Does The Destruction Of GM-Crop Trial Sites Deny The Public The Opportunity Of Finding Out Their Effects On The Environment?

Please find below a representative sampling of submissions since this discussion was launched in August 1999. Some submissions have been edited for length. Submissions which were not accompanied by a name, location, and valid e-mail address and those that did not pertain to the topic or used profanity were omitted.

As I am doing a project on this in food technology GCSE and know all about it I think it is stupid that they add chemicals to the food but it is so much cheaper to buy the GM food than it is to buy organic food. If you have any information you could send me about organic food and how you plan to stop GM food I would be very grateful.
Thank you.

Kazz Samuels
Hertfordshire
samuels@tesco.net

It is unfortunate that people can't see the benefits of current technology and how it relates to prior technology. Plant breeding and selection has been ongoing for many years. It is the food plants that people rely upon today that were found or bred in former years. It is the same people who denounce current technology that have benefited from the former work. They also will benefit from future work, even though they say they are against it today. They should explore the protectionism from the countries where major activity exists to reduce the influx of the genetically modified crop plants. It is to the "advantage" of these countries to exclude products from the US since they often do not have the same technology. By downplaying the products they are "saving their farmers". The detractors should also realize that the organic farmer will benefit greatly from the technology when they will be on the same playing field when fewer pesticides are used or needed in some crops.

There have been students whose careers have been put on hold because their research project (plant breeding but not genetically modified organisms) was destroyed in the name of being recognized. It will take them several years to replace or maybe never replace some of their genetic material that they were crossing. It also slows the knowledge of learning about the plants. Most of the plant materials that were disturbed was not genetically modified and was not planted for companies, in fact some companies didn't even know the research was underway, until after the damage was done. Therefore the research is being done to gain knowledge rather than serve the industry. By not publicizing the terrorists actions and "news" releases it will not give them the publicity they want. Let the researchers continue to do research and the educators continue to teach and students to learn. Clyde L. Elmore
Davis, CA, USA
clelmore@ucdavis.edu

Do we possess the moral right to add genetically modified organisms [GMOs] to nature?

Mary Yule
Plymouth
myule@aol.com

I see the question of whether to allow GM planting today as being similar to the question we faced in the 50s regarding fission reactors. Had we known then what we know now concerning the problem of the disposal of nuclear waste and the threat of incompetence and operational errors we would probably not have allowed the development of the technology.

The concerns I have about GM plants are essentially long-term, unfortunately the trials cannot address the long-term issues - but they do open Pandora's box. As with power in the 50s, there is no immediate pressing need for new technologies. If anything, what we need are fewer plants but with more flavour. Christopher Durant
Devon, UK
cmd@marquesa.co.uk

I am producing a short documentary asking the question "Should there be a national ban on GM foods?" I would like feedback from all sides of the argument, and would like to interview people with different views, eg.: consumer, government, supermarkets, GM farmers, pro groups, and anti groups. If anyone can help me please send me an E-mail.

Andrew Fowler
Godney, Somerset
fowler@ukonline.co.uk

I am going to cancel my Greenpeace membership. I feel that the organisation has become fat, middle-aged, affluent and arrogant. It fails to look beyond its well-fed arena to the plight of those facing a more ugly nature than Peter Melchett's quaint East Anglia, to whom GM crops (and livestock) offer real hopes of survival and sustainability.

I am deeply depressed by the spiral of ignorance created by Greenpeace. Lives and environments which could have been enhanced will remain blighted. Incidentally, I have no objection to eating GM-contamined organic food. In my view, GM food is organic food, in that it is grown with less exterior input. I very much fear that Greenpeace are exploiting popular ignorance about genetics to their own ends. I know their policy: the means is justified by the end. Unfortunately, the only end they will achieve will be the destruction of trust. I predict that, for this reason, Greenpeace will lose out. As a supporter of many years' standing, I count this a tragedy. Yours sincerely, Julian Hitchcock
C/O Greenpeace!
julian_hitchcock@wragge.com

If I want to grow a new plant in my garden and ask the producer if it is safe to use there (will it make my flowers die, or will it cause e.g. butterflies, which visit the garden, to be harmed?), I would not be happy if he came and grew the thing in my garden for a test.

Monsanto seems to want to use the UK countryside as a test site - why don't they set up a representative environment which is sealed from the outside world to test their products, rather than running the risk of polluting our environment? Chris Beazer
U.K.
Chris.Beazer@RSA18.royalsun.com

I cannot understand why Monsanto does not look into the background of the Soil Association. It was set up by people who took as their model the agricultural practices of Indian and Chinese peasants, which caused the death through famine of millions during the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries.

