Developing countries may not get benefits of GM food
BMJ 2005; 331 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7507.11 (Published 30 June 2005) Cite this as: BMJ 2005;331:11All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Quite apart from the hype and promises, it is most unlikely that any
benefit will accrue to developing countries from the consumption of GE
foods. There have been few independent peer-reviewed tests on animals and
only one on human subjects. Those that have been carried out, have found
negative results. Only industry, with obvious vested interest, has found
GE foods safe.
The golden rice story is becoming tiresome. Given an acceptable
standard of living, Vitamin A can be obtained simply from consumers own
vegetables. The quantity of Golden Rice necessary for a child to ingest
to gain the daily Vitamin requirement would feed the entire family.
The WHO report is also disingenuous in arguing “that genetically
modified foods can help to combat hunger and malnutrition in the
developing world.” The third world could easily combat its hunger and
feed itself if their debts were relinquished. By taking on GE crops they
face the added hardships of technology fees, etc. As for third
world countries “missing out on the benefits,” it remains to be seen.
Certainly, they have rejected them strongly. These foods have never been
independently tested and it is likely that they never will judging from
the iron control that the biotech industry holds over the various
governments. Universities and independent researchers in the US have
found that the promised benefits have largely not eventuated.
Sincerely
Dr Robert Anderson
Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics
www.psrg.org.nz
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Patience and knowledge
The discussion about GM food currently suffers from two major
problems - the lack of knowledge and the lack of patience. Most of the
scared consumers simply DO NOT KNOW what the term "GM food" means as shown
by many inquiries. Activists abuse this fact. The GM food producers DO NOT
KNOW what has to be done - explaining to the consumers and producing
consumer oriented GM food. The consumers should be aware of the current
and especially potential FUTURE benefits of GM food, the producers should
be aware of the potential FUTURE risks and wait for the risk assessments.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests