"You are what you eat." Arguably, there is no group of people who place more value and emphasis on this saying than Seventh-day Adventists. Most of them believe strongly in healthful eating, and many choose vegetarianism and noncaffeinated drinks, while eschewing all alcoholic beverages. They've had good guidance in the value of watchful food intake and regularity in meal times. From the earliest days of the church they have been admonished to eat vegetables and whole grains in order to enhance clarity of mind and strength of body. God directed Adam and Eve to choose their foods from "every plant on the surface of the earth and fruit-yielding tree" (Gen 1:29). Ellen White advised them to select the choicest and best foods in the land (Ministry of Healing, pp. 295-300). Regular church programs and weekly homilies have ingrained into the very being of Adventism the need for people to place only the best foods in their bodies because they are the temple of God.

How then are Adventists now to view foods from plants that have been genetically modified? Since they do not find statements from the Bible or Ellen White on this, many find this the source of a growing dilemma. Are these foods safe? Does the church approve? Do these foods meet Biblical standards for healthful living? Will people get sick if they eat genes and DNA from these new plants? The fear of the unknown was expressed eloquently by a dear soul who raised her gnarled finger in my direction and proudly declared, "I've never eaten a gene in my life and I won't start with any from those new-fangled plants you are making."

Actually, the genetic makeup of crops has been changing and improving for many centuries. Our ancestors initiated the process of crop improvement as they domesticated plants by selectively planting seeds only from plants with desirable traits. Specifically, during the past 150 years, continual scientific progress has provided better ways of improving crops beyond simply saving some seeds while discarding others. As researchers learned more about plant reproduction they began to crossbreed only those plants with desirable traits. When they discovered that genes carry traits from one generation to the next they could make crossbreeding more predictable and thus improve crops even more. Eventually they learned techniques for crossbreeding plants of different species, which allowed for even greater crop improvement.

Modern biotechnology is only the latest chapter in thousands of years of genetically improving crop plants, but it now does so with more precise methods. It permits researchers to take a single gene with a known function in one plant and transfer it into other existing crop varieties. In contrast, crossbreeding transfers thousands of genes of unknown functions from one plant into others. The methods of biotechnology extend the century-old process of circumventing natural reproductive barriers. Additionally, biotechnology techniques allow researchers to access a wider range of genetic diversity to improve crops.

As an Adventist scientist I am often surprised at the walls people build around themselves to avoid learning a truth, or even something new. In my responsibilities with a plant genetics company, I am regularly cast in the role of spokesperson for the burgeoning technology of genetic modification (GM) of plants. The explanation is easy for me and it can be fairly straightforward. I find it difficult to get someone with a closed mind to listen, if not impossible. "The risks," I'm told, "are not worth experimenting with the food we eat." Others add, "They haven't been tested long enough for anyone to know if they are safe." "We need 100 percent certainty of safety," is the cry of the ardent in their opposition to something they can't explain. What some call the "precautionary principle" requires absolute certainty of safety, without a single element of risk involved, and there are over 20 versions of it.

We balance the risks of taking medicines with the benefits of better health. We balance the risks of traveling by automobile with the benefits of reaching our destinations. We balance the risks of mobile phones with convenience they bring to our lives, and we balance the risks of using electricity with so many labor-saving benefits. Absolutely nothing in life is risk-free, and it is unreasonable to hold any technology to such a standard. The problem for consumers in evaluating genetically modified plants is that the technology is relatively new and many are not able to judge from experience how risky it is.

It was the same when trains first started running. People worried that train travel might cause illness because it was not natural to travel at 20 miles per hour. It happened with pasteurization as well. People thought it would remove goodness from food. Initially, vaccines created even greater consternation, but now they are an expected part of our lives. Other technology inventions, such as the automobile, provided extreme concerns for safety and health when first introduced. Many wondered if cars were even needed, when horses did everything so adequately.

The irony in all this is that GM foods are more extensively tested than ordinary foods. They are rigorously controlled and vetted by government experts after extended testing and validation of safety by the developers, while regular foodstuffs largely go unchallenged. Generally, the time needed to market any GM plant is 4-6 years longer than a conventional product because of the extra testing required.

