Below are three different versions of the same report. I was asked to do a report on Genetically Modified Food for CPTM (Commonwealth Partnership for Technology Management). Over a thousand copies of a short two page version of it was sent out to the members of CPTM. The short version is the first one below. The second version is an intermediate in length and it is being provided by CPTM to key members in Southern Africa where the issues involved are critical. The third entry is the longer original,version which is provided here for reference only. The work on the shorter versions (as noted below) was done by the London staff of CPTM with inputs from CPTM members and scientists from CPTM countries.

Thomas R. DeGregori

Version 1



 

This brief was initiated by Sir Ketumile Masire (CPTM Fellow) during a discussion at the CPTM Hub in November 2002.  It is derived from a longer version of text written by Tom DeGregori, as well as text by Don Corbett, which can be made available to any who are interested. Thanks to the two authors, and also to Tan Sri Omar Abdul Rahman for his contribution.

If you wish to be further informed on current thoughts in the agricultural biotechnology debate, you may want to consult the special issue of “Science and Public Policy,” Volume 29, Number 4, August 2002, on innovation strategies in European agricultural life sciences, published in Great Britain by William Page, Beech Tree Publishing.  Journal articles can be accessed for free through www.scipol.demon.co.uk. William Page is a founding member of CPTM and can be reached at page@scipol.demon.co.uk.

Preface

Throughout human history, agricultural crops have been genetically modified in some manner or other.  There is nothing “natural” about our food crops as most of them would be unable to either propagate or survive without human intervention.  What has changed over the years is the technology that has been used to bring about the genetic modification.

In the past, we used selective breeding and cross breeding, followed by various methods (involving the use of nuclear radiation and chemical mutagens) to cause mutations.  With new developments in genomics, we can choose what character to be genetically codified in the plant or food crop.

But no matter the technique, the purpose has always been to increase productivity and increase resistance to pests, as well as to modify crops to grow in adverse conditions such as drought-prone and flood-prone lands, or places with poor soil conditions.

All of us have consumed genetically modified foods at some point in our lives.  Without these developments in technology, the world would not have been able to support the food needs of its ever increasing population.

 

Genetic Modification A Primer

The term "genetically modified" is technically a misnomer as all food crops have undergone genetic modification through human intervention over a period of several thousands of years. The correct term is "transgenic" crops but we will bow to current usage and use the term "genetic modification" alongside transgenic.

In general, humans have undertaken one of three methods to genetically modify our plant crops:

Conventional breeding: In the past, farmers practiced selective breeding and cross breeding or what we call conventional breeding. Conventional breeding is less precise and predictable and therefore the less safe than transgenic plant breeding. The process has worked well, as humans using conventional plant breeding were able through time to increase the yields in agriculture and either support a larger population and/or improve human nutrition. The high yielding dwarf varieties of wheat and rice that produced the Green Revolution were the result of conventional breeding.

Down to the last half of the 19th century, most plant breeding was largely a matter of selection and cross breeding. Occasionally crosses between separate species were made, either as a result of human action or some unexplained "natural" happening. Wheat is a product of two different transpecies crosses of plant with different chromosomal structures. From Darwin onward, plant breeding became more sophisticated but it was not until Mendel discovered the mechanisms of inheritance in 1865 that plant breeding could become more scientific and predictable.

During the 1920s, advanced pollination techniques were used to create hybrid maize, a major but accepted genetic modification, which far outyielded normal or "natural" maize. However, seed saved from hybrid maize for planting reverts to its original parents and yields much less than the hybrid. This means that the farmer has to buy new seed each year but the increased yield normally makes that effort worthwhile many times over. For this reason, hybrid maize has become the number one food crop of Africa.

Mutagenesis: The next method to follow in this technology continuum involved the use of nuclear radiation or chemical mutagens to bring about mutations, albeit in a rather hit-or-miss manner. This method is called mutagenesis, and has the predictable outcome of all forms of plant breeding, but the technology is accepted and has escaped the label of "genetic modification," presumably because these techniques have been around for more than half a century. Many if not most of our current foods have been developed or modified using mutagenesis. However, the production of mutants is totally unpredictable and even more of a lottery than conventional breeding. The only advantage of the powerful, and sometimes lethal, genetic mutagens, is that they produce a great many more mutations than occur naturally, thus generating the variability that breeders need for introducing new characteristics into their plants. The Food and Agriculture Organization/International Atomic Energy Agency's Mutant Varieties Database Register (December 2000) lists over 2252 crops in over 70 countries in which these mutant varieties are listed. Key varieties are grown and/or eaten in virtually every country. The barley used in commercial beers around the world as well as the wheats used to make pasta are all products of radiation mutation breeding. It is fair to say that it is virtually certain that all those protesting against genetically modified organisms in Europe and North America have been consuming them in various forms for some time with no known ill effects.

Genetic engineering: With the discovery of the structure of DNA in the 1950s, and a greatly improved understanding of the process of inheritance, the way became clear for transgenic technology or genetic engineering. This, for the first time, enabled desirable characteristics expressed by a gene or small group of genes from any organism to be specifically transferred to another organism. This is a difficult process in plants, done under precisely controlled conditions, under which the gene, together with a marker, is incorporated in plant tissue, which is then grown in tissue culture to produce plants. At this stage the plant is subject to initial evaluation, ensuring that the gene has indeed transferred successfully and stably, produces the desired trait and there are no unintended effects on plant growth or quality. Once plants have passed this hurdle they are then used in crossing programmes with crop plants that have the desirable commercial qualities, to produce the finished variety for use by farmers.

The gene transfer process is far more precise than the other accepted procedures, but, illogically, is condemned. Genetic modification also permits desirable plant transformations to be performed that have not been possible using conventional breeding, e.g. the Bt gene, genes for Vitamin A enhancement.

By the early 1980s, the first transgenic plants had been produced, with identifiable genes incorporated in the host plant's genome, using procedures for working directly with the genes. Although these first gene transfers were in laboratory plants only, work on transferring genes to commercial crops soon started. So, for example, the genes responsible for expressing an insect toxin in the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, was transferred to cotton, maize and potato to control insect attacks in these crops.

Benefits

Genetic modification (or engineering) permits plant breeders to do things they have been totally unable to do with historic methods of breeding. Thus the benefits are immeasurable. Just two examples will show the potential for transforming people's lives that genetic modification provides.

