- - G E N E R A L
A R T I C L E S - -
A R T I C L E S - -
by Greg Caton, Founder - SOYBEAN.COMIntro | Our Stance
Non-GMO Certification: Accommodating our health food customers.
whybiotech.com: The
Biotech Community answers its critics
with the creation of the Council
for Biotechnology Information and the launch of a $50 million
ad campaign (see their first 60 second spot:
"Promise").
U.S. House Subcommittee on Basic Research
releases positive
report on biotechnology, April 13, 2000 (MS-Word doc file, 334k:
read summary,
MS-Word doc file, 39k).
The following collected articles represent
our best current knowledge about the value, future, and even limitations of
agricultural biotechnology. If you have not visited this site recently,
you will find significant changes.
Upon the issuance of a recent
Press Release, various customers on both sides of the issue felt that
irrespective of scientific points themselves, if either side were felt
to be denied a fair and impartial review of their position at this
point in the debate, the result would not be respected by many otherwise
open-minded people... that, essentially, "impartial presentation" must
preceed "education." Arguments were made that even if
Lumen Foods presented strong evidence supporting its view that biotechnology
has enormous promise for the future of health foods, that message would be
drowned in claims that because it was biased in its presentation, it
was in the back pocket of "profit-seeking multinationals" that didn't
care about the underlying issues. If this were true, it would ultimately
defeat our purpose, and it would certainly not aid in the debate.
Below you will find two columns, the left representing arguments and
thoughts of those supportive of biotechnology, and on the right, those
who, on one or more levels, have serious questions, if not
outright condemnation. As always, if you have any questions
about any of the subject matter presented herein, just
email us... but read the articles first.|
Biotechnology:
1. Introduction -- Our explanation in rudimentary terms of
what the anti-biotech controversy is. It is our own opinion based on everything we
know today - and could change in the future if radically new information is
presented to the contrary."A Promising New Science" 2. Our Position -- Explains our current position on the biotech controversy. 
3. LATEST ENTRIES: On April 3, 2000, the biotech industry
launched their long-awaited ad campaign to educate the public and
address their critics: see
whybiotech.com.
Is there really sufficient evidence as to
the safety of GM foods. Not at all
says a chorus of researchers. Also... Beware the
Dreaded Cauliflower Mosaic Virus -
Are we all doomed? Virologists say the claims made by
anti-biotech proponents on CaMV are not only ridiculous -
but deliberately deceptive. Green Campaigners Could Condemn Britain to a Chemical Future
Professor Martina McGloughlin's stinging reply to anti-biotech's
best arguments, Why Biotechnology Will Be Important to the Developing World.4. U.S. FDA: Genetic Engineering - Fast Forwarding to Future Foods. "The important thing for consumers to know... is that (GMO foods) will be every bit as safe as the foods now on store shelves." U.S. FDA (John Henkel), 4/95 (revised 2/98). 
5. Are
Bioengineered Foods Safe?, U.S. FDA, FDA Consumer,
January-February, 2000. Presents the FDA's most current
position. 
6. The Rise of
Eco-Extremism - this article (in Microsoft Word (R) format),
written by Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the original founders of Greenpeace,
provides one man's insight into the current orientation of Greenpeace,
which the author claims is "anti-technology and anti-science" and even anti-environmental.
Readers can judge for themselves if they feel this orientation could
be affecting the outlook which Greenpeace is pre-destined to have
towards any developments in biotechnology.7. Pro-biotech Comments from the Scientific Community on our GMO position. 8. Alliance for Better Foods. Provides fact-based information on biotechnology as well as up-to-date news and views on the benefits of biotech. 9. Grocery Manufacturers of America, Biotechnology Facts & Figures. This is another good compendium of information from the world's largest association of brand name food, beverage and consumer product companies. 10. Counsel on the "Precautionary Principle" to the U.S. Codex. (Mark Mansour, 1999). Deals with qualitative thresholds for the acceptable curtailing of free trade betwee nations. Contains strong arguments against providing regulations based on the assumption that risks and hazards are synonymous. Undercuts much of the non-GMO arguments concerning scientifically-based, albeit theoretical, hazards that are likely never to materialize. 11. Two Views of Biotechnology and the 21st Century -- Dennis Avery's latest comments on Jeremy Rifkin. (Can't see we concur with the comments on vegetarianism, but his points on the Precautionary Principle are well worth reading.) 12. Dr. Michael F. Jacobson, the founder and President of Center for Science in the Public Interest takes a position that's cautiously optimistic about the future of GMO. (Dr. Jacobson is known for his strong "anti-food-additive" views on those ingredients which he feels do not have sufficient scientific basis for proclaiming them safe. For years, he has been a widely quoted source for those in the health foods industry on the subject of additives.) 13. U.S.D.A. Agricultural Biotechnology page. Lots of links for those who want to know how the USDA interacted with the EPA and FDA to approve the current variety of biotech products. 14. AgBioForum is a quarterly online magazine devoted to the economics and management of agricultural biotechnology. Many useful articles from leading scientists and policy makers from around the world.
