https://oldwww.frg.eur.nl/personal/pieterman/GM%20nonsens.html

Reference No.: 2769
Thomas R. DeGregori
Institute of Economic Affairs
27 January 2000

Genetically Modified Nonsense

For over two decades, biotechnology has been an effective means of creating new pharmaceuticals or mass producing known drugs that were previously were difficult and expensive to produce and limited in availability. As such, it was a proven method for bettering the human condition. During this time, biotechnologies for accelerating plant breeding and development using various techniques of tissue culture were successfully applied to agricultural needs. (DeGregori, 1985, 133-134) Pharmaceutical giants began acquiring seed companies in a process of transforming themselves into life science enterprises. It was assumed that their experience and capability in bioengineering of drugs could carry over into agriculture. They were correct in terms of the science and technology of process. Sizeable expenditures were made in research for product development in agriculture.

By the 1990s, the biotechnology for inserting a gene for a specific trait was increasingly being used in agricultural research for crops like cotton, maize and soybeans. Even though testing for safety and prior approval were not required for crops from traditional plant breeding, a testing and approval process was worked out through co-operation between the private and public sectors. (USDA, 1993) The new seeds were marketed to farmers and their crops entered the marketplace virtually unnoticed by the public. In the early stages, some farmers had the usual problems with a new technology but there for simply no problems for the crops in the marketplace. As the number of people using or consuming these products mounted into the hundreds of millions, there were not and subsequently have not been any adverse human health outcomes, verifiable or otherwise, in their production, processing, use or consumption. By the mid-1990s, bioengineered crops were being grown in such diverse places as Argentina, France, China and India as well as the United States and Canada. Large acreage for many other experimental bioengineered crops could be found in these and other countries. Experimentation and testing for safety was not only taking place in the field but others in the private, public and non-governmental and professional sectors were studying and examining the issues involved in bioengineering from every conceivable perspective including ethics and religion with bioengineering passing all with flying colors. There had been numerous semi-utopian articles on the enormous potential for biotechnology in the popular media since the 1970s, so that nobody should have been caught by surprise. There was reasonable expectation for continued expansion and introduction of new crops. The success of the Green Revolution was simply beyond question for all but those whose brains were eaten away by a Luddite ideology. The Green Revolution technologies accommodated a doubling of world population by more than doubling food supply so that per capita food consumption (in terms of daily caloric intake) increased between 30 and 40% in developing countries, the real price of basic foodstuffs like rice had fallen in half and the absolute number of people in absolute poverty and hunger has continued to decline. This was achieved without significant increases in land under cultivation therefore allowing other land to be used for purposes such as wildlife conservation (see for example, Swaminathan, 2000). By the mid 1980s, many of the Green Revolution gains in yields had begun to level off and most of those involved in agricultural policy recognized the critical need as well as promise of biotechnology to carry forward the task of feeding the worlds population increasing not only the availability of calories but the potential for even greater advances in human nutrition. This potential is now under serious threat. The greatest jeopardy is not to the corporations who are the ostensible targets of the attack but it is the poorest and most vulnerable of the world's populations whose future ability to feed themselves and their family is being seriously undermined. It was no surprise then when those who had long attacked the Green Revolution focused their pestiferous ignorance on biotechnology. Many of us naively assumed that they would be as ineffective against biotechnology as they were against the Green Revolution. How wrong we were! Certain key elements emerge in the following narrative. The very vastness of the knowledge involved in modern science and technology makes it impossible for all of us to know everything or even everything that we "need" to know. So it is not condescending to say that the public was largely uniformed about biotechnology in spite of occasional favorable popular articles over the previous two decades. This allowed with the most profound ignorance such as Jeremy Rifkin, Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth to dominate the inevitable and necessary public discourse. They scored early with their misinformation by defining the terms of discussion with such names as frankenfoods and terminator genes. They played both sides of the "science" game. When a study in the UK that was not peer reviewed was released in a press conference and on television purported to show the dangers of bioengineered crops, they claimed that science was on their side. When the leading scientists countered that these conclusions were unwarranted and that bioengineered foodstuffs were safe, then we were told that scientists were not to be trusted, after all look at the mad cow scare in the UK and the way that the scientists allegedly misled the public. All of which is to say that science is "good" when it confirms Luddite fears and "bad" when it denies them. In the public arena, ideologues can pronounce on issues with a confident air of certainty while scientific inquiry is by its very nature dealing with subtle detail and operates in terms of probabilities and not certainties. The demand for certainty embodied in the so-called "precautionary principle" is asking that science do what is humanly impossible to do, that is, to guaranty absolute certainty of outcome. The precautionary principle operates in a mythical framework that assumes that there are a "risk free alternatives." In actual fact, the alternative to bioengineered foods, is a world that will increasingly be unable to meet the nutritional needs of its human inhabitants (McKie, 2000). The following study seeks to demonstrate that quality science and quality scientists in the leading journals of science have overwhelmingly endorsed the safety of bioengineered foodstuffs and have not only indicated the necessity for them and the enormous potential that they offer for a better world for all of us. Since the issue is currently controversial, there is admittedly a deliberate overkill in the presentation of evidence and sources for it as a precaution against the inevitable charge that the study is "selective" in its presentation. The war over bioengineered foods is well underway. In the United Kingdom, continental Europe and in other parts of the world, much of the public, if not a majority, have been thoroughly brainwashed on this issue and frightened to the point of opposition to all uses of bioengineering in agriculture. Many political leaders in Europe who should know better are pandering to the hysteria rather than trying to educate and provide enlightened, intelligent leadership for their citizens. Though the public in the United States has not yet been aroused on the issue, the vandals are in the fields tearing up the crops and the organized opposition is growing as the United States has to deal with those who are trying to use issues of bioengineered foods as way of restraining trade. The effort of many pharmaceutical companies to rid themselves of their agricultural divisions and the response of investors to biotechnology firms - pharmaceuticals without agriculture going up - sends a danger signal that we can not ignore. In many ways, the first battle of this war has gone to those who oppose modern science and technology. The following paper dwells on the specifics of the biotechnology issue but this issue is part of the ongoing conflict between unreason and reason, between those who seek progress for all and those who operate in a make believe new age world. As these words are being written, an email arrived announcing a declaration of over 600 (and still counting) scientists stating that: "recombinant DNA techniques constitute powerful and safe means for the modification of organisms and can contribute substantially in enhancing quality of life by improving agriculture, health care, and the environment." This petition was presented in Montreal on January 24, 2000, at the UN forum to create a 'Biosafety Protocol'. European countries have been pushing for restrictions on trade in bioengineered foodstuffs in the name of the precautionary principle and want to use this Protocol to further this goal. The petition further asserts that, "To promote a responsible use of biotechnology in addressing the global problems of agricultural productivity and world hunger, it is critical that we as scientists become more proactive in making our voices heard." This paper is a modest attempt to further this worthy endeavor.

Introduction

The ultimate in organic purity would seem to be the "organic" farmer in England who has filed suit to prevent the neighboring farm ("separated by a river and a road") from growing genetically modified crops. (BBC, 1998) It is ironic that in seeking to prohibit genetic engineering, the environmentalist would inhibit the process of creating more disease-resistant varieties of crops that would facilitate their being grown with fewer pesticides. In the United States where public opposition to growing genetically modified crops is largely limited to environmental groups, their increased planting has already led to a decrease in the use of pesticides. (Gaskell et al., 1999 and Russell, 1999) Disease resistant varieties for staple foods and for "nonprimary crops," are essential for developing countries. Some of these nonprimary crops that are "native to the subtropics or tropics," have an "untapped potential for producing food, fiber, fuel, and medicine." (Moffat, 1999b, 370) Many botanists find the opposition to genetically modified plants to be irrational. (BBC, 1999c, for a technically competent, readable explanation of genetic modification of plants, see Jones, 1999) Plant scientists cite statements by the National Academy of Sciences and by 11 scientific societies that insist that there is no scientific difference between plants transformed by traditional methods and those transformed by transgene engineering. (Cowen, 1998, see also USDA, 1993) These scientists make the intelligent, pragmatic argument that "safety and acceptability should be decided on a plant by plant basis, not by the method that produced the plant." (Cowen, 1998, see also Whitehouse, 1999a)

"Media Feeding Frenzy"

In England there is what has been described as a "media feeding frenzy" over genetically modified foods, with some calling for a moratorium on their use until their safety can be guaranteed. This call for a moratorium has now spread to the United States. (Hotakainen, 1999a&b) Much of the fear of the genetically modified foods was based on an unpublished study. "19 of Britain's most eminent scientists, all Fellows of the Royal Society," were critical of the study and the media uproar and "called for the use of peer review rather than public opinion to judge scientific results." They added that "it is a dangerous mistake ... to assume that all statements claiming to be scientific can be taken at face value." (ScienceScope, 1999 see also Enserink, 1999, Berger, 1999, 581, Gavaghan, 1999 and BBC, 1999a) The Royal Society scientists and an editorial in the respected medical journal, The Lancet argue for the safety of genetically modified foods if the process is properly regulated (Beringer, 1999, BBC, 1999b&c and The Economist, 1999) Scientific arguments seem to have little effect in calming the opposition. (New Scientist, 1999a&b) Before the hysteria was unleashed, there had been "attempts at objective analysis by the Royal Society, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the House of Lords and House of Commons Select Committees." (Taverne, 1999, 31, see also HOL, 1998) All were "almost totally ignored by the media" and therefore had little ability to bring some sense of balance to the public discourse. (Taverne, 1999, 31) The row over genetically modified foods also contrasts oddly with the widespread acceptance and use of many recombinant products in health care. These include human insulin and growth hormone, erythropoietin, hepatitis B vaccine, tissue plasminogen activator, several interferons, factor VIII, and antihemophilic factor. (Dixon, 1999, 547) "In the United Kingdom, many people welcome medical applications of gene technology as 'good genetics' but see genetically modified foods as 'bad genetics'." (Dixon, 1999, 547) Over "25% of the top 20 drugs, for example insulin, growth hormone, several hepatitis B vaccines, and monoclonal antibodies to treat cancer" are produced using genetically modified organisms. (Wilson, Hillman and Robinson, 1999, 74) Florence Wambugu asks "why there should be different standards for crops and pharmaceuticals, particularly in Africa where the need for food is crucial for survival?" (Wambugu, 1999, 15) Having "missed the green revolution," Africa cannot afford to lose the opportunity to realize the benefits of biotechnology. (Wambugu, 1999, 15)

