"Many yeast strains are being engineered to have a higher metabolism and as a result, enhanced fermentation properties in processes such as bread baking and beer production. However, an investigation of GE yeast containing extra copies of genes involved in the metabolism of glucose, found that they also accumulate a highly toxic and mutagenic substance known as methylglyoxal. The authors of this study warn that careful thought should be given to the nature and safety of metabolic products when GE yeast are used in food-related fermentation processes especially since current risk assessments based upon the principle of substantial equivalence are unlikely to detect any harmful substances.

The inadequacy of substantial equivalence

"(This example) illustrates the fact that a product derived from a GE organism (bacteria, yeast or plant), can be devoid of genetic material but can still unexpectedly contain potentially harmful alterations to a GE product, a novel toxin or elevated levels of a known hazardous substance. The current systems for assessing the health risks of GE foods do not appear to have fully taken into account this unpredictability of genetic engineering technology. At present it is only required that the amounts of a few known components (nutrients, allergens and natural toxins) be measured in order for substantial equivalence to be established. When viewed from a fundamental genetics standpoint, the manner in which the principle of substantial equivalence is being applied would appear to be conceptually flawed. Since genetic engineering has the potential to unexpectedly produce novel toxins and allergens, the assessment of only known constituents is insufficient. This problem is further compounded by the fact that each analytical technique that is used possesses it's own limitations. Unless one fortuitously chose an analytical method that happened to detect a novel compound in the GE food, it can quite easily be missed even if present in abundance. As a result, since one cannot specifically test for an unknown health hazard, it is clear that only by applying pharmacological-type toxicity testing can the risks of GE foods be adequately assessed. If a new drug is produced via genetically engineered organisms then it must quite rightly go through pre-clinical tests in animals to assess acute toxicity and, more importantly, extensive clinical trials in human volunteers to not only determine efficacy, but also to detect any unexpected effects of the product including unknown toxins resulting from the production process. Given that the same imprecise technology is used to produce GE foods in general then surely the same rules should apply for both. Clearly a double standards situation exists which needs rectifying. Pharmacological toxicity testing is designed to assess adverse effects of a product in a very general manner regardless of whether it is a single substance or a complex mixture and can therefore equally be applied to GE foods as well as drugs".

Ref: Genetic Pollution; Nutritional Therapy Today (1996);

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **