Is it progress to exploit Genetically Engineered food?

The word "progress" is almost holy in modern society. The proponents have been claiming that genetic engineering of foods represents major progress in food development. No doubt, successful insertion of foreign genes into cells is a significant step of scientific progress on the laboratory level.

- But is it progress to use this knowledge for genetic engineering of foods? That is the crucial question.

Here, the reasoning of the proponents is misleading. In saying that genetic engineering of foods is progress, the proponents confound two separate issues:

One is the progress of scientific knowledge and the other is the practical application of the same knowledge.

There is a huge gap between these two issues. It is necessary to know whether a new technology is safe before it can be applied. This commonly takes much research. Not until it has been proven that progress in the laboratory yields really safe applications can we talk of real progress.

In the case of GE-foods, the knowledge about their safety is seriously incomplete. - Both concerning their effects on the health of people and on the environment.

In addition, the GE-foods developed so far are of little or no use for mankind.

The opposite to progress

If "progress" is taken to mean the development of improved conditions for mankind, it is clearly the opposite to progress to exploit GE- foods commercially at a stage of seriously incomplete knowledge and absence of reliable means to secure their safety. In the absence of factual knowledge, the "risk assessments" of GE-foods have been based on guesswork without solid scientific basis (se further the section "Safety assessment").

It is not justifiable to expose the world to unknown and potentially serious risks, especially as the products represent little or no value to mankind. And there does not even exist any valid evidence today proving that this technology may yield safe products of real value in the future, for example for solving the world hunger problems as fancifully envisioned by some proponents.

We are for the application of new and valuable technologies. But we are strongly against the commercial application of new knowledge before the consequences have been thoroughly investigated and the safety of the products has been secured.

This is why we demand an immediate global moratorium as stated in our Declaration. And this why we demand the withdrawal of all GE foods presently on the market, see our "Open letter to governments"