Prof Gilles-Eric Seralini will visit the UK in September to speak about his research on GM health risks.

The GM health study they don’t want you to know about

Claire Robinson
GMhealthriskweek.org, August 2013
http://www.gmhealthriskweek.org/the-study-that-should-have-been-a-wake-up-call-to-the-world/

Claire Robinson is editor of GMOSeralini.org, a public information website to counter misleading spin about the Séralini study.

She is an editor at GMWatch and research director at Earth Open Source.

The most detailed scientific study ever conducted on the health effects of a genetically modified (GM) food was published last year. The findings of the study, led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen in France, were shocking. Rats fed over a two-year period with two Monsanto products, a GM maize and tiny amounts of the Roundup herbicide that the maize is engineered to tolerate being sprayed with, had increased rates of severe organ damage, tumours, and premature death.[1]

The study should have been a wake-up call to the world, but most members of the public and the scientific community are in danger of learning nothing from it. The reason? Within hours of the study’s release, an orchestrated media campaign swung into action to discredit it.

Quotes from scientists criticizing the paper were circulated by the UK-based Science Media Centre (SMC), an organization which claims to be independent and to aim to ensure the public have access to the best scientific evidence[2] – while at the same time taking funding from GM companies.[3] SMC director Fiona Fox later said that she took pride in the fact that the SMC’s “emphatic thumbs down had largely been acknowledged throughout UK newsrooms”. Few newspapers had covered the story, and those that did “used quotes supplied by the Science Media Centre”. She added that several television news programmes had also rejected the story after reading the quotes.[4]

The SMC’s efforts ensured that few British people heard about the study and many of those who did swallowed the SMC line that it was rubbish.

Now you have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to cut through the misinformation and spin that was fed to us and to hear the inside story of the study that’s got the GM industry – as well as scientists whose careers depend on it – seriously worried. Prof Séralini will visit the UK from September 2-8 on a rare speaking tour, speaking about the health risks posed by GM foods. He’ll speak in London, Cardiff, and Edinburgh as part of an expert panel.

Other panel members will include Ib Pedersen, a Danish farmer who found digestive and reproductive problems in his pigs when they ate GM feed and restored them to health by substituting a non-GM diet. Ib’s experience shows that toxic effects from a GM diet are not just something that happens to rats in a lab but that potentially put at risk all livestock – and all people.

There are powerful forces that don’t want you to hear this message. The US is currently trying to force GM foods into Europe through the EU-US free trade agreement and sees Britain as the weak link in European resistance to GM. That’s not because the British people want GM – they overwhelmingly do not – but because our government is rabidly pro-GM and is moving in lockstep with US government interests on the issue. Environment secretary Owen Paterson acts as a mouthpiece for GM industry talking points, even promising that the UK will ignore opposition to GM from the rest of Europe and “go it alone” on GM.

So please come to hear Prof Seralini and the other speakers. It’s never been more urgent that British citizens arm themselves with the information they have to offer.

[1] Séralini, G. E., et al. (2012). Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology 50(11): 4221-4231.
[2] Science Media Centre (2013). Home page. http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/
[3] Powerbase (2013). Science Media Centre. http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Science_Media_Centre
[4] Matthews, J. (2012). Smelling a corporate rat. Spinwatch, 11 December. http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/science/item/164-smelling-a-corporate-

The GM industry’s latest PR drive includes a new website aimed at combating mounting opposition to GM foods.

You need to register to be able to post comments. Go to www.GMOAnswers.com to do so and challenge each of their misleading entries, so members of the public who check out the site get a better picture of reality. (e.g., include links to studies like Jack Heinemann’s recent one, etc.) Time to match their PR and outreach! A good resource for doing this:http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/gmo-myths-and-truths

1.’GMO Answers’ Website Launched By Monsanto, DuPont, More
2.GMO Re-Education: Monsanto, Dow and Biotech Firms Unite to Launch Disinformation Site

EXTRACT: Biotech is on the defensive now – they have been backed into a corner by activists who insist that the GMOs in our food supply, at the very least, be labeled, so that we can make an informed decision about what we feed our families. This false transparency is their last ditch effort to head off pro-labeling legislation and to keep their toxins hidden in our food supply.

