According to…
Biotechnology Offers Benefits…
Biotechnology has additional supporters…
According to the medical and scientific communities:
“The AMA believes that as of December 2000 there is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education…The AMA recognizes the many potential benefits offered by genetically modified crops and foods, does not support a moratorium on planting genetically-modified crops, and encourages ongoing research developments in food biotechnology.” American Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs, “Genetically Modified Crops and Foods” (1-00), December 2000.
“Years of independently reviewed research and testing have shown that commercially available foods developed through biotechnology are substantially equivalent to foods developed through traditional plant breeding and are safe.” Dr. C. S. Prakash, Professor of Biotechnology, Center for Plant Biotechnology Research, Tuskegee University, “Sound Science and Foods from Biotechnology,” San Diego Union Tribune, June 14, 2000.
“The committee is not aware of any evidence that foods on the market are unsafe to eat as a result of genetic modification.” National Research Council, “Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation,” 2000.
“The use of [biotechnology] significantly broadens the scope of the genetic changes that can be made in food organisms and broadens the scope of possible sources of foods, but this does not inherently lead to foods that are less safe than those developed by conventional techniques. By virtue of their greater precision, such products can be expected to be better characterized, leading to more predictability and a more reliable safety assessment process.” Institute of Food Technologists, “IFT Expert Report on Biotechnology and Foods,” 2000.
“The genetically engineered foods that are currently on the market are safe. By increasing yields and reducing the use of pesticides, they benefit farmers and the environment.” Tufts University “Nutrition Action Health Letter,” November 2001.
“Based on safety analyses required for each crop, human consumption of milk, meat and eggs produced from animals fed genetically modified crops should be as safe as products derived from animals fed conventional crops.” Dr. Jimmy Clark, Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, “No Difference Found in Animals Fed GMO Corn and Soybeans,” April 25, 2001.
“Biotechnology differs from crossbreeding in that one gene is inserted into an organism to achieve the desired effect. With traditional crossbreeding, every gene of an organism is potentially mixed with another. The one desirable trait that breeders want can be passed on, but so will some undesirable ones. With biotechnology, scientists are able to focus on the desired gene and subject it to extensive testing before and after it is inserted into the new organism.” Dr. Steve Taylor, Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, as stated in Letter to the Editor, The Wall Street Journal, July 21, 1999.
“The available scientific evidence indicates that the potential adverse health effects arising from biotechnology-derived foods are not different in nature from those created by conventional breeding practices for plant, animal, or microbial enhancement, and are already familiar to toxicologists." "The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced Through Biotechnology." The Society of Toxicology, September 25, 2002.
Back to top
According to international scientific bodies:
“It is essential that we improve food production and distribution in order to feed and free from hunger a growing world population, while reducing environmental impacts and providing productive employment in low-income areas. This will require a proper and responsible utilization of scientific discoveries and new technologies. The developers and overseers of GM technology applied to plants and microorganisms should make sure that their efforts address such needs.” Report prepared by a working group representing the Royal Society of London, US National Academy of Sciences, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Indian National Science Academy, Mexican Academy of Sciences and the Third World Academy of Sciences, published July 2000.
“Biotechnology currently offers ways to grow more food on less land. Even more promising are the benefits from nutrient enriched foods that are being developed. In addition to vitamin and mineral enriched foods that will prevent disease and malnutrition in the third world, I see tremendous benefit to packing more complete proteins, micronutrients, etc. into fewer calories… The use of precision tools to insert genes carrying only the trait that you want has significant human health and agronomic advantages that traditional cross breeding does not.” Barbara Petersen, Ph.D., Nutrition Biochemist, Novigen Sciences, Member of World Health Organization Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants; currently with Exponent.
“Biotechnology provides new and powerful tools for research and for accelerating the development of new and better foods…The benefits of biotechnology are many and include providing resistance to crop pests to improve production and reduce chemical pesticide usage, thereby making major improvements in both food quality and nutrition.” Report from a joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Biotechnology and Food Safety held Sept. 30-Oct. 4, 1996 in Rome, Italy.
“[Biotechnology] can provide farmers with disease-free planting materials and develop crops that resist pests and disease, reducing use of chemicals that harm the environment and human health. It can provide diagnostic tools and vaccines that help control devastating animal diseases. It can improve the nutritional quality of staple foods such as rice and cassava and create new products for health and industrial uses.” “The Gene Revolution; Great Potential for the Poor, but no Panacea.” FAO annual report ‘The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-04’, May 17, 2004.
