| From the NYTimes Department of Disinformation I think.
PERSONAL HEALTH
Facing Biotech Foods Without the Fear Factor
By JANE E. BRODY
Published: January 11, 2005
Almost everywhere food is sold these days, you are likely to find products claiming to contain no genetically modified substances. But unless you are buying wild mushrooms, game, berries or fish, that statement is untrue.
Nearly every food we eat has been genetically modified, through centuries of crosses, both within and between species, and for most of the last century through mutations induced by bombarding seeds with chemicals or radiation. In each of these techniques, dozens, hundreds, even thousands of genes of unknown function are transferred or modified to produce new food varieties.
Most so-called organic foods are no exception. The claims of no genetic modification really refer to foods that contain no ingredients that are produced through the highly refined technique of gene splicing, in which one or a few genes are transferred to an organism. But alarmist warnings about the possible hazards of gene splicing have made the public extremely wary of this selective form of genetic modification.
Such warnings have so far been groundless. "Americans have consumed more than a trillion servings of foods that contain gene-spliced ingredients," said Dr. Henry I. Miller, a fellow at the Hoover Institution and author, with Gregory Conko, of "The Frankenfood Myth," a new book that questions the wisdom of current gene-splicing regulations.
"There hasn't been a single untoward event documented, not a single ecosystem disrupted or person made ill from these foods," he said in an interview. "That is not something that can be said about conventional foods, where imprecise methods of genetic modification actually have caused illnesses and deaths."
Ignorance vs. Progress
It is no secret that the public's understanding of science, and genetics in particular, is low. For example, in a telephone survey of 1,200 Americans released last October by the Food Policy Institute at Rutgers University, 43 percent thought, incorrectly, that ordinary tomatoes did not contain genes, while genetically modified tomatoes did. One-third thought, again incorrectly, that eating genetically modified fruit would change their own genes.
In another telephone survey, in which 1,000 American consumers were questioned last year in research for the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 54 percent said they knew little or nothing about genetically modified foods. Still, 89 percent said that no such food should be allowed on the market until the Food and Drug Administration determined that it was safe.
What most respondents did not seem to know is that almost none of the foods people eat every day, which contain many introduced genes whose functions are unknown, have ever been subjected to premarketing approval or postmarketing surveillance.
Why should people object to the presence of a single new gene whose function is known when for centuries they have accepted foods containing hundreds of new genes of unknown function?
A junior high school student in Idaho, Nathan Zohner, demonstrated in a 1997 science fair project how easy it was to hoodwink a scientifically uninformed public. As described in "The Frankenfood Myth," 86 percent of the 50 students he surveyed thought dihydrogen monoxide should be banned after they were told that prolonged exposure to its solid form caused severe tissue damage, that exposure to its gaseous form caused severe burns and that it had been found in tumors from terminal cancer patients. Only one student recognized the substance as water, H2O.
Without better public understanding and changes in the many arcane rules now thwarting development of new gene-spliced products, we will miss out on major improvements that can result in more healthful foods, a cleaner environment and a worldwide ability to produce more food on less land - using less water, fewer chemicals and less money.
The European Union has, in effect, banned imports of all foods produced through gene splicing, and it has kept many African nations, including those afflicted with widespread malnutrition, from accepting even donated gene-spliced foods and crops by threatening to cut off products they export because they might become contaminated with introduced genes.
Even more puzzling, Uganda has prohibited the testing of a fungus-resistant banana created through gene splicing, even though the fungus is devastating that nation's most important crop.
In a new report, "Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods," published by the National Academy of Sciences, an expert committee notes that any time genes are mutated or combined, as occurs in almost all breeding methods, there is a possibility of producing a new, potentially hazardous substance.
Citing a conventionally bred potato that turned out to contain an unintended toxin, the report says the hazard lies with the toxin's presence, not the breeding method.
Among the foods developed through induced mutations are lettuce, beans, grapefruit, rice, oats and wheat. None had to undergo stringent testing and federal approval before reaching the market.
Only those foods produced by the specific introduction of one or more genes into the organism's DNA are subject to strict and prolonged premarketing regulations. But as the academy's report points out, gene splicing is only a process, not a product, a process on a continuum of genetic modification of foods that began more than 10,000 years ago when people first crossed two varieties of a crop to improve its characteristics.
In fact, gene splicing is the most refined, precise and predictable method of genetic modification because the function of the transferred gene or genes is known. It is also important to realize that genes are rarely unique to a given organism.
Regulate by Degree of Risk
All new crop varieties, whether produced through gene splicing or conventional techniques like cross-breeding or induced mutations, go through a series of tests before commercial introduction. After greenhouse testing for the look and perhaps taste of the crop, it is grown in a small, sequestered field trial and, if it passes that test, in a larger trial to check its commercial viability.
The potential risks associated with genetically modified foods result not so much from the method used to produce them but from the traits being introduced. With gene splicing, only one or two traits at a time are introduced, making it possible to assess beforehand how much testing is needed to assure safety.
While such safety tests are important, it is possible to become fixated on hypothetical risks that can never be absolutely discounted.
Indeed, Dr. Miller, once director of the Office of Biotechnology for the Food and Drug Administration, argues that overly stringent regulations can needlessly raise public fears. "People naturally assume that something that is more highly regulated is more dangerous," he said, adding, "Government officials should have done less regulating and more educating."
A risk-based protocol for safety evaluation would greatly reduce the time and costs involved in developing most new gene-spliced crops, many of which could raise the standard of living worldwide and better protect the planet from chemical contamination.
| 
