Let's Deal In Facts, Not Scare Stories

Let's Deal In Facts, Not Scare Stories

(Letter to the editor of the Western Morning News)

It's always a shame when facts spoil a good story, but the letters about GM crops in your issue of July 14 make me glad to be a scientist concerned with facts rather than someone hag-ridden by myths and misrepresentations.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, we used to be told, but even a little knowledge is better than having one's mind filled with scare stories. And I wish I could be as certain of anything as Greenpeace is about everything.

Dr Hamlyn says "the proponents of GM are the proponents of terminator seed"; he could have added "and medical benefits such as improved insulin". He must be unaware of the rice strain in use in Bangladesh with higher yields but poor seed, just like "terminator" crops; but there's no environmental fury - it was produced by hybridisation, not by genetic modification. Hybrids do not, of course, have to undergo the strict testing that GM crops must.

Other correspondents believe that GM crops are dangerous to our health, even our lives. With no scientific evidence whatsoever, they assume they've been proven harmful, and that the GM process is at fault.

This fantasy serves well those who want to ban GM technology but who ignore the wide range of second-generation crop benefits in prospect. And the fuss about the Monarch butterfly ignored the fact that an organic pesticide was involved, and simple relocation of the gene eliminated the problem.

The news that the reduced height (Rht) gene in wheat has been isolated (by conventional means), with better yields and less stalk height, means help for agriculture in windy regions. Such a gene can be transferred to rice by GM technology: what is so awful about this? Must it instead be done over perhaps a decade by hit-and-miss conventional hybridisation just because some vociferous people don't understand or don't like GM technology?

However, I agree with Mr Hunter (July 7) about Monsanto not developing rice with vitamin A genes that can help counter blindness in Third World countries. As he says, the company has shareholders; it therefore devotes its expensive research effort towards medium-term profit. Fortunately the vitamin experiments are being done by the Rockefeller Foundation, who have no need for profit: and they have other similar projects.

Would any of your correspondents like to tell an African peasant: "We prefer you to risk blindness because we don't like GM technology"?


Western Morning News (Plymouth) Wednesday, 11th August 1999 By Deryck Laming	Let's Deal In Facts, Not Scare Stories (Letter to the editor of the Western Morning News) It's always a shame when facts spoil a good story, but the letters about GM crops in your issue of July 14 make me glad to be a scientist concerned with facts rather than someone hag-ridden by myths and misrepresentations. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, we used to be told, but even a little knowledge is better than having one's mind filled with scare stories. And I wish I could be as certain of anything as Greenpeace is about everything. Dr Hamlyn says "the proponents of GM are the proponents of terminator seed"; he could have added "and medical benefits such as improved insulin". He must be unaware of the rice strain in use in Bangladesh with higher yields but poor seed, just like "terminator" crops; but there's no environmental fury - it was produced by hybridisation, not by genetic modification. Hybrids do not, of course, have to undergo the strict testing that GM crops must. Other correspondents believe that GM crops are dangerous to our health, even our lives. With no scientific evidence whatsoever, they assume they've been proven harmful, and that the GM process is at fault. This fantasy serves well those who want to ban GM technology but who ignore the wide range of second-generation crop benefits in prospect. And the fuss about the Monarch butterfly ignored the fact that an organic pesticide was involved, and simple relocation of the gene eliminated the problem. The news that the reduced height (Rht) gene in wheat has been isolated (by conventional means), with better yields and less stalk height, means help for agriculture in windy regions. Such a gene can be transferred to rice by GM technology: what is so awful about this? Must it instead be done over perhaps a decade by hit-and-miss conventional hybridisation just because some vociferous people don't understand or don't like GM technology? However, I agree with Mr Hunter (July 7) about Monsanto not developing rice with vitamin A genes that can help counter blindness in Third World countries. As he says, the company has shareholders; it therefore devotes its expensive research effort towards medium-term profit. Fortunately the vitamin experiments are being done by the Rockefeller Foundation, who have no need for profit: and they have other similar projects. Would any of your correspondents like to tell an African peasant: "We prefer you to risk blindness because we don't like GM technology"? Copyright 1999 Western Morning News (Plymouth) All Rights Reserved

	Monsanto in the UK \| Biotech Primer \| Knowledge Centre \| Discussion About Monsanto \| Links \| Comments & Questions \| Home \| News Copyright Monsanto Company

Western Morning News (Plymouth)

Let's Deal In Facts, Not Scare Stories

Western Morning
News (Plymouth)