Cibi GM: (non) sostanziale equivalenza

["AlessandroGimona"<agimona@libero.it>]

Cari tutti,
due articoli che riguardano la [non] sostanziale equivalenza dei cibi 
GM.

il primo riporta il fatto che la commissione di esperti delle Nazioni 
Unite ( Codex Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force)ora ritiene che sia 
bene testare l'allergenicita' di tutti gli OGM (in contrasto con  il 
principio di sostanziale equivalenza).

il secondo spiega con esempi (alcuni dei quali vengono da risultati 
della stessa Monsanto) perche' la normativa USA sia  inadeguata a 
proteggere il consumatore  


Saluti
Alessandro Gimona
U.N. PANEL CALLS FOR ALLERGY TESTS ON GENE MODIFIED FOODS
         January 8, 2001
         Associated Press
         GENEVA -- The Codex Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on 
Foods Derived
         from Biotechnology (CTFBT) plans, according to this story, to 
oblige all
         member countries to conduct strict allergy tests on all such 
foods,
         according to its draft guidelines on safety assessment of foods 
derived from
         plants through biotechnology. The draft was quoted as saying, 
"When the
         protein resulting from the inserted gene is present in the 
food, it should
         be assessed for potential allergenicity in all cases."
         The story cites U.N. sources as saying that the committee hopes 
to
         implement the guideline in 2003 after some 170 member states 
discuss the
         draft.
         The CTFBT obliges parties to carry out serum tests or skin 
prick tests when
         they transfer genes into another food from a source with a 
known history of
         allergenicity, such as peanuts, the draft says.
         The draft was further quoted as saying the parties should not 
put such
         products on the market without providing "confirmation that the 
introduced
         protein is not allergetic. The transfer of genes from commonly 
allergenic
         foods and from foods known to elicit gluten-sensitive 
enteropathy in
         sensitive individuals should be discouraged unless it is 
documented that the
         transferred gene does not code for an allergen or for a protein 
involved in
         gluten-sensitive enteropathy."
         The CTFBT also calls on parties to conduct various tests, such 
as serum
         tests, based on the Codex guideline, even when they transfer 
genes into
         another food from a source with no known history of 
allergenicity, it says.
         The World Health Organization and the U.N. Food and Agriculture 
Organization
         will hold a meeting in Italy in late January to discuss issues 
involving
         genes and allergy, according to the U.N. sources.