So what is genetic modification of plants? All characteristics of living organisms are passed on from one generation to the next, through the combined genes within chromosomes from each parent. Genes are known as the building blocks, where special codes are contained for making new offspring, plant or animal. Much has been outlined in the public press in recent months with scientists completing the human genome and the corn genome and the rice genome, along with those of several other plants. The genome of any living organism is simply a map, showing where genes are located and what they are made up of. Genes are precise combinations of minute chemical blocks, ordered in such a way as to be entirely unique. It is the rearranging, deletion or insertion of genes that is known as genetic engineering, or more commonly, genetic modification.

Many people are especially disturbed about trans-species gene transfer. Adventists and others gasp when they hear the fabled story of fish genes being used in tomatoes and strawberries to develop cold tolerance. One individual, in all sincerity, accused me of meddling with God's creation and wanted to know how my conscience could handle that. "Tampering with the basis of life" is one of the most common objections I hear from people concerned over a science they so poorly understand. When people are told that in humans half their genes are just like those in a banana, they get little consolation. The building blocks in the plant kingdom have significant similarities between many species, and it is because of this genetical alikeness that GM works as well as it does.

It is true, science can now use gene-splicing technology to actually combine genetic elements of two or more living cells. For example, we can cause bacterial cells to produce molecules also found in humans. Cows can be made to produce more milk from the same amount of feed. And we can synthesize therapeutic molecules that have never before existed. In addition, genes from species can be produced artificially in the laboratory. Once the genome of a species is mapped, the makeup of its genes is also known and these can be artificially synthesized. We can then take these pieces of genetic messaging and insert them into a different organism. Where scientists have been slow to adapt is in their way of communicating this to the public. For example, when they say, "human genes are transferred into cattle embryos for cystic fibrosis cure," or "fish genes bring cold tolerance to tomatoes," they could say more accurately and with less confusion that "the function of these genes has been determined from various species, then synthetic copies have been made." Thus it would be better in the case of cattle and tomatoes to say, "protein enhancing modification has been added to cattle embryos, in search of a cure for cystic fibrosis," or "a cold tolerance gene has been transferred into tomatoes."

We humans are likely to be uncomfortable with the thought that genes from fish, or hogs, or weeds may end up as part of our food chain. Today the boundaries of GM foods are blurred more because of the aggressive medical research being conducted for the production of new organs, prevention of disease and other deformity cures. People are further confounded in their understanding of GM foods by the relatively new efforts of researchers to create medications within plants, dubbed biopharming. Several crops are now under test for delivery of basic medications. For example, a diabetic may be able to follow a specific diet that provides required daily insulin needs, without the need for tablets or injections. But if people are to engage in dialogue on the subject and accept these new GM foods, they must gain a basic understanding of gene transfer technology.

In 1990, a genetically modified protein contained in rennet was released for use by commercial cheese makers. The process of cheese making requires that fresh milk be curdled. This has been done for centuries by extracting from newborn calves a natural rennet found in their stomachs. In times of shortage, a similar protein has also been taken from hogs. To do this the newborn is slaughtered and the rennet harvested. Purity, diseases and consistency have been continuing concerns with this natural source of rennet. Today, however, over 80 percent of cheese manufactured worldwide is curdled with a genetically modified protease. With this, consistency and purity are extremely stable and the specter of disease transfer almost nonexistent.

It was the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994 that became the second commercial GM food product available on supermarket shelves. This was genetically modified to grow on the vine longer, develop more intense flavor and ship long distances without spoiling. The following from the developer's brochure explains this new tomato:

"First, we made a copy of a gene which causes softening of tomatoes. Then we put this copy into the plant backwards to slow down the softening gene. Simple enough, but we have to know if this step was successful. So we attached a gene, which makes a naturally occurring protein. This protein makes Flavr Savr seeds resistant to the kanamycin contained in our test medium. Now, the results become very easy to read. Those seeds unaffected by the kanamycin carry the reversed gene and will be planted for tomato production. No kanamycin is present in tomatoes grown from Flavr Savr seeds."

Over the past 50 years breeders conducting conventional plant breeding have utilized a technology called mutagenesis, to gain new plant variants. Considered by many to be an early form of biotechnology, this technique uses one of several methods to scramble genes in a cell, with resulting calluses grown out into plants of serendipity. With this technique many stellar food-crop developments have been produced. The downside is that all new plants were by chance, without any managed order. Often undesirable traits were transferred into the new plants, requiring many years of backcrossing to remove these. It is the preciseness offered by genetic modification that is providing so many opportunities for the development of more healthy and nutritious foods.

