Do Activist Tactics Promote Or Hinder Open Debate About GMO Foods?

Representative Sampling Of Submissions
(Continued)

If you say that we should hear everything and all the parts and you are so sure of what you do and say:

First, why is it that 14,000 magazines of The Ecologist, in their edition of December, 1998, were destroyed?

Second, how come you are fighting like fools so that a distributors will not put on the packaging that the seeds are gentically modified? I am againstll kinds of violence, and that is not the way of reaching goals, but please, for what I have read and heard you have done a good job of it yourself.

Mercedes Hortelano
Madrid, Spain
mhortelano@gvp.net

As far as genetic engineering goes I am currently undecided on whether it is a good thing or not. However, I understand that it is inevitably the way forward. GM products are not particually popular with the press at the moment so I feel that I am probably only receiving half of the story. This is why I have visited your web site, as I am writing a report discussing the advantages and disadvantages of genetic engineering. Therefore, any feedback from you would be most appreciated.

Janet Allen
Loughborough, UK
Allens@GeoffAllen.free-online.co.uk

As a vegetarian and a consumer of vegetarian cheese, I do approve of some of the biotechnology that is currently in use. However it worries me to think that I could be inadvertently eating food containing genes of human or animal origin. I do not choose to eat meat as I do not believe that animals should be "factory farmed" and taken out of their natural environment and exploited by mankind. As a person with these views I find it unacceptable to think that I could be, without realising it, eating food that has been produced by the manipulation of an animal. Therefore, I think that all food should be labelled so that the consumer can make an educated and informed decision about what exactly they eat.

Stephanie Summerton
Manchester University, UK
stephanie.c.summerton@stud.man.ac.uk

The physical removal of GM crops from our landscape is a positive act to protect our health, our rural communities, and the natural world.

No one can possibly ensure that genetic pollution won't happen from GM crops, either thru cross-pollination, or horizontal gene-transfer at a microbial level.

By passing new genetic mutations directly to plants and other species, exposing GM crops to the environment means that our common gene-pool will be irreversably contaminated, whether we want it or not.

Planting any GM crops in the open air is an act of gross irresponsibility, justified by "Science" and motivated by corporate greed. It is the duty of all caring citizens to oppose it.

Mike Manley
Oxford, UK
underc@gn.apc.org

Firstly, it is impossible to actuate 'ecological trials' without releasing pollen into the environment and therefore polluting sound organic crops, we just don't think you care one iota about yourselves or the people you share this planet with. Your company made DDT and agent orange, responsible for millions of deformations so that tells me your moral attitude is mercenary at best. Your motivations for developing this technology are dubious, especially as you bill yourselves as an environmental company when it is obvious to anyone reading your record that you make the dioxins responsible for the suffering and death of millions!

You get your financial hooks into the worlds farmers, prevent them from saving the seeds then send security firms after them to check on them as though they are your property, you impose your ideals of a world order on them and after 1000 Indian farmers have commited suicide you tell us that you are helping improve crops in the third world. If you really cared then you would close all your operations immediatly, admit you were wrong about GM food and go organic. You tried to get organic food that was GM to still be called organic, this is sick, not enough people believe your lies,you are dying as a way of thinking and good riddance to you once you are gone.

One thing is certain and that is many people are going to die soon because of the PCB's in the world, many of which you manufactured, you eat the same food as the rest of us and breathe the same air - wake up and smell the coffee Monsanto is finished and this technology will be hated by future generations and your name with it, so no I don't think this food, or you, are safe.

Bill Weston
Wells, Somerset, UK
RIO@eastdevon.net

My main concern is the effects GMO's will have on the biodiversity within the British isle, surely this is a risk not worth taking.

Lola
Wrexham, UK
9609636@newi.ac.uk

All generalisms are dangerous, including this one. But if we are to generalise about activists then it could be said that each activist is motivated by his or her own reasons, which are many (and general too). This could also be said for Monsanto, although their reasons are more definable (as in profit-motivated), so who are we to think is right.

Does anyone know?

Curt
Stockport, England
curt@tesco.net

I believe that all of you at Monsanto have twisted the definition of "activist" to your own liking. I am a concerned citizen myself, and just because I despise your corporate arrogance, you dub me and others as "activists". Since I am an activist according to your viewpoint, then I consider you bio-rapists and bio-terrorists.

As the old adage says, "It takes two to tango". There wouldn't be any activists if there weren't any terrorists. Since Monsanto is a bio-terrorist organization, there will assuredly be an anti-terrorist movement, called 'activists'.

Although I, myself have more constructive ways of affecting public attention than to burn down and dig up test sites and crops, I do applaud those who destroyed the GM food test sites. As long as you can get away with it, do what you feel is just.

Frankly, I would be extremely surprised if Monsanto allowed this onto the debate forum, because I believe Monstanto only wants to allow on the list what they want to allow. But in the event this makes it to the list, may I extend warmest of blessings to all who are capable of candidly displaying their opinions, no matter what they may be. Regards!