Cotton is grown in many countries in Africa under small holder farming conditions. On these farms it has to be sprayed with insecticide about eight times during the growing season to protect crops against bollworms (caterpillars) that damage the bolls and make the lint unmarketable. Introduction of the Bt gene in cotton means that the same or better control of bollworm is achieved without spraying, saving in environmental damage since the insecticides which are replaced are not specific and can kill beneficial insects or other non-target organisms, saving in water (important where water is scarce) and a large saving in farmers' time, which allows for more of his time to be spent growing food crops.

Half a million children in less developed countries become blind through Vitamin A deficiency every year. To combat this, expensive and cumbersome food supplement programmes are put in place but even so are not wholly successful. Conventional plant breeding has been applied to this problem for many years without success. Genetic engineering has produced yellow rice with enhanced Vitamin A precursor level through the introduction of genes from the daffodil and a bacterium. Where rice is the staple diet, this new quality should contribute to ridding the less developed countries of the scourge of this particular blindness.

Populist Fears

Genetic modification or engineering of crop plants has generated far more adverse reactions than the informed guesswork that preceded it. The fears are based on the extraordinary power of this new technology, but are rationalised to concentrate principally on two potential factors:

 þ Concern for human heatlh;
 þ_Concern for the environment.

Exhaustive tests have been carried out to determine if genetically modified crops carry an increased risk of allergic reactions or other effects in people eating them. There is no evidence so far that this or any other adverse reaction or nutritional problem has been caused in people eating these crops, even after the production of over 400 million acres of these products.

Damage to the environment has been postulated to be a possible result of growing transgenic crops. The fears include the escape of genes into related wild plants, adverse effects of insect toxins (in the case of crops with the Bt gene) on desirable insects, transfer of antibiotic resistance. While these may be theoretical possibilities in some instances, no significant detrimental effects have been detected, largely because these genes, that can transfer to closely related plants do not have any negative impact, even if transferred, because the Bt genes and encoded proteins do not negatively effect beneficial inserts and because the antibiotic resistance genes are already prevalent in the soil, in the human gut and throughout the environment.

Several factors lessen the likelihood of damage to the environment, demanding a case by case analysis. Some crop plants and their wild relatives are self-pollinated, so there is no opportunity for gene transfer to take place. Others have no wild relatives in the local flora, e.g. maize in the United States and in Europe, so the local environment does not have suitable plants as recipients of these genes. Transfer of antibiotic resistance from transgenic plants into the soil micro flora is very unlikely and has not been convincingly demonstrated. Even if there were transfer, these genes are ubiquitous in the soil microflora already.

Regulatory Control

The established benefits far outweigh the theoretical risks, but because the theoretical risks are understood and accepted, genetic modification is done under strict regulatory control. Understandably, Western European and North American governments are greatly concerned for the health and safety of their populations, so they have introduced a comprehensive and complex array of regulations which molecular biologists, breeders and agronomists involved in breeding and evaluating transgenic crops have to obey. In these countries, scientists proposing work with any genes and their transfer to plants need to have their experimental protocols and research proposals approved by government scientific committees, expert committees at institution level and sometimes even from national expert committees if their proposals meet certain criteria.

After transgenic crop plants have been produced and selected for multiplication and commercial use, the safety and nutritional aspects of food based on the harvested produce is evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and similar bodies in Western Europe with the intention of protecting their own populations. These bodies will not permit genetically modified crops into the human or animal food chain until they re satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the food is as safe and nutritious as the conventional crop varieties.

Conclusion

The process and result of genetic modification or engineering have been subject to the closest scrutiny by the world's best scientists. These plants and the foods derived from them are among the most extensively tested plants and foods that have been developed, to assure the consumers that these products are safe to the environment and to consume. The National Academies of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, United States, United Kingdom and the Third World Academy of Sciences have met and concluded: "It is critical that the potential benefits of GM technology become available to developing countries."

They also "conclude that steps must be taken to meet the urgent need for sustainable practices in world agriculture if the demands of an expanding world population are to be met without destroying the environment or natural resource base. In particular, GM technology coupled with important developments in other areas should be used to increase the production of main food staples, improve the efficiency of production, reduce the environmental impact of agriculture and provide access to food for small scale farmers."

It is wholly wrong for certain groups, who themselves are not short of food, to play on and exaggerate the natural fears of a powerful new and little understood technology. In doing this, they deny less fortunate people the food and other benefits that genetic modification offers, in some cases condemning to death millions suffering famine and denied food aid because it is from genetically modified crops.


Version 2

Genetically Modified Crops
Introduction

Genetic Modification literally means modifying the genetic makeup of living organisms by any means. However, it is now accepted in popular usage to cover only those organisms that have had their genomes altered by direct insertion of genetic material using genetic engineering procedures. The resulting organisms are technically called transgenic.

There is nothing "natural" about our food crops as most of them, after thousands of years of cultivation, would be unable either to propagate or survive without human intervention. They have been developed as a result of conventional breeding, which is based largely on informed guesswork and selection from thousands of seedlings resulting from crossing programmes. Nevertheless, the process has worked well as humans using conventional plant breeding were able through time to increase the yields in agriculture and either support a larger population and/or improve human nutrition. The high yielding varieties of wheat and rice that produced the Green Revolution were the result of conventional breeding.

A History of Plant Breeding

Down to the last half of the 19th century, most plant breeding was largely a matter of selection and cross breeding. Occasionally crosses between separate species were made, either as a result of human action or some unexplained "natural" happening. Wheat is a product of two different transpecies crosses of plants with different chromosomal structures. From Darwin onward, plant breeding became more sophisticated but it was not until Mendel discovered the mechanisms of inheritance in 1865 that plant breeding could become more scientific and predictable.

During the 1920s advanced pollination techniques were used to create hybrid maize, a major but accepted genetic modification, which far outyielded normal "natural" open-pollinated maize. However seed from hybrid maize saved for planting reverts to its original parents and yields much less than the hybrid. This means that the farmer has to buy new seed each year but the increased yield normally makes that effort worthwhile many times over. For this reason, hybrid maize has become the number one food crop of Africa.

During the whole of this period plant breeders made "wide" crosses, using plant breeding and cytological techniques: rust resistance in wheat was introduced from an unrelated grass, nematode resistance in potatoes from a different species of Solanum, a new crop Triticale, produced by crosses between wheat and rye. In the twentieth century, deliberate crosses between species have been so frequent that nearly every human being alive today has regularly eaten a food crop that is the product of such crosses, so there is nothing inherently unsafe in the product of genes introduced from distantly or even unrelated species.