GM Crops and Developing Countries

What is also being ignored is the fact the many trade regulations now in place in developed countries because of pressure from environmental groups and NGOs, end up restricting the export of products (such as a new vaccine) that are wanted by developing and other recipient countries. (Chambers, 1999, 39-40, on the potential of biotechnology for animal vaccines, see Morrison, 1999) Concomitant with the debate over genetically modified foods, articles are being posted on the same websites (BBC for example) on genetic modifications to produce a vaccine for the plague and another to introduce a human gene into cows so that they produce a protein which could be useful for treating multiple sclerosis. (Hosken, 1999 and BBC, 1999j) Neither these or other use of the genetic modification technology seem to cause the controversy that genetic modification of foods does. The main beneficiaries of recombinant products in health care are the middle and upper income groups in developed countries from whose ranks come most of the protestors against genetically modified foods. Excluded from the debate on genetically modified foods are those most in need of increased food production, the poor in developing countries and the "largely marginalized" hungry in developed countries. (Serageldin, 1999a, 134) Genetically modified foods that use "plant viruses engineered to produce some of the protein fragments from disease-causing organisms" and which thereby "stimulate the immune system when eaten" would definitely be of enormous benefit to the poorer peoples of the world. (New Scientist, 1999c) Unfortunately, the firms developing these vaccine producing foods seem to be among the first casualties of the "Frankenfood" hysteria. (Coghlan, 1999a and Feldbaum, 1999a) If, as announced, the leading firm in genetically modifying crops to produce vaccines, abandons this enterprise, than the primary victims will be the poor and vulnerable peoples of the world. (NB, 1999) The major "life sciences" firms are seeking to separate out their agricultural divisions with very little prospect, at least in the near term, of continued significant investment in research and development in the improved genetically modified crops that the world so desperately needs. (Morrow, 2000) As this controversy was getting underway, Nature one of the world's leading scientific journals, had an article indicating the way in which essential nutrients, such as iron, can be introduced into our crops by genetic engineering. (Robinson et al., 1999 and BBC, 1999e, see also Tait, 1999) Iron deficiency "contributes to widespread anemia among women in developing countries." (Kendall et al., 1997, 3) A later article in Nature announced the identification and isolation of a dwarfing gene that could bring yield improvements in a number of crops comparable to those in wheat and rice in the Green Revolution. (Peng et. al, 1999, JIC, 1999, BBC, 1999f and Houlter, 1999) In developing countries, some genetically modified varieties "have improved yields and stability - often by better tolerance of fungi, viruses or soil poisons - for example, for rice in China, potatoes in Peru and sweet potatoes in Kenya" and has the potential of protecting children for blindness by "Vitamin A-enhanced GM rice." (Lipton, 1999, see also Abelson and Hines, 1999, 368) A new variety of genetically modified potatoes that resists a wide array of bacteria and fungi (including Phytophthora infestans, "the fungal blight that devastated Irish potato harvests in the 1840s") has been developed and is being tested in the field and for safety. (Coghlan, 1999c) In Hawaii, genetically modified papaya is now protected from a deadly virus, a protection that will likely in time benefit developing countries. (Yoon, 1999a and Wilson, Hillman and Robinson, 1999, 69) Genetic modification of plants offers great promise for improving the human diet in poor countries by adding vital micronutrients to stable food plants in a process that one author calls "nutritional genomics." In an article appropriately titled, Nutritional Genomics: Manipulating Plant Micronutrients to Improve Human Health, DellaPenna argues that "modifying the nutritional composition of plant foods is an urgent worldwide health issue as basic nutritional needs for much of the world's population are still unmet." He adds that the diet of "large numbers of people in developing countries" consists primarily of a "few staples" such as cassava, wheat, rice and corn (maize), "that are poor sources of some macronutrients and many essential micronutrients." DellaPenna estimates that the diet of "over 800 million people" lack "sufficient macronutrients" with dietary deficiency of micronutrients being "even more prevalent." (DellaPenna, 1999, 375) Grains are the major stable of world food production, for feeding animals for production of meat and dairy products and for use in nutrition intervention programs and famine relief. Research using "genomics-based strategies" to produce "grains with enhanced value" and for "moving trait genes into high-yielding germ plasm for commercialization," also has the potential for improving the diet of humans around the world. (Mazur et al., 1999, see also, Trewavas, 1999, Reaney, 1999 and Gura, 2000)

GM Rice and the Poor

The genetic modification of rice has enormous potential to benefit those most in need. Many of the world's poorest people are farm families subsisting on home-grown rice and sometimes little else. Food fortification and enrichment can be almost unbelievably cheap if one has an available carrier such as imported wheat to deliver it. Conversely, it is often extremely difficult to create a delivery mechanism for fortification and enrichment to subsistence farm families, vast numbers of which are in rice cultivation where iron and vitamin A (VAD) deficiency are most prevalent. Rice plants do produce carotenoid compounds that are converted to vitamin A, but only in the green parts of the plant and not in the component of rice grain consumed by humans. Consequently VAD often occurs where rice is the major staple food. The millions of children who are weaned on rice gruels are particularly prone to VAD since they consume little else. And children in rural areas are seldom reached by vitamin A supplementation programs. (TRF, 1999a) "Scientists in Switzerland claim to have developed a strain of rice genetically engineered to provide enhanced iron and vitamin A." (Tait, 1999, Potrykus et al., 1999, TRF, 1999a&b, Ye et al., 2000, Guerinot, 2000, Gura, 1999 and Whelan, 1999, Graham, 2000, BBC, 2000a, Feder, 2000 and WP, 2000) For non-rice growing areas, there is now a Vitamin A enhanced genetically engineered rape seed plant for the production of rape seed oil (one variety of which has the trade name of canola). (Reuters, 1999) While what appeared to be the bad news about genetic modification received massive media attention, the very good news of the new variety of rice received almost no notice. (Leisinger, 1999) The World Health Organization considers at least 230 million children as being at risk of clinical or sub-clinical Vitamin A deficiency. (TRF, 1999a) Vitamin A deficiency can lead to blindness - an estimated 230 to 250 million children are at risk with 500,000 children going blind every year from it - and lowers the body's resistance to disease increasing the mortality from diseases as diverse as measles and diarrhea. (Abelson and Hines, 1999, 368) Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) "makes children especially vulnerable to infection and worsens the course of many infections. Estimates of the number of children who die each year as a result of Vitamin A deficiency run as high as 2 million deaths. (James and Krattiger, 1999) Supplementation with vitamin A is estimated by UNICEF to lower a child's risk of dying by approximately 23 percent. VAD is also the single most important cause of blindness among children in developing countries." (TRF,1999a) According to UNICEF estimates, iron deficiency anemia is at least partially responsible for about 20 per cent of all maternal deaths. (TRF, 1999a) The major micronutrient deficiencies worldwide concern iron, with 24 percent of the world's population (up to 60 percent in developing countries) or 1.4 billion women suffering from iron deficiency anemia, and vitamin A deficiency, affecting approximately 400 million children, or seven percent of the world population. The deficiencies are especially severe in developing countries where the major staple food is rice. (TRF, 1999a) It is difficult to imagine any other development taking place at this time that has a greater potential to enhance the well being women and children and to do it within a few years. Tragically, many "eco-feminist" activists oppose genetically modified crops claiming feminism as a basis for their opposition. Nothing in scientific advancement or in the rest of life is guaranteed but if the discoveries using genetic modification to enhance the iron and vitamin A in rice work out in practice, then it is truly exciting. The intent is not to exploit the technology commercially but to develop "the transgenic material into rice-breeding lines" and allow the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) to distribute these resulting varieties "free to local rice breeders ... and other national agricultural research centers" who will use them consist with their environment and other laws and customs. (Tait, 1999, see also, NB, 1999) Future historians may look back upon the discovery of the dwarfing gene and the genetic modification of rice as the two great discoveries in 1999, if not of the last decade or more, that helped to feed the population of the 21^st century. Currently, very promising work in bioengineering salt-tolerant plants offers another possibility for increasing world food production and land conservation by bringing high saline soils into agricultural production reducing the need to cultivate other marginal lands or utilize land that now supports wildlife, trees and other vegetation. (Apse et al., 1999, Frommer et al., 1999, BBC, 1999i and Swaminathan, 2000) Also promising is research in rice and maize plants that can grow in highly alkaline soils and can achieve higher yields using less fertilizer. (Holmes, 1999b) Equally important is the research with "newfound genes and enzymes" that could "enable crops to flourish on metal rich soils and help other plants clean up heavy metal contamination." (Moffat, 1999a, 369 and Flavel, 1999, for an excellent series of short pieces on the potential of biotechnology for poor countries, see Persley, ed., 1999) A new rice variety that was altered with genes with soya appears to be more parasite resistant then traditional varieties. (Brough, 1999)

GM and World Hunger

A distinguished African scientist stated the issue for developing countries clearly and succinctly. "Florence Wambugu, director of the Kenya-based International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, for example, attacked opposition to gene technology as a northern luxury." (Butler, 1999, 360, see also Wambugu, 1999) "The biggest risk in Africa is doing nothing ... I appreciate ethical concerns, but anything that doesn't help feed our children is unethical." (quoted in Butler, 1999, 360) Though the critics of bioengineering of food crops attempt to claim the moral high ground, others (Nina Federoff) view it as "tremendously selfish" of those in developed countries who "because of misinformation" oppose what is "probably the safest technology that humans have ever invented." (MacIlwain, 1999) Yet another scientists, Klaus Leisinger, believes that "we have an ethical commitment not to lose time" in turning this technology to the needs of developing countries. (MacIlwain, 1999) To those who argue that genetic modification of plants and animals is "playing God," one author argues that those obstructing the development of these crops are the ones "who are really playing God, not with genes but with lives of poor and hungry people." (Prakash, 1999) Prakash cites the Vatican director on bioethics against fearing scientific advance and then quotes from a statement by leaders of the Church of England: Human discovery and invention can be thought of as resulting from the exercise of God-given powers of mind and reason; in this respect, genetic engineering does not seem very different from other forms of scientific advance. (Prakash, 1999) Derek Byerlee argues that saying that there is enough food in the world "misses the point." Since in most poor countries, jobs and income are dependent on farming, "growth in the agricultural sector" is necessary in order to raise incomes. "It is the only way forward." (MacIlwain, 1999) And bioengineering of food crops is a vital part of that way forward. Florence Wambugu gives an array of different ways in which various kinds of "agricultural biotech" are already helping African farmers and the many ways and the enormous potential that it holds for future development. African "farmers are benefiting from tissue culture technologies for banana, sugar cane, pyrethrum, cassava and other crops" with a variety of other "transgenic technologies in the pipeline" particularly for crop protection. (Wambugu, 1999, 15) Not to use biotechnology does not mean avoiding "exploitation" in her judgement. On the contrary, African countries must "participate as stakeholders in the transgenic biotechnology business." (Wambugu, 1999, 16) Both critics and many enthusiastic advocates of genetically modified foodstuffs argue that most of the advances in this technology, particularly those made by private sector firms, primarily benefit farmers in developed countries. (Pinstrup-Andersen, 1999, and Wrong, 1999) True though this may be, the irrational criticism of the technology diminishes the support for public funding of agricultural biotechnology research that could bring its' benefits to African and other third world farmers that was brought to many Asian and other farmers by the green revolution. African farmers have long been planting hybrid maize as maize has become the number one food crop in Africa. (Byerlee and Eicher, 1997) They are used to going into the marketplace to buy new seeds so doing so would not be a new and would be welcomed if the increase in usable output warranted it. One of the potential great virtues of biotechnology is that it is "packaged technology in a seed" that allows its' benefits to be realized without "changing local cultural practices." (Wambugu, 1999, 16)