…they’ve invited us to “Be skeptical. Be open. We want to hear from you.” Let’s give them what they asked for, shall we? (item 2)
—
—
1.’GMO Answers’ Website Launched By Monsanto, DuPont, More
Carey Gillam
Reuters, 29 July 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/gmo-answers-website_n_3671483.html

A group of biotech seed companies on Monday launched an online forum to combat mounting opposition to genetically modified foods among consumer groups and activists.

The website, www.GMOAnswers.com, is designed as a “central online resource” for information on genetically modified organisms and their use in agriculture and food production, the Biotechnology Industry Organization said.

The website is backed in part by Monsanto Co, DuPont , Dow AgroSciences, a unit of Dow Chemical Co, and other companies whose products include seeds that have been genetically altered to improve food production.

The website is part of a broad campaign by the biotech industry to beat back growing calls for GMO food labeling and for tighter regulation of the biotech seed industry in the United States. European opposition to GMOs is so strong that Monsanto this month said it would withdraw all pending requests to grow new types of GMO crops.

As part of the multi-year, multimillion-dollar campaign, the biotech seed companies will also open some of their fields and offices to visitors and will host face-to-face forums around the country with consumers, according to Cathleen Enright, spokeswoman for the website.

Paul Schickler, president of DuPont Pioneer, the agricultural unit of DuPont, said anti-GMO forces have been using the Internet very effectively to get their message out, and industry wants to use the same strategy to combat what he said were notions “not always based in fact.”

“This … is an effort to increase the dialogue. That is all we want,” said Schickler. “Dialogue is good. Over time I think we’ll come to a common understanding.”

Critics predicted the industry effort to change consumer skepticism would fail, saying there is ample scientific evidence that GMO foods can contribute to health problems in animals and humans, and hurt the environment.

“This latest effort will likely do little to stop the consumer backlash against genetically engineered foods that has been brewing for years,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, a consumer organization.

The most popular gene-altered crops withstand dousings of weed-killing chemicals and produce their own insect-killing toxins. Biotech corn, canola, soybeans, and other crops are used in human food and animal feed around the world, and biotech companies say they are heavily regulated and thoroughly tested.

Last year, Monsanto and other industry members spent $40 million to defeat a ballot initiative in California to require labeling of GMO food. Similar initiatives are under way in several other U.S. states and at the federal level.

Grocery retailer Whole Foods said this year it would require suppliers to label any product made with genetically modified ingredients. And the Natural Products Association, which represents 1,900 food industry players, has called for a uniform national standard for GMO labeling.

Burrito chain Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc recently became the first major U.S. restaurant chain to disclose GMO ingredients and is moving to remove such products from its supply chain.
—
—
2.GMO Re-Education: Monsanto, Dow and Biotech Firms Unite to Launch Disinformation Site
Daisy Luther
The Organic Pepper, July 29 2013
http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/gmo-re-education-monsanto-dow-and-biotech-firms-unite-to-launch-disinformation-site-07292013

If you had a question about how to protect yourself from a criminal known to break into houses in your neighborhood, would you ask him how to protect your home and then take his suggestions, or would you be suspicious he might be answering them in a way that would make your home even easier to encroach?

If you had a question about the honesty and integrity of a person in an authority position, would you ask that person to investigate himself and then accept his findings? (I mean, if you were a normal person, not if your name is Barack or Eric.)

If a company came out with a new medication that promised to cure your ills overnight, would you ask the company that produced it whether it was safe and trust them to be honest, or would you feel that their answer might be colored by their urge to make a buck?
So why on earth would anyone possibly believe that the likes of Monsanto, Dow, and Dupont would be spreading anything but sales-driven propaganda on their new website GMOAnswers?

Are they serious or is this some kind of big public relations joke being played out on a national platform?  Are we being punked?

What kind of person would look up their answers on a website SPONSORED by the very people who are putting out the toxic garbage they’d like us to believe is food?
Welcome to the compendium of disinformation!

In the most outrageous, blatant case of the foxes being put in charge of the henhouse that I have ever seen, the big biotech companies got together and launched their propaganda site GMOAnswers today. It is run by the Council for Biotechnology Information, whose members include Monsanto, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer CropScience and BASF. The site contains a heavily moderated question and answer forum and a complete compendium of disinformation in the section called “Explore GMOs”.

