Social issues and GM crops
Social issues and GM crops

This free course is available to start right now. Review the full course description and key learning outcomes and create an account and enrol if you want a free statement of participation.

Free course

Social issues and GM crops

4.6 Responses to the critique

A number of responses to the commentary were published in the letters pages ofNature, almost all of which objected to the article. For our purposes, a particularly interesting response came from Peter Kearns and Paul Mayers, two scientists associated with the OECD:

Substantial equivalence is not a substitute for a safety assessment. It is a guiding principle which is a useful tool for regulatory scientists engaged in safety assessments. It stresses that an assessment should show that a GM variety is as safe as its traditional counterparts. In this approach, differences may be identified for further scrutiny, which can involve nutritional, toxicological and immunological testing. The approach allows regulators to focus on the differences in a new variety and therefore on safety concerns of critical importance. Biochemical and toxicological tests are certainly not precluded.

Since the concept of substantial equivalence was first described, several new foods have been assessed and knowledge has accumulated on how to use the concept. In parallel, the OECD, its Governments and others have continued to review its adequacy in food safety assessment and to develop supporting tools. The OECD's task force on the safety of novel foods and feeds, in particular, continues to focus on the application of the concept. This includes work on assessment methodologies when substantial equivalence cannot be applied, as well as efforts to identify the critical nutrients and toxicants found in major crop plants, as a focus for the demonstration of substantial equivalence.

Question 12

Having read this quote, re-read the original OECD definition of substantial equivalence (Section 3.2). Do you think Kearns and Mayers are making a fair point?

Answer

The original OECD definition was quite vague, so you could argue that Kearns and Mayers' more rigorous description of an evolving assessment that 'can involve nutritional, toxicological and immunological testing' is consistent with the original. However, it could be argued that their description does not describe actual practice up to that date (1999).

In some ways, Kearns and Mayers' letter gave an indication of the subsequent evolution of safety assessment. In Europe, there was a reluctance to draft further legislation that referred to substantial equivalence. However, whether the principle was mentioned or not, the central idea, that to assess safety of a novel crop some comparison with its traditional counterpart is necessary, has remained at the centre of risk assessment methodologies.

S250_2

Take your learning further

Making the decision to study can be a big step, which is why you'll want a trusted University. The Open University has 50 years’ experience delivering flexible learning and 170,000 students are studying with us right now. Take a look at all Open University courses.

If you are new to university level study, find out more about the types of qualifications we offer, including our entry level Access courses and Certificates.

Not ready for University study then browse over 900 free courses on OpenLearn and sign up to our newsletter to hear about new free courses as they are released.

Every year, thousands of students decide to study with The Open University. With over 120 qualifications, we’ve got the right course for you.

Request an Open University prospectus