THE GMO CONTROVERSY - Agricultural and Food Controversies - page 65

like adding a food additive, but more like selective breeding.
So long as the GM canola's DNA is basically the same as its
non-GM counterpart, there is no need for additional regula-
tion or testing. So if you ask the most prestigious scientific
organization if a GM tobacco seed is basically just another
variety of tobacco, they will respond yes.
No conceptual distinction exists between genetic modi-
fication of plants and microorganisms by classical meth-
ods or by molecular techniques that modify DNA and
transfer genes . . . the product of genetic modification and
selection should be the primary focus for making deci-
sions about the environmental introduction of a plant or
microorganism and not the process by which the prod-
ucts were obtained.
—Committee on Scientific Evaluation of the Introduction
of Genetically Modified Microorganisms and Plants into
the Environment, National Research Council, National
Academy of Sciences, Field Testing Genetically Modified
Organisms: Framework for Decisions , 1989.
There are some well-qualified dissenting scientists and
a motivated group of food activists behind them, pushing
back against GM food. They believe a GM crop is not sub-
stantially equivalent to traditional crops. Moreover, they
believe that the FDA follows the substantial equivalence
rule not because of the science, but because the FDA was
corrupted by corporate influence. This is not a belief that the
authors' share, but there are smart people of high character
who do believe this conspiracy theory, and their side of the
story deserves to be heard.
In The World According to Monsanto , author Marie-Monique
Robin describes how the substantial equivalence began with
a 1992 policy statement by the FDA under the leadership of
a former Monsanto lawyer, who, after working in the FDA,
returned to Monsanto as a vice president. Her story suggests