"Organic" food was the invention of Austrian mystic Rudolf Steiner, who had links with Aleister Crowley and other nutcases. Steiner's first idea was to introduce astrology to agriculture. Then he began strange formulations, such as burying freshly killed deers' bladders stuffed with marigold flowers. Presumably, Monsanto's research is performed scientifically and is peer reviewed. Why is the company being held hostage by a load of cranks? It is time to go on the offensive. Although people accept that "organic" means good, they do not know what the word means. And a whole lot of people are pissed off by the premium "organic" food fetches in the supermarket. Attack the meaning of that word and you will win the argument. Nigel Cawthorne
London, England
NigelCawthorne@compuserve.com

Personally, I think that genetically modified foods should be prohibited. However, I am not so familiar with the effects of GMOs, and how they relate to the environment. I am also currently doing a research on 'how genetically modified foods affect the body' at Caribbean Union College, affiliated with Andrews University in Berrin Springs, Michigan. I would like it very much if you could down-load some of the information that you have gathered so far and vice versa. Thank you.

Abigail Gilgeous
Trinidad
a_gilgeous@hotmail.com

I suppose that one could claim that refusing to explode an atom bomb in the Grampians is denying the public the opportunity to know what the effects on the environment might be. I suspect that the public would happily forego the opportunity.

A more rational approach, however, is that one does not conduct experiments where the consequences are irreversible. The recent results on the travel of pollen merely proves what one would have suspected a priori, namely that pollen and bees travel a long way (otherwise the spread of plants would be more difficult than is actually the case). Since the actual condition set for GM trials was a mere 50 meters of buffer zone, one has to assume that those who established this condition were either grossly incompetent or criminally indifferent to the environmental risks that they were running. Faced with that sort of situation, it becomes hard to refute the case of those who argue for direct action. Respect for the law is certainly a good, but it is far from the ultimate good. In the late forties, it was suggested that the Highlands be used for testing atomic weapons. Fortunately, the authorities had sufficient wisdom to reject that idea - had they not done so, I suggest that the residents would have every right to protect themselves from such an assault on themselves and their environment, even if the law were broken in the process. Chris Morris
Belfast
chrisjan.morris@virgin.net

With Monsanto's quite frankly dubious environmental and ethical record, why should the population of this delicate planet let you potentially risk its biological diversity and cause long-term damage for a product the world could quite possibly do without.

Calvin Jones
Aberdeenshire, Scotland
Morris.jones@virgin.net

I think the question that should be asked here is: why are the activists destroying GM-crop experimental fields?

Could it be that the activists lack basic information on the risk-proof GM crops? Or could it be that they don't want the public to know that GM crops are environ- ment-friendly? If yes, why? Why should a group go out of its way to discourage trials that could prove the impact of GM crops on the environment? Any answers out there? Danladi Kuta
Moscow
d.kuta.asp@agro.pfu.edu.ru

I am not in favour of destroying the trials. Instead, we are to allow the company to generate scientific informations and let it be put before the scientific community for acceptance or rejection. Unless we know the details, we have no right to destroy the trials.

Shailesh Patel
Gujarat (India)
sipatel@gauskn.guj.nic.in

In my opinion, this issue is being exploited by people who are both ignorant of the science involved and who care little about damage to the public good.

If they were given a scythe and told to cut a field of corn for a wage, they would either run a mile or, if they tried to do so would make little or no impact. I fail to see what real damage could be caused to a big crop by them. I speak as a person who has tried to employ layabouts like this and also as a person who cares enough about the scientific issues of the day to work for a BSc. in his spare time. Dennis Parkes
Nottingham
dennisparkes@virginnet

I am wondering why this slickly produced web site is asking leading questions about how terrible 'activists' are, when there has been nary a mention of the largest anti-trust lawsuit in the world being launched against Monsanto and friends.

Are you not going to demonstrate Monsanto's interest in revealing all sides of the discussion about this particular issue? erikka askeland
U.K.
erikka_23@hotmail.com

I believe the testing of GMOs in the wild is both misguided and dangerous. Once the genie is out of the bottle it cannot be put back. Monsanto has spoken about extensive testing - so where are the results of these tests?

