www.czu.cz ; www.raupp.info

Agricultural Research Service committed $24 million in fiscal 2004 for
biotechnology risk assessment and risk mitigation research, covering such
issues as allergenicity of GM foods to ways to block movement of genes from
GM crops to non-GM crops, October 2004 by Hembree Brandon .

There they stand in the public square, in their white biohazard suits, gas
masks in place, protesting against genetically modified crops in Europe.

Heaven only knows how much time and effort environmental activist groups
have spent over the past several years opposing crops and food products
containing GMOs. Europe particularly has been a hotbed of opposition to this
technology, resulting in an avalanche of sensationalistic media coverage and
even destruction of crop plots and research facilities by eco-terrorists.

But the first chink has been made in their armor.

In late September, officials of the European Union approved both the sale
and planting of 17 strains of genetically modified corn in every one of its
25 member states.

A Friends of the Earth spokesperson said the EU is attempting to force more
genetically modified foods onto the market and ?is caving in to the bullying
of the United States? against the will of the European public.?

But the barn door is open, and as more and more evidence accrues that GM
crops are safe, the average consumer will ? as has been the case in the
United States ? accept them as yet another step in the use of technology to
make agriculture more efficient and productive and to insure an adequate
world food supply.

At about the same time as the EU decision, representatives to a conference
in Africa were debating, yet again, the GMO crops issue. There were all the
tired platitudes about greedy multinational corporations putting poor, small
farmers out of business, unfair competition, loss of markets, environmental
safety, exaggerating the benefits of GMOs for economic, political, and
social reasons, and blah, blah, blah.

It was all put in perspective, however, by a delegate from Mauritia who
declared: ?It?s a fantastic technology. All new technology comes with some
risk. Our challenge is to contain the risk.?

In the United States, where genetically engineered crops have been grown on
a large scale for nearly a decade, John W. Radin, national program leader of
plant physiology and risk assessment for USDA?s Agricultural Research
Service, says careful monitoring has established ?no discernible ill
effects? to offset the benefits of reductions in pesticide use and costs
and promise of ?a tremendous array of future advances, such as improved
nutritional balance, elimination of trans fats, and enhanced disease
resistance and cold tolerance.?

ARS committed $24 million in fiscal 2004 for biotechnology risk assessment
and risk mitigation research, covering such issues as allergenicity of GM
foods to ways to block movement of genes from GM crops to non-GM crops.

The government is not alone in risk assessment research. Companies producing
genetically engineered seeds or genes also collect masses of specific
information about their products to establish safety.

?If genetic engineering is to fulfill its potential,? Radin says, it must be
the safest way of meeting the goal of providing useful, important
agricultural products to feed and clothe the world ? now, and well into the
future.? Moreover, he says, it must be accepted by the public that buys and
uses the products. ?Until both these goals are reached, our work is not
done.?

[deltafarmpress.com]

------------------------------------------
Posted to Phorum via PhorumMail