THE OGDEN VALLEY NEWS Page 6 Volume IV, Issue V June 15, 2001 Genetically Modified Foods – Are They Safe to Eat? A farm worker crouches in the hot Texas sun, harvesting celery for market. That evening, painful red blisters erupt across his forearms. The celery—a newly developed variety prized for its resistance to disease—unexpectedly produces a chemical that triggers this type of severe skin reaction. Traditional breeding was used to develop this noxious vegetable. We are now using many foods that have been modified genetically through recombinant DNA technology. Opponents of this type of process on foods, worry that splicing foreign genes (which are often from bacteria) into food plants could lead to even nastier health surprises, than the Texas farmer experienced. Genetically modified (GM) foods are sold in many countries. In the U.S. supermarket, an estimated 60 percent of processed foods, from breakfast cereals to soft drinks, contain one or more GM ingredient. These types of ingredients are more prevalent in foods using soy, corn or canola; yet some fresh vegetables are genetically altered as well. Allergic reactions were the big worry last year when StarLink used GM corn to produce an insecticidal protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringensis (Bt). Before the corn was ever planted commercially, U.S. regulators saw signs that its particular version of the Bt protein could be allergenic; they therefore approved StarLink corn for use only in animal feed, not in grocery products. But if you remember it turned up in taco shells, corn chips and other foods. After studies were conducted on the products, a scientific advisory committee determined that the amounts used in consumer foods were quite low and thus unlikely to provoke allergic reactions. Proponents offer a number of defenses for genetically engineered foods. Inserting carefully selected genes into a plant is safer than introducing thousands of genes at once, as commonly occurs when plants are crossbred in the standard way. GM crops designed to limit the need for toxic pesticides can potentially benefit health indirectly, by reducing human exposure to those chemicals. More directly, foods under study are being designed to be more nutritious than their standard counterparts. Further, CM crops that produced extra nutrients or that grew well in poor conditions could provide critical help to people in developing nations who suffer from malnutrition. Advocates note, too, that every genetically engineered food crop has been thoroughly tested for possible health effects. Relatively few independent studies have been published, but manufacturers have conducted extensive analyses, because they are legally required to ensure that the foods they sell meet federal safety standards. In the past, the companies have submitted test results to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voluntarily in advance of sale. But an FDA rule proposed in January should make such review mandatory. Summer Program Fun! Camp Adventure lay er Py t a W Da ft Crays a D Computer Classes Offered by Discovery Computer Fiel These studies begin by comparing the GM version with traditionally bred plants of the same variety, to see whether the addition of a foreign gene significantly alters the GM plant’s chemical makeup and nutritional value. The proteins that are produced are then checked for toxicity by feeding them to animals in quantities thousands of times higher than humans would ever consume. To assess the allergy-inducing potential, scientists check the chemical makeup of each novel protein produced by the genetically altered plant against those of 500 or so known allergens. Proteins are also treated with acid to mimic the environment they will encounter in the stomach. Finally, investigators consider the original source of the protein. “There is no way that a peanut gene will ever be allowed into a strawberry,” observes T.J. Higgins of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia, “too many people are allergic to proteins in peanuts.” Arguably, the testing system has worked well so far. It showed that the protein in StarLink corn might be allergenic (hence the animal-feed-only approval). “I don’t know of any evidence that any product on the market is unsafe,” says Peter Day, director of the Institute of Biomolecular Research at Rutgers University. The safety tests are not necessarily foolproof, though. For example, GM plants often cannot make enough of the foreign protein for use in feeding studies. So researchers have had bacteria produce these proteins. This process could be slightly different from the process used to make GM proteins. Theoretically this could affect the safety assessment of that protein. Also, studies using whole GM foods are limited by the amount of any food that can be introduced into an animal’s diet without generating nutritional imbalances that can confound the test results. Besides the safety considerations, some critics fear that GM foods could lead to the spread of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing bacteria. When food designers genetically alter a plant, they couple the selected genetic material with a “marker” gene that reveals which plants have taken up foreign genes. Often the marker genes render plant cells resistant to antibiotics that typically kill them. At issue is the possibility that resistance genes might somehow jump from GM foods to bacteria in a consumer’s stomach, thereby aggravating the already troubling rise of resistance to antibiotics in disease-causing bacteria. The chances of such transfer are reportedly remote, “less likely than winning a national lottery three times in a row,” notes Hans Gbnter Gassen of the Institute of Biochemistry at the University of Technology in Darmstadt, Germany. Alternative gene markers will probably be developed within the next five years. Meanwhile many consumers remain disturbed that most safety tests are performed by the very corporations that produce GM foods. Steve L. Taylor, head of the department of food science and technology at the University of Nebraska, admits that some may view the practice as inappropriate. But, he asks, who else should shoulder the burden—and the expense? “I’d rather see the companies spend the money than have the government use my tax dollars,” he adds. “I don’t care if we’re talking about bicycles or GM corn, it’s their obligation to prove that their products are safe.” No doubt concerned scientists and citizens will continue watching to see that they do so. Note: This article is from the Utah State University Extension “The Sampler,” and is being used by permission. d Tr ips Your Northern Utah Realty Connection Surf ing Fun Sunshin Wee k e Trusted Name In Preschool and Childcare Serving Ogden Valley Families Since 1996 Panthers: 5 - 12years old Tigers: 4 year olds Bears: 2 and 3 year olds Various packages to choose from: 1/2 days, full days, daily, weekly and monthly rates available. Awesome activities including weekly themes, terrific workshops, field trips, waterplay, arts and crafts, science projects, cooking experiences and much more!! FUN! FUN! FUN! Registration begins May 1st. Limited Space Available. Call Today 745-5600 745-0551 Toll Free 888-489-0111 www.utahrealty4sale.com Jack Robbins Associate Broker * Darlene Robbins Assistant * Over 30 years Experience * FREE Mini-Appraisals Find out what it’s worth? Special Senior Discounts *