by Disinvestment Supporter

Created on: January 18, 2011   Last Updated: March 06, 2011

There is currently enough scientific evidence to warrant an FDA investigation of the dangers of genetically-modified (GM) crops.  This evidence comes in the forms of anecdotal evidence, particularly from farmers in the third world that regularly visit their fields on foot and do not segregate livestock from crops, and scientific studies involving animals and humans that warrant follow-up research.  Unfortunately, for those concerned with the health risks posed by GM foods, the FDA, NIH, and other gatekeepers of research money are ignoring the observations and need for follow-up research. 

In 1992, under the leadership of Michael Taylor, the FDA released a statement of policy on the use of biotechnology in agriculture.  What this document shows is that there are two definitions of genetic modification, or genetically modified. The first is the common one that the public uses to mean a food contains the products of plants, animals, or bacteria that result from laboratory intrusion of foreign DNA into the organism.  The second definition is more insidious and the root of many people's lack of trust in GM crops.

Michael Taylor, who headed up the FDA's biotechnology sector, needed no guidance on formulating the FDA's  regulatory definition of genetic modification. Once the lead attorney for biotech corporation Monsanto, and later named vice president of that corporation, Taylor was given a simple task, to make sure that GM foods get a pass from the FDA and remain unlabelled. Accordingly, the definition of GM used by the FDA was and remains, “the alteration of the genotype of a plant using any technique, new or traditional.” (See FDA Statement of Policy).  The assumptive operating principle continues to be that GM foods are as safe as those hybrids bred for specific properties by plant breeders, and thus GMOs pose no safety concerns for human health.

Scientists are an unruly bunch though. Many of them, especially toxicologists, seem to focus on little things called evidence and safety trials. Through a lawsuit brought in 1998, the Alliance for Bio-Integrity gained access to a number of the FDA's internal memos where the true experts, the scientists not bureaucrats, expressed concern on the safety of genetically modified foods. One contains this comment, "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks." 

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>