Upload Now
In this article we will discuss about the safety aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for foods.
You must be aware that much debate is now taking place on the safety and ethical aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their products destined for public consumption. The safety of the human food supply is of critical importance to most nations and all foods should be fit for consumption i.e. not injurious to health or contaminated.
When foods or food ingredients are derived from GMOs they must be seen to be as safe as, or safer than, their traditional counterparts. The concept of substantial equivalence is widely applied in the determination of safety by comparison with analogous conventional food products together with intended use and exposure.
When such novel products are moving into the marketplace the consumer must be assured of their quality and safety. Thus there must be toxicological and nutritional guidance in the evolution of novel foods and ingredients to highlight any potential risks which can then be dealt with appropriately. Safety assessment of novel foods and food ingredients must satisfy the producer, the manufacturer, the legislator and the consumer.
The approach should be in line with accepted scientific considerations, the results of the safety assessment must be reproducible and acceptable to the responsible health authorities and the outcome must satisfy and convince the consumer! A comprehensive regulatory framework is now in place within the EU with the aim to protect human health and the environment from adverse activities involving GMOs.
There are two Directives providing horizontal controls i.e.:
1. Contained use and
2. Deliberate release of GMOs.
The contained use of GMOs means the use of the GMO is limited i.e. the release into the environment of GMOs for experimental purposes (i.e. field trials) which is regulated under the Health and Safety at Work Act through the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations which are administered by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in the UK.
Any deliberate release of GMOs into the environment i.e. the marketing of GMOs which is regulated in the UK by the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations, which are made under the Environmental Protection Act.
Current examples could include the growing of GM food crop plants or the marketing of GM soybeans for food processing. In the UK the safety of all novel foods including genetically modified foods is assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) which has largely followed the approach developed by the WHO and OEDC in assessing the safety of novel foods.
There is undoubtedly going to be a steady increase in the range of GM foods coming to the market in the US and in Europe, for example, Tomatoes with modified ripening; insect resistant potato, cotton, maize; glyphosphate tolerant soybean, oilseed rape and cotton; male sterile maize oilseed rape; high oleic acid soybeans etc. In all of the foregoing, the risk assessments of GMO products etc. have been made by experts and judged on the basis of safety to the consumer.
However, it must be recognised that subject experts define risk in a narrow technical way, whereas the public or consumer without sufficient knowledge generally displays a wider, more complex view of risk that incorporates value-laden considerations such as unfamiliarity, catastrophic potential and controllability.
Furthermore, the public, in general, will almost always overestimate risks associated with technological hazards such as genetic engineering and underestimate risks associated with ‘lifestyle’ hazards such as driving cars, smoking, drinking, fatty foods etc. It is puzzling to note that food-related technologies tend to be perceived as high in risk relative to benefit when compared with other technologies.
Perception of the risks inherent in genetic engineering may be moderated by recognition of the tangible benefits of specific products of genetic engineering that could be shown to have health or environmental benefits.
Trust in the reliability of the information source is of major importance in any communication about risk and this is associated with perceptions of accuracy, responsibility and concern with public welfare. In contrast, distrust may be generated when it is assumed that the facts are distorted or the information misused or biased.