Sir

Last week's Commentary by Millstone et al.1 is misleading and inaccurate. The authors do not seem to be aware of a meeting organized by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, held in Aussois, France, in March 1997, which is about to be published. Hence they present an outdated view of the use of substantial equivalence, while their characterization of this tool as the outcome of an international conspiracy to foist genetically modified (GM) foods on a gullible public is beyond belief. Do Millstone et al. really believe in a worldwide conspiracy? They have no evidence for this assertion.

Second, by such accusations, Millstone et al. denigrate the whole regulatory process and all the hard-working academics who make up the British regulatory committees. Throughout their article, they reveal their ignorance of the way the regulatory process works. Substantial equivalence is a tool only: the ‘first cut’ at the decision-making rather than a quick solution, as the authors infer. I was chairman of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) from 1989 to 1997, and we never received any political or commercial pressure when making decisions. I totally reject the slur on our integrity.

Finally, Millstone et al. are wrong in what they say about GM soya. They imply that a herbicide that has no effect on the target enzyme, and that does not persist in the plant, has far-reaching effects on intermediary metabolism. If the herbicide does not affect its target, how can it affect the plant? Not only is this idea bizarre, it is wrong: GM beans have been analysed after treatment with herbicide and their composition is unaffected2,3,4. Millstone et al. are also wrong to say that treatment with herbicide alters the isoflavone content; they do quote one paper reporting some variation but ignore others showing that this difference is well within the normal range of isoflavone content4. More than 1,400 compositional analyses of Roundup Ready soya beans have been conducted, showing that there are no significant differences in the key soya bean nutrients and anti-nutrients; these data have been reviewed by the ACNFP. The authors use the literature selectively to make their point, which is not good enough for any scientific journal.

I contend that these data establish that GM soya beans are as safe as conventional soya beans. This conclusion was reached by the ACNFP after a thorough safety assessment, using substantial equivalence as a key safety assessment approach. This conclusion has been confirmed by regulatory agencies in the 13 countries that have approved these GM soya beans. This food has been used commercially for four years, and 300 million Americans are currently eating it with no sign of a problem.

How did such a mish-mash of old hat sociology and poor science get published? I would like an assurance from the editor that all such contributions — especially from activists — are rigorously refereed. Nature, in my view, damages its reputation by publishing such propaganda.