K. Schanaman
USA
vector1@ricochet.net

I think that activists action works both ways. It has certainly made the public more aware of the issues conserned with GM foods, and this must be good for getting the public interested in the issue. However I feel that now they have got our attention they should participate in a proper discussion on the issue with other parties. This should be the only way to advance the debate.

Daniel Turner
Kent, England
turners146@aol.com

They may not play any significant part in any debate of the issues, but in getting media attention they can force a debate into the public arena. Where they do get to play a part in the debate, they can undo the aims of their causes through their emotive tactics.

The dynamics of a debate can only achieve anything beyond certain thresholds (I think this is saying revolution, which is such a dirty word in this country!).

As I see it, we all do one or more of these, but primarily:

1. Scientists do science.
2. Philosophers do philosophy.
3. Activists do activism.
4. Politicians do deals.

I would welcome the opportunity for any further contribution to this discussion.

David Oatway
Newcastle,UK
d.e.oatway@ncl.ac.uk

While I feel that GMO food products will become a necessity as the world population increases, companies should take this to mean that all consumers want such products. Information and choice become important here, and care should be taken to inform the common man as to his choices. Companies are tending to ignore this.

The activists are doing one good thing, and that is heightening consumer awareness in this field. This is something that should have been in the domain of the companies' activities. They are paying the price for not having done that.

At least now, companies should take the initiative and spread information, before the activists' one-sided view of matter is entrenched in the people's minds.

Anand Ramadurai
Calcutta, India
a_ramadurai@hotmail.com

It depends on what your definition of an activist is. If it is someone with whom you disagree then it hinders the debate from your point of view. It is unwise to assume that because someone disagrees with you that their view is necessarily unhelpful. My view is that there is insufficient understanding of the impact of genetic engineering to be certain that what is being done won't have an impact on our ecology and the survival of the species. To that end it is important that things are done in a controlled way. I would welcome a debate in which both sides are able to mount the same quality of defence of their positions. Big business can spend a fraction of their budgets defending against small 'activists'. I would welcome the progress of use of GMOs being curtailed 'in the field' until their impact is better understood. This means the impact on organic crops in neighbouring fields, the use of cross species modifications to enhance flavour or colour etc. As I said in a recent letter to the CEN I would suspect that there is no one who knows whether the human race will be wiped out by the removal of a particular gene just because it was an inconvenient colour. So, lets have a moratorium. You carry on and research but give the public a choice by suitable labelling of stuff that has already been loosed out of captivity.

Tim Hind
Bristol, UK
Tim.Hind@sunlife.co.uk

I believe that if we were given the correct information about GM foods in the first place these things wouldn't happen. We are scared of how the food will affect our health in the future. It is interfering with nature and it should not be allowed.

Emma Tindall
Ridgeway School, Wroughton, Swindon, Wiltshire, UK
94tindalle@Ridgeway.swindon.sch.co.uk

The tactics adopted by the activists creates attention and forces large companies or organisations to take action or negotiate with many of the activists. They use these often violent tactics because they will not be heard otherwise.

Greg
USA
yes@hotmail.com

I think that genetically modified food should be abolished because it is not natural and that is what we want to achieve.

Sara Wist
Portsmouth, England
WIST@westhill.hants.sch.uk

What evidence is available on the proven risks of GM foods?

It should be up to the consumer to decide what they think, militant protesting belongs in the past. The public only needs to know the facts.

Gemma Fraser and Morna Rogerson
Thornhill, Dumfries, Scotland
gemmafraser@hotmail.com

I am interested in all information and facts concerning genetically modified foods and where you think the future lies for GM foods. Do you think the British public will come round and if not where do you think that leaves trade relations and retailers?

Gene
London, UK
eu622@gre.ac.uk

(.../...)

Someone at Monsanto must be getting his endorphins off realizing that they're on the trail of controlling the world.

Diabolical - to sue the state of Vermont because its farmers wanted to identify which dairy products had bovine hormone in them.

Diabolical - fighting Canada's decision not to allow Monsanto products to pollute Canadian farms and food sources and to plot against Canada's decision, planning to undermine it thru the World Health Organization's Codex Alimentarius, trying to get them to declare rBGH safe when Codex meets in Rome this coming summer. If Codex issues the statement that Monsanto wants, under the World Trade Organization's rules, Canada will lose its right to ban the use of rBGH within its borders, and Monsanto will be one step closer to its goal.

(.../...)

Codex Alimentarius is widely perceived to be dominated not by public-spirited health specialists but by scientists aligned with the interests of transnational corporations.

(.../...)

The question is, how many will bother to stand up for what we want? It's easy to sit here and type out words, but will we be as willing to march, demonstrate, make phone calls, write letters, have info parties in our neighborhoods, boycott products, question candidates for office, demand that our supermarkets and stores label what's in our food? How will we be able to refuse to buy, if all our food is already polluted?