They purport that the website is an acknowledgement that they need to change:

*Genetically modified organisms — GMOs — are a major topic of discussion today. Across our society, media and the Internet, a growing number of people have shared a wide range of questions and emotions on the topic – ranging from excitement and optimism to skepticism and even fear.

*GMO Answers was created to do a better job answering your questions — no matter what they are — about GMOs. The biotech industry stands 100 percent behind the health and safety of the GM crops on the market today, but we acknowledge that we haven’t done the best job communicating about them – what they are, how they are made, what the safety data says.

*This website is the beginning of a new conversation among everyone who cares about how our food is grown.

*Join us. Ask tough questions. Be skeptical. Be open. We look forward to sharing answers. (source)

And they tout these 5 principals:

*Respecting people around the world and their right to choose healthy food products that are best for themselves and their families;
*Welcoming and answering questions on all GMO topics;
*Making GMO information, research and data easy to access and evaluate and supporting safety testing of GM products;  including allowing independent safety testing of our products through validated science-based methods;
*Supporting farmers as they work to grow crops using precious resources more efficiently, with less impact on the environment and producing safe, nutritious food and feed products;
*Respecting farmers’ rights to choose the seeds that are best for their farms, businesses and communities and providing seed choices that include non-GM seeds based on market demands.

The most notable things that I saw about the “discussions” there is that the “experts” are all pro-GMO.  There is a very subtle bias against those with concerns, despite the fact that many of them are quoting real statistics and genuine peer-reviewed studies. How many “experts” that are anti-GMO are being moderated right out of the discussion using the “House Rules“?

This website, sadly, is nothing more than an indoctrination vehicle for furthering the myths that Monsanto wants you to believe.

Biotech is on the defensive now – they have been backed into a corner by activists who insist that the GMOs in our food supply, at the very least, be labeled, so that we can make an informed decision about what we feed our families. This false transparency is their last ditch effort to head off pro-labeling legislation and to keep their toxins hidden in our food supply.

What can we do?

I’ve created my own profile over there so that I can “join the discussion.” If you decide to join me, please follow the House Rules to the best of your ability and additionally, remember that you want to garner respect, not scorn, so:

*Be courteous – we are in the right and we should take the high road in conversations
*Don’t be threatening
*Don’t use foul language
*Don’t be abusive towards others, even when you disagree or when they are abusive towards you
*Use facts and cite sources
*If you are censored unfairly, take screen shots and let those tell your story

If other people who don’t know a lot about GMOs come to the forum and see anti-GMO activists scrapping it out in an uncivil fashion, it will close their eyes to the message we are trying to share. Don’t be afraid to be passionate, but please remember that you are representing all of us who say no to GMO.

Do you remember when Cheerios launched the Facebook App that allowed consumers to share what they really thought about the toxin-laden cereal? That was a PR move that backfired dramatically when users bombarded the company’s page with anti-GMO messages.

Biotech must have missed that, because they’ve invited us to “Be skeptical. Be open. We want to hear from you.”

Let’s give them what they asked for, shall we?

About the author:

Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor.  Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at<a ‘+path+’\”+prefix+’:'+addy43508+’\'=”">’);document.write(addy43508);document.write(‘<\/a>’);</SCRIPT>daisy@theorganicprepper.ca

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/14882-seralini-validated-by-new-efsa-guidelines-on-long-term-gmo-experiments

Food Safety Authority’s guidelines on long-term GM feeding studies validate Prof Seralini’s study, which found serious health effects from NK603 maize.

Seralini validated by new EFSA guidelines on long-term GMO experiments
Comment by Claire Robinson of GMWatch and Earth Open Source, 31 July 2013

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has issued guidelines for two-year whole food feeding studies to assess the risk of long-term toxicity from GM foods.
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3347.htm

This is a fascinating document which largely validates the methodology and choices of Prof GE Seralini in his 2012 study on GM maize NK603 – methodology and choices that EFSA and countless other critics previously attacked him for.