Mutagenesis, which is a drastic genetic change caused by nuclear radiation or chemical mutagens, has the least predictable outcome of all forms of plant breeding. But the technology is accepted and has escaped the label of "genetic modification", presumably because these techniques have been hallowed by half a century of use. However, the production of mutants is totally unpredictable and even more of a lottery than conventional crossing. The only advantage of the powerful, and sometimes lethal, mutagens is that they produce a great many more mutations than occur naturally, thus generating the variability breeders need for introducing new characteristics into their plants. The FAO/IAEA (Food and Agriculture Organization/International Atomic Energy Agency) Mutant Varieties Database (December 2000) register lists over 2252 crops in over 70 countries in which these mutant varieties are listed. Key varieties are grown and/or eaten in virtually every country. The barley used in commercial beers around the world as well as the wheats used to make pasta are all products of radiation mutation breeding. It is fair to say that it is virtually certain that all those protesting against genetically modified organisms in Europe and North America have been consuming them in various forms for some time with no known ill effects.

Genetic Modification (or Engineering)

With the discovery of the structure of DNA in the 1950s, and a greatly improved understanding of the way genetic information is expressed and transferred, the path became clear for transgenic technology or genetic engineering. This, for the first time, enabled desirable characteristics expressed by a gene or small group of genes from any organism to be transferred to virtually any other living organism. This is a difficult process, done under precisely controlled conditions. In plants, the gene, together with a marker, is incorporated in plant tissue, which is then grown on in tissue culture to produce plants. At this stage the plant is subject to initial evaluation, ensuring that the gene has indeed transferred successfully and produces the desired trait and there are no unintended effects on plant growth or quality. Once plants have passed this hurdle they are then used in crossing programmes with crop plants that have the desirable commercial qualities, to produce the finished variety for use by farmers.

The gene transfer process is far more precise than the accepted procedures that follow it to produce a commercial crop plant but, illogically, are condemned. Genetic modification also permits desirable plant transformations to be performed that have not been possible using conventional breeding, eg. the Bt gene, genes for Vitamin A enhancement.

By the early 1980s the first transgenic plants had been produced, with identifiable genes incorporated in the host plant's genome, using procedures for working directly with the genes. Although these first gene transfers were in laboratory plants only, work on transferring genes to commercial crops soon started, so, for example, the genes responsible for expressing an insect toxin in the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis were transferred to cotton, maize and potato to control insect attacks in these crops.

Benefits

Genetic modification (or engineering) permits plant breeders to do things they have been totally unable to do with historic methods of breeding. Thus the benefits are immeasurable. Just two examples will show the potential for transforming people's lives that genetic modification gives.

Cotton is grown in many countries in Africa under small holder farming conditions, and everywhere has to be sprayed with insecticide about eight times in the course of the growing season to protect crops against bollworms (caterpillars) that damage the bolls and make the lint unmarketable. Introduction of the Bt gene in cotton means that the same or better control of bollworm is achieved without spraying, saving in environmental damage, since the insecticides which are replaced are not specific and can kill beneficial insects or other non-target organisms, saving in water (important where water is scarce) and a large saving in farmers' time, which allows for more of his time to be spent growing food crops.

Half a million children in less developed countries become blind through Vitamin A deficiency every year. To combat this, expensive and cumbersome food supplement programmes are put in place but even so are not wholly successful. Conventional plant breeding has been applied to this problem for many years without success. Genetic engineering has produced yellow rice with enhanced Vitamin A precursor levels through the introduction of genes from the daffodil and a bacterium. Where rice is the staple diet, this new quality should contribute to ridding the less developed countries of the scourge of this particular blindness.

Populist Fears.

Genetic modification or engineering of crop plants has generated far more adverse reactions than the informed guesswork that preceded it. The fears are based on the extraordinary power of this new technology, but are rationalised to concentrate principally on two factors:

* concern for human health;
* concern for the environment.

Exhaustive tests have been carried out to see if genetically modified crops carry an increased risk of allergic reactions in people eating them. There is no evidence so far that this or any other adverse reaction or nutritional problem have been caused in people eating these crops.
 
Damage to the environment has been postulated to be a possible result of growing genetically engineered crops. The fears include the escape of genes into related wild plants, adverse effects of insect toxins (in the case of crops with the Bt gene) on desirable insects, transfer of antibiotic resistance. While these may be theoretical possibilities in some instances, no significant long-lasting effects have been detected, largely because such gene transfers have happened, but the incidents are rare and any genes transferred to the wild are attenuated by the strong buffering capacity of other plants in the environment.

Several factors lessen the likelihood of damage to the environment, demanding a case by case analysis. Some crop plants and their wild relatives are self-pollinated, so there is no opportunity for gene transfer to take place. Others have no wild relatives in the local flora, eg. maize in United States and in Europe, so the local environment does not have suitable plants as recipients of these genes. Transfer of antibiotic resistance into the soil micro flora is very unlikely and has not been convincingly demonstrated because many soil microbes produce their own antibiotics and defenses against antibiotics secreted by competing microbes.

Regulatory Control

The benefits far outweigh the risks, but because the theoretical risks are understood and accepted, genetic modification is done under strict regulatory control. Understandably Western European and North American governments are greatly concerned for the health and safety of their populations, so they have introduced a comprehensive and complex array of regulations which molecular biologists, breeders and agronomists involved in breeding and evaluating transgenic crops have to obey. In these countries scientists proposing work with any genes and their transfer to plants need to have their experimental protocols and research proposals approved by regulatory authorities, expert committees at institution level and sometimes even from national expert committees if their proposals are unusual or represent new factors.

After transgenic crop plants have been produced and selected for multiplication and commercial use, the safety and nutritional aspects of food based on the harvested produce is evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and similar bodies in Western Europe. These bodies will not permit genetically modified crops into the human or animal food chain until they are satisfied beyond doubt that the food is as safe and nutritious as the preceding crop varieties.

Conclusion
The process and results of genetic modification or engineering have been subject to the closest scrutiny by the World's best scientists. The National Academies of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, United States, United Kingdom and the Third World Academy of Sciences have met and concluded: "It is critical that the potential benefits of GM technology become available to developing countries".

They also "conclude that steps must be taken to meet the urgent need for sustainable practices in world agriculture if the demands of an expanding world population are to be met without destroying the environment or natural resource base. In particular, GM technology coupled with important developments in other areas should be used to increase the production of main food staples, improve the efficiency of production, reduce the environmental impact of agriculture and provide access to food for small scale farmers".

It is wholly wrong for certain groups, who themselves are not short of food, to play on and exaggerate the natural fears of a new and powerful technology. By doing this they prevent less fortunate people taking advantage of the food and other benefits that genetic modification brings, in some cases condemning to death millions suffering famine and denied food aid because it is genetically modified..
---------------------------------------------------------

Version 3


A Primer on Genetically Modified Food

The term Genetically Modified is technically a misnomer as all food crops have undergone genetic modification through human intervention. The correct term is "transgenic" crops but we will bow to current usage and use the term genetic modification along with transgenic.

