Showing that a genetically modified food is chemically similar to its natural counterpart is not adequate evidence that it is safe for human consumption

Insubstantially equivalent? A GM food's toxicity cannot be predicted from its chemical composition. Trying to have it both ways The challenge of how to deal with the issue of risk from consuming GM foods was first confronted in 1990 at an international meeting, consisting of officials and industrialists but no consumer representatives, of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO)'. The FAO/WHO panel report makes intriguing reading, because what it fails to mention is as important as what is discussed. It does not use the term 'substantial equivalence' or mention ADIS. It implies that GM foods are in some important respects novel, but it then argues that they are not really novel at all just marginal extensions of traditional techniques. These inconsistencies are inevitable, given that the industry wanted to argue both that GM foods were sufficiently novel to require new legislation and a major overhaul of the rules governing intellectual property rights to allow them to be patented, Showing that a genetically modified food is chemically similar to its natural counterpart is not adequate evidence that it is safe for human consumption.