CW: My name is Carl Winter, I am the director of the Food Safe Program at the University of California, Davis. I am a food toxicologist by training- I do a lot of work in terms of assessing risks of chemical contamination of foods, naturally occurring toxins, and also do a lot of work with risk communication. My background, I have a PhD in agricultural and environmental chemistry and a bachelors of science in environmental toxicology from the University of California, Davis.

What does transgenic mean to you? Could you give us about an example of controversy?

CW: All living organisms including food that we eat possess small information packets we call genes and these typically have thousands of different genes in each particular plant, and these genes confer all the properties which the plant needs to behave in the environment. Transgenic foods are those that are created when we take a gene from one particular food item and move it to another food item. Traditionally, we have been doing this all the time from conventional breeding, where we have a lot of sharing of the genetic info. More recently, we have been able to develop techniques where we may be able to take a single gene and move it from one particular plant or life form to another plant. This allows us to confer specific traits that are desired in this new plant. A lot of this is quite controversial- we are covering new ground as we speak. One of the areas that is very controversial is how we might be able to use biotechnology in pest control. There is a lot of concern in society about the use of pesticides in foods that allow us to control things like insects and plant disease and weeds. We have developed techniques in which we can incorporate new genes into plants that might confer some resistance to things like insects and viruses. At the same time, we have developed other tech that might be able to confer resistance to particular chemicals that kill weeds, so you might be able to apply an herbicide, a chemical that kills weeds, to a crop, and kill all the weeds, but not affect the particular crop, and this is quite controversial. At one side, we see the promise of biotechnology allowing us to reduce the use of many types of agricultural chemicals, on the other side we see a biotechnology application that in fact, is tied directly to the use of particular agricultural chemicals, so there is a lot of controversy here.

If most scientists and regulators agree that transgenic foods do not pose any greater risks than conventional foods, why are people concerned?

CW: It is clear that most scientists and regulators consider the risks for biotechnology-derived foods to be negligible for consumer health- at the same time it's also clear that there are a lot of consumers that are quite concerned about these technologies. Scientists need to realize that consumers make their decisions based on a number of factors, including the sciences, but also including several what might be considered less scientific factors, such as whether the exposure is voluntary or involuntary, natural verses synthetic, whether they believe the institutions that are developing the research or regulating the product. I think very importantly, consumers are interested in the equity of the potential distribution of risks and benefits. If the tech poses at least some theoretical risk, consumers want to know that they are also receiving a benefit, personally. We have had some cases of uses of biotechnology where it is very hard for the consumers to see a direct benefit, and even if the risks may be very low, there may still be considerable consumer concern.

Many people want a guarantee that biotech foods are one hundred percent safe. Is this realistic?

CW: Many consumers have the desire to have absolute, one hundred percent assurance that foods produced from a number of technologies, including biotechnology, are absolutely safe. Scientifically, unfortunately, this is an impossibility. We really do not have the ability to absolutely determine if anything is safe. In fact, in many cases, we can only demonstrate the absence of safety under specific conditions. So, this is not unique to food, this is not unique to biotechnology: any technologies that are developed cannot have one hundred percent assurances, and this is something that is quite troubling to a lot of consumers. At the same time, I think the most important thing we need to consider is not whether there is absolute safety or not, but rather, what is the relative distribution of the risks and benefits of the technology. Clearly technologies wouldn't be marketed if there weren't some benefits, at least from somebody on the benefit side- and generally if you have a technology, there may also be risks, so considering the benefits in addition to the risks is very important.

In products from biotechnology, we have the potential for greater production, which could lead to lower consumer cost, we have, in many cases the potential for reduced input of agricultural chemicals, such as insecticides and fungicides, so there are some benefits there. We may also be able to develop products with increased nutritional content- so there are some potential benefits there- we need to consider these benefits in addition to the theoretical risks that those products may pose.

Why should the average consumer care? How should scientists go about testing for safety?

CW: Should consumers care about their food and products of biotechnology? In a democracy, I think we should absolutely care about how our food is being produced- we need to understand how are our lives are being run, what are inputs that got into our various lives, and food is an integral part of our lives, so we do need to understand the processes. I think it's very important that educational programs be developed that can inform consumers and let them make their own decisions as to the acceptability of particular types of products- in a democracy, if consumers feel that their needs are not being met by our laws and regulations, then we have the opportunity to change that, but clearly, in order to have optimal policy, we need to have an enlightened public. There is a lot of concern about whether or not products of biotechnology are being tested appropriately. Some have argued that products of biotechnology are not subjected to any tests at all. In fact, this is not the case- we do have regulations that require developers of products of food biotechnology to look at things like natural toxin production, and the potential of the development of possible allergens in some of the foods. So we do have considerable regulatory oversight, that oversight also exists in terms of the release of these organisms into the environment, one of the potential impacts onto non-target organisms, that sort of thing. So, it is a bit of a misnomer to say there is no government regulation.