Lizzy Poole
Summerland Key, FL and York, ME
lizzy@fkol.com

As one time Chairman of the SSC Working Group on UK Regulatory Procedures for the Registration of Biological Agents for Crop pest and disease control in the 1980's, I was closely involved in issues concerning the registration of pesticides in the UK. I have been retired from the post of Director of the MAFF Harpenden Laboratory for many years but still retain an interest in agricultural\environmental issues and any comments made below are purely personal ones from a private individual.

I have been following with interest the GMO developments which, since the publication of Pusztai's work by the media, seem to have been handled very ineffectively by both scientists and politicians with the possible exception of the Chief Scientist (May) in his TV interview. This could have been developed further to advantage. Very little attempt seems to have been made to provide the general public with an evaluation of the potential risks and to relate these to the products being developed. For example the deliberately artificial nature of Pusztai's work resulting in a not unexpected toxic effect was not properly explained by anyone. Some attempt could also have been made to stratify the potential consumer risks. I feel that the general public would be able to appreciate that the potential risks from GM within plant species would probably be low, on a par with traditional plant breeding. Another level of risk might involve GM between edible plant species, followed by GM involving gene transfer between edible plant and animal species while it would probably be even more difficult to quantify risks with crosses involving more exotic gene transfers.

(.../...)

Howard J Gould
Bristol, UK
106640.652@compuserve.com

I am studying A level biology at the moment the 'Module Microbiology'. I must admit that without studying this topic, I would not have known about the issues of genetically modified food. I believe that people should be allowed a choice of what they want to purchase, and gentic engineering of food can improve the diversity of food availability. There is nothing wrong with that, but again, in recent news articles, it is also the responsibility of the manufactures to label GM food. I believe that it is ignorance of people to ignore the beneficial implications of what GM food could mean which is holding this era of science back.

Siew
London, UK
Fungi_666@hotmail.com

I believe that activists have done the usual thing of using an issue in the media as an excuse for wanton destruction. I believe that there is no excuse for criminal damage, and the destruction of scientific work in the the form of field trials mean that valuable information is lost. It seems to me that it is the usual bunch of thugs that come out of the wood work and have no interest in discussion, they have their opinions and everyone else must submit to their dictatorship or suffer violence. I don't object to people having different opinions - they don't have to eat GM foods, nothing is being forced on them. So why do they have a right to stop me from eating it? I would much rather eat a GM product which has generally had less chemicals applied than a conventional that has been sprayed with a huge number of chemicals. I think it is very small minded to want a total ban on GMO's, should this be achieved in the UK I believe we will be left behind the rest fo the world in our agricultural practises.

Jenna Copley
Reading, UK
aau97jcc@rdg.ac.uk

Activist groups must try to stay away from the kind of activities that try to influence the public like the media, or political parties. It now seems to be about point scoring. It surely must be healthier to have a fair open debate than trying to jump on the next bandwagon. Most of the criticism is coming from environmental groups who are after extra funds/money and publicity.

Jim Schollar
Plymouth University, UK
jschollar@plymouth.ac.uk

As the British and American Governments refuse to take a mature, precautionary view on the development of GMO crops, it is necessary for members of the public to take this matter into their own hands. We are all aware of the reasons for Governments acting in this way, they are receiving huge amounts of cash and are being put under pressure by companies like Monsanto, to allow development go ahead. Politicaly the governments are in an awkward situation. The public however have nothing to lose from speaking out, so they do!

Few people are saying we don't want GMO's. We are saying let's take our time, do it carefully and think about the consequences first.

B. Turvey
Scotland, UK
B.L.N.Turvey@sms.ed.ac.uk

You refer to vandalism of Monsanto's experimental crops. How would you refer to Monsanto's crops being allowed to illegally pollinate 'normal' crops? Is this not vandalism also? Isn't this form of vandalism potentially more dangerous in the long term, simply because we - you as well as I - have no idea what the impact of your 'product' will be in the short, medium or long term in respect of any interbreeding which may occur (and which quite possibly has)?

Steve
Dorking, UK
stevescep@aol.com

I understand why people are destroying these crops, although I do not feel it is the right way to achieve a result. The public is genuinely scared of GMO products and I do not blame them one little bit. Large companies like yourself have done everything in your power to hide the truth of what is going on, and testing of these products is appalling to say the least. You have only one major interest at heart and that is of money and human health comes second to that, no matter what you say. If people were not so greedy then this situation would not arise, it is not only human health in which I worry but the environment as well. We do not know the outcome of these crops on insects and wildlife, it could upset the whole balance of nature. Why do people automatically think we are changing things for the better? Look what happened with L-Tryptophan and then try and say these things are not harmful. As long as I have a choice I will not by food that has been genetically altered and I will do my best in making sure we have that choice. Money is not everything but freedom of choice is.

Shaun
England
Simnat@demon.co.uk

Vandalizing a GMO test site would not rest easy on my conscience. However, the knowledge of having irrevocably intervened in the genetic wisdom of billions of years of evolutionary heritage would be a vandalism utterly incomprehensible to my soul.

