BIO-OBJECTS 91 Croat Med J. 2013;54:91-6 doi: 10.3325/cmj.2013.54.91 Science, safety, and trust: Lucia Martinelli1, Małgorzata Karbarz2, Helena Siipi3 the case of transgenic food 1Museo delle Scienze, Trento, Italy [email protected] 2University of Rzeszów, Institute of Applied Biotechnology and Basic Sciences, Kolbuszowa, Poland 3University of Turku, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Philosophy, Turku, Finland Abstract Genetically modified (GM) food is discussed as an rial genes into plants, producing tobacco and petunia re- example of the controversial relation between the intrinsic sistant to antibiotics (3-5). A few months there followed uncertainty of the scientific approach and the demand of an insertion of a plant gene from one species into anoth- citizen-consumers to use products of science innovation er species, generating a sunflower expressing the bean that are known to be safe. On the whole, peer-reviewed phaseolin gene (6). Thereafter, gene transfer technology studies on GM food safety do not note significant health increased dramatically while expectations on applications risks, with a few exceptions, like the most renowned “Pusz- in agro-food genetic improvement were progressively tai affair” and the recent “Seralini case.” These latter studies rising. Besides overcoming conventional breeding con- have been disregarded by the scientific community, based straints, solutions of crucial worldwide human questions on incorrect experimental designs and statistic analysis. were foreseen, such as adequacy of food resources to be Such contradictory results show the complexity of risk available to the increasing world population and in partic- evaluation, and raise concerns in the citizen-consumers ular to the hungry countries; generation of healthier food against the GM food. A thoughtful consideration by scien- with enhanced nutritional values; development of an agri- tific community and decision makers of the moral values cultural practice more respectful to environmental issues, that are present in risk evaluation and risk management based on crops constructed to be intrinsically resistant to should be the most trustable answer to citizen-consumers the most relevant pests and diseases, thus free from chem- to their claim for clear and definitive answers concerning ical protection. safety/un-safety of GM food. As extensively reported in literature, molecular tool appli- In this essay in the series of articles from “Bio-Objects” re- cations in agriculture, human health, and food offer today search network supported by the Cooperation in Science remarkable opportunities even though more promises and Technology (COST) program (1), we focus on geneti- than concrete achievements on the market have been ac- cally modified (GM) plants for food production as a re- complished. The further achievements are continually ex- markable example of a biotechnology innovation fitting pected based on the information accumulated through the “bio-object” classification. GM plants are defined as -or genetic research advancements (7). ganisms whose genomes have been modified applying re- combinant techniques (rDNA) by transferring extra genes GM PLANTS AS “bio-objecTS” or modulating (knockdown or knockout) genes already present in the species, with the aims of acquiring knowl- From 2000, while use of GM plants in agriculture was in- edge on gene functions, obtaining genetic improvement, creasingly becoming a consolidated practice and novel and yielding selected compounds (2). GM foods were entering into the market with a globally upward trend reaching nowadays 160 million hectares GM plant generation dates back already 30 years when at cultivated with biotech crops, concerns and passionate the Miami Winter Symposia of January 1983, three inde- social and political controversies replaced enthusias- pendent groups announced successful transfer of bacte- tic expectations from the biotech era (7). Biotech- www.cmj.hr 92 BIO-OBJECTS Croat Med J. 2013;54:91-6 nology application in agriculture soon became – and still according to Reg. 1829/2003/EC. Moreover, “the European is – a problematic issue and various countries all over the Union guarantees the traceability and labelling of GMOs world gradually adopted own regulations for production, and products produced from these organisms through- cultivation, import, and traceability of GM crops and their out the food chain. Traceability allows the monitoring and derivates to meet public demand of safety and to man- checking of information given on labels, the monitoring of age (perceived/true) technical risks, while biotech public effects on the environment and the withdrawal of products research suffered from funding cut off. from the market in cases where new scientific data dem- onstrate that the GMOs used in the product present an This new course, which we regard as a significant step of environmental or health risk” (Reg. 1830/2003/EC). Within a “bio-objectification” process, well portraits the contro- this regulatory framework, specific recommendations were versial interactions occurring when science innovations formulated by EFSA (13). Accordingly, the evaluation of GM break into society. GM plants, accordingly, as other “biolog- plants’ potential effects on the environment are based on a ical creatures” of agriculture and medicine research, bear case-by-case basis, following a step-by-step assessment ap- some crucial features of “bio-objects.” They are constructed proach, which takes into account crucial aspects of hazards and manipulated biologies on the fine line between “nat- and risks such as their persistence, invasiveness, and inter- ural” and “non-natural”/“artificial” that have hybridity (thus actions with other organisms, the production systems, the evoking the language of the “unnatural”) and are poten- receiving environment, and the biogeochemical processes, tially useful for enhancing human life quality, resulting in as well as their effects on human and animal health. This the challenge of conventional natural, cultural, scientific evaluation is meant to be supported by independent ex- and institutional orderings (8,9). Moreover, they have po- perts and based on the most accredited and updated sci- tential to move between domains, shifting from agricul- entific knowledge on the topic. ture (the “first-generation GM plants,” whose modifications are aimed at solving agronomic constraints), nutrition (the After 1995, assessment of health impact of GM plants has “second-generation” GM plants, whose modifications are been the subject of extensive peer reviewed scientific lit- aimed at enhancing nutritional values) and health and in- erature, which has been mostly focused on maize, soybean dustry (the “third generation” GM plants, whose modifica- (the primary transgenic crops distributed on the market), tions are aimed at farming specific compounds to be ad- rice, and potato. Together with in vitro analysis, long-term opted in pharmaceutical and health care). and multigenerational feeding studies were mainly per- formed on rats as model system, besides mice, cows, and Bio-social impacts of GM plants have been extensively re- fish, by assessing body and organ weight, hematological ported in literature (10) and at the Web sites of various as- values, enzyme activities, organ and tissue histopathologi- sociations and no-profit organizations involved in social cal examination and transgenic DNA detection. According issues and environment protection, while perceived risks to comprehensive studies (14), in which the most accred- related to hybridity and “crawling” across genetic barriers ited scientific papers on feeding trials have been analyzed (11), as well as the significance of human intervention in on the basis of certified experimental and statistical pa- Nature (12), have been already considered. rameters (15,16), no significant health risks were found, and possible differences detected between transgenic Here, focusing on human health risk, as evaluated by scien- feedings and their isogenic counterparts were considered tific community and institutional organs, we aim to discuss of no biological or toxicological significance. Worth stress- GM food as an example of “bio-object,” which enlightens ing, in the few studies where indications of no nutrition- the controversial relation between the intrinsic uncertainty al equivalence or altered parameters were reported, thus of the scientific approach and the demand of citizen-con- supporting health hazard, severe incorrect experimental sumers to use the products of science innovation that are designs with detrimental effects on statistical analysis have known to be safe. been advocated within the scientific community, hence rejecting these results (14). RISK EVALUATION CONTROVERSIAL CASES Release of GM crops in open field and on the market is au- thorized all over the world according to various regula- Among the first animal feeding studies on GM diet to be tions and policies of different countries, and in Europe independently peer reviewed, the most renowned is the www.cmj.hr Martinelli et al: Science, safety, and trust: the case of transgenic food 93 one conducted at the Rowett Research Institute, Scot- rupting effects of herbicide as well as the overexpression land, also known as “Pusztai affair” (17), which resulted for of the transgene in the GM maize and its metabolic conse- the researcher in suspension and banning from speaking quences. Together with the data originated from the study, publicly, and ended up with