Do genetically engineered crops and organisms present any significant threats to human health?
The biotech industry and much of the scientific community say, in essence, No. Consumer and food safety groups, however, are not so sure. Much of current federal policy is based on the doctrine of substantial equivalence. Biotech advocates argue that, for the most part, corn or tomatoes with a few genes added are still just corn or tomatoes. If the FDA determines that a new product is substantially equivalent to one already in the food supply, the product need not under current law be subject to additional regulatory controls such as labeling or toxicity testing. But consumer advocates argue that biotech foods involve such radical departures from conventional breeding that health consequences can not be predicted. They invoke the precautionary principle (Better safe than sorry) to argue that health effects testing should be done before they are marketed as it is with pesticides, food additives, and drugs. Even some consumer groups will acknowledge, as does the Food Policy Institute, th