Professor C.S. Prakash:
Unifying the Scientific Consensus  The
following links and articles come from Professor Prakash, Director
of the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University.
Dr. Prakash has assembled signatures from over 1,000 world-class
scientists supporting genetically modified foods. His site,
AgBioWorld.org has a host of
helpful links on the need for biotechnology. Few people know
that even former U.S. Pres. Jimmy Carter and the Vatican have
formally weighted in on the side of biotechnology... provides notes
of caution, but supportive nonetheless. 1. Who's Afraid of Genetic Engineering? - former U.S. Pres. Jimmy Carter 2. The Benefits & Politics of Biotechnology - U.S. Senator Bond (1/26/00) 3. 600 Scientists Sign Declaration Defending Biotechnology (1/22/00) 4. Feeding A World of 10 Billion People: The Miracle Ahead - Dr. Norman Borlaug (5/6/97) 5. The Church of England: "(Need) to assist clear thinking (4/99) 6. Vatican Calls For Honesty on Biotechnology: "Don't Fear Scientific Progress" (10/12/99) 7. Why Africa Needs Agricultural Biotech - Florence Wambugu (7/1/99) 8. The Bogus Debate on Bioethics - Suman Sahai (3/97) 9. Genetically Modified Plants: Monsters or Miracles? - Nina Fedoroff (11/30/99) 10. Arguments in Favour of Genetically Modified Crops - Ben Miflin 11. Rebuttal to Christian Aid - Daleep Mukarji 12. Huge Potential of Genetically Improved Plants Outweighs Hypothetical Risks - Dr. C.S. Prakash, Financial Express (India), (5/31/99) 13. Bio Illogical: Plant Breeds No Threat To Third World - Dr. C.S. Prakash, The Statesman (Calcutta, India), - (7/5/99) 14. Don't Denounce Biotech - Dr. C.S. Prakash, Deccan Herald (Bangalore, India) - (7/6/99) 15. And finally: Biotechnology Links - Many more than you'll ever have time to read, and most covering the virtues of biotechnology.
Attacking "Anti-Nutritional" Claims /
1. ASA Refutes GM Anti-Nutritional Claim --
Puts to rest the claim that GM soybeans are inherently lower in
the nutraceutical isoflavones. (Read the high isoflavone analysis figures on Lumen Food products -- note, in
particular, the high free-to-bound ratio.)... Also: Dr. Wayne
Parrott refutes non-GMO argument that
"nutrients are being bred out of our food!"Promoting the Benefits of Reduced Aflatoxin Incidence 2. Condemning Letter to Frito Lay - (Dr. Adrianne Massey), which includes a press release from the American Phytopathological Society explaining how Bt Corn (a GM seed) reduces public health exposure to aflatoxins. Also, Dr. Wayne Parrott's Frito-Lay Letter. (Register concern with Frito-Lay).
Hudson Institute:
Enlarging the Dialogue of Biotech's Promise for a Better Future The
following articles
were written by Dennis T. Avery, director of global food issues,
and Michael Fumento, both with
the Hudson Institute.
We have not been in agreement with all of Avery's work, primarily because
of our strongly held beliefs concerning vegetarianism and its relation
to factory farming methods. Nonetheless, he articulates
the biotech position as few others can. 1. Avery takes on Non-GMO arguments posed by British environmental extremist threatening Lumen Foods. 2. Biotech Holds The Solution To Africa's Food Woes (10/29/99). 3. The Global "Population Bomb" Fizzles Out (10/1/99). 4. When Gerber Goes Organic, Fear-Mongering Wins (8/5/99). 5. "Golden Rice" Could Combat Third World Malnutrition (10/99) 6. WTO Protesters Would Consign World's Poor to Misery (12/10/99) 7. Fears About Biotech... Old Whine in New Bottles (4/9/99) 8. "Earth-Friendly" Agriculture Unkind of World's Hungry (2/5/99) 9. The Moral Imperative of Biotechnology (6/4/99) 10. Why Don't Organic Farms Back Up Their Safety Claims? (9/17/99) 11. Feeding The Pets of the 21th Century (1/2/98) 12. Biotechnology Deserves Praise, Not A Pie In The Face (4/23/99) 13. Population Doomsayers Are More Than Merely Wrong (10/99) 14. Why Europe Fears Biotech Foods (Michael Fumento). 15. The Pendulum Swings Back to Biotech (2/4/00) 16. Environmentalists Make Wrong Case Against Enriched Rice (3/5/00)
Response from Biotech Industry
The links below are articles
written in Microsoft Word (R). They are publications put out
by the biotechnology industry to address public concerns.1. Assessing the Safety of Biotech Foods 2. Chemical Reduction Benefits of Biotech Crops (Monsanto) 3. Biotech Foods as Safe as Other Foods. 4. Agricultural Biotech Myths. Claims to debunk eight great "myths" that form the foundation of the anti-biotech movement. |
The Contrary View: "Safety of Biotech Unknowable"
Greenpeace: Their Position & Their Activities
This link provides
access to Greenpeace's position on biotech, including background
position paper, press releases, and current events as they
relate to their campaign. Is well-structured and comprehensive.