Back to top
According to government officials:
“Science and technology are changing every aspect of our lives. Technology is changing the way food is produced, marketed, distributed in this country and around the world. And medicine and biotechnology are coming together, spurred on by human genome mapping. In the not too distant future, we will be producing new crops and products that will help heal and make people healthier. This, too, will create new opportunities for our farmers.” Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture USDA, 78th Agricultural Outlook Forum, February 21, 2002.
“In our own country, we see the benefits of biotech everday with food prices and good land conservation practices. Yet, the great advantages of biotechnology have yet to reach developing nations in Africa and other lands where these innovations are now most needed.” George W. Bush, President of the United States, Bio 2003 Convention Center and Exhibition, June, 2003.
“I think biotechnology offers a lot of possibilities for making a safer food supply. There’s a lot of work going on about how to make salmonella, listeria, and E. coli 0157:H7 less pathogenic or toxic. We need to be predicting what’s going to happen but also using new technology and scientific developments like biotechnology in order to make the food supply safer.” Lester M. Crawford, Deputy Commissioner, US Food and Drug Administration, Food Insight September/October 2002 issue.
“From the standpoint of the Food and Drug Administration, the important thing for consumers to know about these new foods is that they will be every bit as safe as the foods now on store shelves. All foods, whether traditionally bred or genetically engineered, must meet the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” FDA Consumer, “Genetic Engineering Fast Forwarding to Future Foods,” January/February 4, 2000.
“We have spent considerable amount of time and resources examining the science of gene technology and how it would impact on the food supply and have concluded that, provided that companies take the proper steps to examine the important safety issues, these foods should be as safe as other foods on the market…In addition to those steps that breeders normally take, for products of gene technology, companies are doing far more extensive testing than has ever been done on commercial varieties. They are doing chemical analyses for important nutrients, for toxicants. They are examining the new substances, such as proteins that have been introduced into these foods, in terms of possible toxicity and allergenicity and taking other steps under the guidance of our scientists in the government to ensure proper adequate testing before they go to consumers.” Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator, US Food and Drug Administration, Interview with Worldnet, May 26, 1999.
“Years of research and experience demonstrate that plant varieties produced using biotechnology, and the foods derived from them, are just as safe as similar varieties produced using classical plant breeding, and they may even be safer.” US Congressman Nick Smith (MI), Chairman, Subcommittee on Basic Research, Seeds of Opportunity, April 13, 2000.
“There is no scientific evidence to suggest that biotech food is any less safe than its conventional counterparts. We are committed to working with countries and to making international experts available to ensure that leaders have the facts about biotechnology and food safety.” Philip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman, U.S. State Department, Press Conference, Washington D.C., August 21, 2002.
Back to top
Biotechnology offers benefits…
For Consumers:
“Scientists predict that in the near future…biotechnology-derived foods with improved levels of phytochemicals and micronutrients will be developed…biotechnology also offers the opportunity to decrease or eliminate the allergenic proteins that occur naturally in specific foods.” Institute of Food Technologists, IFT Expert Report on Biotechnology and Foods, 2000.
“We can expect that the next generation of biotechnology crops will offer many new benefits in terms of added nutritional value, for example, through increased vitamin content or the elimination of food allergens. It is important that consumers are not denied the potential benefits of such developments.” Professor Ray Baker FRS, Chief Executive of the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, a public body principally funded through the Office of Science and Technology of the Department of Trade and Industry.
“Agricultural biotechnology holds promise for a hungry and ecologically fragile world. The development of new crop varieties that offer increased yields, reduced inputs, and offer specialized traits that meet end-user needs is merely the starting point.” American Soybean Association Chief Executive Officer Stephen S. Censky speech, May 26, 1999, before the American Bar Association Biotech Roundtable.
“[B]iotechnology techniques have the potential to be useful in enhancing the quality, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and in increasing the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and waste management.” American Dietetic Association, “Biotechnology and the Future of Food—Position of ADA,” 1992, reaffirmed in 1994 and 2000.
