Another problem, as several scientists point out, is that such research is unattractive to researchers, as it tends to yield negative results that are difficult to publish and to account for to funding agencies. A potential alternative to feeding experiments is to subject plants to a battery of chromatographic and spectroscopic analyses, to create a molecular 'fingerprint'. Any difference between the fingerprint of a modified crop and an existing one would indicate a need for more extensive safety testing. Foreign proteins that have never been in the human food chain will soon be consumed in large amounts, she points out. It took us 60 years to realize that DDT might have oestrogenic activities and affect humans, but we are now being asked to believe that everything is OK with GM foods because we haven't seen any dead bodies yet.
Many researchers point out that such unknowns are common in classical plant breeding, however.
He argues that, although transgenes are incorporated in a random fashion into the plant genome, the introduced gene is well characterized. In contrast, in conventional breeding, Gale points out, in addition to introducing a desired trait into a crop from a wild relative, breeders have no idea what other changes they may have introduced through the integration of large chunks of the donor genome. Similarly, genetic engineering may actually help to improve food safety by removing toxic compounds naturally present in many plants. Cassava, a major staple food, contains cyanogenic glycosides, for example, that must be eliminated by fermentation before the plant can be eaten. A major goal of plant breeding throughout the ages, points out Miflin, has been to reduce or eliminate the many toxic compounds present in wild plants that have evolved, for example, as defence mechanisms against predators.