* Dr. George Wald
Nobel Laureate in Medicine (or Physiology) 1967
Higgins Professor of Biology, Harvard University.

Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering] faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on the Earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the products of some three billion years of evolution." " Such intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the natural order of living organisms; animal and plant breeding, for example; or the artificial induction of mutations, as with X-rays.

All such earlier procedures worked within single or closely related species. The nub of the new technology is to move genes back and forth, not only across species lines, but across any boundaries that now divide living organisms. The results will be essentially new organisms, self-perpetuating and hence permanent. Once created, they cannot be recalled.

"Up to now, living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism, or their neighbors." "It is all too big and is happening too fast. So this, the central problem, remains almost unconsidered. It presents probably the largest ethical problem that science has ever had to face.

Our morality up to now has been to ho ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain. For going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise, but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics."

From: 'The Case Against Genetic Engineering' by Georege Walt, in The Recombinatnt DNA Debate, Jackson and Stich, eds. P. 127-128. (Reprinted from The Sciences, Sept./Oct. 1976 issue)

* Dr Erwin Chargoff,
eminent biochemist who is often referred to as the father of molecular biology, warned that all innovation does not result in "progress." He once referred to genetic engineering as "a molecular Auschwitz" and warned that the technology of genetic engineering poses a greater threat to the world than the advent of nuclear technology. "I have the feeling that science has transgressed a barrier that should have remained inviolate," he wrote in his autobiography, Heraclitean Fire. "Noting the 'awesome irreversibility' of genetic engineering experiments being planned, Chargoff warned that, "...you cannot recall a new form of life...It will survive you and your children and your children's children. An irreversible attack on the biosphere is something so unheard of, so unthinkable to previous generations, that I could only wish that mine had not been guilty of it."

* Prof. Wangari Mathai of the Green Belt Movement Kenya
"History has many records of crimes against humanity, which were also justified by dominant commercial interests and governments of the day. Despite protests from citizens, social justice for the common good was eroded in favour of private profits. Today, patenting of life forms and the genetic engineering which it stimulates, is being justified on the grounds that it will benefit society, especially the poor, by providing better and more food and medicine. But in fact, by monopolising the 'raw' biological materials, the development of other options is deliberately blocked. Farmers therefore, become totally dependent on the corporations for seeds".

* Statement by 24 leading African agriculturalists and environmental scientists
"We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves." Statement by 24 leading African agriculturalists and environmental scientists representing their countries at the UN in response to claims by Monsanto that GM crops will help feed the world's growing population.

* Professor Philip James
"The perception that everything is totally straightforward and safe is utterly naive. I don't think we fully understand the dimensions of what we're getting into." Professor Philip James (author of the "James" report on the structure and functions of the proposed UK Food Standards Agency to oversee national food safety standards), Director of the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, on genetically engineered food. Rowett Research Institute The Foods Standards Agency Covered up US study shows damage to rats from BST

* Professor Bevan Mosely
"Well, I agree with you in the sense that when you use these methods you don't know what part of the chromosome that the new gene is being introduced into and that is, you know, what I would say is a drawback to the technology." Professor Bevan Mosely, former head of the Institute of Food Research, Reading, and a current member of the United Kingdom's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) responsible for reviewing the safety of genetically modified foods, in a response to the question - "So how can we know that something isn't really going to go horrendously wrong?" - put to him by Charles Colett of Radio Wey Valley, Hampshire, United Kingdom, February 1998.

* Bob Shapiro, Chief Executive of Monsanto
"But we realize that with any new and powerful technology with unknown, and to some degree unknowable - by definition - effects, then there necessarily will be an appropriate level at least, and maybe even more than that, of public debate and public interest." Bob Shapiro, Chief Executive of Monsanto, admitting that the effects of genetic engineering are unknown and "to some degree" unknowable (SWF News interview, San Francisco, 27 October 1998).

* Dr Geoffrey Clements, leader of the Natural Law Party, UK
"The genetic modification of food is intrinsically dangerous. It involves making irreversible changes in a random manner to a complex level of life about which little is known. It is inevitable that this hit-and-miss approach will lead to disasters. It must disrupt the natural intelligence of the plant or animal to which it is applied, and lead to health-damaging side-effects." Dr Geoffrey Clements, leader of the Natural Law Party, UK. Tryptophan toxicity incident - $2 billion in claims for deaths and disease.

