BioWorld International Correspondent

PARIS - A report titled "New Genetics, Food and Agriculture: Scientific Discoveries, Societal Dilemmas," published by the International Council for Science (ICSU), concluded that genetically modified foods are safe but that there are gaps in the science that make it impossible to evaluate GM crops and their impact on the environment.

The report assesses knowledge from some 50 studies produced by national academies of sciences, international organizations and private agencies over the past three years. The report is meant to highlights holes in the science and suggest where further research is needed.

The report's author, Gabrielle Persley, an Australian biologist who runs The Doyle Foundation in Glasgow, presented the findings at a conference in Paris. She called for the development of methods for analyzing the GM content of whole foods, for better assessment of the environmental risks and benefits and for the development of a comparative methodology for evaluating the pros and cons of GM and nonGM crops and foods so as to get away from "for GM/against GM" polarity.

Persley pointed out that there were an estimated 60 million hectares of GM crops under cultivation in 16 countries, and explained that her report sought to give answers to five key questions concerning GM foods:

• Who needs them? "They are needed by societies looking for either more, or cheaper or better quality food," she said.

• Are they safe to eat? "Yes, they are safe to eat," Persley said. In effect, her report concludes that GM foods could benefit human health by improving nutritional quality and removing allergens and/or toxic compounds, and by potentially lowering levels of chemical pesticides needed.

• Will there be any effects on the environment? Producing GM foods "will affect the environment, as agriculture does already," Persley said, but added whether that affect is positive or negative needs to be "evaluated on a case-by-case basis."

• Are the regulations adequate? For Persley, there is a "need for further research to ensure that the scientific basis of regulations is sound." But she warned against excessive regulation: "The extent of regulations needs to be proportionate to the risk and must not become a barrier to entry" for public research establishments, poor countries and small companies.

• Will they affect trade? "Yes, certainly," Persley asserted. "New discoveries in genetics are already affecting trade."

Elaborating on the issues, Persley maintained that the world needed to "produce more food with less land and with less water," and that insecticide-resistant, herbicide-tolerant and drought-tolerant varieties of GM crops could contribute to that. But future GM foods have to be evaluated in each scenario, since "the fact that current products are safe does not mean that all future ones will be." Moreover, "the long-term effects of GP foods are not known," so "whole-food analysis using new methods could be needed," she said.

As for the environmental risks, Persley said GM crops could reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides and thus be beneficial. But turning to the question of gene flow from the crop plant to compatible wild relatives, she maintained "the issue is not, Does it happen?' but, Does it matter?'" That depends on the novel trait and its effect on the wild species, she said. She concluded that "there is no evidence of any deleterious environmental effects having occurred from the trait/species combinations currently available."