The above ridiculous combinations have given rise to Acquired immunodeficieny syndrome [AIDS] virus when polio vaccine was cultured on green monkey kidney, and Hamburger disease which derives from a clever mixing of feedlot antibiotics, bovine fecal bacteria, and ground beef.

Some of the concerns raised about genetic modification are

• Is this in fact 'more of the same' as Bury states?
  Are there health risks to ingesting GM (genetically modified) foods?
  
• Is it safe to develop modified plants/animals?
  
• More of the Same?

In plant grafting, we do not change the inherent design of the life form, only attach different plants to modify the result of the grafted plant material. Gene splicing, or grafting, changes the genetic blueprint of a life form, and these changes are permanent. They pass along to the following generations, weeded out when they no longer enhance a species' ability to adapt and survive.

The next example cited is cross-pollination, which along with selective animal breeding, has indeed changed the face of food supply on this earth, though many now are expressing concern over the lack of genetic diversity in farm animal populations.

His example of cows coming from deer is far too simplistic -- both of these animals may have a common ancestor, but cows definitely did not come from deer.

And yes, sheep, goats, cats, dogs, chickens are all species created by genetic manipulation, but the manipulation came from the aforementioned forces, not humans. We have created differing breeds, but until gene splicing, no new species.

Any health risks?

I do not know of any direct health risk associated with eating GM foods. I also do not know that there are no risks. This stuff is all very new, and being a cautious man, I feel better having a choice.

I would prefer to know which foods contain GM plant/animal matter. Unfortunately, I'm not confident that labeling requirements are such that GM inclusions are listed.

Is it safe?

One of the first safety issues I see is homogeneity, or sameness, of crops. Large biotech and agribusiness concerns in association with market considerations (getting product to market early, increasing yields of crops, capturing market share) conspire to reduce the diversity of crops.

A good example is soybeans, where at least 35 percent of all soybeans produced in the United States are now genetically modified. It is understandable that any advantage along the production line (germination rates, drought resistance, pest resistance, protein content, you name it) will increase the use of these GM foods, consigning non-GM foods to a smaller and smaller portion of the gene pool.

We can envisage that in the near future (and here I speak of 3-5 years, not decades) most of the produce we consume will be to a lesser or greater extent genetically modified.

These GM foods will be licensed products, trademarked issue of biotechnology labs owned by agribusiness corporations, and their number shall not be legion. There will be less and less genetic diversity, a vastly increased level of sameness, or homogeneity within each species of GM food, as all 'lesser' genetic types which offer a lower economic yield are not grown.

Surely the 'new tomato' will be redder sooner, taste more like the average tomato to the average consumer more of the time, and stay on the shelves longer before rotting, but this same homogeneity will make this tomato (soybean, rice, cucumber, cow) far less adaptable, less able to contend with climactic change, pests suddenly developing new attack mechanisms (as they most certainly will and do, witness antibiotic resistance within the microbial world).

Genetic diversity is the best hedge for survival, and unfortunately genetic modification is not about species survival, but about production yields and marketability.

Another safety concern raised by genetic modification is whether this is the leading edge of the slippery slope of GM humanity. How big a step is it from Dolly the sheep to making a master race, a slave race, perhaps an organ farm? Yet again, as with weapons technology, we find ourselves vested with the power to do away with ourselves, and other life forms with which we share this planet, with very little thought given to outcomes other than bottom lines.

Genetic modification of foods raises a host of issues from safety to biodiversity to ethics to human rights. But business as usual and "getting back to basics" it is not.

I suspect that Bury has been swayed by an effective marketing campaign when he starts using phrases like "new and better." The byproducts that arise from genetic manipulation will be new life forms, determined to reproduce and join in the dance of life.

But better? And better for whom? For what?

And perhaps most importantly we should ask a determined 'why?' before we dive too deep into the gene pool.