Particular points to note:

1. EFSA admits that “no standardised protocol or guidelines exist for this type of study and [industry] applicants have to adapt protocols” – as Seralini did, too.

2. EFSA says the same strain of rat that was used in the 90-day study on the GM food should be used in the longer study – thus vindicating Seralini’s use of the Sprague-Dawley rat, which Monsanto used in its 90-day study on the same maize.

3. EFSA says animals should be fed ad libitum, which Seralini did, but which critics complained made it impossible to measure individual food and water consumption.

4. EFSA admits that you do not necessarily need a narrow and fixed hypothesis and that such a study can be “exploratory”, in spite of its previous claim that Seralini’s experiment was flawed because it (according to EFSA) didn’t have a clear hypothesis or objective.

5. EFSA recommends against using the extra control or “reference diet” groups commonly included by Monsanto in its 90-day studies and fed a variety of supposedly non-GM diets, on the grounds that the concurrent controls are the valid controls AND what is being tested is the difference between the GM variety and the non-GM comparator. Seralini was criticised by many for not including these spurious extra control groups and for thus having “inadequate controls”.

6. EFSA cautions strongly AGAINST relying on historical control data and if it is used, restricts it to within 5 years of the current experiment and to the same testing facility. This is a much stricter requirement than industry ever applies; industry uses ancient data from a wide variety of sources.

EFSA says: “The use of historical control data should be considered with caution. The historical controls might not be useful because the incidences of neoplastic (or non-neoplastic) lesions would possibly be from control animals kept on different diets than the diet applied in whole food/feed study, and because the diet itself (high/low fat, type of fat, % of carbohydrate, type of carbohydrate, etc.) can influence the formation of neoplastic or non-neoplastic lesions. Where the diet formulation used in the experiment for the control groups cannot be demonstrated to be equivalent to that used for the generation of historical control data, the inclusion may be considered of an additional control group (as similar as possible to the historical controls), in addition to the concurrent control group(s).”

It’s unfortunate that in rightly condemning the use of historical control data, however, EFSA allows in those extra control or “reference” groups that it rightly condemned in point (5) above.

7. EFSA recommends a minimum of 10 animals per sex per group for the chronic toxicity phase, the same number that Seralini used.

8. EFSA recommends housing animals in pairs, as Seralini did, so individual food consumption cannot be measured.

9. EFSA requires an a priori power analysis to ensure appropriate sample size, depending on the effect size that is being looked for. We’ve never noticed the GM industry doing one of these, resulting in experiments that are virtually guaranteed not to find anything. For Seralini’s team’s comment on this, see:
http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0706.htm

Overall, we’re pleased to see EFSA taking on board our cautionary lessons on spurious “reference” control groups and historical control data (even if in the same document EFSA subsequently allows the use of both!), as well as validating the aspects of Seralini’s experiment that he was most criticised for.

김훈기의 “생명공학과 소비자” (1)

연재를 시작하며

첨단 생명공학은 거대한 실험실에서 나와 이미 우리 일상에 파고들고 있다. 다만 실감하지 못하는 경우가 많을 뿐이다. 그런데 생명공학에 대한 막연한 장밋빛 기대감은 현실에서 온전히 실현되지 않는다. 외래 유전자를 삽입한 농산물에서 시작해 슈퍼연어 같은 GM 동물, 복제동물의 살코기와 우유 등이 우리 식탁을 점차 차지하고 있다, 인간을 포함한 수많은 동식물의 유전체를 해독하고 급기야 합성마저 수행하는 시대가 열리고 있다. 소비자의 입장에서 생명공학의 최신 성과가 던지는 의미를 고민하고자 한다.-필자

» 농가에서 재배된 옥수수. 출처/ Wikimedia Commons

뒤늦은 일이라 망설였지만 세계적으로 논란 중인 ‘유전자변형(GM) 옥수수 사건’ 얘기를 꺼내려 한다. 지난해 9월 프랑스 연구진이 전세계인이 이미 섭취하고 있는 GM 옥수수인 ‘엔케이603(NK603)’을 쥐에게 장기간 먹여본 실험 결과를 발표했다.1) 미국의 전문학술지에 게재된 이 연구 논문은 즉각 세계적인 반향을 일으켰다. 과학계에서 찬반 양론이 팽팽히 맞섰다.

