Sound science serves precaution because it contributes to an early warning system supporting political efforts to minimize already obvious harm and to prevent the emergence of new negative impacts. However, not all delegates share this concept of mutual supportiveness between science and precaution. However, as far as the unintended changes are concerned, science has to provide arguments for avoiding further risk assessment and has to support the judgement that the differences in the composition of genetically engineered and non-engineered organisms are insignificant. Thus, science is turned into an instrument for stopping scientific curiosity and hindering the quest for new scientific knowledge. The promotion of the Precautionary Principle seems to civil society organisations the appropriate and necessary safeguard to counteract the risks of such science which is based on and reduced to serving the interests of exporting companies.
Precaution is the only chance for all countries and populations to prevent harm.
Moreover, it is the only chance for poor for mitigating adverse effects of modern biotechnology because they will not be able to finance remedial actions. In 1996, Nida et al. published an article meant to provide the supporting scientific evidence. One of the features that were analysed by the authors was the content of gossypol, a toxic terpenoid constitutent of various parts of the cotton plant. Nida et al. Admittedly, it is cheaper and faster to rely on preexisting publications.