Professor Chris Bosso explains the significance of a new journal article questioning the safety of herbicide-resistant corn. Bosso鈥檚 research focuses on environmental and food policy, science and technology. Credit: Brooks Canaday
An recently pub颅lished in the journal Food and Chem颅ical Tox颅i颅cology shows the results of a two-鈥嬧�媦ear study on the health effects of a corn species pro颅duced by the agri颅cul颅tural giant, Mon颅santo. The corn is genet颅i颅cally mod颅i颅fied to resist the her颅bi颅cide Roundup, and per颅vades the U.S. agri颅cul颅tural system. The paper claims that mice fed a diet con颅sisting of 11 per颅cent of the novel corn species were two to three times more likely to develop tumors. As the first article to present evi颅dence that genet颅i颅cally mod颅i颅fied organ颅isms can have inherent health effects, some critics have called the research methods into ques颅tion. Northeastern University news office asked Chris Bosso, a pro颅fessor in the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs in the Col颅lege of Social Sci颅ences and Human颅i颅ties, to explain the impact the new data will have on the growing dis颅cus颅sion of genet颅i颅cally mod颅i颅fied foods.
How concerning are these findings, given both the data presented in the paper and the reach of Monsanto's maize products?
While we want to be careful about extrap颅o颅lating from one study, if sub颅stan颅ti颅ated the find颅ings raise pro颅found con颅cerns about the long-鈥嬧�媡erm human health effects of genet颅i颅cally mod颅i颅fied food crops. Critics have long argued that Roundup-鈥嬧�媟esistant vari颅ants only encourage overuse of the her颅bi颅cide, with adverse chem颅ical effects on human and animal species. How颅ever, this study's find颅ings sug颅gest far graver health dan颅gers from both the her颅bi颅cide and the vari颅ants engi颅neered to with颅stand it. If sub颅stan颅ti颅ated, such find颅ings would have dra颅matic impacts on a U.S. food system heavily dom颅i颅nated by GM corn, wheat, and soybeans.
Should consumers expect the findings to change the market in any way?
Not any颅time soon, unless con颅sumers simply stop buying com颅mer颅cially pre颅pared processed foods and decide to rely on only home-鈥嬧�媍ooked meals from grains pro颅duced out of non-鈥嬧�婫M vari颅ants. That would include any meat or poultry raised on corn. That's how deeply embedded GM vari颅ants are in the U.S. food supply. This being said, any emer颅gence of focused con颅sumer con颅cerns about the long-鈥嬧�媡erm health effects of GM crops would shake the nation's food safety system, not unlike what hap颅pened in Europe in the 1990s with out颅breaks of mad cow dis颅ease. Again, while we want to be cau颅tious about extrap颅o颅lating from a single study, its poten颅tial to cat颅alyze public con颅cern about GM food cannot be overstated.
What do the findings add to the current body of public policy research regarding genetically modified foods?
The results raise warn颅ings that force us to think hard about our stan颅dards for proof and about the role of pre颅cau颅tion in policy deci颅sions about risk. If his颅tory is any guide鈥攁nd here I'm thinking about the battle that ensued after pub颅li颅ca颅tion of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" in 1962鈥攚e may well soon be wit颅ness to a pretty nasty open fight over appro颅priate method颅ology, stan颅dards for proof, and whose find颅ings engender greater trust. Given the bil颅lions of dol颅lars involved, defenders of GM foods, Mon颅santo in par颅tic颅ular, will debate every last point. And, as his颅tory also shows, we as con颅sumers, and cit颅i颅zens, aren't well equipped to know whose word is "right." It may well all come down to whose word we most trust.
Provided by Northeastern University
