Why were genetically engineered foods approved in spite of insuffient safety data?

Summary

It is remarkable that GE crops and foods were approved in spite of very incomplete investigation of the potential health and environmental hazards indicated by scientific research.

The key explanation seems to be that very large sums of money were at stake. It appears that great pressure from the powerful multinational companies involved, misconceptions due to misinformation from biotech proponents including biased scientists, suppression of opposing scientists and corruption paved the way for the rapid commercial exploitation of GE-foods.

In essence, the approval of food biotechnology for commercial exploitation represents a flagrant violation of basic principles for protecting the health of mankind and the global environment, orchestrated by powerful industrial interests obviously considering no other responsibilities than short term profit.

Introduction

The appearance of genetically engineered foods on the market has been very sudden. Only a few years ago, a handful of foods were on the market. Now a very rapidly growing number of foods is being introduced, and a very large number of applications have been submitted in many countries (see Genetically Altering The World's Food). We are witnessing a global avalanche. Yet important doubts about their safety have not been solved. How did this come about?

Let us summarize the key facts:

• These foods are of little if any value. See "Do genetically engineered foods provide any benefits?" [EL].
• The knowledge about genes too insufficient to enable safe and insightful genetic engineering, see "Is our knowledge sufficient for safe use biotechnology?""  [EL]
• It has not been established that they are safe neither from a health nor from environmental standpoint, as said in Is there sufficient scientific knowledge to ensure safe commercial exploitation of genetically engineered foods? [EL]. Even worse, scientists have warned that they may be harmful to the health and to the environment.

  
  

Considering these facts it is very remarkable that these foods have been allowed for commercial release. Powerful influences counteracting necessary safety precautions have been involved:

Billions of dollars were at stake

So the multinational companies behind food biotech had extremely strong incentives to use their great power to press governments and international regulatory bodies to relax their demands on safety for these foods. And they have been very successful.

How could a relaxation of regulations be justified by the governments?

Considering the facts presented above, it may surprising that the governmental agencies could get through with letting the biotech multinationals have their way. - How could the regulatory bodies justify the approval of these largely unnecessary and potentially harmful foods without any demands for necessary safety testing?

This cannot be fully explained. But it seems that decision makers and regulatory bodies have been misinformed or incompletely informed by biotechnology proponents (mostly scientists cooperating with biotech companies) having an influential position as advisors in these matters. Corruption cannot be excluded. A recent report shows that multinationals use corruption systematically to have their way, see Exporting Corruption. Privatisation, Multinationals and Bribery.

See also: Summary of our safety issues page and its first section: "Inadequate functioning of governmental bodies"

A juridical hoax opened up

Historically, the crucial moment opening up for the rapid entry of GE foods on the market was a purely juridical technicality invented by the Biotech proponents.

- The Biotech proponents maintained that the insertion of a gene is a kind of breeding. Many of the natural foods we use have been developed through breeding. Consequently the Biotech lawyers maintained that it would not be justifiable, from a legal standpoint, to treat products "bred" through genetic engineering differently than other bred foods. As the latter have not to undergo safety testing of any kind, the same should go for the former.

This juridical hoax was accepted by the regulators. However, they required "for safety" that, in order to acquire the right to be treated as other bred foods, the GE food should be proven to be "substantially equivalent" with their natural counterpart.

Unfortunately, here the regulatory bodies again appear to have been misinformed or incompletely informed. Important facts apparently have not been known to them or have been ignored that clearly invalidate Substantial Equivalence as a reliable means for safety assessment (see "Inadequate safety assessment of GE foods - An 'at a glance' summary ". It should be added that during year 2000, after over half a decade after the principle was launched, considerable numbers of scientists including a number of important scientist organizations critizised or rejected the principle of substantial equivalence.

It should be pointed out that there appears to be good reasons to suspect that, at least in the US, the favorable regulations are not just the consequence of misconceptions and incomplete information but also of deliberate negligence on the part of some regulators, see Landmark Lawsuit Challenges FDA Policy on Genetically Engineered Foods and FDA records support the lawsuit challenging its policy.

This negligence was evidently the result of political involvement by the US Government who had made biotechnology a national issue, to the extent that it threatened other countries, including the European Union with trade war if they did not accept these foods. In turn, the US government, and especially the food and drug agency, FDA and the ministry of Agriculture, USDA, have been strongly pushed by the powerful biotechnology corporations.

Suppressed scientific opposition

A factor that has considerably contributed to facilitate this process is the suppression of scientists with opinions unfavorable to the interests of the multinationals. This is a general problem, not only appearing in the biotech field. Because of the rapidly growing influence of industrial interests on science through their sponsorship, these interests have increasing possibilities to censor and direct science in accord with its likings. This is discussed in the editorial Dysfunctional science

In a recent article "Independent Scientists An Endangered Species", former professor Mae-Wan Ho writes a/o:

Unfettered highly misleading propaganda

With the neutralization of scientific opposition, the PR companies of the Biotech companies have had a simple job in paving the way for biotechnology by manipulating the attitudes of the public and the decisionmakers. The distorsion and suppression of facts delivered to media has been appalling, but the PR companies have had no reason to fear any significant resistance with the opposing scientists gagged in practice. The few who have been opposing have been dismissed as "alarmists", not representative of "mainstream science". Some have been fired, see for example "Leading food safety expert sacked when he warned about GE foods" (the Arpad Pusztai story). For more, see PR strategies used to manipulate opinions about GE foods and "Misleading arguments commonly used by biotech advocates".

Summary

(This is the same text as on top of this page)

It is remarkable that GE crops and foods were approved in spite of very incomplete investigation of the potential health and environmental hazards indicated by scientific research.

The key explanation seems to be that very large sums of money were at stake. It appears that great pressure from the powerful multinational companies involved, misconceptions due to misinformation from biotech proponents including biased scientists, suppression of opposing scientists and corruption paved the way for the rapid commercial exploitation of GE-foods.

In essence, the approval of food biotechnology for commercial exploitation represents a flagrant violation of basic principles for protecting the health of mankind and the global environment, orchestrated by powerful industrial interests obviously considering no other responsibilties than short term profit.