하지만 대부분의 국가들은 문제가 없다는 쪽으로 가닥을 잡았다. 한국도 마찬가지였다. 비전문가인 소비자 입장에서 그 내용이 궁금해진다. 한국에서 NK603이 안전하다고 판단한 심사보고서가 공개돼 있다. 그리고 문제제기를 할 수 있는 절차도 마련돼 있다. 과연 국내 심사위원들은 어떤 근거로 안전성을 판단했을까. 한국 소비자가 충분히 문제를 제기할 수는 있을까. 결코 관련 내용을 파악하고 심사절차에 개입하는 일이 쉽지 않지만, GMO를 우려하는 소비자라면 진지하게 고민할 필요가 있는 사안이다.

전 생애에 걸친 첫 독성실험

프랑스 캉대학의 길레스-에릭 세랄리니 교수가 이끄는 연구진은 몬산토 사의 제초제 ‘라운드업’에 내성을 갖도록 만든 GM 옥수수 NK603와 제초제 라운드업을 쥐에게 먹이면서 신체 기능의 변화를 관찰했다. NK603은 2000년부터 2011년까지 세계 21개국 정부가 식품으로 승인한 품목이다. 한국 정부도 NK603을 2002년 식용, 2004년 사료용으로 승인한 이후 꾸준히 수입해왔다.

실험 대상은 암수 각 100마리씩 총 200마리의 쥐였다. 연구진은 암수 10마리씩이 포함된 10개 그룹을 만들었다. 1개 그룹(대조군)에는 일반 옥수수와 물을 먹였다. 3개 그룹은 일반 옥수수, 그리고 비율을 달리해 제초제를 섞은 물을 먹였다. 나머지 6개 그룹에게는 NK603을 비율을 달리 해 먹이로 제공했다. 이 가운데 3그룹은 제초제가 섞인 물, 나머지 3그룹은 보통 물을 먹였다. 즉 이 실험은 GM 옥수수와 제초제가 쥐의 건강에 미치는 영향을 파악하기 위해 설계됐다.

연구진은 실험결과 대조군에 비해 실험군에서 유선 종양, 간과 신장 손상이 크게 늘어났다는 점을 발견했다. 또한 암컷이 수컷에 비해 이상 증세가 심각하게 나타났다. 이는 NK603이나 라운드업에 대한 반응 민감도가 성(性)에 따라 달라진다는 점을 시사한다.

이 연구결과는 두 가지 측면에서 큰 충격을 던졌다. 첫째, 연구진의 논문이 미국의 전문학술지 <식품과 화학독성학(Food and Chemical Toxicology)>에 게재됐다는 점이다. 이전까지 GMO의 안전성을 둘러싼 과학적 논란은 많았지만 이번과 같은 권위 있는 학술지에 게재된 경우는 드물었다. 더욱이 이 학술지에는 2004년 NK603이 사료용으로 안전하다는 요지의 논문이 게재된 적이 있었으며, 이후 몬산토는 이 논문을 안전성의 주요 근거로 제시해오곤 했다. 하지만 동일한 학술지에 전혀 반대의 결과가 발표된 상황이 벌어진 것이다. 둘째, 연구진은 과거 실험들과 달리 쥐의 상태를 전 생애에 걸쳐 관찰했다. 보통 NK603을 비롯한 GMO의 쥐 실험은 최대 90일을 넘지 않지만 연구진은 쥐의 평균 수명기간인 2년 동안 관찰한 것이다.

NK603을 수입하거나 재배하고 있는 각국 정부는 이 충격적인 보고에 대한 입장을 밝혀야 했다. 이들이 주시한 것은 과학계의 검토 결과였다.

먼저 NK603의 안전성을 주장하는 과학계에서 프랑스 연구진에 대한 대대적인 비판이 시작됐다. 비판의 핵심은 실험 자체가 과학적으로 결함이 있어 그 결과를 신뢰할 수 없다는 것. 예를 들어 프랑스 연구진이 사용한 쥐가 원래 유선 종양에 잘 걸리는 종류라는 점, GM 옥수수가 곰팡이에 감염됐는지 여부가 제시되지 않아 NK603이 종양 발생의 확실한 원인이라고 장담할 수 없다는 점, 실험군에서 대조군에 비해 더 건강하게 생존한 쥐도 있으며 대조군 수가 실험군에 비해 너무 적어 신뢰할 수 없는 통계 자료와 기법을 통해 결과를 도출했다는 점 등이 지적됐다.

