July 2013
Photo from Creative Commons by CIMMYT on Flickr |
If
you've just read RNA-MODIFIED FOOD - July
2013, you'll be aware that this latest GM development carries some
serious new risks.
This
latest GM fad doesn't introduce novel genes or proteins but creates
much trickier transgenic regulatory RNA elements.
Now, you
may be wondering whether our regulators are awake to the problems?
Lip-service is frequently paid to the 'precautionary principle', but rarely backed up by action. The prevailing regulatory culture seems to be one in which marketing of novel materials is encouraged to proceed until some proof of harm emerges. Scientific uncertainty is not used as a reason to delay their launch.
GM
crops with novel dsRNA have already
been approved despite ignorance about the mechanism of their action.
For example, the first ever commercial GM crop, the FlavSavr
slow-ripening tomato, was discovered many years later to have a dsRNA
at the basis of its trait, and more recently a viral-resistant soya
has been approved despite the admission that the dsRNA present arises
“via a pathway that is still not understood”.
The
first stage in all risk assessment is the identification of the
hazards. A recent evaluation of the regulation of products
containing dsRNA by an international team from New Zealand, Australia
and Brazil, concluded that the present approach fails to carry out
this first, vital, stage. Examples are described of how the risks
have been either identified and then
systematically denied,
or, have simply never been
acknowledged to exist.
The need to deal with the risk of unintended side-effects has been
routinely side-stepped by using assumption-based reasoning in lieu
of scientific evidence.
The
first assumption about the risk of dsRNA is that all RNA
can be treated as a homogeneous class of chemicals. This enables all
RNA to be considered GRAS (generally recognised as safe) because it
has always been present in all food and therefore cannot
intrinsically raise safety concerns.
Since
RNA exists in a multitude of forms, some of which are highly (and
catalytically) active, this first assumption derives from a wild and
unacceptable generalisation. Like DNA, it is the chemical
sequence of the RNA molecule
which is responsible for its actions, not its chemical type: like
artificial DNA, artificial dsRNA is introduced precisely because of
the unique properties of the engineered sequence. Put another way,
the sequence has been specifically designed to interfere with normal
activity in the cell. In the food plant there could be accompanying,
unintended interference which could create novel toxins and
allergens, and in the consumer, unintended interference could cause
disease.
Despite
the obvious absurdity of the reasoning, the assumption that dsRNA is
GRAS has even been used to give engineered insecticidal dsRNA a
positive risk assessment. The implications of the fact that the
sequence had been chosen
specifically to damage animal cells was simply ignored.
Other assumptions used to
trivialise the risks of dsRNA include the notion that any unintended
action in the consumer would be 'transient' in nature (bear in mind
that in a staple crop, this 'transient' action would happen every
day), and the entrenched view that commercial feeding studies showing
acceptable feed conversion rate and animal weight gain in livestock
are somehow adequate as a safety test for humans (bear in mind the
minimal life-length of all livestock, the heavy use of drugs to keep
them 'healthy', and relative rarity of any chance to reproduce).
OUR COMMENT
Because the transformation needed to generate dsRNA doesn't involve 'genes' or produce a specific novel protein, it's likely that the products of this technology will fall through regulatory loopholes. At the moment, there's no sign of any regulatory will to close the gaps. That means it's up to the public to create the will to regulate before that 'proof of harm' emerges to force the issue the hard way.
SOURCE:
- Jack A. Heinemann et al., 2013, A comparative evaluation of the regulation of GM crops or products containing dsRNA and suggested improvements to risk assessments, Environment International 55
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.