Pew on Pew

Pew on Pew Regarding the Opinion by Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko on genetically engineered foods,1 their criticisms of our recent report on food allergenicity research and our other efforts to promote dialogue and consensus on agricultural biotechnology issues are off the mark. Miller and Conko argue that the report2 reflects an "antibiotechnology" bias because it fails to stress that conventionally processed novel foods can also pose food allergy risks. Actually, the report discusses

Michael Rodemeyer
Jul 21, 2002

Pew on Pew

Regarding the Opinion by Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko on genetically engineered foods,1 their criticisms of our recent report on food allergenicity research and our other efforts to promote dialogue and consensus on agricultural biotechnology issues are off the mark.

Miller and Conko argue that the report2 reflects an "antibiotechnology" bias because it fails to stress that conventionally processed novel foods can also pose food allergy risks. Actually, the report discusses at some length the significance of food allergies caused by conventional foods. It explicitly states, "[I]t is important to note that understanding food allergy and being able to test for safety is also an issue for new foods developed by conventional breeding methods or those introduced to the US population through expanded world trade in agriculture."

The report focuses on genetically engineered foods simply because they are the only new foods that are...

Interested in reading more?

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?