Examination of the arguments by those vocally opposed to the new technology shows most of them to be shallow. Reasonable responses, based on quality science, are available for most or all of the expressed concerns. The technology used to date involves the transfer of only a few specific genes from sources highly unlikely to have any effect on health or environment. For example, the Bt gene comes from a common soil organism and widely used organic pesticide, Bacillus thuringiensis. It s activated in plants by another gene coming from a common cauliflower plant virus.
Similar explanations are possible for other gene insertions.
Even Bt corn and Monarch butterfly interactions, while meriting further research, are unlikely to represent any significant threat to the survival of this insect species. Each hint of a problem, even when based on very preliminary results published in the public media or, at best, as a research note in a popularized journal such as Nature has been reported globally, instantly. Hundreds of millions of people knew about Scotland s Dr. Pusztai and his dubious data on rats fed biotech potatoes, and about the Cornell Bt corn-Monarch butterfly story, within hours of the initial public release. Subsequent reports of weaknesses in the initial stories have been largely ignored. In response, individuals and groups supportive of biotechnology have attempted to address the individual concerns, using science, experience, and common sense as their communication arsenal.