While such products may seem outlandish, they are as mundane as tomato varieties designed to have superior resistance to disease, or to have skin unlikely to become damaged during mechanical picking. Rather, it is in what way food has been genetically engineered that is important. If you put in a gene for a poison, you could end up with a poisonous food, if you put in one that boosts nutritional value, you could end up with a more nutritious food. Consumers demand absolute assurances, but science deals with uncertainty. That is the heart of the debate.
Scientists get into trouble, because they say yes, there is risk.
Iain Taylor, a professor of botany at the University of British Columbia, agrees. Botanists have been caught off guard at the public response to the spin doctoring of the technology. The public perceives that scientists respond that the danger is not real, or the benefits too great to be ignored, and we'll deal with any problems if and when they arise. Despite scientists' image problem, most don't glibly dismiss possible risks of GM crops. But many of these concerns also apply to traditional agriculture.