Talk:Substantial equivalence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Europe and substantially equivalent 2 USA and substantial equivalence 3 the well supported scientific argument 4 Moved part

[edit] Europe and substantially equivalent

The article has this sentance "In Europe, the capability to classify a novel food as being "substantially equivalent" no longer justifies a lack of safety assessments." My question is - did Europe ever let substantial equivlance take the place of saftey assesments? Ttguy 21:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see the references given for this article in Nature. In this article, Erik Millstone et al. state that the "substantial equivalence" approach has meant 'that if a GM food can be characterized as substantially equivalent to its 'natural' antecedent, it can be assumed to pose no new health risks and hence to be acceptable for commercial use'. In other words, once "substantial equivalence" is proven no safety assessment was necessary.--Nicholas 12:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Could we have a reference to justify this statment The European regulatory process now places much more emphasis on identifying the unintended consequences of genetic modification. Ttguy 22:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USA and substantial equivalence

I think it is a miss characterisation of the situation in the USA to suggest that subtaintial equivalence ever took the place of saftey assesments. The FDA from day one had a policy of using substantial equivalence as the starting point for saftey assesments - not the end point. FDA Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties

Basically you start off by doing a gross assesment of the new food and if it is completely stuffed up with different levels of toxicants and main food ingredients then the FDA would show you the door. If it passes the subtaintial equivlalence test then the FDA will go on and ask you to show how this food does not contain a new allergen and does not contain a protein that is toxic. Ttguy 21:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the well supported scientific argument

"It also recognised the well supported scientific argument that:" This is non-dictionary language and the argument that GE at this moment is a precise technology is false - read Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications [1]. I propose to rewrite this entire paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arakrys (talk • contribs) 09:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved part

I'm moving here this. It comes as a POV conclusion to the article, clearly in favour of GM food. This entry is supposed to explain what this principle is, not advocate in favor or against GM food. Thanks, Tazmaniacs (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

" Regulators are now placing emphasis on identifying the unintended consequences of genetic modification and comparing it with the many unexpected changes that are known to occur in conventional crop varieties. These studies are currently revealing that the extent of unexpected change in GM crop varieties is much less than seen with conventionally bred varieties: that is to say, from this aspect GM food is safer. Substantial equivalence is only the starting point of safety assessment. Better methods for testing composition, metabolic and protein profiles, metabolic activity, antinutrients, toxicity, and allergenicity continue to be developed.