There is nothing "natural" about our food crops as most of them would be unable to either propagate or survive without human intervention. Conventional breeding is less precise and predictable and therefore less safe than transgenic plant breeding. In crossing two varieties of wheat, for example, to add a disease resistant trait to an otherwise productive food crop, we are combining about 50,000 genes or about 15 billion nucleotide base pairs. Even after the disease resistant trait is identified in some of the crosses, and after a series (6 or 7) of "back crosses" with the original variety, there will still be about 3,000 "alien" genes in the original plant. We don't know where these genes have landed in the genome or what toxins that they may express or under what conditions that they will express them.

The process has worked well as humans using conventional plant breeding were able through time to increase the yields in agriculture and either support a larger population and/or improve human nutrition. Nevertheless, some of our established food crops, such as ground and tree nuts, are allergenic to the point of being fatal to some individuals. And any number of new varieties, particularly for a crop like potatoes (a member along with tomatoes of the deadly nightshade family), have had to be withdrawn from cultivation because they "over expressed" a toxin. Plants have no way of defending themselves other that by expressing a toxin. They are chemical factories that produce an array of nutrients and toxins. For our food crops, the nutrients are in far greater volume than the toxins but nothing that we eat is totally free of toxins, some of which are carcinogenic (cancer causing) if ingested in large enough quantities through time.

It is true that down to the last half of the 19th century, most plant breeding was largely a matter of selective and cross breeding. Occasionally the species barrier was broken, either as a result of human action or some unexplained "natural" happening. Wheat is a product of two different transpecies crosses of plants with different chromosomal structures. From Darwin onward, plant breeding became more sophisticated and breeders such as Luther Burbank (the Burbank Russet potato among his many food and ornamental plants) were accused of crossing species boundaries in their breeding. Burbank was a pioneer in hybridization which bore fruit in terms of greatly increased yields in the develop of hybrid corn (maize) in the 1920s. Hybrid corn preceded the High Yielding Varieties (HYVs) of dwarf wheat and rice in the Green Revolution. These three grains account for about two-thirds of all food production in the world. Hybridization is quite "unnatural." Saving seed from the crop and planting it leads to greatly reduced yields as it reverts to its original crosses. This means that the farmer has to go into the market each year to buy new seed but the increased yield normally makes that effort worthwhile many times over. For this reason, hybrid maize has become the number one food crop of Africa.

In the twentieth century, the species barrier has been regularly crossed such that nearly every human being alive today has regularly eaten a food crop that is the product of such crosses. In the 1920s and early 1930s, there were experiments using radiation to create mutations. This was followed by the use of mutating (and carcinogenic) chemicals such as the alkaloid colchicine (C22H25NO6) in plant breeding to achieve a doubling in chromosome number which allowed diploids and haploids to be crossed. Other mutation causing chemicals such as nitrogen mustard and ethyl methane sulphonate were also used to allow crossing of the species barrier.

Since the 1950s, plant breeders have been exposing seeds to heavy doses of gamma rays from a nuclear source, resulting in severe, widespread and random genetic change. The FAO/IAEA (Food and Agriculture Organization/International Atomic Energy Agency) Mutant Varieties Database (December 2000) register lists over 2252 crops in over 70 countries in which these mutant varieties are listed. Key varieties are grown and/or eaten in virtually every country. The barley used in commercial beers around the world as well as the wheats used to make pasta are all products of radiation mutation breeding. It is fair to say that it is virtually certain that all those protesting "mutant grub" in Europe and North American have been consuming it in various forms for some time with no known ill effects.

Mutagenesis which is genetic change caused by nuclear radiation or chemical mutagens has the least predictable outcome of all forms of plant breeding except conventional, yet has until now escaped the label of being genetically modified, since these techniques have been around for more than a half a century. Somehow, those who oppose Genetically Modified foods are able to proclaim crops produced by these various methods to be conventional with many being used by farmers claiming to be "organic."

The mutation breeding of the 1930s onward gave rise to other forms of breeding that either involved transiting the species barrier or breaking done the basic chromosomal structure of the plant. In some cases a sterile mutation plant was made fertile by radiation which changed the "ploidy." In others the mutation or the wide crosses were fertile but required a process called embryo rescue to keep the plant from aborting.

Modern breeding since the 1950s also includes other methods such as protoplast fusion and somoclonal variation. Some species crosses have produced entirely new plants such as triticale, a hybrid of rye and wheat widely used as animal feed and indirectly eaten by most all of us. In fact, cattle breeders around the world are growing and using as feed any number of species crosses called cheatgrass and quackgrass.

The European Union recognizes that all of these are forms of "genetic modification" and then specifically excludes from the definition that they use in their protectionist regulations (the U.S. uses its own devious devices for protectionism). Conveniently, the EU excludes foodstuffs made using transgenic enzymes since it would adversely effect the export of their breads, wines and cheeses which use them. The biosafety protocol agreed upon in Montreal specifically excluded transgenic pharmaceuticals which includes the most widely used Aids drug. An increasing proportion of new drugs involved transgenics while most all of them at one stage of the process or another use transgenic mice in their development and/or testing. If genetic modification were inherently dangerous, then it would be even worse for pharmaceuticals, many of which directly enter the blood, while the novel protein in a transgenic crop has to survive the stomach acid. Even detergents have genetically modified enzymes for removing dirt and stains, replacing more environmentally destructive ingredients.

One has to question why the NGOs have made such as ruckus about transgenic using rDNA (recombinant DNA or Deoxyribonucleic acid) to frighten the public. We should not forget that the NGOs who attack their critics as somehow bought off by the multi-nations, have their own agendas and biases and they also are revenue maximizing institutions. Many of these Northern NGOs and their fully funded Southern subsidiaries, are the same ones who do not believe that African (and Asian) countries have a right to build dams to generate hydro-electric power or have the right to set their own wildlife and environmental policies.