Nearly all GM plant advances today are providing significant advantages in the production of the food crop, with little benefit, if any, to the end consumer. For example, corn has been genetically modified to resist a major insect pest called European corn borer. To successfully grow corn in much of North America, farmers in the past have made several applications of potent insecticides to their crop every summer. To overcome this pest, scientists inserted into corn cells a gene from a simple soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt for short. Within the corn plant this acts very much like an insecticide, by disrupting the stomach functions of specific bugs that bite into the plant. Interestingly, this same soil bacterium has been recognized and used by organic growers for many years, as one of their most effective spray controls for crop pests. This is truly advantageous for farmers, in savings on chemical input costs and reduced health hazards in fewer chemicals handled. However, little benefit is passed to the final consumer, and until this happens many will continue to question if the risks of a new science are what they want to be exposed to.

Today it is estimated that 70 percent of regular foodstuffs consumed by Americans contain some portion of GM plants. The first of these foods was made available in quantity, beginning in 1996, and it has been widely consumed for almost seven years now. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has indicated that not one substantiated case of sickness or death is documented from eating food with genetically modified components. This statement was positioned before Congress in the discussion of irradiating food, where it was disclosed that in the US almost 5,000 people die from food E-coli poisoning each year.

*****

The second wave of GM plants now being developed is expected to bring significant benefits to the end consumer. Golden rice, so named because of its golden color from the insertion of genes from the daffodil plant, holds much promise for those in the developing world. Producing elevated levels of beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A, it is believed this rice will help alleviate deficiencies that can lead to blindness. Also included in this rice are genes for increased iron availability, which will help reduce anemia, particularly among women in the developing world. A tomato which has three times the quantity of lycopene, an antioxidant believed to help fight cancer, is currently undergoing field testing. Sweet potatoes that can ward off a devastating plant virus, bananas and potatoes that contain a vaccine for a human virus associated with cervical cancer, along with food products that will stay fresh for extended periods. Just around the corner are crops with more vitamins, more anti-oxidants and minerals, and with fewer allergens. These are but a few examples of GM products under development, along with many field crops being modified to thrive in extreme climates of drought, excess moisture, and saline soils.

More and more, biotechnology is moving toward products that will offer direct benefits to consumers, such as improved nutrient profiles and enhanced tastes. A gene that produces a plant hormone that counteracts aging and keeps fruits and vegetables fresh longer was recently discovered by researchers at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. Hepatitis B vaccine has been included in bananas and tomatoes, with the potential of bringing cures to millions in developing countries.

Are GM foodstuffs safe to eat? Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and it is not possible or wise to make general statements on the safety of all potential GM foods. Those currently available on the international market have passed rigorous risk assessments and are not considered likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where these have been approved. Continuous use of risk assessments based on the Codex principles and, where appropriate, including post market monitoring, should form the basis for evaluating the longer-term safety of GM foods. From my scientific vantage, I see GM foods being safer and with far less risk. Allergenicity is tested against all known possibilities, deadly aflotoxins reduced on grain crops modified to control insect invasions and many other tests for potential diseases and contaminants are scrutinized in specific detail.

Are GM foods acceptable to the Adventist Church? As with many political and sociological issues in our society, our Church is astutely silent. As a denomination we are forerunners in the medical field. How would it have been if church leaders 15 or 20 years ago had strongly opposed organ transplantation? Many members were expecting this and some even demanded our church take a stand against such acts. Today organ transplanting is no longer an issue, with Adventist institutions renown worldwide for skilled expertise in this arena. Tremendous benefits have been achieved and human suffering alleviated. The church I belong to encourages thoughtfulness and study. It accepts the power of choice given to mankind at creation. It encourages and accepts the wisdom of minds to discern good from bad. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it is far more dangerous to eat a hamburger that could be contaminated with E-Coli, than any GM foodstuff available today. Neither vegetarianism nor avoidance of GM foods is mandated by my Church. As a scientist blessed to be alive in this exciting period and involved in the intricacies of adapting plants for greater benefits, I would not want it any other way. The Church cannot mandate and it must not. Is it healthy, does it prolong life, are there known risks associated with it? These are questions discerning individuals must answer for themselves, based on rational and intelligent evaluation of the known facts. "Science opens new wonders to our view; she soars high and explores new depths; but she brings nothing from her research that conflicts with divine revelation (PP 115)."

Clive Holland, Ph.D. is an unabashed apologist for technology that brings betterment to the lives of all mankind.