Frankenfoods or Frankenfears? The Butterfly Scare

Critics use the term, "Frankenstein foods" or "Frankenfoods" and "mutant grub" to describe the food products of genetically engineering. (Halweil, 1998, Cohen, 1998b, 42 and The Economist, 1999a&b) The New Scientist calls this terminology, "Frankenfears." (Coghlan, Concar and MacKenzie, 1999) In the United States, "65 plaintiffs including Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements" are suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) arguing that it was unlawful for the EPA to approve genetically modified crops that produce Bt toxin, a toxin that is "naturally" produced by the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis. (Holmes, 1999a) Widely circulated in the media have been reports that the Bt modified plants threatened the continued existence of Monarch butterflies but the solid, scientific criticism of that thesis was largely ignored by the media. (Losey et al., 1999 and CNS, 1999) Two researchers found it "surprising ... that a previous and more relevant and realistic field study" was "largely overlooked by the media." (Shelton and Roush, 1999, 832) Also not widely publicized by the media was the fact the study was admittedly "preliminary rather than definite" as noted by other scientists who otherwise praised the study. (Beringer, 1999) Being that the study was preliminary, critics found numerous problems with it without otherwise faulting its merits. The results were based on the laboratory feeding of Monarch butterfly larvae with leaves from milkweed plants (the larvae's food of choice) that had been dusted with the pollen from a Bt hybrid maize (corn) without their being a field study. The actual field studies - "ongoing monitoring" - of Bt crops found that the pollen diminished rapidly "only 3 meters from the corn field's edge." (Palevitz, 1999) John Losey, the lead author of the report in Nature, found in field studies that the Monarch butterflies avoided "laying eggs on milkweed planted near corn fields." (AmeriScan, 1999 and Jacobs, 1999) It was also found that corn pollination was "95 percent complete by the time the first monarch eggs began hatching" and that "90 percent of the Bt corn pollen lands within 15 feet of the edge of the corn field." (AmeriScan, 1999, for a more critical view, see Yoon, 1999a&b and for a balanced view, BBC, 1999o and Barboza, 1999) In any case, this year's Bt corn crop, about 30% of all U.S. corn acreage seems not to have harmed the Monarch butterfly as it seems to be a good year for them as measured by the numbers arriving in Mexican sanctuaries. (AP, 1999b) The maize (corn) used for control in the Losey et al. study was from an "unrelated, untransformed hybrid" and therefore it cannot necessarily be inferred that it was the Bt toxins that were responsible for the subsequent reduction in Monarch butterfly larvae maturing into butterflies. (Beringer, 1999) The "Bt toxin in pollen is below 0.1 parts per million, a level that stunts corn borers but doesn"t kill them." (Palevitz, 1999) "Bt crops involve a 'couple of orders of magnitudes less exposure to toxins" compared to wholesale spraying with conventional insecticides or Bt preparations." (Palevitz, 1999, quoting genetics professor, Richard Meagher) The organic agricultural critics of genetically modified crops might be hoisted on their own petard on this one. For if Bt toxin in genetically modified maize (corn) is harmful to Monarch butterflies than the much greater magnitude of Bt toxin in the fields of organic crops might be a "couple of orders of magnitude" more harmful to them. To be consistent, the critics of GM crops should apply the precautionary principle to organic agriculture using Bt spray.

"Organic" crops and All Natural Toxins

To its credit, the BBC did post a story on its web page noting a study that showed that "health risks" were "reduced by GM corn" but unfortunately if any other major media picked up the story, it was not sufficiently prominent to be found by a search of their web posting. (BBC, 1999n) The GM corn "has a distinct health benefit of discouraging the build up of mycotoxins in corn, potentially dangerous human and animal toxins produced by fungi that cause plant disease." (APSnet, 1999) Insects that damage plants also both make them more receptive to disease invasion and serve as carriers for these disease pathogens. "Insect larvae chew on stalks and kernels, creating wounds where fungal spores can enter the plant. Once established, these fungi often produce mycotoxins." (APSnet, 1999) Some mycotoxins such as the fumonisins "can be fatal to horses and pigs, and are probable human carcinogens." (Munkvold and Hellmich, 1999 and APSnet, 1999) The fumonisins are associated with Fusarium ear rot which is the most common ear rot disease in the Corn Belt; it can be found in nearly every corn field at harvest. (Munkvold and Hellmich, 1999) The Bt modified maize (corn) in resisting insect damage from corn borers also helps to protect against disease invasion as well. The associations between these insects and corn diseases result from several types of host-insect-pathogen interactions. One type of interaction is a vector relationship. European corn borer larvae carry spores of Fusarium species from the plant surface to the surfaces of damaged kernels or to the interior of stalks, where infections are initiated. (Munkvold and Hellmich, 1999) More dangerous to human health are the aflatoxins produced by Aspergillus flavus. The added protection against the aflatoxins would be particularly beneficial in developing countries where they may not have the capability of detecting the 20 parts per billion concentration in foodstuffs which is the maximum permissible and considered safe under U.S. regulations. Kernel rot caused by Aspergillus also is associated with insect damage to ears Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus produce the most notorious mycotoxins in corn, the aflatoxins. The economic impact of aflatoxins has been greater than that of other mycotoxins in corn because aflatoxins can be passed into milk if dairy cows consume contaminated grain. (Munkvold and Hellmich, 1999) Bt, since it is believed to be "natural," is used in what is called "organic" agriculture. One fear of the "organic" agricultural practitioners and their environmentalist cohorts, is that the more widespread use of the protein from it as a built-in pesticide for plants will hasten the development of insect resistance to Bt. (On other GM lawsuits, see Eaglesham, 1999a&b) In many respects, the use of the plant to produce the Bt toxin may be safer from both an environmental and human health perspective than using Bacillus thuringiensis. Many scientists consider that Bacillus thuringiensis, Bacillus cereus and Bacillus anthracis are one species. The "plasmids of Bt "seem innocuous" but "the main part of Bt's genetic material codes for toxins that can cause diarrhoea, vomiting, muscle and kidney damage and liver failure." Because Bt has a "novel gene-swapping system that enables Bt to exchange an unusually wide variety of DNA with other Bacillus cells, there is the "potential for spawning very dangerous strains and unleashing them into the environment." (MacKenzie, 1999b, 22) When it comes to that which is deemed to be "organic," the vivid and creative imagination as to the potential dangers of a human endeavor ceases to function and the precautionary principle is no longer operative or simply ignored by those who would save us from the dangers of modern technology and science. However, as one cogent defender of biotechnology demonstrates we face risks continuously. "The average human comes into daily contact with a million species of bacteria and about 5,000 viruses." (Jenkins, 1999b) Any of them could mutate into a deadly diseases but fortunately they don"t or very rarely do and most of us don"t worry about them or do not try to invoke the precautionary principle because, despite the seemingly scary numbers - a million bacteria, 5,000 viruses - we know that the real risk is not all that great.

Bt or not Bt

The same groups that oppose the patenting of life forms, now somehow claim exclusive use - an ownership property right - to what they believe to be a product of nature. What these groups fail to mention (or are possibly even aware of) is that the strains of Bt toxin now in use in agriculture are themselves products of genetic engineering. "Up until the advent of genetic engineering, Bt had been a fairly useless product ... with the exception of Southeast Asia where it was heavily used." Chambers adds that Bt "breaks down in sunlight in its native form." (Chambers, 1999, 39) There were only a few Bts that were of application in agriculture, because we did not have the expertise of biotechnology to explore the variety of strains that there are and develop them into a number of different, highly useful genes and products. (Chambers, 1999, 39) Genetic modification has now become an issue in international trade, as countries and/or trading blocs try to ban or otherwise prevent the importation of foodstuffs from genetically modified plants (or beef from cows that have been fed hormones) by treaty, or unilaterally, in violation of existing trade agreements which prohibit such barriers to trade unless they are based on scientific evidence. (Jonquieres, 1999, USA, 1999, Bajak, 1999, AP, 1999a, Kirby, 1999a, BBC, 1999k, Lennard, 1999, and Pollack, 1999a&b) Developing countries without the technical expertise on the issue are seeking guidance from organizations such as CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research). (MacIlwain, 1999) At the same time, the Rockefeller Foundation which funded the research on the nutritionally enhanced variety of rice, is worried about the public opposition to bio-engineered foods in developed countries might make it more difficult to introduced improved varieties of bio-engineered crops in developing countries where they are most needed. (Lehrman, 1999 and Normille, 1999)

GM Foods: To Ban or Not to Ban?

Many of those in Britain such as Friends of the Earth who are calling for a "moratorium" on the production and use of genetically modified foods, or Greenpeace who are demanding a prior agreement between countries in order for there to be international trade in genetically modified foods, are being less than fully candid. If these organizations can not get the genetically modified foods banned, then they demand that they be so labeled. In principle, few could object to some form of labeling or a "prior informed consent" type of arrangement (with the emphasis on "informed," not merely sharing phobias), provided it is not simply a ploy to mire the process in bureaucracy and significantly raise the cost of the food. (MacKenzie, 1999a) After all, one of the many purposes of genetic modification of food crops is to increase production and lower the cost, making food more available to the needy. Certainly, there would be no objection if private groups wish to ban together to establish standards and organize their own labeling. (Smith, 2000) This is done all the time by religious groups who set standards and arrange for labeling as Kosher or non-Kosher or Halal or non-Halal. Government is and should not be involved in the process except in case of fraudulent labeling. The religious groups neither seek nor would they welcome government involvement in a process that has little if any meaning to the rest of the community. We may have the very highest respect for other people's religious beliefs and the dietary practices that follow from them but we share with the believers that this is a private matter as it should also be for the anti-technology true believers and their desire for labeling. The consensus is and has been that labeling is for objective, scientific information that is of use to all consumers. In the context of the current debate over genetically modified foodstuffs, labeling would imply that there is a scientifically verifiable difference in terms of health and nutrition when there is not. It would serve to validate the arguments of the opponents of genetic modification in the minds of the public even though the opponents have failed to do in the scientific journals. As a practical matter, it is simply impossible to accommodate on food labels the personal preferences of every religious, ethnic or other groups that have dietary prohibitions. Basic information is provided to everyone and the rest is up to each group. To require labels to state "GM" or "GM free" makes no more sense than to require all labels to state that they are kosher or non-kosher. A "moratorium" would not be a time period in which further inquiry and testing would take place, since there are no scientific results which could even remotely guarantee the safety for those devotees of the precautionary principle. With the suspension (rightly interpreted as a "breakdown") of the treaty negotiations on trade in genetically modified products, organizations such as Greenpeace have threatened a campaign to get countries to ban the import of genetically modified foodstuffs in violation of existing trade treaty obligations. (Houlder et al., 1999, Thompson, 1999 and Masood, 1999a, for the growing opposition to Greenpeace's tactics in opposition to GM foods, see SIRC, 1999) Greenpeace along with a number of other groups has filed class-action suit against Monsanto trying to stop Monsanto's development and marketing of genetically modified agricultural plants. It should be noted that the "lawsuit does not allege that the crops themselves are unsafe, only that the company did not undertake the necessary testing to ensure safety." (Schwartz, 1999) This is a clever but not entirely honest strategy since the evidence that could be brought in defense of the safety of the genetically modified plants would overwhelm the case against in an American judiciary which is increasingly wary of what is called junk science which is what the plaintiffs would have to bring to court in an attempt to prove their case. Unfortunately, one need not be a professional cynic to expect that the case will be marketed to the public as one purely of food safety (with the implicit claim that they are "known" to be dangerous) and not of testing procedures. Both a moratorium and restrictions on trade would simply provide greater opportunity for those opposed to genetically modified foods to whip up more hysteria in an effort to have them banned completely. These same groups argue, on the international trade debate for full disclosure and prior approval on genetically modified foods, that it is also an issue of consumer choice. It is an ironic, if not hypocritical use of language that banning a product that others of us wish to consume and for which there is no verifiable scientific evidence of harm to humans is not a restriction of choice, but highly bureaucratic procedures for international trade in food, which would make it more expensive and therefore less available to those who need it most, somehow enhance free choice.

Frankenfoods and the Language Wars

There are serious scientific concerns about foodstuffs that have genes that have been inserted from other plants - such as fatal food allergies. Applying the label of "Frankenstein foods" immediately polarizes and trivializes discourse on the issue and makes it difficult, if not impossible, to reach a public understanding and policy formulation that allow us to realize the benefits of the technology and avoid the potentially deleterious outcomes. The regulations in place for genetically modified foods make them one of the most carefully regulated consumer products. (Gason, 1999, Marks, 1999 and Hepworth, 2000) Conversely, there is virtually no regulation for crops bred by conventional methods, even though they may pose the same dangers that are alleged for the genetically modified varieties. (Concar and Coghlan, 1999) In an editorial titled, "Genetically Modified Confusion," The Washington Post wisely recognizes that there has to be a "proper balance of safety testing" while also recognizing "a legitimate area for further debate." It adds, however, that "the purpose of such debate should be to improve biotech research and enhance its acceptance, not to stop it in its tracks." (WP, 1999) The controversy over genetically modified food crops is indicative of the difficulty in using the scientific method for public understanding of complex issues when it is in opposition to skilled propagandists for strongly motivated ideological groups. The war thus far has won by the opponents of genetic modification of food crops before the first battle when they came up with a variety of scare terms, term - terminator genes, frankenfoods etc. The "Gene Use Restriction Technology," which critics called the "terminator gene" was "merely a patent claim and has not yet been produced. This device to prevent the formation of fertile seed from a GM crop, would also prevent the spread of the inserted gene to other plants." (Lachmann, 1999, see also Whipple, 1999) Since critics had voiced concern that genes from genetically modified plants might cross with wild varieties, one would have thought that a functioning "terminator gene" would be seen as a desired fail-safe device. Tests on genetically modified maize have indicated that normal agricultural practices make cross pollination with unmodified varieties of maize unlikely. (AP, 2000) With the anti-technology, anti-science zealots, it is not always clear what they want, only what they are against.

Greenpeace science: An oxymoron

None of the real and potential benefit of GM crops has deterred the protestors who "ripped up" experimental fields in genetically modified rape seed and sugar-beets in England preventing the very necessary scientific research on the crops that the critics are demanding as a precondition of the introduction and utilization. (BBC, 1999g&h) Though the vandals that have been going into the fields and greenhouses destroying food crops and trees, presume to have special, superior knowledge and moral authority than the rest of us about the dangers of genetic modification of plants, they somehow are not always able to make the proper identification and end up destroying the wrong crops or trees. (Daniels, 1999, Taverne, 1999, 31 and Fumento, 1999b & 2000) The director of a research center that was vandalized stated it correctly when he said "if someone can not tell the difference between a raspberry plant and a poplar tree, they are not doing too well environmentally." (quoted in McOmber, 1999) Yet they claim to be saving us from our own folly. However imperfect that science and the scientific method may have permeated Western culture, it is sufficient that most would infer that these terms implied some objective condition of the food and an empirically verifiable causal relations between production and consumption of these food and harm to humans. Those who were convinced that the food was dangerous simply ignored the fact that unknown millions of American and other peoples around the world had been eating genetically modified foods for several years without there being "one example of any identifiable medical condition induced" in those "who have consumed such material." (Malcom, 1999) Initially there was no science, good or bad, merely fear of the unknown often voiced in terms of the precautionary principle. In other words, despite evidence for the safety of the foods, there was the implicit and explicit demand for what was scientifically impossible, namely, absolute proof that no harm could ever result from genetically modified foodstuffs. In the public domain of tabloids and television, a reputable scientist's cautious respect for the limits to the available knowledge is no match for the certainty and shrill rhetoric of the ideologues. For the ideologues armed with the precautionary principle, scientific inquiry is irrelevant unless it appears to support your cause. The Gods seemed to smile on the opponents of genetic engineering of food crops as a result of the research done on genetically modified potatoes. "An entirely sensible study" had been undertaken "to see whether lectins which make some plants unpalatable to insects could be introduced into other plants for the same purpose. The study used potatoes only to make the experimentation easier. These particular potatoes were never intended to be developed as a food crop." (Lachmann, 1999, see also Bowden, 1999) "One of their scientists announced on television last autumn that feeding these transgenic potatoes to rats had caused abnormalities of organ growth and had damaged their immune systems." (Lachmann, 1999) "These remarks were seized upon by the tabloid press and engendered an hysterical reaction that has not died down." (Lachmann, 1999) As the British tabloids rushed to judgement deeming genetically modified foods to be unsafe, scientists were appalled that research results would be released at a press conference without first presenting the data on which the results were based and submitting them in a paper to be peer reviewed. The Rowett Research Institute in Scotland "arranged for an audit of Pusztai's results, which concluded that his data were 'too inconsistent' to support his conclusions." (Masood, 1999b, 547, see also, Masood, 1999c) The Royal Society sought the data from the researcher to have it peer reviewed following standard scientific practice of anonymous reviewers. A "working group" of the Royal Society had the data which was available to them, peer reviewed by six independent, anonymous "referees with a range of expertise" and were "very careful to review only the quality of the science and not to comment on the actions of anyone involved." (Bateson, 1999) The found that the "study was based on flawed design, execution and analysis." (Loder, 1999a&b Ellison, 1999, and RSa&b) Tragically, the scientists who showed so little regard for time tested methods of science in the way that they first made their results public, compounded their mischief by implicitly attacking the system of peer review itself in referring to the "unsolicited report of the Royal Society," and attacking it as being the product of "clandestine peer review." Without knowing who was on the peer review committee, it was implied that its members were biased "because many influential committees are redolent with advisers linked to biotechnology companies." (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999a) This has become a standard tactic. If you are unable to counter the science of someone or group defending modern science and technology, you attack them as tools of industry. The technique is to libel anyone who offers a differing perspective even if it is an anonymous reviewer whom you cannot identify. This libel is contrasted with the implicit assumption of the goodness and purity of the motives of the critics. And of course, they are without blemish or bias. It is difficult to imagine anyone competent or at the forefront of a field, be it (biotechnology in medicine or agriculture or nuclear power or whatever) with useful applications who would not have some ties to those actually involved in the endeavor of putting this knowledge into practice. It is then, this very competence which makes them subject to be libeled and it is yet another example of the assumed principle that those closest to an issue should be excluded from decision making on it because of presumed bias. The media, as would be expected, raised the same objection to anonymous peer review. "Members of the media present at the review's launch expressed concerns about the Royal Society's refusal to release the names of its reviewers. 'How can you convince the public about your conclusions if you won"t release the names?', asked one reporter." (Mitchell and Bradbury, 1999) As the details of the research and the methods used were revealed, further doubts as to its validity emerged. When they were finally published they drew the following careful criticism. The experiments done by Ewen and Pusztai were incomplete, included too few animals per diet group, and lacked controls such as a standard rodent diet containing about 15% protein (lactalbumin) as a balanced source of amino acids and a test diet with potatoes containing an "empty" vector. (Kuiper, Noteborn and Peijnenburg, 1999) In addition, another shortcoming of the study is that the diets were protein deficient; they contained only 6% protein by weight. There is convincing evidence that short-term protein stress and starvation impair the growth rate, development, hepatic metabolism, and immune function of rats. (Kuiper, Noteborn and Peijnenburg, 1999) Consequently, "the results are difficult to interpret and do not allow the conclusion that the genetic modification of potatoes accounts for adverse effects in animals." (Kuiper, Noteborn and Peijnenburg, 1999) In other words, many of the results were what one would expect from the diet that the rats were fed. Ingestion of potatoes may be associated with several adaptive changes in the gut because of the low digestibility of raw or partly refined potato starch. In rats caecal hypertrophy is a common response to short-term feeding of various poorly digestible carbohydrates. (Kuiper, Noteborn and Peijnenburg, 1999) There were many other difficulties with the research. The researchers claimed that it was not the potatoes that were responsible for the differential impact upon the rats but in the "construct" meaning the mechanism by which the potatoes were genetically modified. (Coghlan, MacKenzie and Concar, 1999) But, when the published data was examined it was found that the content of starch, glucose polymers, lectin, and trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors in GM potatoes differed from that of the parental line. Unfortunately, these differences have not been examined further by analysis of an extended range of lines, for evidence on whether these differences are attributable to the genetic modification or to natural variations. (Kuiper, Noteborn and Peijnenburg, 1999)

