News 
 National Rural News 
 Grains and Cropping 
 General 
 Europe rejects GM corn but Australia has 'no concerns' 

Europe rejects GM corn but Australia has 'no concerns'

12 Nov, 2009 05:46 AM
A GENETICALLY engineered corn authorised by the Australian food regulator as safe for human consumption has been withdrawn from Europe because of safety concerns.

Monsanto has pulled its commercial development application for high lysine LY038 corn, originally intended only as feed for animals, after the European Food Safety Authority questioned the safety studies already conducted by the company and used by Food Standards Australia New Zealand to approve the GE corn in 2006.

Rather than conduct additional research as the European authority requested, Monsanto decided to abandon its bid to introduce the corn to the European market.

FSANZ has subsequently come under attack for its approval of the corn by the University of Canterbury's centre for integrated research in biosafety in New Zealand. The research's leader, Professor Jack Heinemann, a prominent anti-GE campaigner, said FSANZ ignored the centre's detailed scientific analysis conducted over two years by 10 biosafety researchers and instead "shopped around" for alternative opinions which would cast a more favourable light on the corn's safety. Other countries which have approved LY038 include Canada, South Korea, the Philippines and Japan.

Although the crop has yet to be grown here commercially, Monsanto Australia told the Sydney Morning Herald there were no immediate plans to withdraw from the local market. The product had been withdrawn in Europe purely for commercial reasons, the Monsanto spokeswoman said, an assertion FSANZ repeated in a statement issued to the Herald yesterday.

"Following a rigorous safety assessment of genetically modified high lysine corn in 2006, we concluded that it was as safe as its conventional counterpart," the statement said. "We have no safety concerns about this corn."

FSANZ said it had followed the processes outlined by the international food standards-setting body, Codex Alimentarius, which is overseen by the World Trade Organisation.

But Professor Heinemann said Monsanto went against the Codex Alimentarius by using another genetically modified product as the control in its safety studies.

"This violates both international food safety testing guidelines and European rules," he said. "We were the first in the world to point this out and FSANZ chose to ignore it. The European Food Safety Authority didn't."

The European authority also expressed concern that Monsanto had failed to conduct any tests on cooked LY038, which could cause a chemical chain reaction leading led to a higher level of advanced glycation end products, believed to be pathogenic.

Research recently published in the Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism found that if ingested, these end products could be linked to cardiovascular and chronic kidney diseases. Earlier research has also suggested a link with some cancers and Alzheimer's disease.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Did the journalist consider that the companies might have just given up in the face of the fundamentalist Euro application of the precautionary principle? You want to see a real global food security problem in your children’s lifetime? Support bans on new technology that is found to have negligible risk to human health and the environment on the grounds that there can never be ‘no risk’, but you’d also want to think about not getting out of bed in the morning or not having children for that matter. Really and truly.
Posted by really and truly, 12/11/2009 8:25:36 AM
Your comments really and truly have merit but we must remember the efforts of the tobacco and asbestos industries to hide the truth.

If the trials showing the true impacts of long-term exposure to these products were made available only a small number of people may have been adversly impacted.

Similarly, the prevention of publication of adverse findings in relation to GM products may result in ignorance by vulnerable consumers who could have moderated their exposure if it was/is made available. Undoubtedly there will be benifits from use of GM technology but these need to be balanced against the adverse outcomes.

Failure to make available all the data may constitute intent to deceive and, in a just society, if so that should be considered criminal.

Posted by bazza, 13/11/2009 10:03:29 AM
Well said, Bazza. It is worth mentioning that on an "Insight" program on TV recently two officials of FSANZ who were in the audience admitted that FSANZ were more re-active than pro-active. It seems that if they are made aware of a problem they would act immediately to correct it. They apparently don't do any extensive scientific laboratory testing themselves. So much for the safety of the Australian public!
Posted by creeker, 16/11/2009 4:31:29 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
11 November, 2009
POLL
Q: Has the emissions trading debate changed your voting intentions?

More likely to vote Labor
(10.5%)

More likely to vote Coalition
(47.2%)

Less likely to vote Labor
(12%)

Less likely to vote Coalition
(3.2%)

No change
(21.8%)

Other
(5.4%)

Total Votes: 685
Poll Date: 08 November, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement



North Queensland Register







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...