Back to top
For the environment:
“Compared with the threats posed to Monarch butterflies by [habitat destruction and widespread application of insecticides on crops], and considering the gains obviously achieved in the level of survival of populations of Monarch butterflies and other insects by eliminating a large portion of the pesticides applied to the same crops, the widespread cultivation of Bt corn may have huge benefits for Monarch butterfly survival.” Dr. David S. Pimentel, Cornell University, and Dr. Peter H. Raven, Missouri Botanical Garden, “Bt Corn Pollen Impacts on Nontarget Lepidoptera: Assessments of Effects in Nature,” Commentary, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, July 2000.
“More than a decade of safety evaluation and introduction of genetically engineered plants has provided evidence and assurance that the risks to the environment posed by genetically engineered plants are no different from those of plants genetically modified using other methods.” Institute of Food Technologists, “Report on Biotechnology and Foods,” 2000.
“Early data indicate that some farmers have realized reduced pesticide use, increased crop yield, and easier weed control (leading to reduced soil tillage). Such advances can complement other sustainable agricultural practices and lead to significant environmental benefits, such as lowered soil erosion and reduced use of synthetic pesticides…Responsible use of new plant biotechnologies could contribute to a more sustainable and environmentally compatible agriculture. Responsible development and use of modified plants is essential to protecting the quality of life and the environment for an ever-growing world population.” American Society of Plant Biologists, Statement on the Genetic Modification of Plants Using Biotechnology, April 2001.
“Scientists are gaining the ability to insert genes that give biological defense against diseases and insects, thus reducing the need for chemical pesticides, and convey genetic traits that enable crops to better withstand drought conditions. With this powerful new genetic knowledge, scientists have the capability to pack large amounts of technology into a single seed.” Norman Borlaug, PhD, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, July 31, 1997 testimony before the US Senate Agriculture Committee.
“Eight currently adopted cultivars are having a significant impact, primarily in major commodity crops. Combined, they are reducing pesticide use by 46 million pounds per year, increasing yield by 4 billion pounds per year and providing a net economic impact of $1.5 billion per year. Leonard Gianessi, “Plant Biotechnology: Current and Potential Impact for Improving Pest Management in US Agriculture,” National Center for Food & Agricultural Policy, 2002.
Back to top
For farmers:
“The newest advances in biotechnology are critical to making American goods and farm products more competitive in the global marketplace.” US Representative Cal Dooley (CA), Co-Chair, US House of Representatives Biotechnology Caucus, July 20, 2000.
“Biotechnology is an important tool which must be made available to emerging markets. This investment helps US farmers by creating a greater demand for our agricultural products and much of the technology comes back to US farmers to make them even more competitive.” International Food Policy Research Institute Director Per Pinstrup-Andersen, Ph.D., Feb. 5, 1999 congressional briefing.
“Humans have been modifying plants for thousands of years, while breeders have been using disease-resistance and pest-resistance genes for decades: conventional plant breeding is often a matter of combining two sets of about 25,000 genes. Entirely new species have been manufactured this way, such as triticale, a synthetic hybrid between wheat and rye, which is the result of combining 50,000 largely untested genes, 25,000 from each species. GM technology was a new tool to achieve the same goals more rapidly.” The UK-based Nuffield Council on Bioethics 1999 report, as reported in The London Daily Telegraph, May 28, 1999.
“American Agri-Women supports the development and incorporation of biotechnological tools into agricultural research and production. Reducing input costs, increasing crop yields, promoting integrated pest management and providing environmental protections to our natural resources, biotechnology will give the producer greater flexibility in making management decisions.” American Agri-Women, Policy Statement, revised April 2002.
Back to top
For developing countries:
“Europe has surplus food and has never experienced hunger, mass starvation and death on the regular scale we sadly witness in Africa. The priority of Africa is to feed her people with safe foods and to sustain agricultural production and the environment…The African continent, more than any other, urgently needs agricultural biotechnology.” Dr. Florence Wambugu, Director, The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, “Why Africa Needs Agricultural Biotech,” Nature, 1999; Currently Executive Director, A Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International.
“It would be tragic to confine the promise of biotechnology to the industrialized world when developing countries stand to benefit the most. The problems faced by these countries, including hunger, disease and malnutrition, are complex. Although biotechnology alone is not the answer, it can help to substantially alleviate the immediate and basic problems—the need to feed more people on less land and improve the level of basic nutrition.” Andrew Young, former US Ambassador to the United Nations, “The Promise of Biotechnology in the Developing World,” 2000.