David Leisure
California, USA
leisure2@pacbell.net

Although I am not usually in favor of disruptive behaviour, I think desperate times call for desperate measures. At the moment governments seem to be dazzled by hype and money and not willing to put the brakes on experimentation which has no justification. I therefore think it is up to the ordinary citizen to do everything possible to make the governments realize that they are acting irresponsibly in not calling a moratorium.

Harriet Sheehy
Dublin, Ireland
harriets@indigo.ie

In reading your Biotech Primer, I see that you claim advantages to genetic engineering. If you truly want to educate the public, why do you not include disadvantages?

You claim through genetic engineering you are able to produce crops that need fewer pesticides. Since you are a "life sciences" company, why are you not exploring organic agriculture, thereby eliminating the need for any chemical pesticides? Your chemical businesses were sold off to create Solutia Inc. and should leave you free to experiment in this area.

Your co-patent with the United States Department of Agriculture on terminator technology seems to me to be a grave conflict of interest. It concerns me that the government of my country has established this pattern of doing business. What other countries are you pursuing similar arrangements with?

As you state, there is the possibility of cross-pollination with non-genetically engineered crops. How does this affect the home gardener? Many of these people specialize in heirloom seeds and it seems as though genetic engineering has the potential to put a stop to -- or, at the very least, slow down -- the 12,000-year process of evolution. But then again, with genetic engineering, you may be accelerating the process of evolution. Who knows? And do you really want to take that gamble?

Sara Hayden
Arizona, USA
hayden@matrixreg.com

I consider GM foods to be highly threatening to the environment. As a beekeeper I feel that anything which will allow crops to be sprayed with even more of a (Monsanto) weed/pest killer to be a decided threat - if it works against other insects (also a natural part of the environment), surely it will also be effective against bees.

As an organic grower I also feel that even the limited trials (imperfectly monitored as they have been) have already compromised the integrity of the biosphere in which we all have to live from now on. The moratorium cannot be long enough as far as I'm concerned - especially against the interests of big business buying our political representatives.

Nick
Bristol, UK
nick@nick-white-training.co.uk

I can totally relate to the position of the activists who are destroying the scientific research sites growing genetically modified crops. They represent a majority of the population and are only doing what most of us would want to do if we were not so fearful of the law. I take my hat off to these activists who are bringing this highly charged subject to the forefront of peoples minds. I work in a local supermarket who sells these products and I wouldn't have even known about these foods if the activists had not highlighted it via the media.

I am now extremely aware of the ingredients in the regular products I buy in my weekly shop, I am and was horrified to find that most of these products contain GM ingredients. Being a vegetarian is supposed to be a healthier way of living but not when scientists insist on 'tampering' with our food.

Leave our food alone and leave it to nature because at the end of the day nature knows best.

Karen Das
Cornwall, U.K.
starburst@mysticfayre.freeserve.co.uk

I know very little about GM foods, but from what little I do know, I feel that these food products are ok. Much of the scare-mongering surrounding the experiments and the consuming of the products are, I think, the product of the minds' ability to make things seem out of proportion. People are afraid of new and unknown products because of the negative media surrounding these issues.

Personally, I have tried the product, actually just today, and am making an observation not only intellectually but in practice too.

I think scientists and researchers in these fields should go ahead and continue their work, but at the same time we should all be aware that GM foods are still at experimental stages, and a 100% decision for or against it cannot be made. The consequences, I think, are still a case of study and further experiments.

The scientific community at large, food-store managers and government bodies involved in scientific experiments with GM foods should respect the people's doubts and apprehensions, and not try to impose one-sided decisions via the media.

Sanjay Das
Penzance, UK
starburst@mysticfayre.freeserve.uk

I hope all your crops are destroyed for ever. No corporation should own seeds exclusively. You are simply unethical.

Investing in the arms industry is more ethical than working for, or investing in Monsanto.

How much does your chief executive earn again?

Bob Croxford
Cornwall, UK
Trevitho@aol.com

I have never willingly purchased food with GM ingredients. Up to now I thought that GM food was clearly labelled on packaging etc. Now I hear that many foodstuffs contain GM elements and that this is not made clear on the packaging. Are all soya foods genetically modified? I am not prepared to buy GM foods, I prefer organic alternatives. Just who is making money out of this?

John Bridges
Wiltshire, UK
jws@bridges77.freeserve.co.uk

I would like to comment on your lead paragraph for this discussion. You are already lending bias to the discussion calling the activists actions 'vandilism'.

Perhaps the initial planting of the crops was the act of vandalism, to the planet, and the protesters are simply bringing the vandalism to the attention of those who it will affect.

Sophie
Yorkshire, UK
ordigrah@bishopb_college.ac.uk

Vandalizing GMO crop test sites seems to have no long-term beneficial effect. Surely it hinders the process of developing and testing new GMOs. Developing and testing GMOs is, in its own right, not wrong and should continue in an environment were contamination to organic crops is not possible.

