Not everyone agrees with FSANZ’s definition of what is hogwash

Last week, www.foodprocessing.com.au published ‘GM pig study is hogwash, FSANZ says’. Three readers took umbrage with the news items and wrote to me to explain what they felt was wrong. Following are their letters.

Melbourne man:

Your Carman study hogwash story does not examine the merits of FSANZ’s response and is unfair.

To be taken seriously, FSANZ’s critiques of this peer-reviewed and published animal study must be fully referenced. To be fair and credible, FSANZ must also similarly critique unpublished industry papers that applicants submit in support of their applications. FSANZ does neither.

FSANZ also dismisses, without evidence or references, many other peer-reviewed and published studies showing that some varieties of GM food crops harm experimental animals, here.

Dismissing the work of independent scientists in this way is unprofessional and unacceptable, especially by a regulator that is charged with applying scientific rigour to evidence and to protect public health and safety.

FSANZ is defending its own stance, which is to assess only the chemical analyses of food supplied by the applicants themselves.

These analyses are then matched against a conventional counterpart and if the two are judged ‘substantially equivalent’ the novel food is assumed to be as safe as the conventional one. To be scientific, at the very least FSANZ should publish in advance a set of benchmarks and standards on the basis of which it makes these comparisons and reaches its conclusions.

WA woman:

I look forward to a followup article from you that reports evidence of problems with GM experienced by farmers and consumers. Independent scientists who undertake scientific research to followup the public’s cry for help should be supported by some even-handed journalism. It is a poor effort on your part to give voice only to the GM industry‘s “don’t look, don’t find” approach while trashing independent science and the public’s own experiences. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqc9-6dGWOw]

In the medical arena, a recent study by Stanford University found 95% of animal trials were biased so when they proceeded to human trials a significant majority failed. The testing regime in the GMO arena is more lax than the medical arena. Now there’s a story for you! [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-18/new-study-shows-bias-in-animal-trials/4829364]

New Zealander:

Your report on the GM pig study that was published in a peer reviewed International Journal that was dismissed by FSANZ as “hogwash” indicated to me that your reporter was naive about the issue.

The Scientists (Dr. Carman et al) conducted the 5 month study on commercial weaner to slaughter pigs in the US fed either GM or non GM meal (it should be pointed out that the control feed had a small level of 2% GM soy in it, also the sows of the weaners were fed on a meal that contained GM ingredients) and the discussion did acknowledge the issues that FSANZ raised. However, but the study only raised concern over the highly significant findings between the two groups. These were a four fold increase in severe stomach inflammation and a 25% increase in weight of the females pigs uteri in the GM fed pigs.

FSANZ has a record of dismissing all peer reviewed papers as “hogwash” for a better term, if they show adverse effects of GM foods when eaten. Yet FSANZ are willing to accept a total absence of studies on their GM applications as safe, then when studies are conducted for the first time EVER post approval on the GM foods FSANZ then vilify and dismiss them.

So how can a safety regulator scientifically assure the public on the safety of GM foods when there is an absence of any studies on the effects when eaten?? And then how can they dismiss the ONLY scientific studies as “hogwash” as they have nothing to compare it with?

Please can you ask for the CVs of the expert assessors of FSANZ and then it would be possible to evaluate if their dismissal of any adverse GM studies is against the Industry they work in?

I offer an example - The 2,4-D corn that FSANZ have assessed as safe though there is an absence of any feeding studies on any organism, animals, bird or human, has been refused to be planted by the USDA who have called for an Environmental Impact Statement including potential impacts on the human environment. So why does the USDA not have the evidence that FSANZ has, as they have approved the GM soy and corn resistant to multiple herbicides to be allowed into the human food chain and eaten! (A1043, A1046, A1073). They have also approved four other GM foods where International (EU and US) have refused regulation until further human impact studies are conducted.

I hope your paper will address these issues in the future articles.

What's New in Food Technology & Manufacturing and www.foodprocessing.com.au welcomes readers responses and opinions with the simple proviso that they are civil and reasonable. If you feel strongly about a particular issue relevant to the food processing/manufacturing industry in Australia and/or New Zealand, please send it in for consideration for publishing.