bean ?-AI in the feeding trial and immunological tests, wouldn't it have been the right response to repeat those trials/tests and add also the Tendergreen bean? This would have been the proper follow up for concerns. Yet they chose to not do this but instead injected the purified food compound (?-AI) into the body cavity. Looking at toxicity or immunogenicity incl. allergenicity of food, it is more appropriate to do so by having the food or food component go down the throat and into the stomach. Intra-peritoneal injections are used to sensitise the body to a substance, which was also utilised by Prescott et al 2005 to create a 'positive control' for subsequent subcutaneous and intra-tracheal challenges. For this Prescott used the native Tendergreen bean ?AI. Please also look at Fig. 6 of Prescott 2005, showing that the intra-gastric administration of ?AI from peas induces cross-priming of heterogeneous food antigens, here ovalbumin. This was compared to the cross-priming ability of Tendergreen bean ?AI. One can see 4-6 fold increases in the mice reacting to ovalbumin when consumed/administered with pea ?AI, as compared to when administered with native Tendergreen bean ?AI. Please look at Fig. 7 (Prescott 2005), and notice that the ?AI from GM pea had an adjuvant effect (increased immunogenicity) on these major seed storage proteins. This is of particular concern, as what people mostly consume when eating peas is the seed storage proteins (eg. globulin, vicillin-4 and lectin). None of this -- nor of the 2006 paper --