Food Safety - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 606

somewhere between the extremes. The foregoing sections have outlined the basis of
support for the assertion that GM crops are as safe as any other; there is no scientific
basis to justify any middle ground.
Food Safety: What Really Matters?
There exists an international scientific consensus that bioengineered crops produced
using modern biotechnology are as safe as, if not safer than, any other.17 Virtually
none of the world's crop plants exist as such in nature—none of them are natural; most
have been extensively genetically modified. The term GM crops could probably best be
applied to crops that were bred without the use of modern biotechnology since they are
more likely to have suffered mutations, compositional changes, and other unintended
effects than those produced using more exact modern in vitro molecular methods.
Transgenic crops more closely resemble their parents than do crops produced by other
methods. Extensive selection of phenotypes is also used to ensure that no unintended
changes have occurred. Candidate transgenic varieties are subjected to a thorough pre-
market safety assessment that is not applied to crops developed using more random and
more disruptive technologies. From a scientific risk-based perspective, as well as almost
20 years of use in world agriculture without incident, it can be concluded that placing
transgenic crops in a class that is regulated while not regulating crops bred by other
methods that have undergone similar changes or which possess similar phenotypes,
is scientifically inappropriate if not overtly irrational. Food-safety regulators should,
instead, be tasked with ensuring that the introduction of any novel phenotypes into food
and feed crops will not pose any special risks or create harmful effects independently of
the process used to develop the crop.
The closest approximation to the food-safety conclusions of the science discussed
in this chapter is that in place in Canada. These regulations are directed at novel crops
rather than GM crops. In spite of the Canada's expressed intention to regulate all novel
phenotypes in a similar manner, the steps of a premarket safety assessment for a new
transgenic variety are no different in Canada than they are in other countries, whereas
non-GM crops receive only a cursory review. The cost of undue precaution regarding the
safety of GM crops is high. It is generally believed that the direct cost of an approval for a
new GM crop can exceed U.S.$100 million, though hard data to support this conclusion
are lacking. Approvals can require as much as 5-10 years to complete. The indirect costs
are even greater. Missed opportunities caused by not developing new GM crops or not
adopting them is probably the greatest indirect cost. Another significant indirect cost
is preoccupation with the risks associated with GM crops, which diverts resources and
attention away from real food-safety risks. Consumers worry about GM-crops safety
instead of food-safety risks that could actually do them harm.
The major risks in the food system are related to diet, chemical contaminants, and
pathogens. About a billion people run the risk of not having enough food to eat and