It would appear that the British public has given a firm thumbs down to the inclusion of GMOs in our diet, we have forced the supermarkets to mark products containing GMOs - something that everone claimed could not be done. I and my family do not want and will not buy GM products. If Monsanto and others want to carry out irresponsible testing in the wild, let them do it in places where they claim these plants will be useful, in the desert or other inhospitable climates. The promise to feed the third-world is rubbish. We have more than enough food. Now we only lack the will to distribute it without excessive profits. Selling GMOs to governments of existing mono-culture countries will cause these countries even more problems as the terminator genes kick the population into complete dependency on the GM producers. Keep these products in the lab until all the questions about cross-pollination and consequent reduction of bio diversity have been settled. I and my family say "no" to GMOs in our food and in the British countryside. Mike Caeonen
West Wales
mcaeronen@clara.net

I disagree with the destruction of trial crops as I believe they are necessary to prove whether GM crops are un/safe. My real concern is that people will begin to consume foods that have been geneticallly altered without trial!

I personally would like to choose whether to be a guinea pig in trialling these products. As a gentleman, at a conference at parliament house, Macquarie Street, eloquently put it "GM foods have not been proven unsafe". He seemed satisfied that this was enough to begin farming and selling this product without labelling. I disagree!

Tampering with genetic material is a huge leap from cross-breeding, it may in the future be beneficial, and it may be the cause of a great many new diseases caused by humans' inability to cope with the changes. I could list many more reasons why Monsanto should put a hold on releasing GM foods to the public. For the same reasons, trial crops are the only way to protect us from an inevitable disaster! A.Greenshields
Sydney
aimegreenshields@hotmail.com

We need not to put restraints on the scientific development of genetically modified crops which certainly have better yield potential, very much needed to cater the needs of a growing population. We have been modifying plants since so many years and it is nothing against the nature, it is rather exploring the immense potential available for us in nature.

But we have to carefully examine and understand the impacts on human beings and natural wealth of this universe. The drive to push GM crops should not be profit-oriented and some control measures to protect the interest of the farmers must be in place before going out for their adoption. The critic and enthusiasm must be balanced to any unforeseen disadvantages. Dr. B. Y. Khalid
Karachi, Pakistan
bykhalid@engro.com

The overriding instinct from myself, my friends, and my family is to distrust whatever Monsanto and other biotechnology firms do in the name of "progress". In the case of Monsanto the reason why is clear. However well-meaning it is, and however good genetically modified crops may be for feeding large amounts of people more efficiently, it is nevertheless another case of big, egomaniacal business believing it knows best, regardless of the contrary evidence surrounding the issue.

Cross-pollination of crops is a very real problem - only a corporate lackey or complete idiot would deny this. Genetically modified goods also fly in the face of natural progression - crops develop over time to fit into the natural order of things - and no mention is given to this on this Web site or any Monsanto TV outing. "Oh great" people must have thought all over the world when Monsanto started down this road: another arrogant US company telling us what to do. The fact that it also killed millions of people and rendered vast tracts of land toxic in Vietnam with its Napalm chemicals makes it even worse. Did you know that the long grass which grows where virgin rainforest once stood is called American Grass? Anyway this is not a bitter letter - Monsanto in the long run will probably prove irrelevant anyway. But the company should understand why it is not wanted. Not only it is American (bad), it also wants to take over the world (extremely bad). Get a grip. No one wants you. Elliot Wilson
London
elliot_wilson@hotmail.com

Greenpeace and the like are trying to fill our heads with rubbish. I appreciate that they are worried about GM crops and so should we all be, but what we need is the truth. We are not getting it from the GM companies or the likes of Greenpeace or F.O.E.

Crops do not simply cross-pollinate with all other plants in the area. Conditions have to be just right. Maize for instance will not cross-pollinate with any other crop except maize. Protesters are trying to paint an image of GM maize affecting all crops in the area. This is just not so. Before a farmer plants his GM crops he has to assess the likelihood of cross-pollination with other crops in that area. This is just part of the conditions as laid down in the regulations. He must then advertise in the local press that he is intending to plant the GM crops. GM crops must be allowed a trial period to assess the good and the bad effects. They can only be assessed properly in large open fields. Already it has been discovered that GM plants are not killing off needed insects or birds, only the pests that the plants are protected against. Insecticide kills all insects and does more harm to the environment. Come on, GM companies and those against, let us have the real truth about these crops. If there is some danger then let us know now. If there is actually no danger then tell us now. All we want is the truth. Peter Fowles
UK
prfowles@aol.com

Do you think that in Brazil enough tests were done to say that genetically modified crops cannot do us any harm? Greenpeace say that there were not enough tests done. Is it true?

