Letters to the Editor
factician
Published Letters: 32 Editor's Choice: 13
-
finally, we agree :)
[Read the article: Who is guarding the pharma-crop henhouse?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]GM crops modified to contain pharmaceuticals should be closely watched and regulated. Though very few of them will pose a real risk to people, this is something to be concerned about.
The best point made in the Caruso article was that the best organisms to produce pharmaceuticals in would be non-food crops. How about poplars? Who would worry if we had cross-contamination of poplar species? Producing pharmaceuticals in plant species will make drugs cheaper and safer to use. But we need to ensure that we keep our food supply totally safe at the same time.
-
Enviro-Luddites, indeed
[Read the article: Hypocrite environmentalists?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In my experience, any time you talk about GM-crops, people have a rather visceral reaction to them. Whether religious or environmental, most folks are rather Luddites about genetically modified foods. Right up until you talk about engineering traits into plants that *consumers* will want, rather than traits that have been useful to producers. The first generation of GM-crops were produced almost solely to the benefit of producers (think BT-corn and BT-cotton - both have tremendously improved yields for farmers). The next generation of traits to be engineered will be for consumers. Think caffeine-free coffee (that hasn't been treated so roughly that it tastes like crap). Think allergen-free peanuts, so your kid can bring peanut butter to school again. Think altering the fat content in vegetable oils so that you can get your Omega-3s from corn oil instead of from dwindling fish stocks. Think fat-free bacon (just kidding, who would want that anyway?). I think when these things get closer to market, we'll start having major changes in perception about GM foods.
You'll never get a group of scientists to say that GM-foods as a class will be safe in perpetuity. Reason being is it's a nonsensical statement. It would be rather like demanding that chemists say that every chemical ever made in the future will be safe. Offhand, I can think of half a dozen ways to engineer plants to not only make them not safe, but to make them lethal. But we can say that GM-crops currently in use are as safe as non-GM crops currently in use.
As to the spread of these traits into wild populations, this is not a real issue. For a trait to be spread to the wild, it has to confer an advantage - in the wild. Most agricultural plants have been so inbred for our very specific uses, then throw in a genetic modification or twelve, and these are plants that require our constant care to keep them happy. You won't have wild wheat rampaging through the plains of the Serengetti. Domesicated plants are generally pretty messed up, which is why we need farmers. GM-domesticated plants are even more so.
-
on patenting and GM crops
[Read the article: Hypocrite environmentalists?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are environmentalists hypocritical when we point out these conflicts of interest?
I would treat that as a separate question. "Should we allow people to patent genes?" is a separate question from "Should we allow genetic manipulation in food crops?". The answer to the first question is much more difficult. The answer to the second is "yes, but carefully".
In terms of patenting, my position has always been, if you built it, you should patent it. It costs a *lot* of money to produce a GM-plant, and that money has to come from somewhere. Patents protect those folks (for 17 years - and I would tend to argue this should be shorter, but again, that's another debate) and allow them to get their money back. That said, as readers of HTWW are discovering, in India, enforcing patent protection on seeds is a lot more difficult than even patent protection on software. However, if you discover a gene, you should not be able to patent it (currently, you are allowed to). To me, patenting a gene you have discovered is rather a little like patenting the liver. Just because you saw it first, doesn't mean you get to own it.
Are we Luddites when we want serious and honest scientific inquiry into the real effects of GM products on lives?
Yes. The "serious and honest" inquiry that you are asking for has been done. Just because you have only become aware of GM-crops doesn't mean that they've only been around for 2 years. Most of the GM-crops that are currently being grown commercially were developed 10-15 years ago. They've been undergoing testing ever since. People who are demanding "more safety tests" would do better to ask which safety test they would like done that hasn't been done. The current generation of GM plants are safe* (and it is extremely difficult to imagine how they wouldn't be). Prior to GM crops, you have eaten every component in the GM-crops. Molecular biologists are just putting them together in the same package.
*I hate to use the word safe as an absolute. As I've posted elsewhere here, safe is a relative term, as everything is dangerous in the wrong dose. Even water. Even oxygen.
-
"Evolution Is So Creative That's How Come We Got Giraffes and the Clap"
[Read the article: Playing chess with Kurt Vonnegut]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I loved many of his books, Galapagos best of all.
Farewell, Mr. Vonnegut.
-
I think it's also important...
[Read the article: Men who hate women on the Web]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...that we as blog readers and letter writers show that we will not support such bullshit misogyny. Whether we agree with peoples' ideas are one thing, but if we see threats directed at writers or other posters, we should give that person the *verbal* beatdown that they deserve, and show them up for the cowards that they are. It seems like some of the people around Kathy Sierra have stood up for her, but it should be that even the people who have disagreed with her online should be standing up against the garbage that she's had to endure.
Threats of violence are *never* acceptable. They are *not* free speech.