The development of genetically modified crops could be nice opportunity for lawyers to persuade the prudent public that GM is not such good idea after all.
Recently two GM food projects had become the newspaper headlines that gave a new twist to the GM debate. California-based Ventria Bioscience received preliminary approval from the US government to cultivate over 1,21 hectares of rice engineered with human genes to produce lactiva and lysomin, proteins that occur in breast milk that had shown potential in quick recovery of children with diarrhea.
Then Monsanto and The Solae Company announced about joining their projects to genetically modify soybeans as a source of omega-3s with the purpose of giving food industry a new source of the healthy component within next five years.
But studies have shown that keeping GM crops completely detached from non-GM makes no sense, as the US authorities recently revealed that GM traces had been found in samples of non-GM rice.
The new events show that both supporters and their opponents are talking about all the same impact on human health. But the result of a dispute should be determined by the scientific evidences of benefits and proved absence of harmful effects of food consumption.

• Scientists speak about the necessity of the estimation of risks concerning the development of nanotechnologies
• Swedes have created speaking paper
• “Flying saucerâ€? for struggle with traffic jams
• The United Nations: clone of the person can appear in the nearest couple of years