www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

The development of genetically modified crops to improve human health could
be the golden ticket for advocates to persuade the wary public that GM is
not a wholly nefarious idea after all. But will a new, healthy spin be
enough to counter deep-rooted fears that genetic modification, by its very
nature, poses an equal and opposite threat to human health? March 2007 by
Jess Halliday.

Ever since food from crops genetically modified to resist pests, produce
bigger yields, or grant some other benefit for the farmer started to appear
on the market in the mid 1990s, consumers have sniffed suspiciously at the
idea.

"How do we know it's safe?" "I don't want food that's been mucked about
with, thank you very much".

It is easy to see why they are turning their noses up like petulant toddlers
when GM food is peddled with the underlying message: "Eat this, it's good
for the farmers".

But last week two GM food projects made the headlines that introduce a new
twist to the GM debate - health.

California-based Ventria Bioscience received preliminary approval from the
US to cultivate over 3,000 acres of rice engineered with human genes to
produce lactiva and lysomin, proteins that occur in breast milk that have
shown potential in speeding recovery of children with diarrhoea.

Then Monsanto and The Solae Company announced they are joining forces with
their respective projects to genetically modify soybeans as a source of
omega-3s - (long and shorter chain), with a view to giving the food industry
a new source of the healthy ingredient within five years.

When the message is "Eat this, it's good for you" or "Let the poor children
of Africa eat this, it's good for them," that strikes a chord with two major
themes of modern consciousness - eating for health and wellness, and doing
whatever we can to stamp out disease and deprivation in the developing
world.

Such messages could well sweeten the fork-load so that the consumer starts
to sniff at it in temptation. If it smells good enough they'll wolf it down
in one.

But wait. Hold that fork poised mid-air between plate and mouth for just one
moment. It's not quite that simple.

Re-enter the anti-GM lobby, which has long campaigned against tinkering with
genes on the grounds that we do not know the true effects on human health.

What is more, the record of keeping GM crops entirely separate from non-GM
is not so good. The US authorities recently revealed that GM traces had been
found in samples of non-GM rice, prompting the EU to clamp down on imports
from the other side of the Atlantic on the grounds that it is a variety
unapproved in Europe.

When crops are engineered to have properties that some would call
pharmaceutical (others, nutraceutical), the nightmare scenario is
contamination occurring when a gust of wind sends seed billowing across
field boundaries. So anti-GM thinking goes, this introduces the risk of
inadvertent over-dosing.

No-one wants to sit down to a bowl of what they think is perfectly innocent
rice pudding, only to find that in fact it contains ingredients that at best
they don't need, at worst cause them to OD on a medicine they didn't even
know they were taking.

The battle lines are being drawn for the next stage in a fiercely fought
war.

The new developments mean both sides are finally talking about the same
measurable quantity - impact on human health.

But the outcome shouldn't be determined by who can shout the loudest at
consumers: "Pick me, I'm the healthy one. Really I am".

It should be determined by scientific evidence that the benefits are real,
and that they are not cancelled out by detrimental effects - whether the
person consumes the food deliberately or accidentally.

On every consumer's lips, no-matter how a-quiver they are with temptation or
emotion, should be the words: "Show me the scientific proof, and I'll eat
the pudding".

[www.foodnavigator-usa.com]