하지만 이런 내용은 논문 게재 과정에서 전문가 심사를 통해 충분히 검토된 사안들이었을 것이다. 보통 전문학술지는 해당 분야의 익명의 전문가들에게 의뢰해 투고된 논문의 문제점을 찾아내고 투고자에게 보완을 요구한다. 더욱이 프랑스 연구진처럼 민감한 사안에 대한 실험을 진행했을 경우 그 심사과정은 더욱 엄격해질 수밖에 없다. 물론 프랑스 연구진, 그리고 그 실험 결과에 지지를 보내는 일군의 과학자들은 비판 내용에 대해 조목조목 반박하고 나섰다.

한국 심사위원회가 판단한 근거

대부분의 국가는 비판적 과학자들의 의견을 수용하는 방향으로 입장을 정했다. 프랑스 연구진의 논문만으로 NK603이 위험하다고 판단할 수 없다는 결론이었다.

한국도 역시 마찬가지다. 2012년 12월 식품의약품안전청은 NK603의 안전성에 대한 심사결과 보고서를 제출했는데,2) 그 내용은 NK603은 안전하므로 계속 수입해 섭취해도 문제가 없다는 것이었다. 식약청은 이미 2002년 NK603에 대한 심사를 마쳤으며, 통상 10년이 경과된 시점에서 재심사를 수행하는 절차에 따라 2012년에 다시 심사 보고서를 작성했다. 마침 같은 해 9월 프랑스 연구진의 발표가 있었기 때문에, 보고서에는 연구진의 논문에 대한 평가가 수록돼 있다. 다소 길지만 해당 내용을 살펴보자.

Seralini 등(2012)은 NK603을 이용한 2년간의 만성독성연구를 수행하였다. 랫드에 NK603 또는 일반옥수수(대조군)가 포함된 사료(11%, 22%, 33%)를 2년간 섭취시킨 결과, 암컷 랫드에서는 높은 발암률, 조기 사망 등이 확인되었고, 수컷 랫드에서는 장기 손상 등이 확인되었다고 발표하였다.

 

<검토의견> 국제적으로 통용되는 OECD 453(만성독성/발암성 독성실험)가이드라인에서는 발암성 실험의 경우 군당 최소 50마리를 이용한 실험 결과의 통계학적 비교를 실시하도록 권고하고 있으나, 본 연구에서는 군당 10마리를 이용한 발암성 결과를 해석하여 OECD 가이드라인을 따르지 않았고, 통계분석을 하지 않아 실험군과 대조군간 유의미한 차이를 나타내는지 여부를 알 수 없다. 또한, 일반적으로 종양이 많이 발생하는 실험동물의 특성을 감안하는 정상범위(normal range)와의 비교를 실시하지 않았다.

 

조기 사망에 있어서도 통계분석을 실시하지 않아 유의미한 차이 여부를 해석할 수 없으며, 일부 실험군의 경우 대조군과 동등하거나 낮은 경우도 있어 일관성이 없다. 또한, 일관된 용량의존성이 확인되지 않았다.

 

장기 손상의 경우 해부병리학적 관찰로 실험군 수컷의 간·위장계·신장에서장기 손상을 주장하였으나, 정상범위와의 비교가 실시되지 않았으며, 연관지표해석을 위한 생화학적 분석 결과는 암컷의 신장 관련 지표만을 제시하여 독성 영향 여부를 명확하게 뒷받침하지 못하였다.

 

따라서, 실험 동물수의 부족·결과의 일관성 부족·통계분석 미실시에 따른 유의미한 차이 확인 불가 등으로 인해 본 논문의 결과만으로는 NK603이 유해하다고 판단할 수 없다.