Disrupting retail sales of GMO food products is another issue. Before these food products have been thoroughly tested by an independent party, first on animals and then humans, and proven to have no short, or long term ill effects on human health they should not be sold. Until the government starts acting responsibly and bans all sale of GMO food products that have not been tested by an independent party the public needs to act for the government.

Giving the general public the option of eating GMO food products that have not been tested as mentioned before is highly irresponsible and verges on being criminal.

M.G.Magnusson
London, UK
Izadempire@hotmail.com

Activism is historically borne of frustration. Direct vandalism is simply the final recourse of those who feel that their government (apparently democratic) won't listen to the voices of the people who elected them. Blair's government is so clearly in the pocket of big business, and in the case of GM foods, the pockets of powerful multinationals like Monsanto, the people of Great Britain feel powerless. Even using our rights as consumers is becoming ever more important when GM soya can sneak through the net (for instance, Sainsbury's dairy-free soya spread — a boon to those who wish to avoid dairy products for health or ethical reasons — contains soya oil, which Sainsbury's are unable to source accurately. As such, they cannot tell us if GM soya has been used in its manufacture or not: perfectly illustrative of the corner which ordinary consumers are in currently).

We demand information. And who can blame those who feel inclined to destroy GM maize? What else are we to do? Threaten not to vote for Tony Blair in three years time? Too late! Though not an advocate of illegal action, I admire those who are prepared to do it. Someone has to.

Andrew Collins
London, UK
acol@dial.pipex.com

Biotechnology, in my humble opinion, is a complete waste of talented minds. Like the technology of modern medicine that spends millions researching and perfecting organ transplants when there are millions of people in the world who cannot afford to feed themselves. There are simple, low tech solutions now available to solve the problems that you purport you are addressing with your "patent" approach.

W Paul Blakey
Canada
TEEHI@sunshine.net

You call it vandalism. That's a loaded term at odds with your vaunted aspiration to objectivity in this already contentious debate. That aside, I think that destruction of GM crop test sites is probably justified by the ability of windborne GM seeds to cross the boundaries of test sites and cross pollinate with non-GM crop varieties. A non-GM farmer who carries out such acts is, in law, merely taking such action as may be necessary to maintain his livelihood against a 'nuisance'.

Secondly, your planned use of the World Trade Organisation to force subsistence farmers in the developing world to buy your mule seeds every year, rather than simply germinating from their own stocks as they have done from time immemorial, is utterly rebarbative.

Mark Brand
Stroud, UK
markbrand1@aol.com

Genetic modification is a burgeoning new technology; no one can deny this fact. It is a technology which could deliver many benefits to mankind. However as many scientists have been pointing out since the late 1980's, the development companies (Monsanto included) have to be careful in releasing these GM organisms. By being careful one can try to avoid horizontal gene transfer from plants, micro-organisms, and other GM organisms. It is a matter of fact that many modern crops, and for that matter current basic shelf food, for sale in the UK at the moment contain genetically modified constituents, Round-Up resistant soya and the firm skinned tomato being prime examples of this. Therefore the technology is already upon us. The mindless destruction of the test area seems to be rather short sighted, and very contradictory of the 'GM activists' ideals. They are asking for a 3-5 year moratorium upon GM food and crops in the UK to assess their biosafety. Is that not what these test sites are intended for, the contained assessment and monitoring of these GM crops? Therefore the scientist's views that this vandalism can only impede the process of biosafety testing of these GM organisms is based on solid ground.

Simon. M. Chandler
University of Leeds, UK
BGY7SMC@leeds.ac.uk

Why on earth didn't you tell us that thousands of genetically modified products are already sitting unlabelled on supermarket shelves? The popular debate about whether or not to postpone further testing is completely irrelevant. In the light of your callous disregard for consumer choice, I am in no way surprised at the damage being inflicted on your company.

Richard
London, UK
rblack@btinternet.com

Opinions can only be formed after all of the facts are known. It is still too early in the debate to come to a firm conclusion about the use of gene technology in food production.

Fred Brown
Winchester, UK
fbrown@fbrown.co.uk

It seems like pressure groups are feeding on the public's fear of genetics and related diseases and their ignorance. The average person does not understand the basics of genetics, and only hears what they are being told via television and newspapers. How else do we expect them to react? They are told that eating beef will give them CJD, then told it's safe, then not and so on....

Then they're now told that some foods that they eat have been genetically modified. The seed of doubt about what they eat maybe giving them a killer disease has already been planted, so they'll just go back down that road again. With no facts presented, and every pressure-group and certain politicians jumping on the bandwagon with no idea what they are talking about either, it is no wonder that the general public is worried. The facts need to be presented clearly and in an unbiased fashion, so that people can make up their own minds on the subject. People need to know that this is not another BSE/CJD case coming along, but that it is just a way to improve foods as opposed to contaminating them.

Emma Ward
Brighton University, UK
ew38@bton.ac.uk

I take my hat off to anyone who takes direct action against this evil perversion of nature. Future generations will thank them for their health and look upon them as heroes.