If there are any two things that the public in developed countries have phobias about, they are "chemicals" (which has become a code word for industrially produced chemicals) which are all assumed to be carcinogenic (cancer causing) and radiation which is assumed to cause cancer and mutations. Most of these phobias have been carefully promoted by the same NGOs that attack transgenic breeding so one wonders why they are so extremely silent about the use of "chemicals" and radiation in plant breeding, particularly when they also actively oppose the use of irradiation of foods to kill micro-organisms (a technique of food protection that has been used in Africa for over 40 years). Starting with a blank slate of public opinion on plant breeding, it would be far easier to frighten them about chemical and radiation breeding than about the insertion of a single gene plus a promoter and a marker. The promoter is simply a DNA sequence which allows the gene to be expressed while current techniques require the use of marker genes. Every technique of plant breeding developed before the development of rDNA had far more unknowns and far less ability to achieve a desired outcome. A cynic might conclude that current opposition to transgenic modification was simply opportunism combined with deliberate misinformation on the part of the NGOs who found a way to frighten people, get good publicity, gain new members and raise money. Attacking the otherwise far more vulnerable (vulnerable in terms of existing prejudices) mutation breeding would force the abandonment of most everything we eat. Given that we have consumed so many of them for so long, would make mutation breeding more difficult to attack so the critics simply pretend that it does not exist. The issue becomes truly serious when their antics make it difficult to deliver food aid to a famine stricken population.

Plant biotechnology began in the early 1930s, when scientists in the United States and France were able to grow and keep plant cell cultures alive. Tissue culture as a form of plant breeding became a major force by the 1980s. It was far less time consuming than traditional breeding and the fact that most every developing country has one or more tissue culture labs (I have visited literally hundreds of them in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean) means that it is cost effective for poor countries. The method became even more efficient in the 1990s with the ability to understand the hormonal control of plant development in order to use cells and tissues of plants to generate otherwise normal and fertile plants. There is no question that this process involves genetic modification.

Transgenic breeding using rDNA had its origins in the 1971 discovery of restriction endonuclease (enzymes) to cut DNA and insert another gene and thereby create transgenic organisms by genetic engineering. Paul Berg was able to use this technique to genetically engineer a molecule which was followed by Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer transferring a single gene using small bacterial DNA called plasmids to create a transgenic organism (a bacteria). In addition to the ability to add a gene, transgenic technology also allows for gene silencing or even "knocking-out" a gene. "Gene silencing" can silence genes that express an allergenic protein. This has already been done for the genes for the allergenic P34 protein in soybeans responsible for half of soy allergies. Or one can get existing genes to express more of a desired component such as increasing the thioredoxin production of a plant such as wheat and therefore make it less allergenic.

In the early 1970s, the pace of change in biotechnology was so rapid and its potential so enormous that scientists themselves were concerned that the science and technology not outrun our ability to use it wisely, constructively and ethically. This inspired Paul Berg, Nobel Prize winner and biotechnology pioneer, to call for a moratorium on research until a conference could be held to explore its implications and set guidelines for its use. This led to the famous Asilomar Conference (technically, the National Academy of Sciences's Conference on Recombinant DNA) in February 1975 in Pacific Grove, California which brought together leading scientist and others to explore every aspect of the issues involving biotechnology. Asilomar has been an ongoing discussion that continues down to the present (with a formal Asilomar II in 2000). Research protocols were drawn up and research has continued with a flow of genetically engineered products benefiting humans beginning with the approval of transgenic insulin in 1982. Discussing the moral, ethical and societal implications of science and technology is as never-ending a process as is science and technology. One wonders, how many of the anti-genetic engineering organizations have ever called for a moratorium on their criticism and held meetings to discuss the implications of their actions (such as people dying f famine) rather than meeting to discuss strategies for disrupting scientific and human progress. Most of those calling for a moratorium on genetic modification seem unaware that in effect, there was one and the critical issues were discussed. Where were they?

There have been a large number of studies on the safety of genetically modified (transgenic) crops both for the environment and for human consumption. A 1987 study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found that it was the most precise, predictable form of plant breeding ever devised by humans and therefore the safest. Even though it is the safest, it is the only one that has to be tested and be approved in the United States (and elsewhere with equivalent requirements) both by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Agriculture. In fact, the latest NAS report recommend continuing these requirements on the basis that it is the only form of plant breeding capable of being pre-tested. All other varieties can be registered (if they wanted patent protection) but need not be and simply sold, planted with their crops harvested and sold without any regulation.

Over the latest decade or so, dozens of international and nation scientific organizations with expertise relevant to the issues of safety, have set up committees, issued reports all of which attest to the safety of genetically modified crops. These include, organizations of molecular biologists, microbiologists, medical professionals, immunologists, plant physiologists, toxicologists, various food technologists and nutritionists and on and on it goes. The British Medical Association, during the height of the controversy in the UK, called for a moratorium but never suggested that it was unsafe nor have they repeated their call. The issue is not one of science versus science as the overwhelming majority of scientists (including 19 Nobel prize winners and others who are leaders in their field) who have taken a stand on the issue, have solidly backed genetically modified (transgenic) crops.

The NGOs attack the credibility of any scientist who differs with them but it is clear that they have only a handful of scientists who are at best marginal to their profession for their international road shows. Never in my adult life have I been involved in an issue where the science and scientists are so overwhelmingly on one side of an issue. Nothing that we humans do is totally without any possibility of harm and no reputable scientist would say otherwise. There is simply no theoretical or empirical reason to expect short or long term harm from transgenic food crops. Yes we don't know with 100% certainty that no harm will ever come from it but the same is true and even more so for the product of every other crop that we produce. Given that it is the most predictable form of plant breeding, transgenic crops are considerably less likely to have adverse long-term effects on humans or the environment. The only way to have zero risk is not to eat. Famine, if allowed to persist without outside help, will kill.
 
Less one think that rDNA is a method only for multinational corporations and developed countries, it should be noted that in July 2000, a report was issued jointly sponsored by the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, and the Academies of Sciences of the United States, Mexico, China, Brazil, India and the Third World Academy of Sciences. It was titled Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture and not only found them to be safe but saw them as an vital for the future task of feeding a growing world population as has the FAO and the UNDP. At the time of the sustainable development conference in Johannesburg which the NGOs used to propagandize Southern African countries against transgenic food, the Economic Commission for Africa issued a report titled Harnessing Technologies for Sustainable Development (A publication of the Economic and Social Policy Division). Addis Ababa: United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, ECA Policy Research Report, 23 August. The titles of the reports for chapters largely tell the story of the report with Green Biotechnology referring to agriculture and Red Biotechnology referring to pharmaceuticals.

Chapter 1: Sustaining Natural Assets and Reducing Human Vulnerability
Chapter 2: Tracking Progress towards Sustainable Development
Chapter 3: Realizing the Promise of Green Biotechnology for the Poor
Chapter 4: Tackling the Diseases of Poverty through Red Biotechnology

The recently released report by the Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa - "Now Is The Time: A Plan to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa," recognizes the important role that biotechnology must play for hunger reduction in Africa. Of the five African Presidents who form the partnership, two of them, Presidents Chissano and Museveni are CPTM Fellows while recently elected President Kufuor of Ghana joined the group un Langkawi. The issues of transgenic technologies go far beyond the issues of Bt maize for famine relief. As Florence Wambugu of Kenya, one of the world's leading plant biotechnologist has stated it, Africa missed out on the Green Revolution, it can not afford to miss out on the biotech revolution.

