Substantial Equivalence

Substantial Equivalence
The biotechnology industry claims that genetic engineering is just like traditional breeding, i.e., GE plants are substantially equivalent to non-GE plants and, therefore, that they do not need any extra regulation. This is obviously misleading.
In traditional breeding, members of the same or very similar species are crossed to create offspring with some novel trait. This greatly limits the genes that can be combined. Furthermore, when different but similar species are crossed, their offspring are generally infertile, preventing inter-species gene combinations from propagating in the wild. For example, a donkey and a mare can make a mule, but the mule will be infertile, the end of the line for the combined genes.
Genetic engineering smashes these natural barriers. Using gene insertion, any gene from any plant, animal, bacterium, fungus or virus can be inserted into the DNA in reproductive cells of any other organism. If the resulting organism survives, it generally can pass on its altered DNA, along with and new traits, through normal reproduction. For example, genetic engineering enables scientists to create pigs which have human genes, genes which will be passed on to future generations.
So GE plants and animals are not substantially equivalent to non-GE varieties. But are they safe for us to eat? Do they need extra regulation? .

There are indications that they may not be safe. An English scientist reported that rats fed GE potatoes developed cancerous tumors. The rats' brain size also decreased. The same scientist also fed GE tomatoes to rats. 7 out of 20 rats developed stomach lesions and died.
There are also problems within the Food and Drug Agency, the US agency with responsibility for regulating food. Because of inadequate legislation in the US, Monsanto's New Leaf Superior GE potato is not regulated. The potato has been genetically engineered to poison and kill the Colorado potato beetle. Because it produces its own toxin, the potato is registered as a pesticide. The FDA does not regulate the potato because it does not have authority to regulate pesticides. That is the Environment Protection Agency's job, but the EPA says the potato is a food.
The first GE crop to be commercialized, the Flavr Savr tomato, did not pass the required toxicological tests. Secret memoranda from the FDA reveal that the agency ignored warnings from its own senior scientists who pointed out that GE is risky. What is behind this situation? For one thing, there is a very close link between the biotechnology industry and the US government. The biotech industry has been well represented in President Bush's cabinet. Secretaries of Defence, Health, and Agriculture, the Attorney General and the chairperson of the House Agriculture Committee have had connections with Monsanto or the wider industry.
But would the manufacturer be irresponsible? Monsanto president has been quoted as saying, "Safety is the Government's responsibility."
So we do not know for sure if GE foods are safe. They may turn out to be harmful. There are many examples of new technologies hailed at first as great benefits to humankind, but later realized to be anything but a benefit. The effects of DDT were not known for decades. Likewise Thalidomide, which caused deformities in more than 100,000 babies. At the time of its approval in the EU and Canada, tests in laboratory animals showed no negative effects. Thalidomide's damage was revealed only over time, not in the drug's users, but in their children.
There is already at least one new disease linked to GE food. In 1989 eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS) hit the US. 37 people died and 1,500 were permanently disabled. EMS was linked to the consumption of a dietary supplement called L-Tryptophan. The batch of L-Tryptophan implicated in the outbreak was traced to Showa Denko, which had recently introduced a new genetically engineered bacterium into its production process.