The Misuse of Science by its Enemies

Once again, it became a heads I win, tails you lose situation. As leading scientist with prestigious scientific organizations and societies offered critical analysis of the research, the public, in a distrust of authority borne of earlier incidents, reacted more strongly as opposition to genetically modified foods grew and spread across Europe. The establishment being against you proves that you are right but when a prestigious (establishment) medical journal, The Lancet, agrees to publish the research after numerous revisions, that also proves you right and was shamelessly seen by environmental groups as being a vindication of their position. They claimed vindication despite the fact that the editor of the journal, in defending his decision to publish it, clearly stated: "This is absolutely not a vindication of Dr Pusztai's claims. But we can now draw a line under the phoney debate we have had for the last year." (Horton, 1999, see also Ghosh, 1999) Further the editor stated that "Pusztai had recklessly made claims about his data a year ago" and argued that a benefit of publication was that Pusztai "has had to retract his original claim because his data, which we've published, absolutely don"t show that genetically modified foods stunt the growth of rats." (Loder, 1999, 731) Only a committed ideologue could consider this to be a vindication. Reading the editor's justification of the decision to publish, one searches in vain for a clear statement that this piece would have been published on merit alone even if there had been no controversy surrounding it. There was of course, the defense that it was peer reviewed but some sources claim that "several" reviewers "advised against publication on the grounds that the results are impossible to interpret." (Coghlan, MacKenzie and Concar, 1999) The editor, Richard Horton stated the following about the review process: It has been peer reviewed by six specialist advisers a nutritionist, a human pathologist, a veterinary pathologist, an agricultural geneticist, a plant molecular biologist, and a statistician who had several requests for clarification about the design of the study, the laboratory methods used, and the statistical tests applied. Some advised rejection; others encouraged us to go ahead and publish. The authors revised their letter three times to try to meet our reviewers" criticisms. (Horton, 1999) We have "some" who "advised rejection" and "others" who encouraged publication without knowing how many of each. We know that one reviewer argued "that the data were 'flawed'" but wished to see it published to put in "the public domain so that fellow scientists can judge for themselves . . . if the paper is not published, it will be claimed there is a conspiracy to suppress information." (Horton, 1999) And it is not at all clear in the above statement that after three attempts at revision whether the authors were actually able to meet the "reviewers criticisms." What is clear to some of us, is that the public hysteria was a factor in the publication of the piece. The editor in his defense, speaks about the need for "accountability" and about public perceptions of risk. "Risks are not simply questions of abstract probabilities or theoretical reassurances. What matters is what people believe about these risks and why they hold those beliefs." (Horton, 1999) In other words, if a group can whip up public hysteria about some presumptive risks, real or otherwise, then "what people believe about these risks" becomes at least a partial reason for peer reviewed publication. The Kuiper, Noteborn and Peijnenburg critique in The Lancet of Ewen/Pusztai research of quoted above is based upon the article published in the same issue of The Lancet. The Ewen/Pusztai article is silent on some of the more sensational previously made claims such as stunted organ growth or damage to the immune system. The rats in the control group were adversely effected by the diet as the above critique indicates but the sole finding then was the rats fed the GM potato diet suffered greater damage. Many scientists thought that publication of the research set a dangerous precedent in that it rewarded researchers and interest groups for fomenting public hysteria. And many thought that it damaged the reputation of the journal in which it was published. "To me, it tarnishes the reputation of the journal that publishes it," said Floyd E. Bloom, editor of Science. ..."If you're just going to take it because it's controversial, well, there are a whole lot of controversial things." (Pollack, 1999) Marcia Angell, editor-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, questioned as to "When was the last time [The Lancet] published a rat study that was uninterpretable? ... This really was dropping the bar." (Enserink, 1999b, see also Lancet, 1999 and Marwick, 2000) Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, in defending the publication of the Ewen/Pusztai article noted several of these critics. Richard Sykes, chairman of GlaxoWellcome, also marginalised the public's concern. In his presidential address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science on Sept 13, 1999, he noted that "It is now very possible that the outcomes of the present anti-GM food campaign will be detrimental to this country." (Horton, 1999) David Whitehouse, the science editor for the BBC summed up the feeling of many in a piece titled: "The Pusztai affair - science loses." He adds that the article was published "not because it is good science. It is there because it caused a fuss. A fuss brought about by single-interest pressure groups and the media." (Whitehouse, 1999b) We could add that when "science loses" so does everyone else except those seeking to promote an ideological agenda. There is now a further incentive to create hysteria by releasing research results claiming potential harm from an advance in science or technology, use the hysteria as justification for publication whether or not the results merit it and use the publication as evidence for vindication. Inevitably, some group will then come forward and use the precautionary principle to argue against its use no mater what the potential benefit to humanity may be. (Kirby, 1999c)

The Moral Highground?

Over the last decades, the anti-technology movements have been able to convince the public that they uniquely occupy some moral high ground from which they are entitled to judge the actions of us lesser mortals lacking their purity of motives as we are all corrupted by some vested interest or other. On the GM conflict, it has defined by them as a battle between those who would save the planet and all its creatures and those who would destroy it in order to profit from its destruction. Needless to say, the environmentalists were outraged when Blair government in the United Kingdom in 1999, proposed an anti-terrorism law that was to be so worded to include animal rights acts violence as well as activities such as the destruction of GM crops on private farm land under the delusion that they are saving the planet. (Ford, 1999 and Bennetto, 1999) There was once an honorable tradition of civil disobedience in which the participants believed in the rule of law but also in the injustice of certain laws or policies. Therefore, they felt morally obligated to violate these laws and/or protest the policies and to pay the consequence of being fined and/or incarcerated for their actions. Their willingness to pay the price for their actions was a testament to their beliefs and was an integral part of their protest against injustice of specific laws and not to the rule of law. This is a moral stance that we can all appreciate whether or not we agree with the cause. Environmental groups that clandestinely destroy the property and livelihood of others and seek to do so without penalty, cannot claim this tradition to justify their actions. There is an enormous ethical and moral difference between those who sought to change laws and policies that they found unjust and were willing to pay the full price for their actions and those who violate the law and not only seek exemption from it but protest an anti-terrorism law because it does not confer special privilege upon them. (see Fumento, 2000) Some British anti-GM environmentalists operating in terms of what they believe to be a higher authority, assume that they have the right to violate the laws of another country and destroy 50 per cent of an Irish trial crop. An Irish journalist has rightly referred to the "absurdity of the present campaign of neo-colonial vandalism." (Meyers, 1999) It is imperative that those of us in favor of using the best in science and technology to further the human endeavor must reclaim the moral argument which is truly and justly ours. Working to feed the hungry and defend the rights of the poorest and most vulnerable among us, has always been the uppermost priority of the major religions and of ethical and moral philosophers down through the ages. If anything clearly emerges from this debate, it is that, when the venire of pious rhetoric is stripped from the anti-GM food claims, their argument is simply one of selfishly seeking to impose their own fetishes and New Age beliefs on society whatever costs to the rest of humanity maybe. It is really questionable whether anyone benefits from opposition to GM technology (or from opposition to any genuine advance in science and technology) except those organizations that gain membership, funding and above all, power from these Luddite actions. There is nothing moral here and this needs to be said loud and clear until it is understood by the public.

The Lessons Learned

The controversy over genetic modification of foods is instructive in other ways. Many scientists argue that any time that one engages in plant breeding by crossing different varieties that one could emerge with combinations of genes whose impact on human health is unknown. The outcome of GM is more limited and therefore there should be fewer unknowns for them rather than more as the opponents of GM claim. Secondly, new plants or existing crops grown under different circumstances can have outcomes that are dangerous to human health. Two examples of many actual outcomes are given by Trewavas and Leaver: Psoralen was found to accumulate in one line of insect-resistant non-GM celery in response to light, and to cause skin burns. Cool weather-induced toxic accumulations of solanine caused the withdrawal of the non-GM Magnum Bonum potato line in Sweden. (Trewavas and Leaver, 1999, see also Coghlan, 1999b and Trewavas and Leaver, 2000) The standard varieties of celery, along with other umbelliferous vegetables (containing furocoumarins) such as parsnips, carrots and dill (along with other foodstuffs, cloves and figs) can cause a serious case of phytophotodermatitis or skin eruption for those who pick them when the sun is bright. (Lutchman et al., 1999, see also Ross, 1999, 126) We have long known that potatoes were loaded with various toxins. In seeking to appease the anti-GM hysterics, governments in Europe started making obligatory noises about tougher food safety regulations. In fact, the biotechnology industry claims that it has always favored "science-based" regulation of its products. (Feldbaum, 2000) Writing in the London newspaper, The Express, Ms. Mo Mowlam, the Minister for the Cabinet Office in the British Government bragged on how the government "had created one of the toughest regulatory systems in the world for GM foods." (Linden, 1999) Her comments were probably more revealing then was intended as to how extreme the regulatory response was. She is quoted as saying: "If Elizabethan England had the sort of regulatory system we have now, there is no way the potato would ever have been introduced into this country." (Linden, 1999) Many of the world's most important cultigens would have never been introduced outside the original area of domestication, had the current hysteria been operative and had similar restrictions (in terms of the knowledge of the time) in the name "food safety" been in place. And the world would be unimaginably poorer both in our ability to feed ourselves and in the variety of foods to eat because of it. And the poor in developing countries and the world in general will be far poorer in the future if the current hysteria is allowed to prevail. We still go on breeding plants, as well as picking them, as we must, but we do have procedures for testing for safety but they are not required for plants that are bred by conventional means. And if the hysteria over GM foods can be contained, research and development will continue to the betterment of humankind. Those who are genuinely concerned about the safety of GM crops will engage in an honest dialogue with GM advocates to continue to refine and improve the procedures for determining the safety of the food supply. As long as we have interest groups with an apocalyptic vision of a planet in crisis and science and technology driving humankind to destruction then it will be difficult to carry on any kind of rational, civilized discourse upon critical issues facing society. For the apocalyptic vision has its own rules of discourse. If we are heedlessly in a mad race to global catastrophe, then the overriding imperative is to stop the mindless rush to extinction. Nothing else matters to the apocalyptics. And if they are right, perish the thought, nothing else should matter. Thus truth is fine but expendable or at least postponable until sanity returns. Truth, scientific method, reasoned discourse only matter if they further the cause of saving the planet and its inhabitants. That genetically modified foods were dangerous, was an a priori truth, not to be contested or even considered to be otherwise. Once convinced of that proposition then there was no need for any further pursuit of knowledge, no testing, no give and take in honest discourse and disagreement. The only task at hand for the apocalyptics is to win at all cost and rescue the rest of us from destruction whatever our wishes may be. Those of us committed to a democratic society and civilized discourse as a way to work through differences and achieve understanding have not yet found a way to counter effectively the purveyors of hysteria. We need to redouble our effort and commitment and hope that rational discourse and the scientific method will prevail. Any other way defeats the goals that we are seeking to achieve. It should be noted in closing on this subject that some GM crops did in fact have the deleterious potential claimed by its opponents. This included crops that had wild progenitors that could have been transformed by the new GM crop and food crops that had the allergenic properties of the transferred gene. (Milloy, 1999) But existing procedures identified these difficulties in the testing phase and their development was correctly terminated. The testing procedures worked but they can always be improved but as an outcome of reasoned discourse and not hysteria. Since over 90 percent of food allergies result from "specific proteins in eight foods: peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, soybeans, sheel fish, fish and wheat," procedures have been established to require tests for allergenic responses in foodstuffs that have been altered with genes from these sources. (Allred, 2000) One author argues that rather than being insufficiently tested as the critics claim, genetically modified crops have been subjected too far more testing than would be warranted by any consideration of potential danger. Henry Miller maintains that it was the major developers of GM crops that lobbied in the United States for strict regulation that was costly to the producers as a means of making difficult if not essentially impossible for independent entrepreneurs, small biotech firms and University researchers to compete against them. (Miller, 1999) To Miller, the large firms scored a "Pyrrhic victory" in keeping down competition but thereby "fed the anti-technology mythology that has poisoned views of the consumers." However, we may view the "transgressions" of the biotech seed industry, they "pale beside the actions of their ideological opponents." in the process, we are all losers. (Miller, 1999) The words of Patrick Moore, a green activist and a founder of Green peace are instructive. He accuses Greenpeace and other opponents of GM foods of "abandoning science and following agendas that have little to do with saving the earth." (Bond, 1999) Moore cogently argues that: "I believe we are entering an era now where pagan beliefs and junk science are influencing public policy. GM foods and forestry are both good examples where policy is being influenced by arguments that have no basis in fact or logic." (Bond, 1999) Moore does recognize the need for intelligent caution and concern but that is not the same as irrational fears and hysterical opposition to potentially beneficial technological change. Moore adds: "Certainly, biotechnology needs to be done very carefully. But GM crops are in the same category as oestrogen- mimicking compounds and pesticide residues. They are seen as an invisible force that will kill us all in our sleep or turn us all into mutants. It is preying on people's fear of the unknown." (Bond, 1999)