“Evidence today clearly shows that genetically engineered technology and GMOs have the potential to significantly raise the level of efficiency and productivity in plant and agricultural production.” Jacques Diouf, director-general of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, May 14, 2001.
“If imports like these [biotechnology crops] are regulated unnecessarily, the real losers will be the developing nations. Instead of reaping the benefits of decades of discovery and research, people from Africa and Southeast Asia will remain prisoners of outdated technology. Their countries could suffer greatly for years to come. It is crucial that they reject the propaganda of extremist groups before it is too late.” Former President Jimmy Carter, “Who’s Afraid of Genetic Engineering?” The New York Times, August 26, 1998.
“Well I’m for it. It doesn’t scare me. To lick the problem [of world hunger] we need to use science. [Biotechnology] is a practical application of scientific principals to food production.” George S. McGovern, United Nations Global Ambassador on Hunger and former US Senator, National Food Policy Conference, April 2002, Washington, DC.
“Millions of Africans—far too many of them children—are suffering from malnutrition and hunger. Agricultural biotechnology offers a way to stop the suffering…The harsh reality is that, without the help of agricultural biotechnology, many will not live.” Hassan Adamu, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Nigeria, “We’ll Feed Our People as We See Fit,” The Washington Post, September 11, 2000.
“The possibility that [biotech] crops could make a substantial contribution to providing sufficient food for an expanding world is, on its own, a solid reason for engaging in the research that underlies their development. There is a ‘compelling moral imperative’ to develop GM crops to help fight hunger in the Third World.” The UK-based Nuffield Council on Bioethics (Experts in science, philosophy, law, poverty and the environment) 1999 Report.
Back to top
Biotechnology has additional supporters…
“We are increasingly encouraged that the advantages of genetic engineering of plants and animals are greater than the risks. We cannot agree with the position of some groups that say it is against the will of God to meddle with the genetic make-up of plants and animals.” Bishop Elio Sgreccia, Vice President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, referring to the Academy’s report on ethics and genetic technology, presented Oct. 12, 1999, Vatican City, Rome, Italy (As reported by the St. Louis Review, Oct. 22, 1999).
“[G]enetic modification is only a logical extension of the long-established processes of selective breeding of animals and the development of high-yielding species that has gone on for centuries. Genetic modification uses nature’s own God-given techniques for improving crops. For me, as a Christian, there is an overriding reason for continuing with the trials. Every year, millions of people die because carefully nurtured crops have been wiped out by disease, drought or pests. Crops that can better resist these enemies have the potential to transform the lives of whole countries. We are called to love our neighbours and we owe it to them to explore this way of helping them.” The Rev. Bob Baker, Priest for the Church of England, Parish of Brundall, Braydeston and Postwich, in Norfolk, England, Letter to the Editor, The London Free Press, November 6, 1999.
“Islam, Judaism, and Christianity concur that the process of genetically modifying plants or food animals is not in and of itself intrinsically wrong and may benefit mankind,” says Judith N. Scoville, an ethicist at Northland College in Ashland, Wisconsin. “Ethicists Ponder the Moral and Religious Questions Regarding Agricultural Biotechnology.” Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, July 23, 2001.
“Reisner concludes that between kashrut and kilayim, there is plenty of room for kosher GM foods. He’s also confident that the Jewish community will continue its traditional willingness to accept biotechnological changes like GM foods.” “Rabbi Avram I. Reisner: Grappling with Sticky Issues.” Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology.
Back to top
“Passions run white hot among both advocates and critics of biotechnology. Remarkably, some find they can comfortably support both sides of this debate. At the same time, it becomes increasingly clear there are no “sides” to be on. All of us want the same thing. We want to do all we can to ensure everyone has enough to eat, preserve our wilderness areas, and make conventional agriculture more eco-friendly by reducing or eliminating the use of toxic pesticides and fertilizers that contaminate our fragile water supply.” Irene Chalmers, Author & Speaker, Culinary Institute of America, Past President of International Association of Culinary Professionals, April 28, 2001, International Association of Culinary Professionals Annual Conference.
“I think it’s all fascinating. There’s no one-minute answer. The technology’s here. If they can give us a better tomato, I’m for it.” Julia Child, speaking about food biotechnology to the Toronto Star, October 27, 1999.
Back to top
