http://archives.foodsafety.ksu.edu/agnet/2002/12-2002/agnet_december_11.htm#PRECAUTIONARY

 

 

PRECAUTIONARY PLUS PRINCIPLE
December 10, 2002
Tom DeGregori, Professor of Economics, University of Houston,
Department of Economics
Via AgBioView at www.agbioworld.org
We now have a new "green" scientific "principle" emerging. Let us call it
the
"Precautionary Plus Principle." From "absence of evidence of harm not being
evidence of absence of harm," we now have the principle that you can make a
claim on the basis that no one has written a peer-reviewed article refuting
it. Come to think of it, I have not seen any peer-reviewed articles refuting
phlogiston or the geocentric theory of astronomy. Consequently, I am at
liberty to assume they are correct in making an argument as long as I am
furthering some noble NGO or "green" cause. If not assuming a fantasy is
correct, I can at least drop a few hints about it which should appeal to an
audience that already believes it and now can claim a peer reviewed article
that supports it.
In the exchange in Nature Biotechnology, when David Shubert was quoted in
reference to toxic metabolites that were created in "GM batches of
tryptophan," his response was that he merely stated that: "GM tryptophan
Œwas highly correlated with contaminants,¹ not that it definitively caused
the disease." Not being content simply to use the preceding to back away
from an untenable claim, Schubert adds: "There is certainly no good evidence
in reviewed journals that it was the purification procedure that caused the
problems or that only people who used this brand took larger amounts and
therefore became ill." There are any number of problems with that assertion
but it ignores the fact that there were no peer reviewed journal articles in
any way indicating the GM bacteria as being the cause so there was no need
for any peer reviewed articles to refute it. The FDA and other investigators
did find earlier cases of eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome and from the
tryptophan from other manufacturers. Anyone who thinks that the Japanese
chemical companies manufacturing amino acids and other vitamins today are
forgoing the vastly
greater speed and yield from using GM organisms, is living in a "green"
fantasy world.
This is simply one of those uncomfortable facts that the believers have to
hide from themselves since they are consuming these products and feeling
superior to the rest of us by doing so. Checking the "green" newsgroups, I
have found the question raised as to whether GM organisms are being used and
this has always been followed by a deafening silence in every instance that
I have encountered.
As far as I can tell, there were two news reports (one in Science and one in
Nature) very early in the investigation in which there was the possibility
was raised in one that a the GM bacteria may have been the cause and that no
evidence for such at been found in the other. The absence of any further
literature on that topic except by the "greens" should be an indication not
only that those involved in the investigation could find no evidence but
that the available evidence pointed in other directions. For the Schubert or
anyone else to continue to raise this issue simply shows the almost total
absence of any evidence for the case that they are trying to make.
The "Precautionary Plus Principle" has great "green" potential. The more
absurd, unlikely and out-of-date an idea may be, the more likely that there
will not be any peer reviewed literature refuting it.
The "Precautionary Plus Principle" has been raised in the report on the
safety of GM food for the Zambian government. I qoute from the Times of
Zambia news article:
"Dr Mbikusita-Lewanika also said there was evidence that GM food tended to
make non-allergenic foods to become allergenic due to the inclusion of
foreign genes. He cited an example of a Brazil nut whose gene was introduced
into other foods and a lot of people who were allergic to the nut reacted
badly."
As far as I can ascertain, the only reference to the tree nut protein in
soybeans was the 1996 article in The New England Journal of Medicine which
clearly states on the opening page that the study was funded by the seed
company that did the research. The article makes clear that study was
conducted in advance of any possible release and that the findings of
potential harm meant that it would not be released so no one was harmed by
it. In fact, the results of this effort helped to identify the genes that
expressed the allergenic proteins which in the future might be useful in
making peanuts allergy free or at least sufficiently less allergenic that
those with the allergy are not at continuous risk of a fatal response from
even the slightest accidental contact. In the case of the soybean, the
protocols for testing worked and it is an argument for the safety of GM food
not against it.
But since no reputable scientist to my knowledge has found it necessary to
write a peer reviewed article refuting an event that never happened - "a lot
of people who were allergic to the nut reacted badly" - then under the
Precautionary Plus Principle, it is fair to claim it.
I understand the moon is made of green cheese from milk the production of
which was enhanced using rBST. Is there any peer reviewed literature
refuting that claim? If any of you travel there, avoid sampling it!