Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has
responded to
criticism alleging products relying on a new
gene silencing technology are entering the food supply
without adequate scrutiny.
Earlier this year, a
scientific review raised concerns that
double-stranded RNA molecules produced in new
genetically modified crops could pose a risk to human
health.
The paper's authors, including Professor Jack Heinemann
at University of Canterbury, called on regulators to
require experimental evaluations --
including bioinformatic sequencing, in vitro tests,
animal feeding trials and potentially even clinical
trials -- before approving any genetically modified
foods using the technology.
Further background on the original paper is
here.
FSANZ has now
released a report responding to the concerns
raised, concluding:
-
The weight of scientific evidence published to date
does not support the view that small double-stranded
RNAs (dsRNAs) in foods are likely to have adverse
consequences for humans.
-
There is no scientific basis for suggesting that
small dsRNAs present in some GM foods have different
properties or pose a greater risk than those already
naturally abundant in conventional foods.
-
The current case-by-case approach to GM food safety
assessment is sufficiently broad and flexible to
addresses the safety of GM foods developed using
gene silencing techniques.
Full conclusions and a copy of the FSANZ report can be
found
here.
The SMC contacted scientists for further comment on
FSANZ response to the criticisms in Heinemann
et al's article. Feel free to use these
quotes in your reporting. If you would like help
reaching these or other experts, please contact the SMC
(04 499 5476;
smc@sciencemediacentre.co.nz).
Please note that comments below are abridged. You can
find the full comments
on
the SMC website.
_________________________________________
Dr Tony Conner, Science Group Leader, AgResearch, comments:
"The FSANZ response to Heinemann et al 2013 is
well-considered and very thorough. It demonstrates that
the risk claims in the article are an overreaction based
on dubious scientific evidence about the biosafety risks
in plants genetically modified with gene silencing
approaches.
"The public can take comfort from two key aspects:
·
Double-stranded RNAs do not present a new issue for food
safety. They are very common in a wide range of
organisms, including many fresh foods that have a long
history of safe use in our diet.
·
The current approaches used by regulatory bodies,
including FSANZ, are sufficiently robust to address food
safety of GM products with dsRNAs."
Assoc Prof Peter Dearden, Director - Genetics Otago,
University of Otago:
"FSANZ's report provides a sensible and well-argued
counterpoint to Prof Heinemann's claims, and I find
their report very convincing.
"The difference of views expressed by FSANZ and Prof
Heinemann spring, I think, from one controversial
paper...This paper is disputed, as some authors have
criticized the techniques used, and other experiments
have failed to find evidence of plant RNAs in animals.
...We have no evidence that ingested RNAs from food
affect human genes.
"[The evidence also shows]...RNA therapies targeting
viruses and other diseases, designed to manipulate genes
in just the way suggested by Prof Heinemann, have been
unsuccessful, because humans do not easily take up such
RNAs.
"My opinion is that FSANZ have got it right. Their
assessment is that the risk to human health of double
stranded RNA constructs used in GM plants is negligible,
and I agree. I do, however, think that one of Prof
Heinemann's suggestions, that bioinformatic examination
of potential human targets of the RNAs made in GM plants
should be carried out to ensure that such RNAs cannot
affect human genes, is worth doing. ... While I firmly
believe that the risks of such RNA constructs are
negligible, performing this analysis is trivially easy,
and thus worth doing.
"The safety of our food is a key issue. ... Such
criticism and response is vital to ensure we have
effective, evidence based, regulation of food safety
issues."
Prof
Jack Heinemann, School of Biological Sciences,
University of Canterbury,
(co-author of the original article)
comments:
"Our food safety watchdog, FSANZ, is relying on
assumptions instead of seeking evidence when confronted
by a newly identified risk in GM foods.
"When FSANZ says it is not "likely" that small dsRNAs in
foods will harm humans, it effectively acknowledges this
is still possible, and so a risk. Yet it proposes not
even testing for that risk until the "weight of
evidence" suggests it is doing harm. We say consumer
protection should be forward looking - do the tests now:
don't wait for harm to be proven. ...
"FSANZ should require this testing as it has the power
to in its legislation, it has the option to under
international food safety guidelines, and it has a
responsibility to the people of Australia and New
Zealand to do this. ...
"RNA molecules are in the food we eat, but to
extrapolate from the safe use of food with naturally
occurring forms to those that are engineered and unique
to new kinds of food is wrong. Proteins of all kinds are
also in the food we eat but new proteins are evaluated
for the potential to be toxic or allergenic in food.
These dsRNA molecules can participate in fundamental
biological reactions in human cells and so must be
tested to be determined safe. ... Some of these
molecules are proven as pesticides. They can have potent
effects on animals and should be tested before use on
humans.
"Let's use scientific evidence to see if the new dsRNAs
in approved and future foods are safe. Science and
public health will then be the winner, whatever the
outcome."
John
Reeve, Principal Advisor (toxicology), Ministry of
Primary Industries, comments:
"The method of assessment of GE Foods conducted by Food
Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) on behalf of
Australia and New Zealand is exactly the same as
internationally established as appropriate and used by
all the major regulatory authorities in the world. The
need for data has been carefully considered to ensure
that any genetic modification getting into the human
food chain does not pose any unacceptable risk. The
risk assessors involved in the FSANZ process are highly
competent and very experienced both domestically and
internationally.
"I note the suggestion that clinical testing be
conducted on each new food, but this would seem to be
quite impractical. This sort of testing is not required
for any current dietary risk assessments systems. Any
risk assessments carried out on foods are always based
on the data available at the time, and are never set in
stone. Thus, at any time, new information on a
substance or food will always be considered carefully,
and if necessary a risk assessment will be appropriately
updated. Revision of risk assessments is occurring
around the world and within the WHO expert committees on
a regular basis and the acceptability of foods are
constantly being updated. This would apply in the case
of any genetically modified food that has an
approval."
|