From OUR READERS - Letter to the Editor

Healthy & Natural Journal, Feb, 2001

Dear Editor:

I am writing in response to claims that "Bioengineered crops are safe and nutritious and offer perhaps the only hope for producing enough food for a growing world population."

The FDA does not test for safety on these foods, because they have prematurely defined the gene-altering technology as no different than traditional crop breeding techniques. This is ridiculous and ignores issues of food sensitivities, allergies, religious dietary needs, ethical choices (vegetarians), and religious objections to mixing species. The British Medical Association (BMA) has stated that "any conclusion upon the safety of introducing genetically modified materials into the UK is premature as there is insufficient evidence to inform the decision-making process at present." In other words, the BMA does not feel there is enough evidence to make a decision of health and environmental safety regarding genetically engineered crops. The BMA has very specific concerns about the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes. Since all genetically engineered crops currently in commerce contain antibiotic resistance marker genes, this opens the door for significant concerns about human safety.

There have been no published medical studies documenting safety of genetically modified (GM) foods. All of the research about GM foods has been produced and submitted by the companies producing the GM foods and has been accepted without question by the FDA. There have been no tests on human volunteers, no long-term tests on animals and no tests to identify risks to children or the elderly. A large-scale uncontrolled worldwide experiment is under way. We are letting these products loose in the environment without regard for issues like cross-species contamination (transferring herbicide resistance to weeds or other traits to higher organisms), ruination of certified organic crops via pollen drift, encouraging greater use of broad-spectrum herbicides by farmers, and increasing monopolistic powers of seed producers.

Biotech companies have boasted that genetically engineered crops can increase farmers' yields and solve world hunger. But new research by the University of Nebraska reveals that genetic engineering may in fact reduce crop productivity. A two-year study found that Monsanto's genetically modified Roundup Ready soybeans produce 6 percent less yield than their conventional counterparts and 11 percent less than high-yielding conventional crops. Dr. Roger Elmore, an agronomist who headed the study, says his team grew five different varieties of Monsanto genetically engineered soy plants, along with their closest conventional relatives and the highest-yielding traditional varieties, in four different locations. Conventional soybean lines yielded 57.7 bushels per acre, while Roundup Ready soybeans produced only 52 bushels per acre. Also, the U.N. estimates that we are producing 1.5 times as much food as people consume. The excess is spoiled or wasted, largely due to poor distribution or lack of funds to get them to the neediest people. That pattern seems unlikely to change if we allow the balance of power to shift from farmers to large, nearly monopolistic patent-holding multinational biotech corporations.

The farmers were the odd men out when the issue of genetically modified foods became a controversy in the U.S. last year. Faced with their own co-ops, grain elevators and other big customers asking them to segregate their genetically modified crops, farmers felt betrayed. They had received assurances that there was no down side to switching to genetically modified seeds and no need to separate their crops.

The promises of enhanced nutrients, higher yields and lower agricultural chemical use are still largely unfulfilled. Remember the 1950s, when we were told that clean nuclear power would soon be "too cheap to meter"? Is this another case of big promises replaced by big bills?

Neil E. Levin, CCN

St. Charles, Ill.

(Ed's note: We share your concerns. Be sure to read our Ecolog column to find out how to get involved in this debate.)

Dear Editor:

I have been told that the heating system in my house has to be replaced. The house is 43 years old and so is the heating system. It has asbestos. When I called an air duct cleaning company, they said the asbestos was broken up and dangerous and the pipes were antiquated. If I get a new system I want it to be the best, healthiest, most non-toxic one I can find. Can you give me the names of companies that can supply me with what I need? I would appreciate any help you can give me.

B. Boone

Los Angeles, Calif.

(Ed's note: A good place to start would be with Real Goods. The company specializes in household products that are environmentally sound and nontoxic. Real Goods publishes a complete catalog and has a very informative website: www.realgoods.com)

Dear Editor,

I really learned a lot about osteoporosis from your magazine. Thanks for the informative article by Sylvia Scott in your October issue.

E. P.

Worcester, Mass.