ROBIN: Our first caller is David Gerry, who_s on the line from BC in Canada. David, does any of this worry you?

DAVID GERRY: Yes, the speed with which all of these things are being introduced is such that if there is a problem we don_t have the opportunity to identify it and react.

If the process were like the introduction of a new drug which takes twelve years then we could be reasonably assured that there are very few side affects, but there are so many products coming on the market so quickly there_s no long term data to reassure us that there isn_t a problem.

So the onus on the agriculture business is not to prove it safe as in the pharmaceutical industry, they just have to pass some minimal thresholds then they have the right to get into the marketplace.

ROBIN: And what is it in particular that most worries you about genetic manipulation?

DAVID GERRY: Because, for example by their own report, Monsanto have 20 million acres under cultivation of genetically engineered crops and many of those crops have incorporated in them parts of bacteria that are pathogenic or a problem for people, that are resistant to antibiotics.

So that it is very likely we are going have issues in the hospitals and so on _ doctors are going to be up against a real problem if they go to treat something and it_s resistant because we expect there will be migration of this antibiotic trait.

ROBIN: Our next caller is from Estonia - Jaak Aru, What are your feelings about this issue?

JAAK ARU: So far we have been talking about creation and evolution. In other words, either God created or Nature developed all the species on the earth. From this year on, starting with Dolly the sheep, we do have proof there is a third subject which is able to develop species - that is human beings.

I would suggest a new term to describe this achievement - _homolution_ derived from _homo sapiens_ and _evolution_.

ROBIN: But do you think there are ethical and scientific issues in all this that have not yet been fully explored. There is a problem, isn_t there, about doing something to plants, even in some circumstances to animals which is irreversible and we cannot know long term what the effects will be?

JAAK ARU: Yes, I_m sure it is so _ but I do support genetic engineering because of producing enough food for mankind and making new medicines. But I_m against abortion and biological weapons but I do not think that the Bible tells us not to be creative. I think to be creative is the essence of being human.

ROBIN: David Gerry _ do you want to reply to what Jaak Aru has just been saying?

DAVID GERRY: The point that your caller is making is that the Bible would permit our creating our own genetic programme.

ROBIN: And that there are benefits to it _ that you can see a positive side to all this.

DAVID GERRY: The problem is that unlike a chemical spill or a nuclear accident, once you_ve had a genetic problem it will perpetuate and you won_t be able to clean it up like an oil spill. It means we need to proceed with caution.

The European Parliament two years ago voted down a proposal to harmonise the patent laws with the US and most recently have reversed that stage and that reflects how capable and how concerted the effort is on the part of the biotech lobby to make sure that so much of this overtakes us before there has been this public debate that this programme speaks to.

ROBIN: Alfred Pfeiffer is calling from North Carolina in the US. Alfred, do you have worries?

ALFRED PFEIFFER: Yes, my thinking is that natural law is administering the whole universe in a perfect orderly and harmonious way.

ROBIN: But we_ve been playing around with natural law for hundreds of years, haven_t we?

ALFRED PFEIFFER: Yes, but this violation of natural law creates such a deep imbalance that problems and suffering are a result, as always when we create imbalance. And genetic engineering is a very basic violation of natural law because it not only disturbs the natural flow of evolution but it also messes around with the very orderly basic structures of natural law itself.

ROBIN: Nikolaus Zacherl is calling from Vienna. Nikolaus, what do you think?

NIKOLAUS ZACHERL: I think the problem is that we are discussing the technique. What one should discuss is not the technique itself, but what man is doing by using this specific technique. If it were correct that genetic engineering takes mankind into realms that belong to God we_ve already entered these realms a thousand years ago.

Man changed the hereditary material, the building blocks of life, since the beginning when he started to cross animals, plant and micro-organisms and to mutate plants and micro-organisms by exposing them to chemicals, radiation etc

ROBIN: So Nikolaus you see no essential difference then between the sorts of processes you just described there and what we now call genetic engineering? It is, in your view, a continuation of a process?

NIKOLAUS ZACHERL: It is a continuation of a process with one specific difference. The conventional breeding was done more or less by random and subsequent selection. Now with the help of genetic engineering we do know better what we are doing.

ROBIN: You see it then as a positive development in general, do you?

NIKOLAUS ZACHERL: It is a positive development but this technique can be misused as can other techniques. So I think the debate should not be on a ban on genetic engineering or not but it should be a discussion on for which purposes genetic engineering should be used, could be used. Which purposes are ethically justified and which not.

ROBIN: Shelina Gorain is calling from Brisbane. Shelina, do you see it in general as a positive move?

SHELINA GORAIN: In general I would say it is a negative move but I wouldn_t want to say a blanket _no_ to genetic engineering. I think that the main thing is that individuals should be aware when they are buying food products and vegetables. They should be aware and have the choice, there should be labels on the produce.

ROBIN: Would you buy them if they had a label on them saying that they had been genetically modified?

SHELINA GORAIN: No I wouldn_t because I have more faith in the way God has created the natural things on earth than on how man might have manipulated them.

ROBIN: But do you buy foods which have been grown with the help of insecticides, for example?

SHELINA GORAIN: Well, I would rather not.

ROBIN: Dora Samuel is calling from Berlin. Dora, do you agree that strong legislation and labelling are needed?

DORA SAMUEL: Well, I_m against genetic engineering because it_s an invention as dangerous as the invention of the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb.

ROBIN: They killed a lot of people when they were used in Japan. Are you saying that genetic manipulation can kill people in the same way?

DORA SAMUEL: We don_t know because even the engineers who have invented this thing don_t know what_s going to happen in the future. They have no idea of the side effects.

ROBIN: So when the regulatory agencies in various countries say they have examined with great care the sorts of process that are being undertaken and are satisfied that they are not dangerous, you say you don_t necessarily believe that?

