ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More on Pew

More on Pew The opinion piece by Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko seriously misrepresents my views and the product of my research in the area of allergenicity of genetically modified food.1,2 It is absurd to equate the shifts in protein composition that are possible with "conventional" plant breeding with those that can occur via biotechnology. It has become evident that biotechnology does confer a higher probability of introducing novel traits into food than conventional plant breeding an

Lynn Goldman

More on Pew

The opinion piece by Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko seriously misrepresents my views and the product of my research in the area of allergenicity of genetically modified food.1,2 It is absurd to equate the shifts in protein composition that are possible with "conventional" plant breeding with those that can occur via biotechnology. It has become evident that biotechnology does confer a higher probability of introducing novel traits into food than conventional plant breeding and, in fact, this is how many of the potential benefits of biotechnology will be realized. If there is a price to be paid in additional regulation, and I think that there clearly is, then we need to make sure that such regulation is scientifically based.

The report I coauthored is intended to shed light on one area where the federal research agenda needs to be strengthened to support this new technology. Allergenicity...

Interested in reading more?

Magaizne Cover

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?
ADVERTISEMENT