Genetically Modified Foods - part 2

Genetically modified foods - substantial equivalence

‘Substantial equivalence’, the test by which GM foods are declared safe or otherwise, holds that that if a GM product is very similar to its non-GM counterpart then it is safe for human and animal consumption.

This rule, as set out by The Life Sciences Network, makes interesting (and mind-boggling) reading –

The concept of substantial equivalence contributes to a robust safety assessment framework. The consultation was satisfied with the approach used to assess the safety of the genetically modified foods that have been approved for commercial use. (Substantial equivalence) embodies a science-based approach in which a genetically modified food is compared to its existing, appropriate counterpart.

The goal of this approach is to ensure that the food, and any substances that have been introduced into the food as a result of genetic modification, is as safe as it traditional counterpart. (The substantial equivalence approach) is considered the most appropriate strategy for the safety and nutritional assessment of genetically modified foods….

There are no alternative strategies that would provide a better assurance of safety for genetically modified foods than the appropriate use of the concept of substantial equivalence. –



Stop quibbling - It's red isn't it?

Safety assessment based on substantial equivalence is the most practical approach to address the safety of foods and food components derived through modern biotechnology. Analyses of key substances provide increased assurance that substances important from a nutritional or health perspective are present in acceptable concentrations. –

One important benefit of the substantial equivalence concept is that it provides flexibility than can be useful in food safety assessment. It is a tool, which helps identify any difference, intended or unintended, that might be the focus of further safety evaluation.

…it is a comparative process (which) can be performed at several points along the food chain (harvested unprocessed, processed foods, individual fractions, or final food product)

The Food and Drug Administration is to be commended for constructing a framework for safety evaluation that is product based, and for taking the position that the critical consideration in evaluating the safety of (bioengineered) foods should be the objective characteristics of the food product or its components rather than the fact that new development methods were used. – Read the whole document here

This extract states that substantial equivalence… is considered the most appropriate strategy for the safety and nutritional assessment of GM foods…. There are no alternative strategies that would provide a better assurance of safety

But of course there are alternative and better strategies, but they involve the biotechnology companies forking out a lot of cash and time, neither of which fits their modus operandi.

So, we have two tomatoes, one of them the offspring of a genetically modified plant. Certain tests will be carried out on it regarding composition, and the findings will be compared for similarity with its naturally produced counterpart.

Remember, it only has to have ‘substantial’ equivalence. A few discrepancies here and there can be disregarded. The trouble is, as Professor Janet Bainbridge notes…

… we do not know what we may have missed. The presumption of safety of novel GM plants on the basis of substantial equivalence lacks scientific credibility, given modern expectations of standards of evidence. For the full report click here

So, what’s the damage? Go to Part 3 – Environment under attack, to find out


Back to Part 1-genes
Return from Genetically modified foods Part 2 to Introduction
Return to Home page