DORA SAMUEL: Well if you think back some years ago they had invented a pill for women and then the (contingon??? Maybe she means thalydomide?) children were born. The inventors had been sure these were safe drugs. Experts can make mistakes. Why should we tamper with what God has already given us?

ROBIN:On the line now is Ann Foster from the Monsanto Biotechnology Company to which some of our callers have already referred. Thank you for calling - a number of our callers have said that you_re doing it for the money, it_s highly profitable and that_s why you_re doing it.

ANN FOSTER: Yes we are in it for money, there_s no point in hiding the fact that Monsanto is a company which is trying to make money for its shareholders. I don_t think that necessarily means that we are not to be trusted. It requires large companies with considerable resources to do the amount of research and development required not just for developing the products but also for getting all of the data required for regulation and there is a different regulatory regime in the USA, in Europe, in Japan, in Australia whatever. It takes a great deal of investment to get all of that data together so often it has to be done by big companies.

Robin: Can I ask you to respond to the point that a lot of people make about the irreversibility of genetic manipulation - once you have inserted a gene into let us say a crop and that crop develops, it perhaps cross breeds with another crops, it_s something you can no longer control and it can_t be undone.

Ann Foster: Because what we_re doing is a more precise science, it is possible to know with greater certainty, not with absolute certainty I concede, but with greater certainty, the implications of the gene insertion in any plant. We_re only in plant biotechnology. We haven_t known this before but one of your previous callers said that before we used to select genes at random and hope we_ve got the right one. We can be more precise so we can predict with greater certainty what is going to happen in genetic transfer.

Robin: You say that but I_ve recently read some research from Cambridge University about ladybirds which showed that their reproductive processes were damaged as a result of them feeding on crops which had been genetically changed with genes from snowdrops which had been inserted into potatoes. Now, you couldn_t have foreseen that.

Ann Foster: This is one of the reasons why we do this research and why other bodies like Cambridge do it. I_ve spoken to one of the scientists at the Scottish Crop Research Institute who_s been involved in this and it seems that there is no commercial application of this snowdrop gene. It is these scientists doing this genetic insertion themselves that will show what happens - that is the whole point of research. One does these kind of studies to see the type of structures that may or not affect biodiversity. It_s that sort of knowledge that allows us to make better decisions.

Robin: What about the claim that it may already be too late for some crops?

Ann Foster: I would disagree. Food safety is all about risk management. This is presenting no greater risk than conventional food production and the kind of work we_re looking at on a commercial basis is inserting a herbicide tolerant gene. There_s just no way that this kind of comparison can be made and it_s alarmist to do so.

Robin: David Beasley is on the line from Bath. David, you_re concerned about profits.

David Beasley: There are huge risks for the rest of the world. The only benefits that may come from genetic engineering are for the large companies.

Robin: No benefits for the consumer at all?

David Beasley: No significant benefits, no. There are huge risks for people and there_s no reason why we should take them at all. The existing foodstuffs we have are sufficiently adequate. There_s no need for genetic manipulation.

Robin: Ann Foster, what are the benefits to the consumer of the work that companies like yours are doing?

Ann Foster: In the first kind of crop developments we_re doing at the moment where we_re getting what we call agronomic trades I will concede whole-heartedly that the benefits to the consumer are less obvious but what we do now will enable us to do more for second and third generation products where these benefits will become more obvious.

Robin: For example?

Ann Foster:For example to improve nutritional content of food, to increase the anti-oxidant content of fruit and vegetables.

Robin: So that they rot less quickly

Ann Foster:No anti-oxidants are known to have protective factors against certain forms of cancer. We can also alter the oil profile of certain seeds to decrease the saturated fat content which is associated with heart disease and increase the unsaturated fat which is regarded as being healthier. Going back to your last caller, yes it is big companies doing this as I explained but I do think people should understand that it makes the risk bigger too so we_ve got to be more certain we_ve got it right.

Robin: Lewyn Li is calling from Boston

Lewyn Li:I think that genetic engineering like all technology can and probably will unfortunately do both good and evil and something like this will be funded and pursued by somebody somewhere in the world. I think any ban or control would be unlikely to be effective at all. It_s quite clear that we shouldn_t ban genetic engineering at all because we cannot.

Robin: But are you not concerned about it at all. Do you think that good and evil will balance out and that there_s no long-term harm.

Lewyn Li:I_m not satisfied that the good will balance the evil but as a scientist myself I think that it_s a risk we just have to take. There_s little else we can do.

Robin: Charles Quist is calling from the Gambia in West Africa. Are scientists in general doing this for the good of us all.

Charles Quist:The benefits of genetic engineering are obvious but it_s not without its hazards. It is not possible to predict with complete accuracy what the ecological consequences will be. It is always possible that the balance which exists in many habitats may be irreversibly damaged by the introduction of organisms which are with new gene combinations.

Robin: Andre Elkind is calling from Rio de Janiero in Brazil. What do you think?

Andre Elkind:I think that we have so many other things to focus on in the world; crops, organic food, pesticides, there is the problem of hunger and how to feed everyone. There is no need for this kind of process. Why should we go into something that we don_t know the results of.

Robin: And now onto Karachi in Pakistan. Amin Mukaty - are you happy to see these companies go on with this work?

Amin Mukaty: I think we should go ahead with it. There_s been a lot of hue and cry about it but I think that genetic engineering has been in progress for ever. Marriage in a way is genetic engineering. The problem arises when you have an economic interest that backs up genetic engineering and if that economic engineering is strictly looking at the financial results from it then you_ve got a problem.

Robin: And now an organic farmer from New Jersey, Murray Rosenburg. Murray, is it your experience that what consumers want is cheap food and they don_t really care how it_s produced?