Genetically Modified (transgenic) Maize

Bioengineered Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn has gene from the Bacillus thuringiensis that expresses a protein that is activated by enzymes in the insect gut when ingested by the corn borer or other insect pests. The activated Bt protein binds to specific receptor sites in the gut and inserts itself into the membrane of the insect gut. Bound to the inner linings of the stomach, the Bt toxin causes a influx of water into cells that swells and destroys the insect digestive system. This leads to insect starvation and eventual mortality and is the same mechanism used by the live Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria to kill the insect and then feed and multiply on its' remains. The Bt protein does no harm to birds, fish, or mammals, including people. The stomach of vertebrates including humans, is acidic; those of insects (arthropods) are alkaline. Bt proteins (designated cry for crystalline) is alkaline and functions at the alkaline pH range of 7 or above. Our acid based digestive system lacks receptor sites for the cry protein making it harmless to us and other creatures except insects.

Though some proteins nourish us, other proteins can kill us. Proteins that nourishes some of us humans such as those in peanuts, can cause a fatal allergenic reaction in others called anaphylactic shock. Quite literally one man's meat (or nutrient) is another man's poison. 90% of food allergies in Western countries result from eight food types: peanuts, wheat, soybeans, milk, tree nuts, eggs, shellfish and fish. Simply by avoiding these foods as a source of genes for transgenic plants greatly reduces the likelihood that the gene obtained would encode an allergen. In addition, regulatory agencies and international scientific bodies like the World Health Organization has provided clear guidance on how to assess the potential food safety concerns, including allergy. All transgenic products that are in the market or will be introduced have or will undergo these rigorous assessments. In fact, the foods derived fron transgenic plants are among the most extensively tested food products on the market. And there have been no ill effects reports after consumers have consumed foods from these transgenic plants since 1996 and on over 400 million acres of transgenic plant production.
 
 African agriculture has had a problem with fungally infested maize. The toxins produced by these fungi are still scourge in poor areas such as West Africa where there is evidence that fungal infested food is stunting the growth of children based on many studies done over the years including one this year by the Institute for Tropical Agriculture in Ibadan, Nigeria and reported by the BMJ (British Medical Journal). By preventing the invasion of the plant by insects, Bt maize would have a definite health advantage in preventing the buildup of fungi and their mycotoxins on the maize. Insects that damage plants also make them more receptive to disease invasion and serve as carriers for these disease pathogens. Other mycotoxins such as fumonisins are associated with Fusarium ear rot, the most common ear rot disease in the Corn Belt in the United States; it can be found in nearly every cornfield at harvest. The Bt corn, in resisting insect damage from corn borers also protects against disease invasion with fumonisin and mycotoxin levels 30 to 40 fold lower in some tests. Kernel rot caused by Aspergillus also is associated with insect damage to Maize ears. Aspergillus favus and A. parasiticus produce the most notorious mycotoxins in maize, the aflatoxins and can be passed into milk when the infected grain is eaten by a cow.

Paradoxical as it may sound, genetically modified maize is not only safe but it is arguably safer than the conventional varieties and the varieties currently grown in Africa. Its use in the United States has led to a significant decrease in pesticide use a benefit which could be realized in Africa where many farmers can not afford the pesticides necessary to protect their crops. The reports to which I refer (and my own writing on the subject) provide a myriad of ways in which rDNA technology can be an essential component of Africa's future development. The biotechnology revolution is important to Africa not only in terms of the current famine but also in terms of the many benefits that biotechnology offers to Africa and its future.

(There have been any number of NGO scares about the dangers arising from transgneic crops. Each and every one of the have been massively refuted by the scientific community but most of them remain coin of the realm for NGOs. I have collected most of these and their refutations in a book manuscript and will be happy to provide the scientific refutations for any them still in use.)
 
Annex I - Bacillus thuringiensis

The Bt gene is from live Bt which is defined to be "natural" and is used in "organic" agriculture. In many respects, using the plant to produce the Bt toxin may be safer from both an environmental and human health perspective than using Bacillus thuringiensis. Bacillus thuringiensis, Bacillus cereus, Bacillus mycoides and Bacillus anthraces are members of the same genus, and many scientists consider them actually the same species or very closely related as members of the Bacillus cereus group. The plasmids of Bt seem benign but because Bt bacteria are known to be able to swap genes, Bt could exchange an unusually wide variety of DNA with other Bacillus cells releasing deadly strains of anthrax into the environment. The genes for critical toxins are present in Bt, and we currently do not know enough about the regulators that cause these pathogens to be expressed. Though this is not highly likely, it is far more likely than the imagined harm from Bt maize proffered by those who use the live Bacillus What these groups fail to mention (or are possibly even unaware of) is that the strains of Bt toxin now in use in "organic" agriculture are themselves products of genetic transformation.

Annex II - The Genome and Amino Acids

NGOs make much of the fact that genes are taken from different species. This is dramatized by referring to rats or cock roaches (from which no genes have been taken. This assumes that all of a fish's genes have some fishiness quality, or a rat's genes have a ratiness and human genes have uniquely human traits. Modern genetics tells us differently as we share over 90 percent of our genes with chimpanzees and half of our genes with any number plants, animals and micro-organisms. It is the complex of DNA (and mRNA) - the genome, the proteins - the proteome - that they express etc. which is what makes some of us humans while others are different species. To a geneticist and biotechnologist, a gene has a function to perform in whatever organism it resides. Thus putting a gene from one organism into a plant is a lot more basic than it sounds when used to frighten us.

Life has been very conservative. Once a capability was evolved, it was conserved through other organism even though there were other options. The basic structure for metabolism evolved once and all metabolizing creatures have used the same DNA sequence structure ever since. When one looks at life from the perspective of the genome, one sees are some very basic forms are common to all life.

Amino acids molecules have chirality, a property of crystals, gases, liquids, and solutions in that they have no plane of symmetry so that when optically activated they will rotate plane polarized light to the left or right making them L-isomers or D-isomers. All amino acids in life as we know it on earth are L-isomers, while those found in the meteorites or those synthesized in laboratories tend to be a racemic mixture - containing both molecular forms so that light does not rotate in either direction. All sugars are D-isomers when they could just as easily have been L-isomers. The double helix spirals to the right.

