isaaa.org

Position Statments on Biotechnology

  • ️CropBiotech Net

Position Statements on Biotechnology

American Medical Association (AMA)

Website: http://www.ama-assn.org

AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods
January 2001


Source: http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/global/biotech/01012401.htm
Full report: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-4030.html

A report issued by the scientific council of the American Medical Association (AMA) says that no long-term health effects have been detected from the use of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods, and that these foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts.

According to a summary of the report, more than 40 varieties of transgenic crops have been approved for use in the United States during the last decade, most of them genetically modified to produce a pesticide called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). For example, Bt corn, which became commercially available in 1997, is resistant to the European corn borer.

The report, released at the AMA Interim Meeting in December 2000, says that the risk of gene transfer from plant products consumed as food to the gut microorganisms of animals or to human cells "is generally acknowledged to be negligible, but one that cannot be completely discounted."

The AMA report also addresses concerns about the potential for Bt-containing plants to have harmful effects on unintended organisms. For example, laboratory studies have found that pollen from genetically engineered corn plants can harm monarch butterflies. However, the AMA report concludes that the harmful effects of Bt-containing plants on nontarget organisms have not been observed in the field. "Nevertheless, these and other possible environmental effects remain areas of concern," the report says.

The AMA recommends that federal regulatory oversight of agricultural biotechnology should continue to be science-based and guided by the characteristics of the plant and its intended use, not by the method used to produce it. The AMA also believes that there is no scientific justification to date for special labeling of genetically modified foods.

Following is the text of the report summary:

  • Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs
  • American Medical Association (AMA)
  • Genetically Modified Crops and Foods

SUMMARY

Objective:

To review the technology used to produce transgenic crops and examine issues relevant to the utilization of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods, including the current regulatory framework, possible human health effects, potential environmental impacts, and other consumer-related issues.

Data Sources:

Eleven reports issued over the last 2 years by various scientific and governmental bodies on selected aspects of genetically modified crops were reviewed. Additionally, literature searches were conducted in the MEDLINE database and Lexis/Nexis GenMed library for articles between 1990 and September 2000 using the terms "genetic engineering" combined with "food microbiology," "food technology," "agriculture," "plants, edible," "food," and "crops, agricultural." A secondary search was conducted for articles between 1995 and September 2000 using the search term "plants, transgenic." References containing information relevant to the safety, regulation, and environmental impact of transgenic crops and foods were examined further. Additional references were culled from the bibliographies of these pertinent references. The World Wide Web was searched for information using the search terms "genetically modified foods" or "genetically modified crops," revealing several links to additional scientific and regulatory sites.

Results:

More than 40 transgenic crop varieties have been cleared through the federal review process with enhanced agronomic and/or nutritional characteristics or one or more features of pest protection (insect and viruses) and tolerance to herbicides. The most widely used transgenic pest-protected plants express insecticidal proteins derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Crops and foods produced using recombinant DNA techniques have been available for fewer than 10 years and no long-term effects have been detected to date. These foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. Genetic engineering is capable of introducing allergens into recipient plants, but the overall risks of introducing an allergen into the food supply are believed to be similar to or less than that associated with conventional breeding methods. The risk of horizontal gene transfer from plants to environmental bacteria or from plant products consumed as food to gut microorganisms or human cells is generally acknowledged to be negligible, but one that cannot be completely discounted. Pest-resistance due to exposure to Bt-containing plants has not occurred to date, and harmful effects on nontarget organisms, which have been detected in the laboratory, have not been observed in the field. Nevertheless, these and other possible environmental effects remain areas of concern.

Conclusions:

Federal regulatory oversight of agricultural biotechnology should be science-based. Methods to assure the safety of foods derived from genetically modified crops should continue to be refined and improved. Although no untoward effects have been detected, the use of antibiotic markers that encode resistance to clinically important antibiotics should be avoided if possible. Genetic modification of plants could potentially lead to detrimental consequences to the environment. Therefore, a broad-based plan to study environmental issues should be instituted. There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods, as a class, and voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education. Government, industry, and the scientific and medical communities have a responsibility to educate the public and improve the availability of unbiased information on genetically modified crops and research activities.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following statements, recommended by the Council on Scientific Affairs, were adopted as AMA Policy at the 2000 Interim AMA Meeting:
The AMA recognizes the continuing validity of the three major conclusions contained in the 1987 National Academy of Sciences white paper "Introduction of Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into the Environment."

Federal regulatory oversight of agricultural biotechnology should continue to be science-based and guided by the characteristics of the plant, its intended use, and the environment into which it is to be introduced, not by the method used to produce it, in order to facilitate comprehensive, efficient regulatory review of new genetically modified crops and foods.
The AMA believes that as of December 2000, there is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education.

The AMA supports efforts for the systematic safety assessment of genetically modified foods and encourage: (a) development and validation of additional techniques for the detection and/or assessment of unintended effects; (b) continued use of methods to detect substantive changes in nutrient or toxicant levels in genetically modified foods as part of a substantial equivalence evaluation; (c) development and use of alternative transformation technologies to avoid utilization of antibiotic resistance markers that code for clinically relevant antibiotics, where feasible; and (d) that priority should be given to basic research in food allergenicity to support the development of improved methods for identifying potential allergens.

The AMA supports continued research into the potential consequences to the environment of genetically modified crops including the: (a) assessment of the impacts of pest-protected crops on nontarget organisms compared to impacts of standard agricultural methods, through rigorous field evaluations; (b) assessment of gene flow and its potential consequences including key factors that regulate weed populations; rates at which pest resistance genes from the crop would be likely to spread among weed and wild populations; and the impact of novel resistance traits on weed abundance; (c) implementation of resistance management practices and continued monitoring of their effectiveness; and (d) development of monitoring programs to assess ecological impacts of pest-protected crops that may not be apparent from the results of field tests.

The AMA recognizes the many potential benefits offered by genetically modified crops and foods, not support a moratorium on planting genetically modified crops, and encourages ongoing research developments in food biotechnology.

The AMA recognizes that the government, industry, and the scientific and medical communities have a responsibility to educate the public and improve the availability of unbiased information on genetically modified crops and of research activities.

The following statement, recommended by the Council on Scientific Affairs, was adopted as a Directive at the 2000 Interim AMA Meeting:
The AMA will monitor the forthcoming final rule for plant pesticides from the Environmental Protection Agency and respond as appropriate.