By Susan Crowell

Nina Fedoroff makes a lot of sense.

If you lambaste genetic engineering, stop eating those red grapefruits. Or
anything with wheat in it.

Since the first humans planted the first seeds, people have been selectively
breeding plants with genetic mutations that make better foods. Wheat is a
prime example, because it carries the genes of different plant species.

?There is almost no food that isn?t genetically modified,? Nina Fedoroff
said in an interview with the New York Times last August. ?Genetic
modification is the basis of all evolution.

?Things change because our planet is subjected to a lot of radiation, which
causes DNA damage, which gets repaired, but results in mutations, which
create a ready mixture of plants that people can choose from to improve
agriculture.?

But, added the Penn State molecular biologist and science adviser to former
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, ?the paradox is that now that we?ve
invented techniques that introduce just one gene without disturbing the
rest, some people think that?s terrible.?

The phrase ?genetic engineering? is colored with a negative connotations and
knee-jerk reactions: Frankenfood, playing God, evil manipulation.

But it can feed the world, save lives, protect the environment, and improve
human and animal health and welfare.

There are more than two dozen products under development derived from
genetically engineered animals that could improve human health. Animals can
produce proteins and tissues in their milk, eggs and blood that can be used
to treat cancer, heart attacks, rheumatoid arthritis, malaria and small pox.

For example, it may be possible to produce much cheaper malaria vaccines
using genetically engineered animals. A herd of three goats could supply
enough antigens in their milk to vaccinate 20 million African children each
year. Just three goats.

Early research is developing animals resistant to such organisms as E. coli,
clostridium and campylobacter, the leading causes of foodborne diseases. And
research is also working to block an animal?s susceptibility to mastitis,
for example, which would greatly reduce the need for antibiotic use and
other treatments.

?? we?d like to go back to what we think is a more natural way,? the New
York Times quotes Fedoroff as saying. ?But I?m afraid we can?t, in part,
because there are just too many of us in this world.

?If everybody switched to organic farming, we couldn?t support the earth?s
current population ? maybe half.?

?? Europe, North America, Australia, Japan ? we?ve been extremely successful
in applying science to agriculture and we can afford to say, ?let?s go
natural.? But there?s collateral damage.?

Collateral damage being more acres required to produce food with lower
yields, which leads to deforestation, soil erosion, and burdens on already
too few resources.

There needs to be, as the 2008 report Genetically Engineered Animals and
Public Health emphasizes, a ?rigorous, science-based regulatory pathway? if
this technology will be able to deliver practical benefits.

But the agricultural and medical applications are too compelling, and the
needs for public health and food security are too urgent, for us to ignore
the science.
www.checkbiotech.org