The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

scientists suppressed 155a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditionalbreeding and genetic engineering, which is just glanced over in thisdocument. . . . Multiple copies inserted at one site could become potentialsites for rearrangements, especially if used in future gene transfer experiments,and as such may be more hazardous.” 10I could continue with examples showing that many divisions of the FDA,whatever their specialty, expressed strong concerns about the unknownhealth effects that might result from the process of genetic manipulation. Incontradiction to what Maryanski now claims, there was no consensus on theFDA’s proposed regulation of GMOs even a few months before it was issued.Indeed, the former coordinator himself acknowledged this fact in a letter hesent on October 23, 1991, to Dr. Bill Murray, chairman of the Food Directorate,Canada: “There are a number of specific issues . . . for which a scientificconsensus does not exist currently [in the FDA], especially the needfor specific toxicology tests. ...I think the question of the potential for somesubstances to cause allergenic reactions is particularly difficult to predict.” 11During my meeting with Maryanski, I read to him a memorandum he hadbeen sent on January 8, 1992, by Dr. Linda Kahl, a compliance officer withresponsibility for summarizing her colleagues’ views on the proposed regulation:“The document is trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there isno difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foodsmodified by traditional breeding practices. This is because of the mandate toregulate the product not the process.” She went on to note that this mandateresembled a “doctrine”: “The processes of genetic engineering and traditionalbreeding are different, and according to the technical experts in theagency, they lead to different risks” (emphasis added). 12“What did you answer to Linda Kahl?” I asked Maryanski, who had losthis composure as soon as I began to read the document.“My job was really to bring together the scientists who would be—providethe expertise to deal with, you know, to identify the issues and understandhow to address them. I’m not the decision maker. The decision maker’s ultimatelythe commissioner, Dr. David Kessler.”“Yes, but Dr. Kahl asked you a very specific question: ‘Are we asking thescientific experts to generate the basis for this policy statement in the absenceof any data?’ (emphasis added). What was your answer?”“Well, this is part of the early discussions that were going on.”“Are you sure? Linda Kahl wrote this memorandum to you in January