What is Genetic Engineering?
Genetic engineering is a laboratory technique used by scientists to change the DNA of living organisms.
DNA is the blueprint for the individuality of an organism. The organism relies upon the information stored in its DNA for the management of every biochemical process. The life, growth and unique features of the organism depend on its DNA. The segments of DNA which have been associated with specific features or functions of an organism are called genes.
Molecular biologists have discovered many enzymes which change the structure of DNA in living organisms. Some of these enzymes can cut and join strands of DNA. Using such enzymes, scientists learned to cut specific genes from DNA and to build customized DNA using these genes. They also learned about vectors, strands of DNA such as viruses, which can infect a cell and insert themselves into its DNA.
With this knowledge, scientists started to build vectors which incorporated genes of their choosing and used the new vectors to insert these genes into the DNA of living organisms. Genetic engineers believe they can improve the foods we eat by doing this. For example, tomatoes are sensitive to frost. This shortens their growing season. Fish, on the other hand, survive in very cold water. Scientists identified a particular gene which enables a flounder to resist cold and used the technology of genetic engineering to insert this ‘anti-freeze’ gene into a tomato. This makes it possible to extend the growing season of the tomato.
The Essay on Genetic Testing Genes Gene Organism
Now that scientists have identified the various genes that cause numerous disorders, doctors can test individuals for some of these disorders. For example, by analyzing a blood sample. Genetic tests are available for a growing number of diseases including hemophilia, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia and Tay-Sachs disease. With rapid advances in genetics, many more ...
At first glance, this might look exciting to some people. Deeper consideration reveals serious dangers.
What are the Dangers?
Fundamental Weaknesses of the Concept
* Imprecise Technology—A genetic engineer moves genes from one organism to another. A gene can be cut precisely from the DNA of an organism, but the insertion into the DNA of the target organism is basically random. As a consequence, there is a risk that it may disrupt the functioning of other genes essential to the life of that organism. (Bergelson 1998)
* Side Effects—Genetic engineering is like performing heart surgery with a shovel. Scientists do not yet understand living systems completely enough to perform DNA surgery without creating mutations which could be harmful to the environment and our health. They are experimenting with very delicate, yet powerful forces of nature, without full knowledge of the repercussions. (Washington Times 1997, The Village Voice 1998)
* Widespread Crop Failure—Genetic engineers intend to profit by patenting genetically engineered seeds. This means that, when a farmer plants genetically engineered seeds, all the seeds have identical genetic structure. As a result, if a fungus, a virus, or a pest develops which can attack this particular crop, there could be widespread crop failure. (Robinson 1996)
* Threatens Our Entire Food Supply—Insects, birds, and wind can carry genetically altered seeds into neighboring fields and beyond. Pollen from transgenic plants can cross-pollinate with genetically natural crops and wild relatives. All crops, organic and non-organic, are vulnerable to contamination from cross-pollinatation. (Emberlin et al 1999)
Health Hazards
* No Long-Term Safety Testing—Genetic engineering uses material from organisms that have never been part of the human food supply to change the fundamental nature of the food we eat. Without long-term testing no one knows if these foods are safe.
* Toxins—Genetic engineering can cause unexpected mutations in an organism, which can create new and higher levels of toxins in foods. (Inose 1995, Mayeno 1994)
The Term Paper on Genetically Modified Food 5
The past score of years has witnessed the astonishing revolution in the scope of plant breeding technologies. The biological technologies have regularly been utilized to create new gene combinations for progressing crop diversities. This intentionally modified by the manipulation of the DNA, and transformation of certain genes to create new variations of life, which called genetically modified ( ...
* Allergic Reactions—Genetic engineering can also produce unforeseen and unknown allergens in foods. (Nordlee 1996)
* Decreased Nutritional Value—Transgenic foods may mislead consumers with counterfeit freshness. A luscious-looking, bright red genetically engineered tomato could be several weeks old and of little nutritional worth.
* Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria—Genetic engineers use antibiotic-resistance genes to mark genetically engineered cells. This means that genetically engineered crops contain genes which confer resistance to antibiotics. These genes may be picked up by bacteria which may infect us. (New Scientist 1999)
* Problems Cannot Be Traced—Without labels, our public health agencies are powerless to trace problems of any kind back to their source. The potential for tragedy is staggering.
* Side Effects can Kill—37 people died, 1500 were partially paralyzed, and 5000 more were temporarily disabled by a syndrome that was finally linked to tryptophan made by genetically-engineered bacteria. (Mayeno 1994)
Environmental Hazards
* Increased use of Herbicides—Scientists estimate that plants genetically engineered to be herbicide-resistant will greatly increase the amount of herbicide use. (Benbrook 1999) Farmers, knowing that their crops can tolerate the herbicides, will use them more liberally.
* More Pesticides—GE crops often manufacture their own pesticides and may be classified as pesticides by the EPA. This strategy will put more pesticides into our food and fields than ever before.
* Ecology may be damaged—The influence of a genetically engineered organism on the food chain may damage the local ecology. The new organism may compete successfully with wild relatives, causing unforeseen changes in the environment. (Metz 1997)
* Gene Pollution Cannot Be Cleaned Up—Once genetically engineered organisms, bacteria and viruses are released into the environment it is impossible to contain or recall them. Unlike chemical or nuclear contamination, negative effects are irreversible.
DNA is actually not well understood. 97% of human DNA is called ³junk² because scientists do not know its function. The workings of a single cell are so complex, no one knows the whole of it. (San Diego Union-Tribune 2000) Yet the biotech companies have already planted millions of acres with genetically engineered crops, and they intend to engineer every crop in the world.
The Term Paper on Genetically Engineered Foods Crops Web Fda
The Benefits of Genetically Engineered Foods are in the Near Future. Introduction: Genetically engineered foods could produce many benefits for our future because GE foods could promote longevity on the shelves of the stores, could be produced in drought ridden countries, and could enhance vitamins that are lacking in some countries. II. Background section. Facts on Linda Bren and the FDA facts. ...
The concerns above arise from an appreciation of the fundamental role DNA plays in life, the gaps in our understanding of it, and the vast scale of application of the little we do know. Even the scientists in the Food and Drug administration have expressed concerns. (Alliance for Biointegrity)
Concerns Expressed by Government Scientists
The quotes below were extracted from documents obtained by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity during the preparation for their law suit against the FDA. Please visit the website of the Alliance for the complete documents and details of the case against the FDA.
“The process of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency [FDA], they lead to different risks.”
“I wonder if part of the problems associated with this approach – using scientific issues to set the stage for the policy statement – are due to the fact that the scope of technical experts assigned to the project did not include any whose usual job is risk analysis.”
Dr. Linda Kahl, FDA compliance officer, to Dr. James Maryanski, FDA’s Biotechnology Coordinator, about the Federal Register document “Statement of Policy: Foods from Genetically Modified Plants”. Dated January 8, 1992
“A genetically engineered plant may contain an identical profile of expected plant toxicant levels (i.e. expected toxicants) as is normally found in a closely related, natural plant. However, genetically modified plants could also contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants. The presence of high levels of toxicants in the bioengineered food plant could occur by two or more mechanisms. For example, normal levels of toxicants could be amplified through enhancement of toxicant gene transcription and translation. This might occur as a result of up-stream or down-stream promotion of gene activities in the modified plant DNA. In addition, plant toxicant genes which were normally inactive could be expressed in the modified plant gene as a result of insertion of the new genetic material (i.e. positional mutagenesis).
The Term Paper on Plant Foods at Easy-Home-Cooking
Plant Foods are nutritious and inexpensive. High quality fruits and vegetables are available in both fresh and frozen form throughout the year. Rich in minerals and Rotary dryer used for cement, mine,chemical,coal slime vitamins, carbohydrates, and proteins, plant foods assist in the performance of many body functions and are essential in human diets. Fresh fruits and vegetable are perishable and ...
Thus, the task of analysis of all major toxins in genetically engineered plant food includes the assessment of both expected toxicants and unexpected toxicants that could occur in the modified plant food.”
Edwin J. Mathews, Ph.D., in a memorandum to the Toxicology Section of the Biotechnology Working Group. Subject: Analysis of the Major Plant Toxicants. Dated October 28, 1991.
“At this time it is unlikely that molecular and compositional analysis can reasonably detect or predict all possible changes in toxicant levels or the development of new toxic metabolites as a result of genetic modifications introduced by the new methods of biotechnology.”
“We cannot assume that all gene products, particularly those encoded by genes from non-food sources, will be digestible. For example, there is evidence that certain types of proteins (e.g., plant lectins and protein allergens) are resistant to digestion and can be absorbed in biologically active form.”
Samuel I. Shibko, in a memorandum to Dr. James Maryansksi, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator. Subject: Revision of Toxicology Section of the Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Plants. Dated January 31, 1992.
“Unexpected Effects – This is the industry’s pet idea, namely that there are no unintended effects that will raise the FDA’s level of concern. But time and time again, there is no data to backup [sic] their contention, while the scientific literature does contain many examples of naturally occurring pleiotropic effects. When the introduction of genes into plant’s genome randomly occurs, as is the case with the current technology (but not traditional breeding), it seems apparent that many pleiotropic effects will occur. Many of these effects might not be seen by the breeder because of the more or less similar growing conditions in the limited trials that are performed. Until more of these experimental plants have a wider environmental distribution, it would be premature for the FDA to summarily dismiss pleiotropy as is done here.”
The Essay on The Effects Of Genetic Engineering
... a positive effect, new organisms created by genetic engineering could present an ecological problem. The changes that a genetically engineered ... that genetic engineering could affect our lives is its application to plants and animals used for food. If farmers breed plants ... or even targeted at people who carry certain genes. Genetically engineered organisms used for biological weapons might also ...
“Chart IV, box that reads – “Newly introduced protein present in food from the plant?” This does not take into account, nor does the document as a whole, those introduced proteins (enzymes) that while acting on one specific, intended substrate to produce a desired effect, will also affect other cellular molecules, either as substrates, or by swamping the plant’s regulatory/metabolic system and depriving the plant of resources needed for other things. It is not prudent to rely on plant breeders always finding these types of changes (especially when they are under pressure to get a product out).
Nowhere is such an issue discussed or examined in this document.”
Dr. Louis J. Pribyl, in comments on the “Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92”. Dated March 6, 1992.
“Lines 9-17 appear to provide justification for the use of tox[icology] studies in safety assessment, citing as an example the inability of analytical or molecular methods to detect the presence of a [sic] unknown toxin produced by activation of a previously cryptic gene. However, lines 8-end of paragraph say that the tox[icology] studies will not be needed if DNA insertion is limited to only a single site of known genomic location. This discussion implies that pleiotropy (i.e., production of a [sic] unknown toxin due to activation of a previously cryptic gene) will disappear or be negligible if gene insertions are limited to a single copy at a known genomic location. Evidence should be provided to support this position.”
“It is my understanding that pleiotropic effects are unpredictable, and may be triggered by gene insertion at a single site, as well as at multiple sites, the plant genome.”
Carl B. Johnson, in comments on the “draft statement of policy 12/12/91”. Dated January 8, 1992.
“As I know you are aware, there are a number of specific issues addressed in the document for which a scientific consensus does not exist currently, especially the need for specific toxicology tests. Also, the quantity and quality of data that would be required is not addressed and is difficult to specify at this time. I think the question of the potential for some substances to cause allergenic reactions is particularly difficult to predict.”
The Essay on Methods For Genetically Engineering A Plant
Methods for Genetically Engineering a Plant Two very different techniques exist for giving a plant new genetic characteristics. But both share several steps. Step 1: The DNA that encodes the genetic information for the desirable trait must be isolated. At step 2, the different techniques diverge into an "a" path and a "b" path: In Step 2a, the new DNA is linked to a circular ring of genetic ...
Dr. Jams Maryanski, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator, in a letter to Dr. Bill Murray, Chairman of the Food Directorate, Canada. Subject: the safety assessment of foods and food ingredients developed through new biotechnology. Dated October 23, 1991.
“In response to your question on how the agency should regulate genetically modified food plants, I and other scientists at CVM have concluded that there is ample scientific justification to support a pre-market review of these products. As you state in the Notice, the new methods of genetic modification permit the introduction of genes from a wider range of sources than possible by traditional breeding. The FDA will be confronted with new plant constituents that could be of a toxicological or environmental concern. The Notice further describes unintended or pleiotropic effects that pose unknown safety concern. It has always been our position that the sponsor needs to generate the appropriate scientific information to demonstrate product safety to humans, animals and the environment.
“A marked-up copy of the Notice with our comments will be provided to you directly by the Center’s scientists. Generally, I would urge you to eliminate statements that suggest that the lack of information can be used as evidence for no regulatory concern.”
“Residues of plant constituents or toxicants in meat and milk products may pose human food safety problems. For example, increased levels of glucosinolates or erusic acid in rapeseed may produce a residue problem in edible products.”
Gerald B. Guest, DVM, Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine, in a memorandum to Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator. Subject: “Regulation of Transgenic Plants – FDA Draft Federal Register Notice on Food Biotechnology”. Dated February 5, 1992.
“The insertion of any DNA into the plant genome may result in various phenotypic changes (desirable or undesirable) referred to as pleiotropic effects. Undesirable phenotypes may include, for example, poor growth, reduced levels of nutrients, increased levels of natural toxicants, etc. Pleiotropic effects occur in genetically engineered plants obtained with Agrobacterium-mediated transformation at frequencies up to 30% (Ref. )[sic]. Most of these effects can be managed by the subsequent breeding and selection procedures. Nevertheless, some undesirable effects such as increased levels of known naturally occurring toxicants, appearance of new, not previously identified toxicants, increased capability of concentrating toxic substances from the environment (e.g., pesticides or heavy metals), and undesirable alterations in the levbels of nutrients may escape breeders’ attention unless genetically engineered plants are evaluated specifically for these changes. Such evaluations should be performed on a case-by-case basis, i.e., every transformant should be evaluated before it enters the marketplace. (A similar approach was recommended by the International Food Biotechnology Council (Ref. )[sic]).
“To address unrecognized toxic substances that may unexpectedly appear in transgenic plants or to evaluate plants that normally contain many toxic substances at very low levels, toxicological evaluation of the edible plant tissue may be more appropriate than using chemical identification and quantification procedures.”
Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of Contaminants Chemistry. Subject: “Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation of Genetically Modified Foods. Supplemental Information.” Dated November 1, 1991.
“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Out interest is in selling as much of it as possible.”
Phil Angell, Director of Corporate Communications, Monsanto. (The New York Times of 10/25/98)
“Except for a handful of new “food additives” such as artificial sweeteners, which must receive premarket approval from FDA before entering the marketplace, most new foods are introduced under the “postmarket” authority of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Under this authority, foods made up of proteins, fats and carbohydrates with a history of safe use in food can be sold once companies are satisfied the new product is safe without first getting FDA permission.
John Henkell, “Genetic Engineering – Fast Forwarding To Future Foods,” in the FDA Consumer, April 1995.
These concerns were expressed in light of a policy proposal by the Food and Drug Administration. In fact, the FDA implemented policies which conflict directly with the recomendations of these government scientists. Naturally enough, other scientists, being free to take a broader look at genetic engineering, have also raised concerns.
What do Scientists Say about the Dangers of Genetic Engineering?
“By taking a stand against genetically engineered foods, Mothers for Natural Law has come out as protectors of values that cannot be denied without placing all of humanity in jeopardy. These include the health and safety of our children and all generations to come; the welfare of the environment; and our fundamental human rights.”—from Genetically Engineered Foods—Good for us and our Planet?
Dr. John Fagan
Professor of Molecular Biology, Maharishi University of Management; President, Genetic ID
“When genetic engineers disregard the reproductive boundaries set in place by natural law, they run the risk of destroying our genetic encyclopedia, compromising the richness of our natural biodiversity and creating ‘genetic soup.’ What this means for the future of our ecosystem, no one knows.”
