Errors in text

It is curious that a respected medical journal would publish this discussion of GM food and other GM products ( JRSM 2008;101:290–298) without at least some oversight related to the validity of the content. 1 I view the promotion of GM food as directly analogous to the promotion of a new pharmaceutical product without any testing for safety. The only difference is that GM food could alter the health of a much larger population, and without any element of product choice. I will address three specific errors of fact and logic-there are many more.

1. ‘GM plants undergo extensive safety testing’. This is absolutely false. In the US, while the GM food plants must go through the FDA for approval, there is NO REQUIRED safety testing: it is up to the producer, and if anything is done it is minimal. These has been essentially no long term animal toxicology on any GM product, something the medical community should be concerned about. 2, 3

2. ‘GM crops consumed… with no reported ill effects’ – therefore they are safe. This statement is illogical and the conclusion is not valid. There is no assay and there is no epidemiology. If any GM food product did cause harm it would be impossible to pick up within the constant background of disease, particularly since in the USA, the biggest consumer, there are no labelling requirements. For an example of the necessary data to make a conclusion of harm, see Schubert. 4

3. ‘Increased yields’: there have been none with the current GM crops. 5

Footnotes

DECLARATIONS

Competing interests None declared