* Professor Richard Lewontin
"An ecosystem, you can always intervene and change something in it, but there's no way of knowing what all the downstream effects will be or how it might affect the environment. We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another." Professor Richard Lewontin, Professor of Genetics, Harvard University.

* Colin Tudge, Research Fellow, London School of Economics
"GM crops really do carry theoretical dangers that could be ironed out, given time, but will not because the companies that develop them cannot afford to wait. Šit is entirely unsurprising that GM crops could be toxic. Most domestic crops have poisonous relatives (potatoes and tomatoes belonging to the nightshade family, Solanaceae) or are descended from poisonous ancestors (potatoes, tomatoes, parsnips etc). The modern crops may still contain the genes that make the toxins: not lost, but merely dampened down. Most genes are pleiotropic - they have many different and often unrelated effects. Many genes affect the function of other genes.

Thus an alien gene parachuted by genetic engineering into the genome of a potato or a tomato could well reawaken the ancient genes of toxicity. Now and again we should expect this. We can test to see if this has happened but we cannot do this in one generation. Genes combine through sexual reproduction; a gene that has no effect in one combination may make itself felt in another. We would need to breed a GM crop for many crosses before we plumb the possibilities of any freshly introduced gene. How long would this take? How long can a company wait for returns on its investment? The pressure to cut corners is constant and inevitable" Colin Tudge, Research Fellow, London School of Economics.

* Sir John Scott, President of the Royal Society, New Zealand.
"[Most scientists] warn that it is likely to be impossible to enforce [labelling] laws once many [GM] food products enter food processing systems... I don't think many scientists would oppose labelling of something clearly modified, but the problem arises in the use of overseas ingredients which may have been modified." Sir John Scott, President of the Royal Society, New Zealand.

* Gordon McVie, head of the Cancer Research Campaign
"We don't know what genetic abnormalities might be incorporated into the genome [the individual's DNA]. I'm more worried about humans than about the environment, to be honest. One of the problems is that because it's a long-term thing, you need to do long-term experiments." Gordon McVie, head of the Cancer Research Campaign.

* Colin Blakemore, Waynflete professor of physiology at Oxford University
"I see worries in the fact that we have the power to manipulate genes in ways that would be improbable or impossible through conventional evolution. We shouldn't be complacent in thinking that we can predict the results." Colin Blakemore, Waynflete professor of physiology at Oxford University and President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

* Professor Arpad Pusztai
"If it is left to me, I would certainly not eat it. We are putting new things into food which have not been eaten before. The effects on the immune system are not easily predictable and I challenge anyone who will say that the effects are predictable." Professor Arpad Pusztai, of the Food, Gut, and Microbial Interactions Group, Rowett Research Institute, on the health risks associated with genetically engineered food. And on the ability of the regulatory system to cope with prospect of the arrival of large numbers of GM crops: "Once the floodgate was opened, it's almost impossible. A committee cannot deal with it." No faith in GM approvals system

* Professor Richard Lacey, microbiologist
"The fact is, it is virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing procedure to assess the health effects of genetically engineered foods when introduced into the food chain, nor is there any valid nutritional or public interest reason for their introduction." Professor Richard Lacey, microbiologist, medical doctor, and Professor of Food Safety at Leeds University, world famous for his accurate prediction of the dangers of " Mad cow disease". Professor Lacey has spoken out strongly against the introduction of genetically engineered foods, because of 'the essentially unlimited health risks' And additionally with reference to the BSE crisis, "We know to our cost that an organism which was utterly unknown to science 30 years ago, the prion, is capable of jumping from species to species, and changing its own physical characteristics each time it crosses the barrier. This shows that it is impossible to forsee what dangers lie in store... If we continue to create new life forms artificially, we lay ourselves open to the possibility of similar unimaginable dangers." New Scientist - BSE's hidden horror.

* Dr. Philip Regal, Professor of Ecology
"Over the last fifteen years, I and other scientists have put the FDA on notice about the potential dangers of genetically engineered foods. Instead of responsible regulation we have seen bureaucratic bungling and obfuscation that have left public health and the environment at risk." Dr. Philip Regal, Professor of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior at the University of Minnesota and an internationally recognised plant expert, on the decision (May 1998) by concerned scientists and consumers to sue the US Federal Department of Agriculture (FDA) for failing to protect public health and provide consumers with relevant information about GM foods: Details of FDA lawsuit launched May 1998 More information on the work of Professor Regal

* Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA)
"The FDA has placed the interest of a handful of biotechnology companies ahead of their responsibility to protect public health. By failing to require testing and labelling of genetically engineered foods, the agency has made consumers unknowing guinea pigs for potentially harmful, unregulated food substances." Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA), commenting on the same FDA court action. International Center for Technology Assessment Andrew Kimbrell interview on the hazards of human and animal cloning.

* Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications
"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A's [Food and Drug Administration] job." Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, in an interview with the New York Times Sunday Magazine.

* UK junior environment minister Angela Eagle
"[The release of novel GM rape plants] may pose unique risks to human health and the environment, which could include toxicity and allergenicity to humans, gene transfer to other oilseed rape crops, and effects on other species." UK junior environment minister Angela Eagle's warning to MPs, which was reported in Farmers Weekly 23rd January 1998 as being in conflict with the Government's own advisory committees on GMOs. GM OSR cross pollination found up to 2.5 km away - Scottish Crop Research Institute.

* George Gaskell, professor of social psychology
"There are a lot of people in Europe in favour of biotechnology, who are prepared to take risks, but a considerable number are resistant and see no benefits. Many people see biotech taking us into the realm of unknown dangers. ...This is a Pandora's box and a lot of people wonder whether it's worth opening it." George Gaskell, professor of social psychology at the London School of Economic.

* New Scientist 4th January 1997
"If it's safe, then prove it." Editorial headline on genetically engineered foods, New Scientist 4th January 1997 Media cover up on gmo cancer threat.

* Dr Michael Antoniou, senior lecturer in molecular pathology from London
"Information provided to governments and food suppliers by the biotechnology industry is not fully representative of the technical limitations of genetic engineering, and therefore does not give a complete picture of the potential dangers in its use." "Once released into the environment, unlike a BSE epidemic or chemical spill, genetic mistakes cannot be contained, recalled or cleaned up, but will be passed on to all future generations indefinitely". Dr Michael Antoniou, senior lecturer in molecular pathology from London, biotechnology advisor to the farming and food industries, and chief biotechnology advisor to the Natural Law Party Dr Antoniou on Genetic Engineering NLP wins vital soyabean genetics case against major Dutch retailers Dr Antoniou on GM crops.

* Professor John Fagan, award-winning Geneticist
"The process of genetic engineering always involves the risk of altering the genetics and cellular functioning of a food organism in unanticipated ways. These unanticipated alterations can result in GE foods being allergenic, toxic, or reduced in nutritional value". Professor John Fagan, award-winning Geneticist, Maharishi University of Management, Iowa, USA. Dr Fagan on the dangers of genetically modified food.

* Malcom Walker, Chairman and Chief Executive of Iceland Foods
"Millions of ordinary people are very worried about genetically modified foods and I am one of them....With genetically modified foods I believe we have reached the thin edge of the wedge, we are messing with the building blocks of life and it's scary." Malcom Walker, Chairman and Chief Executive of Iceland Foods, 26th December 1996 Iceland Foods ban GMOs French supermarket boycotts suppliers who do not label GM foods.

* Jonathan Porritt, patron of The Soil Association
"The huge arrogance of the companies developing GMO crops and their determination to destroy the line of accountability which links the developer to the product is breath-taking. When something goes wrong, as it inevitably will, there will be a great benefit to those who have taken a stance against genetically modified organisms." Jonathan Porritt, patron of The Soil Association Illegal GM soya beans planted in Brazil US imports illegal GM maize into Europe Mistake leads to unauthorised release on GM oilseed rape in Swedish trials Monsanto sends genetically modified sugar beet to Dutch sugar refinery by mistake Biotech company releases unapproved genetically modified plant material into Canadian environment.

* Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher of the Institute of Sustainable Development
"There are still hungry people in Ethiopia, but they are hungry because they have no money, no longer because there is no food to buy ....we strongly resent the abuse of our poverty to sway the interests of the European public." Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher of the Institute of Sustainable Development in Addis Ababa, in response to a comment in late 1997 by a British scientist who claimed that those who want GMOs banned are undermining the position of starving people in Ethiopia.

