Transcript the labelling of genetically modified foods

SAFETY OF GENETICALLY
MODIFIED FOODS
E Jane Morris
Is GM food safe?
All food presents some risk to the consumer
 Non-GM risks include:
 Food allergens
 Toxic agrochemicals (pesticides etc)
 Microbial contamination
 Mycotoxin contamination
 Food toxins (lectins, alkaloids etc)
 BSE

What are the issues for GM food?
GM food has been on the market in the US for
10 years with no ill effects reported
 Risk assessment eg

Any changes in nutritional composition
 History of safe use of substances in the GM food
(toxicity, allergenicity etc)
 Stability
 Unexpected products (secondary metabolites etc)


NB Processed foods are not
themselves GMOs
Any unintended consequences of genetic
modification?
EU project looked at GM vs non-GM potato

Analyzed







Glycoalkaloids
Protease inhibitors
Vitamin C
Fatty acids
Amino acids
Carbohydrates
No negative compositional effects found in any of
the GM lines
Emerging techniques – transcriptome, metabolome
and transcriptome analysis to detect any unintended
effects
AGRONOMICS
PHENOTYPICS
GENOMICS
PROTEOMICS
METABOLOMICS
STATISTICS
Function
Genome
expression
Proteome Metabolome
Data
expression expression integration
Unintended
effects?
DIFFERENCES
COMPONENTS
PROTEINS
DNA/mRNAs
TISSUE
PLANT
Safety and benefits


We subject GM foods to more stringent safety
testing than non-GM foods!
GM foods hold potential benefit not just risk:



Better nutritional quality
Reduced risk of poisoning from mycotoxins and
agrochemicals
Increased food production
Food control is exercised by:



The Department of Agriculture
The Department of Health
(enforced by local authorities)
The South African Bureau of Standards
Food safety legislation

Department of
Agriculture

Agricultural Product
Standards Act, 1990 (Act
119 of 1990)

Department of Health

Foodstuffs, Cosmetics
and Disinfectants Act,
1972 (Act 54 of 1972)

South African Bureau
of Standards

Standards Act, 1993 (Act
29 of 1993)
Should the consumer be told?



General information on GM food should be
provided in a reasonable and balanced manner
Labelling of individual foods is a complex issue,
with no general agreement at international levels
The Codex alimentarius commission of the FAO
and WHO is attempting to achieve international
agreement on labelling, traceability etc
Labelling of foods/GMOs
Proposed labelling in
terms of the FCD Act,
1972:


Food only
Includes live GMOs
plus processed (nonlive) GMOs
Identification in terms of
article 18 of the
Cartagena Protocol:


Not only food - all live
GMOs (LMOs).
Only live GMOs
Labelling of GM foods in terms
of the FCD Act, 1972



Draft regulations published for comment in the
Government Gazette of 4 May 2001
Final regulations submitted to DOH Legal Unit
during November 2002
Dilemma:
- No consensus at the Joint FAO/WHO Codex
Alimentarius Commission
- Health obligation i.r.o. food control is safety +
nutrition
Contents of proposed regulations
under the FCD Act, 1972



Must indicate presence of allergen (safety)
Must indicate different composition,
different nutritional value, different method
of storage, preparation or cooking
(nutrition)
May indicate enhanced characteristic
(nutrition) or reduced hypersensitivity
(safety) subject to validation/certification
Contents of proposed regulations
under the FCD Act, 1972 (continued)


Must indicate presence of genetic material
from humans or animals (religion, moral)
Must comply with general labelling
regulations in terms of the Act
Contents of proposed regulations
under the FCD Act, 1972 (continued)
Included in draft regulations but not in the proposed
final regulations:


Conditions for claiming “not genetically
modified”
Prohibition on the claim “GM free”
No Identity Preservation System in place
Not a health issue
No global consensus
Mandatory labelling of all
genetically modified foods?






Unless identity preservation systems are introduced
through the whole food chain, it can be assumed that the
majority of foods will have some GM content
Identity preservation is expensive for producers/industry
and therefore for consumers ($8/tonne for maize?)
Analytical methods to test for the presence of GM
products are not completely reliable, lack sensitivity and
are expensive
Cost for Government, and therefore for consumers
“Right to know” versus “Right to eat”
Not a Health issue
The way forward


South Africa should adopt a pragmatic
approach
South Africa has potential to provide
leadership and direction in its approach to
GM foods