Conclusion

The obvious question has to be answered if the evidence is so massively against the Ludditie position, how did science and good sense manage to lose the first round of this conflict? Credit must be given to the environmental groups who have honed a strategy over the last four or more decades that has allowed them to win numerous "victories" even when the evidence for their cause was totally absent. The strategy in its simplest form has a few key elements that we need to understand if we are to effectively counter it. 1) Pick and define a target about which the public knows nothing. Since earliest times, the unseen, the unknown and often unknowable have been the preserve of the fear mongers. The discovery of radiation at the turn of the 19^th/20^th century added a superficial venire of science to unseen malevolent forces (neglecting as always, the many beneficial uses of radiation). People may have known about the food that they ate but did they know about the dangerous "chemicals" that they contained? Obviously not until the fear mongers told them. Fears of GM food and then the WTO last fall in Seattle, are simply a continuation of this relatively successful fear mongering in the post-World War II era. That the public knew next to nothing about either of these prior to the organized campaigns against them was a plus for the activists. We can not fault the public for not being as knowledgeable about physics or chemistry of genetics or international trade as the specialists are but we can fault the educational systems which produced them for nor teaching the scientific method (one of the towering achievements of humankind) which would have at least allowed for a first cut for the public to separate the scientists from the charlatans. 2) Posit a benign, risk-free alternative so that absolutely any risk to a new technology is sufficient to deny it's use. Paradoxically, the very technology opposed by the Luddites, has created societies with such an extraordinary level of safety - in food, health care, etc. - compared to anything that humans have ever known that it renders a certain amount of plausibility to the utopian myth of a risk-free society. Given the statistics of infant mortality and child mortality and life expectancy in 1900, nobody would even seriously contemplate a risk-free world except in utopian literature but not in everyday political discourse. Benign "organic" agriculture, whatever that means, has been a mainstay of the Luddites these past decades and is currently a staple of the anti-GM battle. The "pre-cautionary principle" is a relatively recent variant of an old argument that assumes that the status-quo is absolutely free of risk and therefore change should be resisted unless one can establish, what is impossible to prove, that a new technology will not now or at no future time involve any risk to humans or other creatures or to the environment. 3) Create a firewall against counter argument in advance by claiming that anyone who would defend the "threatening" technology or organizations - pesticides, GM foods or WTO - was a shameless servant of malevolent corporate forces and therefore not to be believed however rational their argument may sound even though there may be a total absence of any corporate connection to those defending a technology. The facts simply do not matter. It is to be assumed that the presumed "purity" of motive of the environmentalists inevitably produces a "right" outcome and motives which are "tainted" by definition, corrupt the outcome. 4) Use your allies in the tabloids or other media to play up every alleged difficulty that seems to emerge from a technology - killer potatoes, threatened butterflies - as if this were only the tip of the iceberg of a larger lurking danger that threatens us all. If scientists argue that leaked or even publicly announced research was not peer-reviewed, imply that these time tested procedures are part of a conspiracy of scientists to hide the truth from the public. To play this game, one has to show no mercy and be ready to libel any scientist who disagrees with your position. 5) As the evidence mounts against you, discrediting all those who argue against your position becomes increasingly more difficult as is sustaining the fear when the sky fails to fall. The GM debate has now reached the stage in the United States where a committee has been formed to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on the issue of GM foods. (WSJ, 2000) In Europe, the anti-GM forces remain virtually unchallenged politically even though the science in Europe is clearly against them. If past fears are a guide, the above committee will be followed by a panel review. Like the above committee, it will be composed of distinguished academics but in the legitimate cause of balance, it will include representatives of environmental groups. These panels prefer to provide a consensus report which has given the environmental members of them more influence than they would otherwise have. Even if no evidence of danger can be discovered or any mechanism or pathway for harm be defined, they will hold out for evidence that "suggests" that there is danger and therefore the need for further study and of course further delay. The scientists on the panel may give an interview or two and then return to their science while the environmentalists on the committee will use their membership on the panel as credentials for their continued anti-technology campaign. Even if a major study clearly finds no evidence of harm, the environmentalists will be prepared with the argument that it is "fatally flawed" or it is not the "last word" on the issue. All of which means that it will be impossible ever to prove them wrong to their satisfaction and so the debate will drag on for decades. Clearly, we are at the beginning and not the end of the struggle for GM foods and for the rule of reason and civilized discourse over fear and irrationality. Optimists, like this author firmly believe that in the long run, the new technology will prevail and humankind will be the better for it but we must use our optimism as a spur to enhanced vigilance and action and not as a basis for complacency. Every delay in the development and dissemination of GM foods will cause more misery and death for those most in need of the benefits of the new technology. We need not adopt the apocalyptic vision of the Luddites to recognize that the stakes in this battle are high and that not only is a pro-GM food outcome essential but that we must move forward as rapidly and judiciously as possible. This is truly a moral crusade and one that we must not lose.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abelson, Philip H. and Pamela J. Hines (1999). The plant revolution, pp. 367-368 in Science, Special Issue, Plant Biotechnology: Food and Feed, Vol. 285, No. 5426, July 16. Allred, John B. (2000). Genetically modified foods not only safe but necessary, Columbus Dispatch, January 18. AmeriScan, (1999). Biotech corn may pose little risk to butterflies, ENS (Environment News Service, Lycos), November 2. AP (Associated Press) (1999a). United States helps sink pact on biogenetics, Associated Press, Houston Chronicle, February 25. AP (Associated Press) (1999b). Monarch butterflies abundant in Mexican sanctuaries, Associated Press, Nando Media online, November 1. AP (Associated Press) (2000). Study finds natural corn crops untainted by genetically engineered plants, Associated Press, Nando Media online, January 21. Apse, Maris P.; Gilad S. Aharon, Wayne A. Snedden and Eduardo Blumwald (1999). Salt tolerance conferred by overexpression of a vacuolar Na+/H+ Antiport in Arabidopsis, pp. 1256 - 1258 in Science, Vol. 285, No. 5431, Aug 20. APSnet (American Phytopathological Society) (1999). American Phytopathological Society, APSnet Feature (press release), October 15. Bajak, Frank (1999). International talks on regulating biotech organisms winding down, Associated Press, Nando Media online, February 22. Barboza, David (1999), Biotech companies take on critics of gene-altered food, The New York Times, November 12. Bateson, P.P.G. (1999). Genetically modified potatoes, in The Lancet, Vol. 354, No. 9187, October 16. BBC (1998). Farmer seeks "mutant" maize ban, BBC World Service online, May 7. BBC (1999a). "No need" to ban genetic foods: Concerns are growing over the potential side effects of GM food, BBC World Service online, February 12. BBC (1999b). Gene-altered food "is safe": Supermarkets are promising labelling and information, BBC World Service online, February 13. BBC (1999c). GM food scare is "bad science," BBC World Service online, February 23 BBC (1999d). GM food talks fail, BBC World Service online, February 24. BBC (1999e). Genetic engineering to battle iron deficiency, BBC World Service online, February 25. BBC (1999f). Plants dwarf gene shows big promise: Dwarf rice could give higher yields in future, BBC World Service online, July 14. BBC (1999g). Protesters opposed to genetically modified (GM) crops have ripped up a field of GM oilseed rape in Oxfordshire, BBC World Service online, July 18. BBC (1999h). GM crop attack hits "vital research," BBC World Service online, July 29. BBC (1999i). Canadian scientists have created a plant that can grow in very salty conditions, BBC World Service online, August 20. BBC (1999j). Modified cows could fight MS, BBC World Service online, August 24. BBC (1999k). GM safety research stokes new row: The research triggered a scare over GM food safety, BBC World Service online, October 4. BBC (1999l). Lancet defies GM study advice, BBC World Service online, October 12. BBC (1999m). Backlash for GM dissenters: GM soya as good as conventional soya, says Derek Burke, BBC World Service online, October 13. BBC (1999n). Health risks reduced by GM corn: Fusarium ear rot is extremely common, BBC World Service online, October 22. BBC (1999o). Scientists discuss GM threat to butterflies: More research is clearly called for, BBC World Service online, Novemeber 8. Bennetto, Jason (1999). Green campaigners condemn government move to extend definition of terrorism, The Independent (London), November 16. Berger, Abi (1999). Multimedia: Hot potato, p. 611 in BMJ (The British Medical Journal), Vol. 318, No. 7183, February 27. Beringer, John (1999a). Keeping watch over genetically modified crops and foods, The Lancet online, Vol. 353, No. 9153, February 20. Bond, Michael (1999). Dr. truth, New Scientist, Vol. 164, No. 2218, December 25. Bowden, Rebecca (1999). Royal Society Rejects Latest Claims On GM Potatoes, The Royal Society (London), Monday, October 11. Butler, Declan (1999). Biotech industry seeks "honest brokers," p. 360 in Nature, Vol. 398, No. 6726, April 1. Byerlee, Derek and Carl K. Eicher (eds.)(1997). Africa's emerging maize revolution. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Chambers, Judith (1999). Discussion, pp. 39-40 in Serageldin and Collins, eds. (1999). CNS (Cornell News Service) (1999). Two leading researchers take issue with three recent studies on the effects of genetically engineered crops, Cornell University, Cornell News Service Home Page, September 10. Coghlan, Andy (1999a). Caught in the crossfire: Food fight brings down medical research firm, p. 22 in New Scientist, Vol. 163, No. 2204, September 18. Coghlan, Andy (1999b). How safe is safe: Seemingly innocuous vegetables can contain a toxic surprise, p. 7 in New Scientist, Vol. 164, No. 2208, October 16. Coghlan, Andy (1999). How safe is safe: Seemingly innocuous vegetables can contain a toxic surprise, p. 7 in New Scientist, Vol. 164, No. 2208, October 16. Coghlan, Andy; David Concar and Debora MacKenzie (1999). Frankenfears & Mashed Potatoes: Experiments that cast doubt on GM food safety are called into question, New Scientist, pp. 4-5 in Vol. 161 No. 2174, February 20 & p. 13 in Vol. 161, No. 2176, March 6. Coghlan, Andy; Debora MacKenzie and David Concar (1999). Its that man again: Arpad Pusztai is finally publishing a paper on his experiments on modified potatoes. But the meaning of his work remains unclear, p. 6 in New Scientist, Vol. 164, No. 2208, October 16. Cohen, Phil (1998b) Strange fruit, pp. 42-45 in Special report: Living in a GM world, New Scientist, Vol. 160, No. 2158, October 31. Concar, David and Andy Coghlan (1999). GM foods: A Question of breeding & GM foods: Dispatches from the killing fields, pp. 4-5 in New Scientist, Vol. 161, N. 2175, February 27. Cowen, Robert C. (1998). Genetic engineering of pest-resistant plants faces public resistance, The Christian Science Monitor, May 13. Daniels, Sophie (1999). GM food protesters tear up wrong crop, The Sunday Times (London), August 1. DeGregori, Thomas R. (1985a). A theory of technology: Continuity and change in human development. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press. DellaPenna, Dean (1999). Nutritional genomics: Manipulating plant micronutrients to improve human health, pp. 375-379 in Science, Special Issue, Plant Biotechnology: Food and Feed, Vol. 285, No. 5426, July 16 Dixon, Bernard (1999). The paradoxes of genetically modified foods: A climate of mistrust is obscuring the many different facets of genetic modification, pp. 547-588 in BMJ (The British Medical Journal), Vol. 318, No. 7183, February 27. Eaglesham, Jean (1999a). Life sciences group faces lawsuit: Global challenge to modified crop techniques - Unprecedented antitrust action in 30 countries, Financial Times (London), September 13. Eaglesham, Jean (1999b). Antitrust case sows seeds of debate about farming's future, Financial Times (London), September 13. The Economist (1999a). Frankenstein foods, p. 17; Genetically modified free trade, p. 76, Seeds of discontent, p. 75-77, Ethnobotany: Shaman loses its magic, p. 77 in The Economist, Vol 350, No.8107, February 20. The Economist (1999b). Who's afraid of genetically modified foods: Food for thought?, pp. 19-21 in The Economist, Vol. 351, No. 8124, July 19. Enserink, Martin (1999). Bioengineering: Preliminary data touch off genetic food fight, pp. 1094-1095 in Science, Vol. 283, No. 5405 February 19. Ewen, Stanley W B and Arpad Pusztai (1999a). Health risks of genetically modified foods, p. 684 in The Lancet, Vol. 354, No. 9179, August 21. Ewen, Stanley W B and Arpad Pusztai (1999b). Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine, pp. 1353- in The Lancet, Vol. 354, No. 9187, October 16. Feder, Barnaby J. (2000). Science invades the pantry, The New York Times, January 1. Feldbaum, Carl B. (2000). GM food: Safety message drowned out, Financial Times (London), January 5. Feldbaum, Carl B. (1999a). One UK biotech company's demise shows us all what we stand to lose, Financial Times (London), September 16. Feldbaum, Carl B. (1999b). Health risks of genetically modified foods, The Lancet, Vol. 354, No. 9172, July 3. Feldbaum, Carl B. (2000). GM food: Safety message drowned out, Financial Times (London), January 5. Flavel, Richard (1999). Biotechnology and food and nutrition needs, Brief 2 in Persley, (1999). Ford, Richard (1999). Terrorism law to cover animal militants, The Times (London), November 15. Frommer, Wolf B.; Uwe Ludewig, and Doris Rentsch (1999). Enhanced: Taking transgenic plants with a pinch of salt, pp. 1222-1223 in Science, Vol. 285, No. 5431, Aug 20. Fumento, Michael (1999). Biotech crop-busting comes to Canada: Vandals are waging a war against scientific research. But no one seems to care much, National Post (Canada), December 27. Fumento, Michael (2000). Crop Busters, Reason Magazine, January. Gaskell, George, Martin W. Bauer, John Durant, and Nicholas C. Allum (1999). Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S., pp. 384-387 in Science, Special Issue, Plant Biotechnology: Food and Feed, Vol. 285, No. 5426, July 16. Gavaghan, Helen (1999) Genetically modified food: Britain struggles to turn anti-GM tide, p. 1442-1444 in Science, Vol. 284, No. 5419, May 28. Ghosh, Pallab (1999). GM controversy intensifies: Dr Pusztai sees the publication as vindication, BBC World Service online, October 15. Graham, Lester (2000). Genetically altered rice, NPR (National Public Radio) Morning Edition, January 13. Guerinot, Mary Lou (2000). Enhanced: The green revolution strikes gold, pp. 241-243 in Science, Vol. 287, Number 5451, January 14. Gura, Trisha (1999). New genes boost rice nutrients, pp. 994-995 in Science, Vol.285, No. 5430, August 13. Gura, Trisha (2000). Reaping the plant gene harvest, pp. 412-414 in Science, Vol. 287, No. 5452, January 21. Halweil, Brian (1998). Bumper crop of Frankenstein food: Yanking the food chain with genetically altered produce, It's a record harvest this year for genetically altered foods to make them resistant to weeds and pests, MSNBC online, October 30. Hepworth, Lorne (2000). "Frankenfood" is a product of the media, not biotechnology, The Crop Protection Institute (This article originally appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail), January 5. HOL (House of Lords) (1998). EC regulations of genetic modification in agriculture, House of Lords, Select Committee on the European Communities, Session 1998-1999, 2^nd report, London: The Stationary Office HL Paper 11-I, December. Holmes, Bob (1999a). GM foods: The great divide, New Scientist, pp. 6-7 in Vol. 161, N. 2175, February 27. Holmes, Bob (1999b). Rooting for acid, New Scientist, Vol. 163, No. 2196, August 14. Horton, Richard (1999). Genetically modified foods: "absurd" concern or welcome dialogue? p. 1312 in The Lancet, Vol. 354, No. 9187, October 16. Hosken, Andrew (1999). Human tests for plague vaccine, BBC World Service online, August 26. Hotakainen, Rob (1999a). Food labeling fight leaves farmers in the cross fire, Scripps Howard News Service, Nando Media online, November 13. Hotakainen, Rob (1999b). Congress facing food fight over genetic labeling proposal, Scripps McClatchy Western Service, Nando Media online, November 14. Houlder, Vanessa (1999). Plant dwarfing gene identified, Financial Times (London), July 15. Houlder, Vanessa; Guy Jonquieres; and Adam Thompson (1999). Breakdown of UN talks on GM crop treaty threatens to heighten trade tensions, Financial Times (London), February 26. Jacobs, Paul (1999). Altered corn's no threat to butterfly, researchers say, Los Angeles Times, November 2. James, Clive and Anatole Krattiger (1999). The role of the private sector, Brief 4 in Persley, (1999). Jenkins, Holman W. Jr.(1999b). Fun facts to know and tell about biotechnology, The Wall Street Journal, November 17. JIC (John Innes Centre) (1999). "Green revolution" gene isolated by John Innes scientists, Norwich, UK: John Innes Centre Press Release, July 12. Jones, Leighton (1999). Clinical review: Science, medicine, and the future: Genetically modified foods, pp. 581-584 in BMJ (The British Medical Journal), Vol. 318, No. 7183, February 27. Jonquieres, Guy de (1999). Genetically modified trade wars, Financial Times (London), February 18. Kendall, Henry W.; Roger Beachy, Thomas Eisner, Fred Gould, Robert Herdt, Peter Raven, Jozef S. Schell and M. S, Swaminathan (1997). Bioengineering of crops: Report of the World Bank Panel on Transgenic Crops. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Kirby, Alex (1999d). US 'wrecking' GM talks, BBC World Service online, February 23. Kirby, Alex (1999e). GM crop can help environment, BBC World Service online, August 25. Kirby, Alex (1999f). GM crops have "significant snags": GM food may harm developing countries, the report argues, BBC World Service, online, October 21. Kuiper, Harry A., Hub P J M Noteborn and Ad A C M Peijnenburg (1999). Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods, p. 1312 in The Lancet, Vol. 354, No. 9187. October 16. Lachmann, Peter (1999). Health risks of genetically modified foods, p. 69 in The Lancet, Vol. 354, Number 9172, July. Lehrman, Sally (1999). As Rockefeller head warns of backlash, pp. 831-832 in Nature, Vol. 401, No. 6756, October 28 Leisinger, Klaus (1999a). Panelist's remarks, pp. 140-143 in Serageldin and Collins, eds. (1999). Leisinger, Klaus (1999b). Disentangling risk issues, Brief 5 in Persley, (1999). Lennard, Jeremy (1999). US blocks safe genetic trade deal, Guardian News Service, WOZA online, Johannesburg, South Africa. February 23. Linden, Martha (1999). Mowlam promises tougher GM rules, The Independent (London), December 18. Lipton, Michael (1999). Genetically modified foods already reducing undernutrition, letter to Financial Times, July 12. Loder, Natasha (1999a). Royal Society: GM food hazard claim is "flawed," p. 188 in Nature, Vol.399, No. 6733, May 20. Loder, Natasha (1999b). Journal under attack over controversial paper on GM food, p. 731 in Nature, Vol.401, No. 6755, October 21. Losey, John E.; Linda S. Rayor and Maureen E. Carter (1999). Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae, p. 214 in Nature, Vol. 399, No. 6733, May 20. MacKenzie, Debora (1999a). GM foods: How to price what we put on our plate, pp. 6-7 in New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2175, February 27. MacKenzie, Debora (1999b). Friend or foe, "Friendly" bacteria make terrific insecticides. But just a few genes separate the good guys from the bad guys, pp. 22-23 in New Scientist, Vol. 164, No. 2207, October 9. MacIlwain, Colin (1999b). Developing countries look for guidance in GM crops debate, pp. 831-832 in Nature, Vol. 401, No. 6756, October 28. MacIlwain, Colin (1999b). Access issues may determine whether agri-biotech will help the world's poor, Nature, Vol. 402, No 6760, November 25. Malcom, Alan D.B. (1999). Health risks of genetically modified foods, p. 69 in The Lancet, Vol. 354, No. 9172, July 3. Marwick, Charles (2000). Genetically modified crops feed ongoing controversy, JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), Vol. 283 No. 2, January 12. Masood, Ehsan (1999a). Collapse of talks on safety of GMO trade, p. 6 in Nature, Vol. 398, No. 6722, April 3. Masood,Ehsan (1999b). Gag on food scientist is lifted as gene modification row hots up, p. 547 in Nature, Vol. 397, No. 6720, February 18. Masood, Ehsan (1999c). Food scientist in GMO row defends "premature" warning, p. 98 in Nature, Vol. 398, No. 6723, March 3. Mazur, Barbara, Enno Krebbers, and Scott Tingey (1999). Gene Discovery and Product Development for Grain Quality Traits, pp. 372-375 in Science, Special Issue, Plant Biotechnology: Food and Feed, Vol. 285, No. 5426, July 16. McKie, Robin (2000). Why the West must swallow gene foods, The (Sunday) Observer (London), January 23. McOmber, J. Marin (1999). Eco-activists go after wrong target, Seattle Times, November 29. Meyers, Kevin (1999). An Irishman's diary, The Irish Times, August 19. Miller, Henry (1999b). GM crops: The unexpected arm of the bio-police, Financial Times, Decemeber 21. Milloy, Steven J. (1999b). The biotech rumor mill, Investor's Business Daily, October 8. Mitchell, Peter and Jane Bradbury (1999). British Medical Association enters GM-crop affray, The Lancet, Vol. 353, No. 9166, May 22. Moffat, Anne Simon (1999a). Engineering plants to cope with metals, pp. 369-370 in Science, Special Issue, Plant Biotechnology: Food and Feed, Vol. 285, No. 5426, July 16. Moffat, Anne Simon (1999b). Crop engineering goes south, pp. 370-371 in Science, Special Issue, Plant Biotechnology: Food and Feed, Vol. 285, No. 5426, July 16. Morris, Julian and Roger Bate (1999). Fearing food: Risk, health and Environment. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Morrison, W. Ivan (1999). Biotechnology and animal vaccines, Brief 3 in Persley, (1999). Morrow, David J. (2000). Drug makers move to unload agricultural units, The New York Times, January 20. Munkvold, Gary P. and Richard L. Hellmich (1999). Genetically modified, insect resistant corn: Implications for disease management, APSnet Feature (American Phytopathological Society), October 15. NB (Nature Biotechnology, Editorial) (1999). A golden bowl of rice, p. 831 in Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 17, No. 9, September. New Scientist (1999a). Editorial: Monster mash: Take one transgenic potato and a colony of lab rats ..., p. 3 in New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2174, February 20. New Scientist (1999b). Editorial: Seriously silly: Angst about GM foods is creating a farcical double standard in our thinking, p. 3 in New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2175, February 27. New Scientist (1999c). Editorial: Friendly fire: Have stray bullets from the "Frankenfood" affair killed off a force for good, p. 3 in New Scientist, Vol. 163, No. 2204, September 18. Normile, Dennis (1999). Rice biotechnology: Rockefeller to end network after 15 years of success, pp. 1468-1469 in Science, Vol. 286, No 5444, November 19. Palevitz, Barry A. (1999). Bt or not Bt ...Transgenic Corn vs. Monarch Butterflies: Could a diet rich in transgenic corn pollen doom the Monarch butterfly?, The Scientist, Vol 13, No. 12, June 7. Peng, Jinrong; Donald E. Richards; Nigel M. Hartley; George P. Murphy; Katriem M. Devos; John E. Flintham; James Beales, Leslie J. Fish; Anthony J. Worland; Fatima Pelica; Duraialagaraja Sudhakar; Paul Christou; John W. Snape, Michael D.Gale and Nicholas P. Harberd (1999). "Green revolution" genes encode mutant gibberellin response modulators, pp. 256-261 in Nature, Vol. 400, No. 6741, July 15. Persley, Gabrielle, ed. (1999). Biotechnology for developing-country agriculture: Problems and opportunities, Focus 2: 2020 Vision, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), October. Pinstrup-Andersen, Per (1999). Modern biotechnology and small farmers in developing countries, pp. 3 & 10 in International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Research Perspectives, Vol. 21, No. 2, Fall. Pollack, Andrew (1999a). Biotechnology treaty stalls as U.S. and developing countries quarrel, The New York Times, February 23. Pollack, Andrew (1999b). U.S. and allies block treaty on genetically altered goods, The New York Times, February 25. Pollack, Andrew, (1999c). A disputed study suggests possible harm: From genetically altered food, The New York Times, October 15. Potrykus, Ingo; Paola Lucca, Xudong Ye, Salim Al-Babili, Richard F. Hurrel and Peter Beyer (1999). Contributions to food security by genetic engineering with rice, XVI International Botanical Congress, Saint Louis, Missouri, U.S.A., August 1-7. Prakash, C. S. (1999). Foes of biotechnology ignore global hunger, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, December 5. Prakash, C. S. (2000). Biotechnology declaration on Website - Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Alabama, U.S.A. Reaney, Patricia (19990. GM foods needed to feed world, UK scientist says, Reuters online, November 17. Reuters (1999). Rifkin sues frankenfood giant, Reuters News Service online, December 14. Robinson, Nigel J.; Catherine M. Procter; Erin L. Connolly, and Mary Lou Guerinot (1999). A ferric-chelate reductase for iron uptake from soils, pp. 694-697 in Nature, Vol. 397, No. 6721, February 25. Ross, Emma (1999). Study creates new dispute over genetically altered food, Associated Press, Nando Media online, October 14. Russell, Joyce, WOI Radio, Ames, Iowa (1999). Soybeans, NPR (National Public Radio), Morning Edition, August 16. Schwartz, John (1999). Monsanto sued over its seeds, Washington Post, December 15. ScienceScope (1999). Food fight, Science, Vol. 283, No. 5406, February 26. Serageldin, Ismail (1999a). Panelist's remarks, pp. 134-139 in Serageldin and Collins, eds. (1999). Serageldin, Ismail (1999b). Biotechnology and Food Security in the 21^st Century, pp. 387-389 in Science, Special Issue, Plant Biotechnology: Food and Feed, Vol. 285, No. 5426, July 16. Serageldin, Ismail and Wanda W. Collins, eds. (1999). Biotechnology and biosafety: A forum. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, World Bank Conference on Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development, held at the World Bank, October 9-10, 1997. Shelton, Antony M. and Richard T. Roush (1999). False reports and the ears of men, p. 832 in Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 17, No. 9, September. SIRC (Social Issue Research Centre) (1999). The tide turns against Greenpeace, Oxford: Social Issue Research Centre. Smith, Francis B. (2000). Biotechnology in the year 2000 and beyond: Comments submitted by Francis B. Smith, Executive Director, Consumer Alert to, (U.S.), Food and Drug Administration, Washington, D.C., January 13. Swaminathan, M. S. (2000). Science in response to basic human needs, p. 425 in Science, Vol. 287, No. 5452, January 21. Tait, Nikki (1999). Rice: GM strain addresses health issues: Genetically modified crops-grain will provide enhanced levels of iron and vitamin A, Financial Times (London), August 4. Taverne, Dick (1999). Against anti-science, pp. 31-35 in Prospect, Issue No. 47, December. Thompson, Adam (1999). Efforts to adopt UN biosafety protocol fail, Financial Times (London), February 25. Trewavas, Anthony (1999). Much food, many problems, pp. 231 in Nature, Vol. 402, No. 6759, November 18. Trewavas, Anthony and C. J. Leaver (1999). Conventional crops are the test of GM prejudice, p. 640 in Nature, Vol. 401 No 6754, October 14. Trewavas, Anthony and Christopher Leaver (2000). How nature itself uses genetic modification, p. 12 in Nature, Vol. 403, No. 6765, January 6. TRF (The Rockefeller Foundation) (1999a) New Rices May Help Address Vitamin A and Iron Deficiency, Major Causes Of Death In The Developing World, Press Release, August 3. TRF (The Rockefeller Foundation) (1999b). Breakthrough in Rockefeller-funded research to combat nutritional deficiencies announced, Philanthropy News Digest, August 10. USDA (1993). Genetically engineered foods: Fears and facts: An interview with FDA's Jim Maryanski. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, January/February. USA (1999). Protectionism trumps science as gene-altered products are shut out, USA Today Editorial, February 21. Wambugu, Florence (1999). Why Africa needs biotech, pp. 15-16 in Nature, Vol. 400, No. 6739, July 1. Whelan, Robert (1999). Wild in the woods: The myth of the noble eco-savage. London: The Institute of Economic Affairs, IEA Environment Unit, IEA Studies on the Environment No 14. Whipple, Dan (1999). Seeds of controversy, pp. 10-12 in The Futurist, Vol. 33, No. 8, October. Whitehouse, David (1999a). Genetic food: Here to stay? Do you know what foods have been genetically-modified? BBC World Service online, February 13. Whitehouse, David (1999b). The Pusztai affair - science loses, BBC World Service online, October 15. Wilson, Michael; John R. Hillman and David J. Robinson (1999). Genetic modification in context and perspective, pp. 58-77 in Morris and Bate, eds. 1999. WP (Washingon Post) (1999). Editorial: Genetically modified confusion, The Washingon Post, September 17. WP (Washington Post) (2000). Editorial: Golden rice and superbugs, The Washington Post, January 22. Wrong, Michela (1999). "Feed the world" used to justify the new technology, Financial Times (London), December 6. WSJ (Wall Street Journal) (2000). Agriculture Secretary forms panel to advise on crop biotechnology, The Wall Street Journal, January 22 (story posted on http://www.junkscience.com/ on January 23). Ye, Xudong; Salim Al-Babili; Andreas Kl; Jing Zhang; Paola Lucca; Peter Beyer and Ingo Potrykus (2000). Engineering the Provitamin A (Beta-Carotene) Biosynthetic Pathway into (Carotenoid-Free) Rice Endosperm, pp. 303-305 in Science, Vol. 287, Number 5451, January 14 Yoon, Carol Kaesuk (1999a). Stalked by deadly virus, papaya lives to breed again, The New York Times, July 20. Yoon, Carol Kaesuk, (1999b). Few federal checks exist on the growing of crops whose genes are altered, The New York Times, November 3. ADDITIONAL RECENT SOURCES WITH WEB ADDRESSES Kava, Ruth (with Jack Raso)(1999). You say "hazard," I say "potato," Priorities for Health (American Council on Science and Health), Volume 11 Number 4. http://www.acsh.org/publications/priorities/1104/potato.html Kava, Ruth (1999). Merits of altered crops (letter to the editor), The New York Times, December 26. http://www.acsh.org/press/editorials/crops122699.html Ross, Gilbert L. (1999). Anti-biotechies peddle superstition, fear (letter to the editor), The Wall Street Journal, November 30. http://www.acsh.org/press/editorials/biotech113099.html Similar recent publications by DeGregori available on line are: DeGregori, Thomas R. (1998). Counter to conventional wisdom: In defense of DDT and against chemophobia, Rockwell Lecture, University of Houston, August 26. http://www.uh.edu/~trdegreg/ROCKWELL.HTM DeGregori, Thomas R. (1999). It has been a very good century, but..., pp. 7-11, 40 in Priorities For Long Life and Good Health, Volume 11, No. 3. http://www.acsh.org/publications/priorities/1103/century.html DeGregori, Thomas R. (1999). Nazis versus cancer: The flip side of Fascism?, Priorities For Long Life and Good Health, Vol. 11, No. 4. http://www.acsh.org/publications/priorities/current.html DeGregori, Thomas R. (2000). The sky Is not falling: The culture of baseless fears, Priorities For Long Life and Good Health, Vol. 12, No. 1. (in press) http://www.acsh.org/publications/priorities/current.html