READ ONLY IF YOU'RE SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN THE FLAVR SAVR STORY, OR ARE INTERESTED IN THE ISSUE OF GENETIC MODIFICATION AND THE BIOCHEMISTRY OF FOODS IN EXPERIMENTATION
The Flavr Savr tomatoes did not, in fact, make people sick. This is a misperception which can be traced back to a television broadcast featuring an interview with Dr Árpád Pusztai on Granada Television's programme "World in Action" (episode "Eat your genes") in 1998, and what followed on directly as a result of that interview. An unpublished and unfinished study formed the basis of Dr Pusztai's statements.
Pusztai knew at the time that he was on dubious ground because he gave the false impression that his data was complete, that the study was finsihed (and it wasn't), and that he had the right to draw conclusions from a study not yet finished and make public statements in the public media on the basis of those conclusions (and he did not have that right). Rowett Institute Director Philip James had initially given permission for the interview, but was shocked when Pusztai went beyond the permission, because that permission did not apply to unpublished data.
Pusztai was suspended as a result of this.The media began publishing and broadcasting about the genetically modified potatoes Pusztai had referred to.
And in that lay the stage for yet another horrible misunderstanding.
By some ghastly assumption, someone or several someones at the Rowett Institute jumped to the conclusion that all of this negative press about genetically modified potatoes was referring to a different (second) line of genetic modification research on potatoes. The second line was nothing to do with developing potatoes for testing by consumption. NOTHING AT ALL. That was not intended, was never intended, would never have been intended to be thus tested.
Because of that misunderstanding, the Rowett Institute issued a press release in which the first line of experiments was confused with that second line of study - so that it was wrongly stated that concanavalin A (ConA) (which is a lectin which is toxic to mammalian life) was used in the experiments with genetically modified potatoes.
Worth stressing: such potatoes were (and I cannot stress it sufficiently) absolutely not tested. Their toxicity was recognised and these were not ever researched with the intention of testing them - that's not what that particular line of research/study was aiming at. Someone at the Institute just made an error by confusing two different lines of research. The experiments whicih Pusztai had been talking about, and which were being tested, were potatoes which had been genetically modified with the Galanthus nivalis agglutinin (GNA) gene which comes from the snowdrop plant.
Now that that's clear, let me get back to the media release by the Institute. Oh lord. You can just imagine how well that media release went down. The confusion by the Institute was magnified times a thousand by the media who thought they'd been told that toxic potatoes were to be released/were being sold. They of course publicised this; the public gave a huge outcry (as they should have had the toxic potatoes really been intended for consumption!). Both the Agricultural Minister and the scientist Sir Robert May issued public statements in which they spoke of the effects of the genetically modified potatoes of which Pusztai had spoken in the television interview, and naturally said this was to be expected since the GM potatoes contains toxins. Public outcry magnitude became even larger.
Because of these cumulative misunderstandings, GM foods faced such negative press that several "brands" were tainted by the public misperception. FLAVR SAVR tomatoes are one such casualty. These tomatoes were not mentioned in Pusztai's interview, but suffered the consequence from the fallout.
There is no biochemical reason to suppose that FLAVR SAVR tomatoes would have posed any risk to consumers. I cannot speak about whether the flavour was any better; research into tomato flavour has only quite recently found just why it is that the modern tomato strains lack the flavour of those richly delicious tomatoes of thirty or forty years ago; thank goodness that with that identification, the flavour is being bred back in.
As far as Pusztai's career is concerned, he suffered just as much in the aftermatch as did the GM potatoes over whose experiments he had presided. There's no doubt he breached the rules in releasing unpublished data through the "popular media" rather than allowing the study to be completed and then to be properly written up, peer-reviewed, and published as normal for scientific research.
It's also significant that there has been divided response to Pusztai's study once it WAS completed. The Rowett Institute deemed Pusztai's conclusions not to be supported by the data. One response by combined scientists in Friends ot the Earth disagreed. (There's little doubt that political considerations and public pressure were factors at play.) Unusually, the Royal Society organised a peer review of the study, which found that the methodology of the study was not up to standard and that the experiments were poorly designed, so that the data coud not be relied upon. Then in stepped The Lancet with an editorial letter publishing the test data and giving a round telling off to Pusztai and to the Royal Society - indeed, no one escaped censure! The letter's conclusion was that Pusztai's conclusion was not supported; there was no difference in growth or immune factors between the test rats and the control rats involved in the testing of the GM potatoes (NOT THE TOXIC POTATOES - THEY WERE NEVER TESTED, REMEMBER). That letter was reviewed by six reviewers who disagreed slightly with each other about it, but the end result was that the letter was indeed published.
There you have it. Everything you ever wanted to know (or didn't want to know) about why the FLAVR SAVR tomatoes were not commercially successful. It all came down to a series of bungles... a sort-of media Keystone Crops.