The standard definition of an amino acid is - an organic compound that contains an amino group, NH2, and a carboxylic acid group of the type COOH, various combinations and sequences of which are the basis of all proteins. The same 20 common amino acids (called the naturally occurring amino acids) are produced by the genetic code of all organisms. There are any number of possible amino acids but the genome produces only the same twenty common in all organisms. Two other very rare ones have been found but they are they are not transcribed directly by the genome.

The genetic instructions use the same four DNA chemical units, known as bases, which are represented by the letters A,C,G and T. (A is adenine, C is cytosine, G is guanine, T is thymine.) Uracil (U) replaces thymine (T) in RNA (Ribonucleic acid) molecules and nucleotides with the other three bases retaining the same name even though, each one adds an oxygen. Differing combinations of these letters code for different amino acids when combined in various sequences create the proteins that carry out most cell functions.

All DNA in life consists of these four nucleic acids when there are dozens of naturally occurring ones. (RNA consists of variations of these four with three of them carrying the same name.) The four DNA nucleic acids are grouped in sets of three called codons, which provides an alphabet of 4^3 or 64 letters to make the 20 standard amino acids which are used in living organisms to make the vast array proteins that characterize life. The discovery of this language of life began with the determination of the double helix structure the nucleic acid, DNA as the self-perpetuating carrier of genetic information. From this Crick stated the famed "sequence hypothesis," namely that the sequence of bases in any section of DNA uniquely determines the sequence of amino acids in a corresponding peptide chain.

Annex III - Nitrogen

Nitrogen is abundant in the earth's atmosphere but it is not in a form (called "fixed") usable by life to create the amino acids which form the basis for proteins. Nitrogen is an essential element for life. It is the limiting nutrient in agriculture. Most nitrogen is locked in form of N2 in the earth's atmosphere. N2 must be changed into either nitrate and ammonia so that it can be used by plants.

Annex IV - History: Toward The Double Helix

As Darwinism was beginning and before the Descent of Man, Johann Friedrich Miescher (1844-1895) and his successors were laying the foundation for the creation of molecular biology which would carry Darwinism and biology forward from the mid-20th century onward. Over the next 80 to 100 years, many of those creating the building blocks of molecular biology would like Miescher be chemists or physicists. In 1869, while working in the laboratory of Felix Hoppe-Seyler, a leader in the new field of tissue chemistry at Tubingen, Miescher found phosphorous in human cells which was later identified as nucleic acid which he named "nuclein" (nucleic + protein).

Proteins are made up entirely of amino acids, but nucleic acids are built from three types of small molecules: sugars, phosphoric acid, and basic compounds that were later identified as purines and pyrimidines. A co-researcher of Hoppe-Seyler, Albrecht Karl Ludwig Martin Leonard Kossel (1853-1927) separated the nucleic acid from the protein and identifying adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine and uracil. Adenine and guanine are purines and cytosine and thymine are pyrimidines in DNA with uracil replacing thymine in RNA. Richard Altmann (1852-1900) in 1889 isolated and named "nucleic acids." The molecular structure of purines was identified and named in 1898 by Emil Fischer (1852-1919); the name pyrimidines was given by Adolf Penner (****-****) in 1884.

Joseph Priestly's (1733-1804) first isolated oxygen. Priestley's work was followed in 1828 by the first laboratory synthesis of an organic compound - urea by Friedrich Woehler (1800-1882), a chemist and founder of organic chemistry. He demonstrated that chemistry could create organic compounds even without organic molecules. The prevailing vitalist belief argued that organic molecules could only be formed from other organic molecules. Justus Baron von Liebig (1803-1873), a founder of agricultural chemistry, in his essay, "Chemistry in Its Application to Agriculture and Physiology" refuted the theory that only organic material (specifically, humus) nourished plants. Among Liebig's most important discoveries was the demonstration that minerals could fertilize soil. The nineteenth and twentieth century application of this discovery has allowed a human population six times greater than in Liebigs time to be better nourished than ever before. Liebig used quantitative analysis in the study of biological systems and demonstrated what was deemed to be "vital activity" was capable of being fully understood in physicochemical terminology. His 1840 book, Thierchemie, integrated chemistry and physiology. He showed that plants manufactured organic compounds using atmospheric carbon dioxide. Though the atmosphere has an abundance of nitrogenous compounds, plants could only use those found in the soil. In England, Edward Frankland (1825-1899) developed the concept of valency bonds and the system for writing chemical formulas depicting the bonds between atoms in the molecule. In 1845, one of Woehler's students, Adolph Wilhelm Hermann Kolbe (1818-1884), accomplished the first synthesis of an organic compound (acetic acid) from its elements.

In 1928, Frederick Griffith published an article on his work with bacteria where he presented the first indication that the nucleic acid carried the information for inheritance or the "transforming factor" as he called it. Griffith, who died in an air raid on London in 1941, may or may not have fully realized the significance of his results; his work at first perplexed others in the field but eventually Oswald T. Avery and co-workers were able to replicate Griffith's experiment. By 1944, Avery was speaking of the "transforming principle" and was conducting experiments with Colin MacLeod and Maclyn McCarty, colleagues at the Rockefeller Institute Hospital. They discovered that the DNA in bacteria transmitted the genetic information. Some doubted the validity of the experiment believing that a protein contaminant was actually responsible for the transformation and replication. In first half of the 20th century, it seemed to many scientist that the nucleic acid was too simple to carry genetic information and something more complex like protein was necessary for the massive amount of information required for inheritance. In 1941, George Beadle and Edward Tatum, working with a common mold, stated the dictum, "one gene, one enzyme" (protein).

In 1950, Edwin Chargaff studied the base composition of DNA and found that there was a specific relationship between the base pairs that was conserved. The percentage of Guanine always equalled the percentage of Cytosine and that the percentage of Adenine always equaled the percentage of Thymine. This means that the purine adenine always pairs with the pyrimidine thymine and the pyrimidine cytosine always pairs with the purine guanine. What is elegant about this pairing, is that with the later development of Watson and Crick's double helix, one strand automatically becomes the template for the other strand.

Though many still held to the more complex proteins being the transforming principle, the race was on during the late 1940s to unravel the structure of DNA. It does not detract from the greatness or elegance of the Watson and Crick discovery to say that, as in all scientific inquiry, their work built on the many discoveries that preceded them or were being carried out by their contemporaries such as Chargaff. Alfred Hersey and Martha Chase in their famous "Waring blender experiment" further demonstrated that DNA was the genetic material by showing that only the DNA of a bacterial virus enters the host and not its protein coat. The magnificent x-ray-diffraction experiments of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins revealed the helix structure. Wilkins shared in the Nobel Prize with Watson and Crick while Franklin died of cancer before she could be considered for one. The electron microscope was vital in demonstrating that nucleic acid rather than protein carried genetic information. In the late 1940s and 1950s, Barbara McClintock was working on transposable elements, whose full significance was not understood until the 1970s when she won the Nobel Prize for it.

