The Green MEP, Ms Nuala Ahern, said the report was carefully worded and "ignored much of the latest scientific evidence now emerging". It also ran counter to what she claimed was FSAI acceptance at a recent meeting with a Green Party delegation of a serious lack of pesticide testing on foods.

The Food and Drink Federation, part of IBEC business group, welcomed the finding that GM foods do not pose any health risk.