Reuters | October 13, 1999
LONDON - Scientists were cited as reacting angrily angrily Wednesday to a commentary in a leading science magazine slamming the criterion used to assess the safety of genetically modified foods.
They said the commentary in Nature magazine by food safety policy expert Erik Millstone of the University of Sussex and his colleagues was flawed.
Millstone said the safety measure known as "substantial equivalence," showing genetically modified (GM) food was chemically similar to its natural equivalent, was inaccurate and should be ditched.
The commentators called for better methods to test the toxicity and safety of GM foods and said they should not be taken for granted.
Derek Burke, a former chairman of the UK advisory committee on novel food and processes, was quoted as saying in a letter in the current issue of Nature that, "Last week's commentary by Millstone et al. is misleading and inaccurate," and that the team's accusations and ignorance denigrated the whole regulatory process.
Anthony Trewavas of the Edinburgh University and Chris Leaver of Oxford University were cited as writing that the commentary was based on ill-informed logic, adding, "Their arguments are a distraction from the task of developing a sustainable and environmentally friendly agriculture, which combines the best of conventional plant breeding approaches with new technologies."
Nature, one of the world's most prestigious science publications, said its commentary section was intended to convey original and stimulating opinions.
"Publication does not imply endorsement by Nature of the authors' views," it said.