The story of James Watson and Francis Crick and their unraveling of the double helix structure of DNA is well known and does not need any detailed repetition here. Their two very short papers in Nature, April 25th and May 30th, 1953 transformed the debate and inquiry on inheritance. Replication was by duplication of the double stranded nucleic acid. With transcription, a strand of DNA (a gene) is read and transcribed into a single strand of RNA as the RNA then moves from the nucleus into cytoplasm.

Watson and Crick then proceeded to present their model of deoxyribonucleic acid with a "pair of templates, each of which is complementary to the other." In order for the process to get underway, the hydrogen bonds have to be "broken and the two chains unwind and separate" before duplication. From the Watson/ Crick publication on the structure of DNA, there were questions as to whether it was possible for the strands to separate without breaking even with a weak hydrogen bond. The question was answered affirmatively in 1957 by Matt Meselson and Frank Stahl in what has been called "the most beautiful experiment in biology." In 1959, Francois Jacob and Jacques Monod distinguished between "structural genes" and "regulator genes." By 1977 Richard Roberts and Philip Sharp discovered that the messenger RNA edit out portions of the gene that do not code for any amino acids. In 1978, Walter Gilbert recognized RNA's role in "alternative splicing" which became important in the genome project to explain the process by which a lower number of genes than expected could express a larger number of proteins. Roberts and Sharp won the Nobel Prize in 1993 for their discovery. The portions of genome sequence that code for amino acids are now called exons and those that do not are called introns.

With the double helix demonstrating a mechanism for replication, there was still the long-standing question as to how a code of four letters could create the complexity of the 20 amino acids known at the time. For most of the previous half century, many researchers not only favored protein as the bearer of inheritance because of its greater complexity, but many, as we have seen, refused to accept the emerging evidence for the nucleic acid believing that experiments such as those of Avery, MacLeod and McCarty must have been contaminated with protein.

During the 1950s and early 1960s, it was recognized that proteins were not made directly from DNA buy from DNA to RNA and from RNA to protein (leaving DNA intact). This is the central dogma triplet of molecular biology. The RNA sequence is translated into a sequence of amino acids as the protein is formed - ribosome reads three bases (a codon) at a time from the RNA and translates them into one amino acid. With so many exciting questions, the discoveries came quickly. From 1962 when Watson, Crick and Wilkins won the Nobel Prize, 15 have been awarded for work involving nucleic acids. Included in this number were Marshall Nirenberg, Robert Holley and Har Gobind Khorana in 1968 who were among those finding the codon of three sets of basic pairs that allowed the four bases to combine in 64 different ways to sequence to form the protein of life. Holley was the first to do a complete sequence of a nucleic acid, the alanine transfer RNA of yeast. This brings our narrative to the point covered in the report above of the development of restriction enzymes.

Annex V - Transgenic Food: Regulation for Safety

Transgenic food products on the market today are the product of many years of safety testing and regulatory assessment. No other foodstuffs offered for sale have ever been required to have the same extensive safety testing as transgenic crops and foodstuffs. Critics often falsely claim that they have not been tested or that they have not been tested enough without specifying what testing that they would accept to be sufficient. Some of us consider this simply to be a ploy since no amount of testing, no matter how rigorous or complete would apparently ever satisfy them. Nor do they note that the foodstuff that we would buy instead never has been tested for safety and is unlikely to be because there is no organized effort to do so. Given the greater precision of transgenic breeding, these crops are capable of being tested in a manner that other crops are not because we know more about what it is that we are testing.

Prior to the first transgenic food product being grown for sale in the market, they had been developed and tested for over a decade. Transgenic safety investigation and regulation is the result of scientific standards that are internationally accepted and used by regulatory agencies in their assessments and approval process. Transgenic crops have been in production for over seven years on over 400 million acres with possibly over a billion people having consumed them. Every scientific body or regulatory agency that has examined the issue can find no evidence that anyone has ever been harmed by them. To paraphrase one observer, there is no evidence of even a stomach ache, cough, a sneeze or rash.

Critics object to the use of "substantial equivalence" as a basis of assessing the safety of transgenic food products. Yet this method of safety assessment was developed and is accepted by leading international and national agencies such as the World Health Organization. Contrary to the negative criticism of it by antibiotech groups, "substantial equivalence" is simply an assessment that the product is comparable to foodstuff that have been safely consumed for some time. In addition to "substantial equivalence," there are a number of other equivalence tests. There is "compositional equivalence" that analyzes the biochemical and nutritional composition of the plant and compares it to existing food crops. There is "agronomic equivalence" which compares the plant in the field to that of the growth of conventional plants.

The insertion of a gene that expresses a particular protein such as the one that is expressed by the Bt corn will be subjected to a series of tests and questions including the following. Is the gene from a plant or foodstuff that is known to be allergenic? Is the protein similar in structure to the protein of a known allergen and does it break down in to its constituent amino acids in stomach acid in a time period comparable to the time that it would take to pass through the stomach?

To arrive at these assessments, the latest techniques in risk assessment are used to analyze the characteristic of the inserted trait and its expression in the food crop. In addition to the analysis just discussed, there are also animal feeding studies using the same well established scientific procedures of other animal studies in the laboratory and for farm animals.

The critics and much of the media were silent when a research report was issue by the European Commission in October 2001, that found no evidence that transgenic crops and food were in any way less safe than food from conventional plants. Over a 16 year period, the European Commission had spent (US) $64 million to fund 81 research projects conducted by more than 400 scientific teams using scientists from various European countries. Given the already existing conflict between the United States and the European Union over the labeling of transgenic food, the most severe critics can not claim that the funding agency had any pro-transgenic bias. If there was any evidence of harm, one would surely expect one of these teams to have found it and in so doing, would have won lavish praise and been elevated to heroic status from the antibiotech groups. The fact is that quality scientists doing good science could find absolutely no evidence of likely harm to transgenic food.

The following statement from the Commission report in a way, nicely sums up what we have been arguing in this report:

"Research on GM plants and derived products so far developed and marketed, following usual risk assessment procedures, has not shown any new risks to human health or the environment, beyond the usual uncertainties of conventional plant breeding. Indeed, the use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods."