The Frankenfood Myth Book Report

7/31/2019 The Frankenfood Myth Book Report

1/31

BY: C0sare,

B00K Rep0rt: THE

FRANKENF00D MYTH


2/31

0utli

neTitleAuthors

background of book

Readers comments

definition of terms

science involved

Summary of chapter3

Summary of chapter

4


3/31

DR. HENRY I. MILLER

He is research fellow at the Hoover

Institution since 1994.His research "focuses on the

relationship between science and

regulation, the often-excessive costs

of government regulation, models

for regulatory reform, and federal

and international oversight of

genetically engineered products.

He joined the FDA in 1979 and

served in a number of posts involved

with the new biotechnology.

He has authored or co-authored six

monographs.


4/31

GREGORY CONKO

He is the Director of Food Safety

Policy at the Competitive

Enterprise Institute (CEI)

He specializes in issues of food

and pharmaceutical drug safetyregulation, and on the general

treatment of health risks in public

policy

He is also the Vice President and a

member of the Board of Directors

of the AgBioWorld Foundation


5/31

THE FRANKENFOOD MYTH: How Protest

and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution

This book aims to describe how misguidedactivism and government policies are

squandering potential advances inbiotechnology.


6/31

Readers comments

Dr. Miller and Mr. Conko have done a tremendous

service to all of those who care about intellectual

honesty. This is a no-holds barred, gloves-off

attack, not of the critics of biotechnology, but of

the intellectual dishonesty and rampant

hucksterism that passes for enlightened debate

about issues of complexity nowadays. "

-Anonymous


7/31

Readers comments

"The Frankenfood Myth outlines problems with the

way gene-spliced organisms are regulated in the

U.S. It does so using adjectives like "witless" and

nouns like "nincompoopery," and so may be

especially entertaining for people who like that sort

of thing. Miller and Conko's case for less regulation

being the solution to these problems was, for me,too often inconsistent and inadequately

documented to be persuasive."

- B. Martineau


8/31

"The authors do a masterful job of exposing the

misapprehension spread by regulators and

activists, and abetted by the media that "genetic

modification" is untested, unproven orunregulated. It is very readable and very

persuasive. "

-Tuscany

Readers comments


9/31

Definition of Terms

Frankenfoods

Pejorative term for genetically modified food

whether it be derived from genetically

engineered plants or animals. This derogatory

term was coined from Franken(stein) + food

on June 16, 1992 by Paul Lewis

Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods

derived from genetically modified organisms.

Genetically modified organisms have had

specific changes introduced into their DNA by

genetic engineering techniques


10/31


11/31

SCIENCE INVOLVED

GENE SPLICING / RECOMBINANT DNA

involves cutting out part of the DNA in a gene

and adding new DNA in its place.

process is entirely chemical with restriction

enzymes used as chemical 'scissors'. Dependingon the type of restriction enzyme used, different

parts of the genetic code can be targeted

When a new strand of DNA is added, it takes theplace of the binds to the ends of the DNA

strands that were originally cut. Another

enzyme called ligase is used in the repair

rocess.


12/31

CHAPTER 3SCIENCE, COMMON SENSE,

AND PUBLIC POLICY


13/31

THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON

REGULATING BIOTECH

*In 1987, U.S. National Academy of Science (NAS)

published a white paper on the planned

introduction of GMO's into the environment. Itnoted that recombinant DNA techniques provide a

powerful and safe means for modifying

organisms, and predicted that the technologywould contribute to the improvement of health

care, agricultural efficiency, and solution to many

environmental problems.


14/31

its most significant conclusions and

recommendations include:

There is no evidence of the existence of unique

hazards either in the use of recombinant DNA

techniques or in the movement of genes between

unrelated organisms.

Assessment of the risks of introducing recombinant

DNA-modified organisms into the environment

should be based on the nature of the organism andof the environment into which the organism is to be

introduced, and independent of the method of

engineering.


15/31

*In 1989, follow up to this white paper, the National

Research Council, the research arm of NAS, made a

report inclusive of the following extensive

discussions of experience with plant breeding andcultivation of pre recombinant-DNA modified plants

and microorganisms:

Crops modified by molecular and cellular methodshould pose risks no different from those modified by

classical genetic methods for similar traits.

Recombinant DNA methodology makes it possible

introduce pieces of DNA, consisting of either single or

multiple genes, that can be defined in function and even

in nucleotide sequence.


16/31

Substantial Equivalence

A concept, developed by the Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in

1991, that maintains that a novel food (for example,

genetically modified foods) should be consideredthe same as and as safe as a conventional food if it

demonstrates the same characteristics and

composition as the conventional food.

The practical way to determine the safety of novel

foods is to consider whether they are substantially

equivalentto conventional food products.


17/31

The Big Lie

*Professional anti-biotechnology activists havepromoted pseudo-controversies by raising

succession of phony issues that have included

fanciful safety concerns, inaccurate economicforecasts and thoughts of deceiving consume

rights"

*They keep on saying that even the mostmodest, precise and well characterized

genetic modification can have unpredictable

and disastrous effects.

R b B S ( BS )


18/31

Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST)

used to increase milk production in dairy

cows

rumors about possibilities of having breas

cancer in women who drink milk from

cows injected with rBST.


19/31

Greenpeace and the Purloined seeds

*On April 6,1995, the Greenpeace

International may have attained the nadir

of anti-biotechnology activism when thegroup announced that it had intercepted

a package containing rice seed genetically

manipulated to produce a toxic insecticide

as it was being exported and swapped the

GM seeds with normal rice seeds.

*


20/31

*The rice seeds stolen by Greenpeace had been

modified through recombinant DNA techniques to

improve its insect resistance and were en route

from Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurichto the International Rice Research Institute here in

the Philippine, where the seeds were to be tested

for the ability to produce high yields of rice usingless chemical pesticides.

Greenpeace only interfered with the research on insect-resistant rice only because the seeds were improved usingrecombinant DNA techniques. Greenpeace targets only a

single and superior technology which is recombinantDNA


21/31

CHAPTER 4Caution,Precaution, and

the Precautionary Principle


22/31

THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

Definition

It is the idea that regulatory measures should be

taken to prevent or restrict products, processes or

actions that raise even conjectural risks , even

though scientific evidence of their existence ,magnitude, or potential impacts is incomplete or

inconclusive.

When an activity raises threats of harm to humanhealth or the environment, precautionary measures

should be taken even if some cause and effect

relationships are not fully established scientifically.


23/31

Purpose

The purpose of the precautionary principle is

ostensibly to impose early preventive measures to

ward off risks for which we have little or no basis on

which to predict the future probability of harm.

Flaws

The decision-making process dictated by the

precautionary principle is intentionally weighted

AGAINST new technologies even AFTER they have

been cautiously examined. It grants regulators the ability to disregard findings of

lengthy risk analysis whenever there remains any

question.


24/31

Bottomline

If uncertainty about the risks of a product or

process should draw out application of theprecautionary principle, that criterion is far more

easily met with conventional techniques than

with recombinant DNA techniques. Thus, greater

precaution would be appropriate not to gene

splicing but to the less precise and less

predictable conventional forms of genetic

modification.


25/31

The SIX STRATEGIES FOR REFORMING

REGULATORY ABUSES

1 S i ti t M t A ti l P t t U i tifi P li i


26/31

1.Scientists Must Actively Protest Unscientific Policies

and Regulations

Individual Scientists must contribute concisely andwisely to the dialogue on public policy issues.

Encouraging Scientists to test public policy waters is

always accompanied with risks.

2 S i tifi I tit ti M t Sti l t P bli Di


27/31

2. Scientific Institutions Must Stimulate Public Discourse

Professional associations, faculties, academies, and

journal editorial boards should far more aggressively

explore and clarify the controversies about public

policy and elevate the level of discussion on them.

3. The Media Must Discount Bogus Science

Reporters and their editors wield tremendous power

and can do great deal to illuminate policy issues

related to science.

The Public should be exposed to genuine controversies,

and not to pseudo-controversies stirred up by activists,

and that are bread and butter to the media.

4 The Biotechnology Industry Must Advocate Scientific


28/31

4. The Biotechnology Industry Must Advocate Scientific

Regulatory Policies

Companies and trade associations should stay awayfrom short term advantages and actively oppose

unscientific and discriminatory regulations

5. All Stakeholders Should Promote Science-Based PublicPolicy

There are others not directly involved in research and

development who are important stakeholders in theultimate application of science and technology. These

includes venture capitalists, philanthropists and most

especially the consumer groups.

6 Rethink the Go ernment's Monopol o er


29/31

6. Rethink the Government s Monopoly over

Regulation

It is time for the biotechnology regulatorypendulum to swing away from unnecessary and

discriminatory government reviews, toward other

models that are more efficient and favorable toinnovation.


30/31

MY own POINT OF VIEW

We all have our own opinions about the new

biotechnology and the only fair way to decide

about the regulation on the new biotechnology isby testing its products HONESTLY. Regulators and

as well as scientists should accept whatever the

results are.


31/31

MARAMING SALAMAT PO!

The Frankenfood Myth Book Report

Documents

Transcript of The Frankenfood Myth Book Report