 

유럽식품안전청(EFSA), 프랑스 식품환경노동위생안전청(ANSES) 및 생명공학 고등자문기관(HCB), 미국 식품의약국(FDA), 독일 연방위해평가원(Bfr), 호주/뉴질랜드 식품안전청(FSANZ), 일본 식품안전위원회, 캐나다 보건부(Health Canada), 네덜란드, 덴마크, 벨기에 등에서도 본 논문의 결과만으로는 NK603이 유해하다고 주장하기에는 타당한 과학적 근거가 부족하다고 지적하였다. [밑줄 -필자]

일단 대부분의 내용이 프랑스 연구진을 비판하는 외국 과학계와 정부의 입장과 동일하다. 국내 과학계에서는 프랑스 연구진을 옹호하는 입장이 전혀 없었던 것인지 궁금하다.

그리고 한 가지 눈에 띄는 표현이 있다. 발암률 또는 발암성(위 밑줄)이다. 일반인이라면 이 내용을 읽고 심사결과에 수긍했을 수 있다. 국제적으로 발암성 실험은 정해진 실험 절차에 따라야 공신력을 얻는다. 프랑스 연구진은 일단 쥐의 수가 부족해 자격미달인 실험을 수행한 셈이다.

하지만 실상은 그렇지 않다. 암과 종양은 다른 개념이다. 일반적으로 종양은 크게 양성 종양, 그리고 우리가 흔히 알고 있는 암을 의미하는 악성 종양으로 구분된다. 프랑스 연구진은 종양의 발생 자체를 보고했을 뿐 종양의 종류를 특정하지는 않았다. 즉 종양이 얼마나 발생하는지 여부를 판단하는 독성 실험을 수행했기 때문에 발암성 실험을 위한 국제적 실험 기준을 따르지 않아도 됐다(이 내용은 프랑스 연구진의 반박 주장에서 따온 것이다). 그런데도 한국의 심사보고서는 굳이 발암이라는 단어를 명시하며 자격 미달의 주요 근거로 제시한 것이다.

난해한 전문용어, 소비자는 이해하기 어렵다

만일 소비자 입장에서 심사결과에 문제를 제기하고 싶다면 어떻게 해야 할까. 국내에서는 법적으로 소비자의 참여 기회를 보장하고 있다. 전문가로 구성된 심사위원회의 최종 보고서가 작성된 뒤 그 결과에 대해 일반인의 의견을 수렴하는 절차가 마련돼 있다. 예를 들어 식품의약품안전처의 유전자재조합식품(GMO) 정보 사이트에는 공지사항 코너에서 심사위원회의 최종보고서가 계속 올라오고 있다. 일반인의 의견 수렴 기간은 20일 정도이다. 이 기간 안에 현재 승인을 기다리고 있는 GMO 품목에 대해 의견을 개진할 수 있는 것이다.

하지만 이 과정에 참여하는 데에는 큰 어려움이 있다. 무엇보다 심사 보고서는 전문용어로 가득하다. 더욱이 사이트에는 다음과 같은 말이 명시돼 있다. “다만, 안전성 심사는 과학적 사실에 근거하여 이루어지므로 제출 의견은 과학적 사실과 논리에 입각한 경우에 한하여 검토할 수 있습니다.” 내용 자체를 이해하기도 어려운 상황인데, 과학적 근거를 갖추고 문제를 제기하지 않으면 그 의견이 채택될 가능성은 아예 없어 보인다. 하지만 이 과정은 GMO의 판매가 국내에서 승인되는 주요 절차인 동시에, 일반인이 GMO 승인에 대해 문제를 제기할 수 있는 핵심적인 제도적 장치임이 분명하다.

뒤늦은 얘기이지만 가령 2012년 국내 NK603의 재승인 과정에서 여론 수렴 과정에 참여해, 프랑스 연구진을 지지하는 외국 과학계의 핵심 주장을 근거로 국내 심사보고서에 문제를 제기할 수 있지 않을까. 물론 일반 소비자의 이해를 돕기 위해 국내 과학계가 정보를 제공하고 함께 고민할 수 있는 공간이 마련된다면 좋을 것이다. 사실 외국 과학계의 논란의 핵심인 실험방법, 통계방법 등은 일반인이 이해하기에 너무 어렵다.

• 
  김경준기자 ultrakj75@hk.co.kr