Biointegrity.org The main
page has many links, but their summary
overview succinctly states their position: "Why the Venture to Genetically
Engineer Our Food Offends Science, Religion, and the Bill of Rights." Best known in the media for their current
lawsuit against the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Biointegrity.org lists
the particulars of this controversy as well, including claims that
the FDA's own scientists expressed concerns that were later covered up.
Ag BioTech InfoNet The opening
page provides many links, showing the site's orientation to specific
scientific studies. The "about" is
fair is divulging the site's sponsors; the
"Sources and Links" page provides a host of related sites.
Institute of Science in Society This British Society calls for a "Moratorium on GM crops and a Ban
on all Patents." The Mission Statement is largely platitudes that most
everyone would agree on, but the call to arms against "the Brave New
World" gives this site its own unique flavor in the fight against biotech.
The site does contain an impressive "World Scientists Statement" signed by 238
scientists from 32 countries (12/15/99).
Physicians and Scientists For Responsible Application of
Science and Technology (PSRAST) Highlights on this
site include an article entitled
"Genetically Engineered Food Safety Problems," that boasts an "Academic
Excellence Award." This is a great introduction site if you want to a comprehensive
place to read all of the major arguments put forth by the non-GMO movement.
To accommodate the backgrounds of different readers, the text has been divided
into Elementary, Medium, and Advanced reading levels.
There's even a link to explain what each means so you'll know what reading
level you fall into.
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) CGIAR is
a 30-year old informal association of 58 public and private sector members
that support a network of 16 international agricultural research centers. The
magnum opus of the organization in their cautioning about GM is a book,
entitled, "Agricultural Biotechnology & the Poor." This link provides not only an overview of the book,
but links that allow you to read the work in the Adobe Acrobat format. The book
is of recent publication and is well documented.
Reading List In addition to Agricultural Biotechnology
& the Poor, several other volumes represent thinking within the non-GMO
movement and include:
Scientists Turned Co-Plaintiffs Though of no empirical value, per se, those
who expound non-GM foods point to the following scientists who are now co-Plaintiff's
in Steven Druker's lawsuit against the FDA:Dr. Richard Strohman, Emeritus Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. He has written extensively on biotechnology issues; Dr. Philip J. Regal, Professor of Ecology, Behavior and Evolution at the University of Minnesota. Among the nation's most distinguished plant biologists. Has written extensively on the genetic engineering of plants and the ecological and human health risks associated with it; Dr. David Ehrenfeld, Professor of Biology, Rutgers University. Has written on the dangers of genetically engineered foods; Dr. David Fankhauser, Professor of Biology and Chemistry, University of Cincinnati; Hanif Khalak, Computational Biologist, The Institute for Genomic Research, Rockville, MD. Though he does research that facilitates applications of biotechnology for curing human disease, he thinks that the current applications of biotech in food production are based in scientifically flawed assumptions; Dr. Gary Kaplan, MD, PhD, Director of Clinical Neurophysiology, North Shore University Hospital; Assoc. Professor of Clinical Neurology, NYU School of Medicine; Dr. Rama Dwivedi, Associate Director, Targeted Mutagenics, Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Medical School. Although he performs biotechnology for medical purposes, he believes that the program to genetically reconfigure food organisms, as currently conducted, is unsound.
General Comments & Campaign Letters We are reprinting some of the "campaign
letters" we have received from the "field." 1. "New Enzymes & Proteins"... 2. "This is not about feeding the world's starving, this is all about profit... Shame on you!" (Letter from Alex Schauss, Ph.D., to Lumen Foods, 2/24/00). 3. "As an organic vegetable grower, I am completely opposed..." (Letter from Mark Schonbeck, Ph.D. - Crop & Soil Scientist) 4. "Many credible scientists..." A Cornell Ph.D. candidate makes the case that non-GMO scientists are just as credible... 5. "Sustainability & Ag Biotech" (2/10/00). Latest comments from Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly. |