SOME FOOD FOR FDA REGULATION
         Jan. 7 2001
         Los Angeles Times
         BARBARA KEELER and MARC LAPPE
         http://www.latimes.com/print/opinion/20010107/t000001688.html
         WASHINGTON-- Barbara Keeler, a Medical Writer and Marc Lappe, 
Former Head of
         California's Hazard Evaluation System and the Author of 
"Against the Grain"
         and Director of the Center for Ethics and Toxics, write that 
despite
         consumer pleas, the Food and Drug Administration has declined 
since 1992 to
         require that genetically modified food seeds be proved safe for 
consumption
         before their release into the food supply. Nor does the FDA 
require
         ingredient labels for genetically modified foods. Instead, the 
agency
         encourages producers to voluntarily submit safety data. Its 
rationale is
         that genetically modified foods are substantially equivalent to 
their
         conventionally grown counterparts. In other words, food is 
food, and
         according to food and drug law, foods are presumed safe.
         The authors say that the flaw in this policy is that the 
presumption of
         equivalence does not rest on a substantial body of research 
comparing
         genetically modified and conventional foods. Far from being 
confirmed by
         extensive research, this
         presumption is challenged even by the producers themselves, 
notably in a
         study that Monsanto conducted on one of its biotech foods. 
Rather than
         prove safety, this study raised red flags that should have 
prompted
         researchers and the FDA to call for more testing. Instead of 
requiring
         further
         testing, the FDA allowed the most commonly consumed genetically 
modified
         soybeans, which are produced by Monsanto, to flood the market 
and rapidly
         pervade the food supply.
         The authors explain that to create its soy, Monsanto scientists 
spliced a
         gene from a bacteria into a soybean seed that instructed it to 
grow even
         when sprayed with Monsanto's potent weed killer, Roundup. 
Accordingly, when
         Roundup is sprayed on soy fields, Monsanto's Roundup Ready soy 
plants are
         left standing while nearly everything else is smoked. This 
strategy is not
         exclusive to Monsanto. The most common genetically modified 
foods that the
         FDA regulates tolerate a specific herbicide manufactured by the 
company
         engineering the seed.
         Consumers don't benefit, but sales of the companies' herbicides 
soar.
         Herbicide-tolerant plants survive weed killers, but what about 
the health
         of consumers who eat genetically modified beans? The authors 
say that
         according to the FDA's 1992 policy, Monsanto was not required 
by law to
         prove the safety of its beans to the FDA before marketing 
Roundup Ready
         soybeans. This regulatory effect must be corrected. Toward that 
end,
         legislation compelling
         the FDA to require premarket proof of safety for all 
genetically modified
         food seeds should be passed.
         Monsanto did turn over a study to the FDA in 1994. Eventually
         published by the Journal of Nutrition in March 1996, the study 
claimed to
         prove that Roundup-tolerant soybean seeds are equivalent to 
conventional
         ones. But combined data from the study's three experiments 
showed
         significant differences in fat, carbohydrates, ash and some 
fatty acids.
         Also,
         the brain-boosting vitamin choline was 29% lower in Roundup 
Ready
         lecithin, which is commonly used as a source of choline.
         Monsanto's researchers decided in advance to test Roundup Ready
         soybeans that would differ in important respects from the beans 
people
         would eventually eat. While both the tested beans and those on 
the market
         carried the Roundup-tolerant gene, the Roundup Ready beans now 
common
         in food products were actually treated with Roundup; the ones 
Monsanto
         tested and fed to animals were not.
         Beyond differences in nutrient content, the findings also 
raised questions
         about allergens. Allergic reactions are most commonly triggered 
by
         undigested
         proteins. One table in Monsanto's study shows that, relative to 
conventional
         soy meal, raw Roundup Ready soy meal contained 27% more trypsin
         inhibitor, a potential allergen that interferes with protein 
digestion and
         has
         been associated with enlarged cells in rat pancreases. This 
important
         measurement was camouflaged in a table on unrelated 
information.
         Because its policy does not require premarket proof of safety 
or
         equivalence for genetically modified food, the FDA had little 
basis for
         rejecting the study's results. Perhaps more important, the FDA 
did not see
         all
         the data, specifically, that from Experiment 1, the first of 
the study's
         three
         experiments. According to FDA representatives, the agency did 
not ask to see
         the data.
         The authors claim that the omitted data show showed 
significantly lower
         levels of protein and one fatty acid in Roundup Ready soybeans.
         Significantly lower levels of phenylalanine, an essential amino 
acid that
         can potentially affect levels of key estrogen-boosting 
phytoestrogens, for
         which soy products are often
         prescribed and consumed. And higher levels of the allergen 
trypsin inhibitor
         in toasted Roundup Ready soy meal than in the control group of 
soy. Even
         more unsettling was one measurement of trypsin inhibitor in 
toasted
         Roundup Ready soy meal that exceeded what the authors reported 
as the
         highest levels measured for soybeans by other researchers. 
After a second
         toasting, the levels of another allergen, called lectin, in 
Roundup Ready
         soy
         meal, were nearly double those in conventional beans.

         The authors go on to say that in May 2000, Monsanto reported to 
the FDA the
         discovery of a genetic surprise package in its soybeans. When 
company
         scientists spliced the Roundup-tolerant gene into the bean, 
they
         accidentally
         threw in two extra gene fragments. Not to worry, according to 
Monsanto
         representatives: The gene fragments were contained in the 
Roundup Ready
         beans approved by the FDA in 1994 and have been consumed nearly
         worldwide ever since.
         The authors conclude that many food-safety activists target 
food
         manufacturers, food retailers and fast-food chains when 
demanding a recall
         of genetically modified foods. Given the pervasiveness of 
biofoods in the
         marketplace, and the challenges in detecting them, their time 
and energy
         would be better spent supporting legislation proposed to change 
regulatory
         policy that victimizes food
         manufacturers, retailers and consumers alike.
Alessandro Gimona
agimona@libero.it