Arjuna Krishna-Das
Liverpool, UK
arjuna@ksyberspace.com

If Monsanto is confident of it's technology and products, why do you refuse to label GM soya? (Hardly the act of confidence!!) Also, why not change your virulent herbicides, pesticides? As opposed to the gene makeup of the plant? (Cost/profit maybe??)

Paul Rose
Brighton, UK
paul@freeserve.co.uk

The government regulations on trials of genetically modified crops are totally inadequate. Oil seed rape is wind and insect pollinated. The idea that 6 metres of normal rape would provide a barrier to bees is ludicrous. These trials should be carried out in complete isolation. In the circumstances the activists may have done us all a real service. It seems that there is no democratic way that people can protect themselves from large multinationals so illegal action is the only way out. This is the predictable outcome of perverting the democratic system.

Bob Saxton
Scotland, UK
Bob@saxton.prestel.co.uk

Check out www.trufax.org, www.dorway.com and www.holisticmed.com/aspartame. How consumer caring is Monsanto? Despite these claims we are not designed to eat anything but natural foods. We have so many health issues right now and as each generation comes along it increases. Natural/organic foods are what is needed. Not more cancer and disease to the benefit of the drug companies and Monsanto.

Rene Martell
USA
Rmar110538@aol.com

As usual the public seem to be the last to join the debate. We are informed by scientists usually with a vested interest that all is safe. However, BSE is still lodged in the public psyche and they know how muddled and misled they were over that fiasco. As long as the public are treat like idiots they will never trust the "experts".

V.Fitzpatrick
United Kingdom
calderpressing@clara.co.uk

Is it possible that the activist's involvement is bringing the genetic engineering debate into the public domain? The discussion is about public consumption and therefore, the public should be informed from both sides of the argument, and then they are able to make an 'informed' decision.

L.McCarry
Sunderland University, UK
ea6lmc.zen@sunderland.ac.uk

I think the use of GMF should only be for medical treatment and nothing else. Why spoil what nature has already created for us?

Ahtisham Hussain
London, UK
ha6359@qmw.ac.uk

I agree with the experimentation of GMO's. I am however concerned with GM foods to resist herbicides and insecticides as I do not agree with the use of these chemicals. I believe that genetic engineering should be used mainly for medical research, e.g.. gene therapy.

Gary Alden
Norwich, UK
galden27@aol.com

It is all very well deploring the destruction of scientific research. But the fact remains that this is not scientific research by disinterested parties: it is a planted public-relations exercise designed to get the effects Monsanto and others require. Any dissenters are fired by their corporate-funded institutes.

Don't cloud the issue, Monsanto: I and thousands of others have an open mind regarding GM technology. It may or may not have future benefits. But you, not the protestors, have hijacked objective scientific research and twisted it to your own ends. Until true objectivity takes reign, all power to them.

Nick Mailer
London, UK
nm@westminster.org.uk

You have brought this on yourselves by mingling GMO soya with unaltered crops and attempting to slip it in unnoticed so that there would be a fait accompli.

Arguments that it would be 'too expensive' to label GMO products merely underline the fact that you are far more interested in money than in consumer protection or, indeed, choice.

Robin Currie
St Albans, UK
Robin@newmoney.demon.co.uk

As Monsanto appears to use activist tactics. We can assume that it does hinder open debate. This discussion list is a perfect example of hindering open debate as it avoids open discussion on GMO issues, but is a rather cynical attempt at pretending to hold open discussion. Let's have discussions on:

What real benefits are there to the consumer?
What real benefits are there to Monsanto?
What real benefits are there for third world countries?

Ian Munro
Hertfordshire, UK
i.munro@lineone.net

Although I can understand the many advantages of GM crops, the worrying thing is the ease with which GM foodstuffs have already been introduced into the UK food chain with so little public discussion or debate. More than anything, I believe people (i.e. consumers) should be made aware of the issues and have a choice. For example, our 5-month old baby is allergic to the usual cows-milk-based formula milks available and we wish to try soya milk. The fact that we can't be sure whether the product available on our supermarket shelf contains GM soya is worrying in a more emotive way too.

The other main issue for us is that of regulation and control - both in terms of the effects of release of new genetic material into the environment and the new directions this sort of research may take and the relative speed with which its products may become introduced to a largely unsuspecting public.

Steve & Nesta Leary
London, UK
steve.leary@btinternet.com

1. What research has been done by Monsanto on possible cross-pollination and genetic effect on pollinating insects? Surely if a product is genetically modified its indigenous bacteria and feeding insects will also be affected and take on the genetic change and cross pollinate to other plant life passing on the effect of the genetic modification. Growing test crops even under the most stringent conditions will not prevent cross pollination affecting other foods and plant life as there is no way of hermetically growing test crops.

2. How long has Monsanto been testing the actual variant genetic product before putting it on the market?

3. What other non-Monsanto organisations have actually undertaken full testing of the genetic strain?

4. Have any genetic variations been actually observed over say 20 generations of the crop, and in insect cross pollination testing?

