kjhvm

This statement that Michael Pollan made about substantial equivalence is incorrect. They are not assumed or merely asserted to be equivalent - they are determined to be equivalent for aspects of nutrition and composition only through testing them and comparing to the same varieties of crops without the added transgene. For more information, see this article by Dr. Anastasia Bodnar: http://www.biofortified.org/2010/10/substantial-equivalence/ There are also a lot of peer-reviewed studies that show that Bt proteins are safe for humans to eat - they are highly specific for the kinds of insects that they target. Here is a general list of studies related to the safety of genetically engineered crops, http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/ Unfortunately, it is not very convenient yet as it is just a list of citations. However, we have just begun a huge project to organize and catalog them so that everyone, especially journalists, can easy learn more about what is contained in the scientific literature.

Hi Michael, I am Karl Haro von Mogel, from Biofortified.org, and I have a couple questions for you about genetically engineered crops. You have written about them for a while, it seems mostly in the 1990s. In 2004 you said that GMOs would be gone in ten years - that we won't even be talking about it. (http://michaelpollan.com/profiles/the-cheapest-calories-make-you-the-fattest-a-food-chain-journalist-looks-for-stories-in-our-meals/), and that was eight years ago. We're still talking about it, and there is a lot more going on than just Bt and roundup-ready crops. With only two years left on this statement, you again announced during your recent visit to Australia that the GM Debate will be dead within the decade. (http://thefoodsage.com.au/2012/07/11/pollan-gm-debate-will-be-dead-within-the-decade/) You said almost the same exact thing: "In ten years we won’t be talking about it [GM]. It hasn’t been that successful."

If you look at the number of crops and traits coming out, now internationally as well as here in the U.S., and the new companies developing traits along with developing countries making their own home-grown versions, how can you maintain this belief? When can we see you put the time into researching where the technology is going (and not just what Monsanto is doing) that this topic demands? I would really like to hear your in-depth thoughts on this topic but I can't shake the feeling that you aren't reading deeply about it.

My second question is, if you have the time to respond, when I had dinner with you in 2010 at Chez Panisse, you said that you believed that public opinion on genetically engineered crops will change when there are more consumer-oriented traits, like nutritionally enhanced crops. (http://www.biofortified.org/2010/01/talked-with-pollan-not-too-much-mostly-about-plants/) Is that still your opinion?

The three-agency system that we have for regulating genetically engineered crops (FDA, USDA, EPA) is certainly confusing, and I daresay we can come up with a better single-agency system. But given that this is the system that we have, I don't see the logic in criticizing the FDA deferring to the EPA, because that is how the jurisdictions were set up. Do you think the EPA did a bad job in regulating Bt proteins?

Hi Michael, I agree that there is a lot more that the technology can do, and there are numerous reasons why we haven't seen all that is currently available, which has a lot to do with economics and business decisions as well as the progress of technological development as well. However, I think that if we're going to talk about where the technology is going, we need to look beyond merely Bt and herbicide-resistant crops. For instance, Brazil has its own virus-resistant black beans: http://www.biofortified.org/2011/10/brazilian-virus-resistant-beans/ And there's Golden Rice, www.goldenrice.org which has been shown to provide more than adequate pro-vitamin A, and the BioCassava plus project has many nutritional traits that they are currently trialling in Africa to help with malnutrition and food security: http://www.danforthcenter.org/science/programs/international_programs/bcp/ These are just three examples. Even if herbicide tolerance and Bt traits fail utterly (which they haven't at all, but the companies and the farmers need to stay on top of it of course), you still can't ignore what direction the field is going in. You yourself expressed interest (to me) in finding out more about the soybeans genetically engineered to have altered oil composition, including omega-3 fatty acids. There are also RNAi-based traits like non-browning apples and potatoes that store and fry better, and drought-tolerance traits already being field-tested. Where do you think these kinds of traits are going? Perhaps a more general question about your interest in this topic: Michael, are you interested in learning about all these different applications of the technology, and what the world outside of midwestern corn and soybean fields are doing with the technology?