* Colin Pickthall, Member of Parliament for West Lancashire
"Monsanto claims in its letter to me that there is no difference between ordinary soya beans and what it calls round-up soya beans, and therefore that they should not be segregated. I maintain that members of the public who notice what is going on simply do not believe that, and will increasingly demand to know what is in the food they eat - roundup or otherwise... the Government and the EU should resist the power of the giant food companies in the United States, which are effectively dictating what we must eat, without giving any convincing estimates of the long-term effects." Colin Pickthall, Member of Parliament for West Lancashire, speaking in the House of Commons, 13th December 1996 Canadian Government report on toxic effects of BST Canadian government scientists claim BST approval coercion BST background Milk composition of cows fed on gm soya changes Leaked document on biotechnology industry public relations strategy.

* HRH the Prince of Wales
"At the moment, as is so often the case with technology, we seem to spend most of our time establishing what is technically possible, and then a little time trying to establish whether or not it is something we should be doing in the first place." HRH the Prince of Wales on genetically engineered food 19th September 1996 Royal support for genetic food withdrawal.

* Samuel Epstein, M.D., Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois
"rBGH poses an even greater risk to human health than ever considered. The FDA and Monsanto have a lot to answer for. Given the cancer risks, and other health concerns, why is rBGH milk still on the market?" Samuel Epstein, M.D., Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, author of report which concludes that milk from cows in the US injected with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) increases risks of breast and colon cancers in humans. BST (rBGH) cancer link BST background genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone scandal.

* Dr. Joseph Cummins
"Probably the greatest threat from genetically altered crops is the insertion of modified virus and insect virus genes into crops. It has been shown in the laboratory that genetic recombination will create highly virulent new viruses from such constructions. Certainly the widely used cauliflower mosaic virus is a potentially dangerous gene. It is a pararetrovirus meaning that it multiplies by making DNA from RNA messages. It is very similar to the Hepatitis B virus and related to HIV." Dr. Joseph Cummins, professor emeritus in genetics from the university of West-Ontario The use of Cauliflower Mosaic Virus, Joseph Cummins.

* Warning from The New England Journal of Medicine
"...the allergic potential of these newly introduced microbial proteins is uncertain, unpredictable and untestable,..." Warning from The New England Journal of Medicine in 1996 against the use of micro-organisms rather than food plants as gene donors.

"Such intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the natural order of living organisms; animal and plant breeding, for example; or the artificial induction of mutations, as with X-rays. All such earlier procedures worked within single or closely related species. The hub of the new technology is to move genes back and forth, not only across species lines, but across any boundaries that now divide living organisms.The results will be essentially new organisms. Self-perpetuating and hence permanent. Once created, they cannot be recalled. Up to now living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in.

Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism or their neighbors. It is all too big and is happening too fast. So this, the central problem, remains almost unconsidered. It presents probably the largest ethical problem that science has ever had to face. Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain. For going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics." Dr. George Wald, the professor emeritus in biology from Harvard and Nobel laureate in medicine BST link to prostate cancer.

* Professor of Medicine at Oxford University
"It's never been easy to safely introduce genes into cells Š.It has involved attaching genes to viruses with possible harmful side effects. Getting the gene - once it's in the cell - into the right place, then finally getting it to behave itself - to produce the right amount of material in the cell, to produce it at the right time during a person's lifetime, in developmental stages and then making absolutely sure that the gene, because it's not in its usual place, doesn't interfere with any other genes that are near to it - we haven't really made much progress in any of these phases yet." Professor Weatherall, Regis Professor of Medicine at Oxford University speaking on BBC Radio 4 Medicine Now, 27 August 1996 on the experimental nature of genetic engineering Medical problems and fatalities with genetically engineered insulin

* Joseph Rotblat, the British physicist who won the 1995 Nobel Prize
"My worry is that other advances in science may result in other means of mass destruction, maybe more readily available even than nuclear weapons. Genetic engineering is quite a possible area, because of these dreadful developments that are taking place there." Joseph Rotblat, the British physicist who won the 1995 Nobel Prize after years of battling against nuclear weapons Viral risk from GMOs.

* Dr Mae-Wan Ho, head of the Bio-Electrodynamics laboratory at the Open University in Milton Keynes
"Gene technology is driven by bad science. It may well ruin our food supply, destroy biodiversity and unleash pandemics of antibiotic resistant infectious diseases." Dr Mae-Wan Ho, head of the Bio-Electrodynamics laboratory at the Open University in Milton Keynes, UK "The Unholy Alliance" by Dr Mae-Wan Ho