Luiza Campello
Brazil
lzdc@zaz.com.br

As an American, I am angered by the fact that GM foods are not monitored by the Food and Drug Administration in a manner that would allow the effects of altered food on humans to be studied. Without proper tracking of reactions to modified food, or labeling, consumers are unable to make informed choices and instead act as human guinea-pigs, risking adverse reactions to GM foods.

Also, the issue of cross-pollination is a very serious problem for organic farmers whose crops are near those growing GM food. Those organic farmers whose crops have been contaminated can not sell their crops as organic, putting them out of business. The effects on wildlife has not been studied to a degree that would warrant the majority of farmers growing GM food. A 44% death rate of Monarch butterfly larvae within four days of feeding on leaves coated with pollen from altered corn (Cornell University study) is not acceptable. Please give us a choice concerning what we eat. Sincerely, Karen Song
Albany, NY
karensuk@albany.net

I agree with the non-violent action against GM farm-scale trials. I hope that people orientation will be towards more local, more diverse and less processed foods. I think people won't eat genetically engineered foods.

Luigi
Edinburgh
technopapa@hotbot.com

The answer to the question is: Yes.
But the question is somewhat loaded....
Theoretically there are many ways that GM foods can damage the environment, there are already reports of wild turnip being cross-pollinated by GM crops and expressing herbicide resistance. If tests show there is environmental damage then it may be too late to stop this damage. Protesters are damaging crops because they believe the experiment is unsafe, as if damage occurs there may well be no way to "turn back the clock".

One only needs to look at Australia for examples of environmental damage caused by ill-conceived introductions such as Prickly Pear and the rabbit. Although GM foods are species that are already present in the environment (unlike the above example), the danger is in their breeding with other plants and the modified herbicide resistant gene getting expressed in a "weed" or even worse a terminator gene getting expressed in related species. David Challender
Derbyshire
dave@challender.demon.co.uk

I am appalled at the behavior of these misinformed activists. I have been trained in agriculture since I have been in high school and graduated with a master's degree in food science/horticulture from Michigan State. I have written articles supporting genetic engineering and the Bangor Daily News at first refused to print my letter. I argued with the editor and he finally printed my view point.

Norman E. Harris
Sangerville, ME 04479
harris@kynd.net

The simple answer to your question has to be 'No'. Relatively few GM trial sites have been destroyed, but the public have not been able to find out the results of the tests that have been completed, or even what tests are being done, how they are being done or how they are being measured.

Science is a very simple subject, there is no emotion or interpretation required with the results that true science gives us. Unfortunately, GM crop trial sites are not part of a scientific experiment, so they do not bring any pertinent data to the debate. The full impact on human health of GM crops cannot be tested by planting a field with GM oilseed rape or maize, it is just not a relevant experiment. Alastair Beveridge
Aberdeen
alastairbeveridg@hotmail.com

Yes, of course destroying trial sites denies the public the opportunity to find out if GM crops are safe. The anti-GM activists are deliberately trying to prevent the public from knowing the truth about the now demonstrable environmental benefits of GM crops.

Two major reports from America, on the environmental impact of GM crops, one from the Environmental Research Services of the USDA and one commissioned by the Bioindustry organisation, have both shown that GM crops, particularly cotton, are associated with significantly higher yields and lower agrochemical use. Herbicide tolerant soya was associated with significantly lower herbicide use, contrary to the worst predictions of NGO protest groups. In addition, herbicide tolerant crops are designed to be used with the environmentally benign herbicides. Contrast this with the use of sulphur and copper (both toxic to wildlife) by organic growers. Monsanto's roundup is one of the most environmemntally safe herbicides that could be used for weed control (read the information on packets in your local garden centre). The two reports referred to are available in full text on the web. Do not trust what our media say about them, or the comments from representatives of FoE and Greenpeace. Read the reports, or at least their summary, yourself. Greenpeace et al. supported by a biased, scientifically illiterate UK media refuse to acknowledge the main conclusions of these reports, i.e. higher yields, lower pesticide and herbicide use which are associated with growing GM crops. Indeed they are still attempting to claim that the reports support their views. This is not debate based on logic, reason and an honest, objective appraisal of the facts. It is fundamentalist ideology akin to the worst psuedo-religious fanaticism. Geraldine Rodgers
Cambridge
geraldine.rodgers@dial.pipex.com

I just think that destroying the trials of the crops is pointless. You must see how something will grow and it must be tested properly, to try to identify any future problems, if any. We do not know the effects of many things as they have never been tested properly. Let us take for example ecstacy, whose effects are only coming to the foreground now.

Dave A.
West Mids
davea100@hotmail.com