I'd like to take a crack at that.
With respect to health issues, there are peer-reviewed published studies that indicate that there are possible health implications. Árpád Pusztai published very well-known papers about rat-feeding trials. There's all kinds of other related information that has shown that there might be potential problems. That information hasn't really been acted on. We know that there is initial evidence showing that there could be potential harm, and we need more research to investigate those things in a science-based way. I totally agree. We need more information from an epidemiological perspective. You need multiple human generations to test what the long-term impact will be on human health, but you also need long-term environmental monitoring.
On the issue of what defines novelty, if we abandon the idea of novelty at, say, 10 years from when a crop is introduced, and we stop looking at it as a new introduction, in 50 years, if there are potential problems, and we've abandoned that monitoring process of what is new in the environment, we will have no idea how to backtrack and figure out if it's causing harm. From an epidemiological perspective and from an environmental monitoring perspective, we need long-term studies to actually get at whether there is a risk. Without that, we have no information. We're flying blind.