5. Has Monsanto run any open forum meetings to assure the UK public of the safety of GM?

6. How much money has Monsanto spent to date in lobbying the UK government to support its position and could this have been better spent instead of trying to steamroller its product on the market in explaining in full to the public?

7. In the event of a catastrophe as in the case of BSE which has cost some $10bn has Monsanto put aside a substantial sinking fund to cover possible legal/clean up option?

8. Has Monsanto got a disaster recovery plan in place in the event of catastrophe occurring (e.g. Thalidomide)?

Malcolm Graham
UK
MGRAHAM818@aol.com

I think that the thinkers at Monsanto should be very careful about this term 'activist groups'. Denomination of activists is a mistake, and it takes place in the mind. It is very subtle, and dangerous. There are some very fundamental issues at stake with GM, and expertise is not the property of commercial interests. The environmentally active NGO's are respectful of science, and many of their staff are science graduates.

Without direct action, many important technical and social issues would not now be in the public domain, and it looks from my perspective as though Monsanto would have liked nothing better than to be able to introduce GM on a large scale before anyone took notice of what was going on.

'Activists' have rumbled this in Europe (they appear to have missed the boat in the USA) and if Monsanto is having a hard time now in Europe, that is not the fault of the activists. It is only in part be because of what you are doing - GM is very radical indeed, let us not forget. You're doing no less than bucking evolution.

Rod Nelson
UK
rod@wallowgreen.demon.co.uk

This is to continue the discussion and to comment upon the views of some of the participants.

Though the general view seems to be anticipation with caution, two participants have different perspectives. Reed Holt may feel assured that his views might not be just wishful thinking, but precisely point out required action (plausible of course). Philomena Ewing has an excellent idea of educating future citizens and law makers, and congratulations to her.

Since I work in an organisation concerned with collection, evaluation and conservation of crop genetic resources and as a biotechnologist, I must reply to Glen Phillips and Ian Barton. Gene pool is diminishing drastically, not because of individual genes but because of genotypes that are becoming more and more homogenous. This is a result of selection pressure applied by man since he started agriculture. This is essential in developing countries because they have to feed millions. Selected high yielding varieties are preferred over moderately yielding ones, sacrificing diversity. In developed countries taste driven selection (bright white cauliflowers, bigger fruit size of tomato, color, flavour etc..) has resulted in shrinking of gene pool. Thus the intention with which technology is used makes it for or against nature. On the contrary the general notion, genetic engineering breeds more variability by bringing in genes to the plant kingdom from otherwise sexually incompatible taxa or by modifying the plant's original gene-regulation.

If we cultivate a single variety, GM or other, the gene pool obviously narrows down as had happened in Indian sub-continent in the case of rice.

Sunil Archak
New Delhi, India
archaka@yahoo.com

I think that Monsanto should do all these tests, to prove that biotechnology has come only to improve man's life. And end all these wrong opinions. As an agronomic student I believe that biotechnology is the most important technology that man discovered and is the future.

Bruno Gilioli
Brasil
gilioli@solar.com.br

I am currently putting together a dissertation on the subject of biotechnology and the strong polarity of views that are expressed upon it.

I would be very interested to hear ideas on why certain sectors of the population would be strongly for GMO's and others should feel opposed, to the extent of causing damage to test sites. I am especially interested in the effect the media has on the general public.

I believe that, as with everything in life, communication is the key - 'perception is reality.' Would it be fair to say that the tabloid papers and headlines such as "Frankenstein Foods" are fostering the activist's view, while those papers and magazines that report realistically are creating a well informed sector who can see the balanced argument.

Any views on this subject would be gratefully received, especially those disagreeing with me!

Charlie Cowan
Royal Agricultural College, UK
charles.cowan@royagcol.ac.uk

GMO test sites which are located close to organic farms impede rather than enhance the standards of the non-mutated, natural food being grown on these farms.

Laura
London, UK
laura_wirtz@yahoo.com

Dialogue with all factions cannot be side-lined in spite of extreme views. Every effort must be made to bring parties to the table and all data presented for review - pro and con. Many data on both sides have been released and each side tends to highlight the radical view. If compromise is necessary, then so be it. Please locate the extreme factions and bring them to a public forum. Perhaps wishful thinking?

Reed Holt
Texas, USA
grrh@fbg.net

This is a very interesting yet controversial breakthrough, many scientists will no doubt find it fascinating. However, with your company being the only one of it's kind there is a great danger of this market sector becoming a monopoly. I can see the activists point of view therefore. There is no doubt in my mind that you are acting only in the Monsanto companies' interests and not the publics. Can you convince us otherwise and can you provide the evidence that genetically engineered food does not have any serious health implications?