Dr. John S. Hagelin
Professor of Physics, Maharishi University of Management
Presidential Candidate, The Natural Law Party
“The fact is, it is virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing procedure to assess the health effects of genetically engineered foods when introduced into the food chain, nor is there any valid nutritional or public interest reason for their introduction.”
Dr. Richard Lacey
Professor of Food Safety, Leeds University, UK
“Genetic engineering bypasses conventional breeding by using artificially constructed parasitic genetic elements, including viruses, as vectors to carry and smuggle genes into cells. Once inside cells, these vectors slot themselves into the host genome. The insertion of foreign genes into the host genome has long been known to have many harmful and fatal effects including cancer of the organism.”
Professor Mae Wan-Ho
Department of Biology, Open University, UK
“In 1983, hundreds of people in Spain died after consuming adulterated rapeseed oil. This adulterated rapeseed oil was not toxic to rats.”
Dr. Parke warns that current testing procedures for genetically altered foods including rodent tests do not prove safety for humans. He has suggested a moratorium on the release of genetically engineered organisms, foods, and medicines.
Professor Dennis Parke
School of Biological Sciences, University of Surrey, UK
“Genes encode proteins involved in the control of virtually all biological processes. By transferring genes across species barriers which have existed for aeons between species like humans and sheep we risk breaching natural thresholds against unexpected biological processes. For example, an incorrectly folded form of an ordinary cellular protein can under certain circumstances be replicative and give rise to infectious neurological disease.”
Dr. Peter Wills
Auckland University, New Zealand
“Probably the greatest threat from genetically altered crops is the insertion of modified virus and insect virus genes into crops. It has been shown in the laboratory that genetic recombination will create highly virulent new viruses from such constructions. Certainly the widely used cauliflower mosaic virus is a potentially dangerous gene. It is a pararetrovirus meaning that it multiplies by making DNA from RNA messages. It is very similar to the Hepatitis B virus and related to HIV. Modified viruses could cause famine by destroying crops or cause human and animal diseases of tremendous power.”
Dr. Joseph Cummins
Professor Emeritus of Genetics, University of Western Ontario
“We see this as a multi-million dollar problem. In Europe, there is already a big problem with gene flow between wild beet and cultivated beet. Oil-seed rape (canola) also has close relatives and is going to cause problems in the future. One would expect that the kind of genes that are now being engineered are going to be the ones that have a higher potentiality for causing trouble.”
Dr. Norman Ellstrand
Professor of Genetics, University of California
“The generation of genetically engineered plants and animals involves the random integration of artificial combinations of genetic material from unrelated species into the DNA of the host organism. This procedure results in disruption of the genetic blueprint of the organism with totally unpredictable consequences. The unexpected production of toxic substances has now been observed in genetically engineered bacteria, yeast, plants, and animals with the problem remaining undetected until a major health hazard has arisen. Moreover, genetically engineered food or enzymatic food processing agents may produce an immediate effect or it could take years for full toxicity to come to light.”
Dr. Michael Antoniou
Senior Lecturer in Molecpar Pathology, London, UK
“Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering] faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on the Earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the products of some three billion years of evolution.”
“Such intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the natural order of living organisms; animal and plant breeding, for example; or the artificial induction of mutations, as with X-rays. All such earlier procedures worked within single or closely related species. The nub of the new technology is to move genes back and forth, not only across species lines, but across any boundaries that now divide living organisms. The respts will be essentially new organisms, self-perpetuating and hence permanent. Once created, they cannot be recalled.”
“Up to now, living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism, or their neighbors.”
“It is all too big and is happening too fast. So this, the central problem, remains almost unconsidered. It presents probably the largest ethical problem that science has ever had to face. Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain. For going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise, but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics.”
Dr. George Wald
Nobel Laureate in Medicine, 1967
Higgins Professor of Biology, Harvard University.
From “The Case Against Genetic Engineering” by George Wald
in The Recombinant DNA Debate, Jackson and Stich, eds. P. 127-128
(Reprinted from The Sciences, Sept./Oct. 1976 issue)
The truth is that some scientists are wholeheartedly against genetic engineering and some are wholeheartedly for it. In this situation the only scientific solution is to foster public scientific debate and to delay application until all fundamental questions are resolved. Corporations, however, have a vested interest in speedy application. They are not willing to wait and are attempting to gather the support of the public through extensive marketing campaigns. But there is a vast discrepancy between biotech claims and the simple facts.
Claims and Facts
The marketing of genetic engineering inspires visions of perfect health, long life, and miracle foods. The reality is that these claims are often completely unsubstantiated and sometimes simply wrong.
Claim: Genetic engineering is necessary to feed the world.
Fact: Hunger in the world is caused by poverty, by the simple inability to buy food, not by lack of supply.
Claim: Genetic engineering will help developing countries.
Fact: Biotech companies patent their seeds. To protect their investment, the farmers that use the seed sign a contract which prohibits saving, reselling, or exchanging seed. The family farms of the poorer nations depend on saved seed for survival. Biotech companies also patent other people’s seeds, like basmati rice, neem, and quinoa, taking advantage of indigenous knowledge and centuries of selective breeding by small farmers without giving anything in return. The same companies, backed by the U.S. government, proposed to protect their seed patents through the terminator technology. A terminator seed will grow, but the seeds it produces are sterile. Any nation that buys such seeds will swiftly lose any vestige of agricultural self-sufficiency. Furthermore, genetically engineered seeds are designed for agribusiness farming, not for the capabilities of the small family farms of the developing nations. How are they to buy and distribute the required chemical inputs?
Claim: Genetic engineering will reduce the use of herbicides.
Fact: Genetic engineering develops crops with resistance to specific herbicides. For example, Roundup Ready(tm) crops survive spraying with RoundUp(tm).
On the one hand, this allows the farmer to use more herbicide. On the other hand, this leads to herbicide-resistant weeds.
Claim: Genetic engineering will reduce the use of pesticides.
Fact: This claim is based on the sowing of crops genetically engineered to produce their own pesticides. Such crops produce the pesticide continuously in every cell. Some of these crops (the Bt potato, for example) are actually classified as pesticides by the EPA. The net outcome of sowing pesticide-producing crops is an vast increase in pesticides.
Claim: Genetic engineering is environmentally friendly.
Fact: The increased quantities of herbicides and pesticides noted above is one strike against this claim. Pollen from genetically engineered crops can be transferred to cultivated and wild relatives over a mile away. This threatens the future of organic crops. It can pass herbicide resistance genes from GE crops to weedy relatives, necessitating the development of more herbicides. Also, the huge areas of genetically identical crops will influence the evolution of local pests and wildlife, and through the food chain, the whole ecology.
Claim: Genetically engineered foods are just like natural foods.
Fact: There is no natural mechanism for getting insect DNA into potatoes or flounder DNA into tomatoes. Genetically engineered foods are engineered to be different from natural foods. Why else all the patents? This claim is empty sales talk.
Claim: Genetic engineering is simply an extension of traditional crossbreeding.
Fact: Crossbreeding cannot transfer genes across species barriers. Genetic engineering transfers genes between species that could never be crossbred. Also, crossbreeding lets nature manage the delicate activity of combining the DNA of the parents to form the DNA of the child. Genetic engineering shoots the new gene into the host organism without reference to any holistic principle at all.
Claim: Genetic engineering is safe.
Fact: Safety comes from accumulated experience. In the case of genetic engineering, there has not been the time or the public debate essential for accumulating sufficient experience to justify any broad claim to safety.
There is a vast domain of ignorance at the root of the technology:
* The technique for inserting a DNA fragment is sloppy, unpredictable and imprecise.
* The effect of the insertion on the biochemistry of the host organism is unknown.
* The effect of the genetically engineered organism on the environment is unknown.
* The effect of eating genetically engineered foods is unknown.
* There is no basis for meaningful risk assessment.
* There is no recovery plan in case of disaster.
* It is not even clear who, if anyone, will be legally liable for negative consequences.
There is no consensus among scientists on the safety or on the risks associated with genetic engineering in agriculture. The international community is deeply divided on the issue. The claim to safety is a marketing slogan. It has no scientific basis.
The claims for genetic engineering are overblown and misleading. And the polls show that people are suspicious.
