The Very Real Danger of Genetically Modified Foods
New research shows that when we eat we’re consuming more than just vitamins and protein. Our bodies are absorbing information, or microRNA.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/01/the-very-real-danger-of-genetically-modified-foods/251051/
When I first saw the title I figured I would take a look to see what fruitcake arguments the anti-frankenfood people were currently promoting. However the article was surprisingly intelligent and I wound up at the end thinking they might have something. It is very well known in the world of business liability (which means, naturally, that the vast majority of people have no clue) that lawyers routinely advise against investigating dangers associated with any products on the market and if they become ‘accidentally’ aware of any dangers the lawyers strongly advocate against any sort of preemptive fix. Why this absurd (on the face of it) situation? Because, here in the great old US of A, lawyers get fat and happy by suing big companies in class action suits for defective products. If, during one of these trials, it comes out that the company in question had any actual knowledge about the defect the chances that a jury will award obscene punitive damages skyrockets (see the tobacco industry for case-in-point). Thus, by having plausible deniability that the company even knew that their product was in any way, shape or form defective, they can (attempt) to convince the jury of 12 clueless morons that they really didn’t know and thus shouldn’t be subject to any punitive damages. For a case in point, check out the old Ford Pinto situation.
So what does this long-winded blather have to do with genetically modified (GM, or franken-) food? I am quite certain, as if I sat in the board room listening to the lawyer’s arguments, that these companies (Monsanto in this example) were advised to do no more than the absolute minimum of safety testing. I suggest that the limit of their testing was some human taste-testers to verify that the genetic alteration didn’t cause any changes (or certainly any negative changes (see Favr Savr)). Now, I am quite certain that if the gene introduced was lethal those tester’s heirs would be collecting (hopefully robust) life insurance policies and those particular changes would not be made public, but the issue is really about more subtle effects. As the article suggests it is approaching the possibility that computer analysis could be used to do some analysis on potential interaction, but having been a working member of the National Center for Biotechnology Information I can state with a certain amount of authority that the level of information that people _think_ is available on the human genome is woefully out of touch with the reality and even suggesting that approach (at this time, anyway; after a few million people have had every bit of their DNA sequenced (something, btw, that NO ONE has had happen yet (don’t let anyone tell you different!)) and recorded in searchable databases) is quite nonsensical in reality. Large scale toxicity studies, in addition to being quite expensive, are also very time consuming (typically taking 2-3 years (I know this because I spent 6 months preparing compounds to test on animals, doanchano)) and when you realize also that testing on rats and mice don’t always reveal toxicity on humans (for instance, you can feed rats, mice, monkeys, anything you want peanuts for centuries and that won’t tell you a damn thing about peanut allergies in humans) it becomes even more difficult to justify economically.
Having said all that I do think that some trails should be done. Granted testing on humans is always challenging (not the least because of ethical considerations), but if they understand what is going on and have freely given consent (my wife, for instance, is instrumental in testing vaccines on healthy human volunteers (who sometimes get paid very handsomely for their risk)) then it would seem to me that having a few thousand people testing (i.e., eating) the product is a way to demonstrate to the jury that you have done your due diligence. Of course, just like the case with the global warming fanatics, there is unlikely to be any agreement with the anti-GM people on what would constitute adequate testing, but I would feel, off hand, that if 1K people have eaten the product for at least a year and there is no statistically significant differences (it would have to be a double-blind study, thus another 1K people to act as controls) in their outcome (the year wait, btw, shouldn’t be any issue as it probably takes several years to ramp up production to the point where it is commercially viable), then the product should be safe. Note, though, that there would have to be a range of ages in the group, which creates the additional ethical consideration of do parents have the rights to make decisions for their children (I would expect most courts to say ‘yes’, but this is the US after all).
So, long and short of it, I think Monsanto and its ilk are deliberately turning a blind eye toward potential liability on purpose (at the advice of their lawyers and because of our totally fucked up legal system) which means they are probably doing the absolute minimum testing simply to validate that the changes haven’t made the product taste like crap. I think that our legal system should be in the situation of defining what would be acceptable due diligence and any company adhering to the recommendations would get a pass from any lawsuits (unless, of course, they engaged in fraud, etc.). Too bad that is impossible in our litigious society.