Andrew Walton
Walsall, UK
gonnarear@hotmail.com

I am a Biology/Human Biology lecturer to 16-18 year olds : A level and vocational courses plus HND Applied Biology. The topic of GMO's is on all syllabi and students are asked to consider the social, ethical, legal and economic aspects of the technology - a daunting task!! The World Wildlife Fund for Nature are interested in developing the debate for schools and Colleges and I would like my students to be able to participate in your discussion forum. The GNVQ Advanced Science students will be starting their Biotechnology Unit in the Second week of February and so I would ask you to keep the forum OPEN till then. Would you also consider advertising this to College students/sending out a mailing shot/publicity leaflet to Colleges - I think you would get a lively debate from young students and would provide a useful tool for their learning? Come on, Monsanto-make links with the educational sector/raise awareness /promote yourselves as an industry that cares about education for tomorrow!

Best Wishes,

Philomena Ewing
Truro College, UK
philomena.ewing@virgin.net

If Monsanto had been seen to be working towards maintaining consumer choice from the beginning, adverse consumer perceptions of GM food may not have developed. If consumers felt that they had a clear choice between GM food and traditional foods I am sure the intense public feeling about GM technology would not exist. Activist usually latch on to issues which they know will stir up public feeling. The activist problem may not have arose if the introduction of GM food was handled in a more open manner.

Benjamin Iles
Royal Agricultural College, UK
benjamin.iles@royagcol.ac.uk

I am not opposed to GMO crops and food products per se. However, what concerns me is the reduction of the general gene pool and the monopolisation of seeds and breeds by companies such as yourselves, so that small farmers in the third world are obliged to to buy at unaffordable prices and cannot sustain their livelihoods.

Glenn Phillips
Dublin, Ireland
glenn_phillips_1999

While activists tactics garner a great deal of press coverage, I find that they add little to the debate itself.

Donald
UK
donald@eurobell.co.uk

The influence of activist tactics on any debate depends much on the environment in which it is taking place...Monsanto has faced the agitation of the farmers in India also. Let me place the points of discussion as follows:

1. Do consumers have a choice between gene tically modified and native food? If the teeming population is hungry it doesn't matter if they are fed by bt-rice...

2. has the technology gained confidence of the consumers? In democratic countries governed by planned economics,the consensus of the political parties regarding the technology introduction seems essential. Strangely in India, the entry of the genetically modified crops, spearheaded by the bt-technology, has been during the period of liberalisation, and hence the technology is more associated with the brand Monsanto rather than the merits and demerits of the technology itself. Thus political mileage over the issue obviously becomes an attraction. Same product of an Indian company probably would have been welcomed by all with, without or inspite of so called harmful technologies...

3. Countries which import most of the food tend to oppose the technology since they have strong choice and capacity to support it. In such countries educating the people is the only way out, they are sensitive to what other countries are doing.

4. In developed countries with fair share of agriculture in the economy how the issue is managed by the company becomes important. Uk is a typical case...

The issue is sensitive, important and should be handled case by case basis. I conclude as: the activist tactics can slow down the open debate but may not hinder to the extent perceived. How the entire issue is managed (not arranged) becomes important.

Sunil Archak
New Delhi, India
archaka@yahoo.com

It is certainly not right to destroy the property of other people, but there are a lot of people out there who are worried about genetically modified foods and as such I believe these actions are a modern form of "burning the witch".

(.../...)

If nothing else, I believe that we have the right to choose whether to consume GM foods or not, and in the light of the fact that there is no statutory labelling requirement, this is rather difficult...

Back to the subject of whether activist tactics promote or hinder open debate, I think they promote it as they bring the subject to a wider audience by virtue of the publicity that they generate. I don't condone their actions, but believe they are productive in terms of the debate, but unfortunately destructive in terms of the crops that are destroyed and the frustration they must cause to the people and companies doing the research.

But then the tests are being conductive in an irresponsible manner. If we were talking about genetically modifying animals, would the research teams allow the GM animals to freely interbreed with non-GM animals? This is what is happening in the case of GM crops as they are grown in open environments where cross pollination with nearby crops can naturally take place. That has to be a contributory factor in the destructive actions taking place.

Jeff Jenkins
Hampshire, UK
jenkinsj@tcp.co.uk

The question in itself is very ambiguous due to the fact that any one who wishes to promote there own product could be thought of as an activist. The tactics of basic advertising are being employed by "ecological warriors" in the media and press! And so by the question both sides need open debate rather than. Trying to out do the other on the platform we call media.

Luke Morgan
University of Newcastle, UK
luke.morgan@ncl.ac.uk

You have, I think, at least three problems. Firstly, people are suspicious of large corporations.

Secondly, people vastly over estimate the possibility of contaminating the environment compared to, for example, the indiscriminate use of antibiotics as 'growth promoters' in the livestock industry.

Thirdly, people suspect you are creating new varieties for crop yield and shelf life, rather than for taste.

Do not get me wrong. I am actually on your side. However, this seems to be the general view of what is going on.

Kim Booth
Durham City, UK
Richard_Booth@tyria.freeserve.co.uk

Will the long term use of GMO foods effect biodiversity?

Ian Barton
Scotland
106505.2767@compuserve.com

Not so sure about it all, but I doubt that digging up plants will make a difference.

Adam
London, UK
adram@excite.com

Previous Page