Annotated Bibliography Entry

Reference: OECD 2000a
Title: GM Food Safety: Facts, Uncertainties and Assessment. The OECD Edinburgh Conference on the Scientific and Health Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods 28 February - 1 March 2000
Authors: Rapporteurs’ Summary: Tindemans, P and Gillespie, I.; Chairman’s Report: Krebs, J.
Publisher: OECD, Paris, France
Publication details: March 2000.

Rapporteurs' Summary
Summary Results of the Conference
     Points of agreement
     Points of disagreement
     Current lack of Knowledge
A Possible Way Forward

 

Back to OECD page

Rapporteurs’ Summary

1. The Conference drew together 400 participants from a variety of backgrounds. The aim was to identify common ground on whether and how applications of GM technologies in the food and crops sector serve the needs of society. This report concentrates on developing this common ground.

2. The focus is the safety of the tens of GM crops now in use for food. Environmental impacts, trade and developmental effects, ethical and societal concerns were not considered at length, but could not altogether be separated or hierarchically ordered. However, the various issues need to be addressed separately if they are to be analytically tractable.

3. The conference critically assessed – from the various perspectives represented – different approaches to assessment of the risks and benefits of GM food. A strong sense emerged that there was a need to take steps to rebuild trust among the various actors, particularly governments, industry, scientists, regulatory agencies and the public.

Back to top

Summary Results of the Conference

4. There were a significant number of points on which there was general agreement amongst the majority if not all of the participants. Unsurprisingly, there were also many issues where opposing views were put. In some cases, these were a result of different interpretations of the available evidence; in others, disagreement was more fundamental. Finally, there were points where there was neither clear agreement nor disagreement, since there is currently a lack of knowledge.

Points of agreement

·      In considering how society deals with GM food, the circle of debate needs to be widened, including bringing in workers in laboratories, factories, farms, etc. The debate needs to become more open, transparent and inclusive. Openness and transparency are also required in the policy process. The general public – consumers and citizens – not only have the right to know, but they also have valid points of view, which need to be effectively voiced, understood, and given their due weight in the decision-making and policy process.

·      Many consumers already eat GM foods, though they do not necessarily know they are doing so. No peer-reviewed scientific article has yet appeared which reports adverse effects on human health as a consequence of eating GM food.

·      The concept and practice of assessment of risk – including a consistent international approach to the use of the concept of substantial equivalence and to a form of the precautionary approach – have been valuable tools, and should remain so – so long as they continue to be kept under regular open review.

·      Benefits as well as risks posed by GM foods should be evaluated. GM foods have the clear potential to bring real benefits to developing countries. However, that potential has yet fully to be realised and will only be so if the technology is put to use under appropriate conditions. Population growth and poverty are real challenges for global food production, both in terms of quality and quantity of food. But GM biotechnology will not be the whole answer to increasing demands for food; it can only be a part of it.

·      Consumers in industrialised countries have yet to appreciate benefits from the first generation of GM food products. Benefits might include reduced food prices and, in some cases, health benefits – for example, reduced rates of use of pesticides or carcinogenic compounds by farmers. There has, however, been no quantification of tangible benefits to consumers as yet. So-called “second generation” GM food products will offer more tangible potential health benefits. Past experience teaches important lessons on how to conduct the debate in the future.

·      The continued use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GM food crops is unnecessary given the existence of adequate alternatives, and should be phased out. There was broad consensus not to use technologies that deliberately render seeds sterile if farmers – particularly in least developed countries – do not have a realistic choice about which seed varieties they can use. However, the use of “terminator” genes for the purpose of genetic containment was widely acknowledged as a useful safety measure.

·      Partnerships between the public and the private sector must develop further if the potential benefits of GM food are to be delivered to those who most need them. These should seek to combine public and private investment, technical know-how, technology transfer and local knowledge.

·      Consumers need to be able to exercise choice; for this they need information on the way products have been manufactured. Almost all participants recognised the value of labelling in enabling consumer choice.

 Back to top

Points of disagreement

·      Some participants regard human health aspects of GM foods as inseparable from wider issues, like impact on the environment, trade and socio-economic factors and people’s belief systems. Others favour distinct and specific ways of assessing the various potential impacts.

·      Some see genetic modification as part of a continuum in the development of tools for plant breeding. For them, GM is just another step in the process, albeit a powerful one. Others see genetic modification as a fundamental change in the way new crops are produced. For them, this fundamental difference necessitates new ways of assessing safety.

·      There is disagreement whether GM foods in animal feed presents a problem either for animal or human health.

·      There is no consensus as yet on the level of agency at which risks and benefits of GM food should be decided. While some would favour a global framework for developing, marketing and using GM technologies and the products based thereon, others adhere strongly to national sovereignty and to making their own judgements on risks and benefits. There is equally disagreement about whether GM crops have a role in global agriculture in the long term.

·      There is as yet no agreement on the detailed process of assessing consumer concerns about GM foods.

·      The need for traceability of GM material is controversial. Some consider it a necessary complement to a priori risk assessment. Others claim that risk assessment can be sufficiently improved so as to avoid post-market monitoring (the practicalities of which are uncertain).

Back to top 

Current lack of knowledge

·      While there seems to be agreement that the social process of risk handling needs to be “open, transparent and inclusive” and should clearly acknowledge scientific uncertainties and take into account the validity of social concerns, there is no consensus on how this should be done in practice.

·      There remains uncertainty about the potential long-term effects of GM food on human health and on worker safety (as a result of exposure during production).

·      Current methods for testing toxicity and allergenicity (for example the potential for unknown allergens to be transferred between species during genetic modification) leave some uncertainties and need to be improved.

·      There is still uncertainty over long-term environmental effects, potential complex ecological interactions and impacts on biodiversity. The impact in tropical zones is particularly uncertain, as most field trials have been carried out in temperate zones.

·      Though feeding trials in animals may in some cases offer supplementary safety guarantees, it is unclear whether for GM foods they will be applicable or useful.

Back to top 

A Possible Way Forward

5. To tease out the issues and present them in a coherent form, the key points raised are discussed under the following headings:

• Benefits versus risks: this describes the consensus emerging from the conference that the benefits of GM food needed to be considered as well as the risks.

• Management of GM technologies: this presents a synthesis of the participants’ views on managing risks from GM foods.

• The role of stakeholders: this describes how stakeholders can move forward together.

• An international programme as a potential way forward.

Back to top

Web site: http://www.oecd.org/EN/document/0,,EN-document-617-1-no-20-2050-617,00.html