GM food debate

Media attention to GM food cases: An innovation perspective

Media attention to genetically modified (GM) foods has been described as negative, especially in Europe. At the turn of the century appreciation of GM foods was at an all-time low in Europe. Food manufacturers are still careful in the use, development and communication of GM based food products, and their caution influences innovation processes. In this study we explore the link between media attention and innovation practice. Media attention to three specific high-profile GM food cases is described and linked to innovation practice. We elucidate the order of events in these cases and show that publics could only to a limited extent have formed an opinion on GM based food products based on scientifically valid data through written English media. Innovators in food biotechnology may benefit from this knowledge for future product development and marketing, and we suggest that innovation may benefit from early stakeholder involvement and communication activities.

Fraud, errors and gamesmanship in experimental toxicology

We expect moral behaviour from scientists. Morality implies being a good person and being good at one's profession. The general view appears to be that the vast majority of scientists aim to achieve these high standards. Science prides itself on the 'self-correcting' mechanism in the scientific method, namely the requirement to reproduce findings before they are taken seriously. However, when findings are related to the adverse effects of chemicals there are several features that make this less effective than in some other fields of science. First, is the perception that everyone is exposed to chemicals and observations about chemical danger are immediately applicable to many people. Second, it is often easy to summarize adverse findings in attention-getting headlines seen by the lay public before the slow process of replication and interpretation has time to work. Third, most regulatory toxicology studies on a particular compound are only done once to minimise cost and the use of animals. Finally, the question posed about chemicals--are they safe?--is easy to ask but more difficult to test with appropriate studies. Fabrication of data in regulatory studies was found to occur in several contract laboratories in the 1960s and this lead directly to the introduction of Good Laboratory Practice regulations. Now studies submitted for regulatory purposes must comply with GLP regulations and this has virtually eliminated flawed studies due to fraudulent or careless behaviour. It is possible to discern different ways in which the expected standards have not been met. The first is in the intention of the work. Thus reports that the Roodeplaats Research Laboratory in South Africa was seeking to identify toxins that would kill without trace is an example where the intention is unacceptable. The second is in the conduct of the studies. Here the examples of William McBride and Michael Briggs who falsified data are pertinent. The example of the retraction of reports on the toxicity of ecstasy because the wrong compound had been administered indicates a degree of carelessness in the conduct of the study. The third is in the design and interpretation of studies. The report that genetic modification per se could render potatoes toxic has been criticised because of the inappropriate design and interpretation of the studies. Finally, that the reports of studies are biased because of conflicts of interest. Journals often require a declaration that the author has no financial conflict of interest. However, there are many other conflicts of interest with just as large an impact on the author's impartiality which are omitted from consideration. Gamesmanship has also entered the practice of toxicology, for example where strong assertions about conflict of interest are used to justify particular points of view. The main casualty from fraud, errors and gamesmanship is the perceived status of science itself. It is only gamesmanship that is on the increase. The remedies for these activities are explored.

Health and safety issues pertaining to genetically modified foods

Genetic modification involves the insertion of genes from other organisms (within or between species) into host cells to select for desirable qualities. Potential benefits of GM foods include increased nutritional value; reduced allergenicity; pest and disease-resistance; and enhanced processing value. Possible detrimental outcomes include producing foods with novel toxins, allergens or reduced nutritional value, and development of antibiotic resistance or herbicide-resistant weeds. Benefits to individuals or populations need to be weighed against adverse health and environmental risks, and may differ between developing and Westernised countries. Whether testing and monitoring should exceed requirements for conventional foods is under debate. While not necessarily scientifically justifiable, consumer concerns have resulted in Australian and New Zealand requirements to label foods containing GM-produced proteins. Dissatisfied consumer advocacy groups are calling for all foods involving GM technology to be labelled, irrelevant of whether the final product contains novel protein. Goals to improve the quantity, quality and safety of foods are laudable; however, the primary aim of the bio-food industry is financial gain. GM foods may be as safe as conventional foods but public distrust runs high. It is important that discussion is informed by science and that claims of both benefits and risks are evidence-based, to ensure that the process is driven neither by the vested interest of the bio-technical multinational companies on the one hand, nor ill-informed public fears on the other.