GM Foods: Two Views

I enjoyed reading the article "Fears or Facts? A Viewpoint on GM Crops."1 I second Peter Raven's remarks on genetically modified (GM) plants. The Europeans have obviously been misled by their media; hence, their irrational fear of GM food sources. Is it the Galileo syndrome all over again? Are we not manipulating genes when breeders make artificial crosses using gametes from a male and female plant to improve their varieties? Are we not already consuming hybrid corn, hybrid rice, and high-yielding wheat varieties infused with the dwarfing gene? More than a hundred years ago, farmers used to improve their crops by selecting plants from among their matured standing crops. They harvested the remainder and used the seeds from the selected plants for the next season's sowing. This way the best plants perpetuated themselves, and the farmer was able to develop his own varieties. These varieties, sometimes called "landraces," were suited to local growing conditions and had traits to meet local market demands. However, crop yields had stagnated and famine was always around the corner in some of the world's most populated areas. Then, at the turn of the century, Gregor Mendel's laws on inheritance were rediscovered, and plant breeding came into its own. Farmers now looked toward plant breeders to deliver improved varieties created through extensive crossing programs. The time frame of concern for a subsistence farmer lengthened from the next year's crop to about 10 years with the arrival of the hybrids and the "green revolution." The momentum of the green revolution and the high yields it produced needs to be sustained. If breeders are called upon to create varieties that can feed the rapidly growing global population well into the next century, then it is obvious that the most modern tools be made available to them. Conventional breeding takes time as the progenies of crosses have to mature; seeds have to be obtained, then planted once more for segregation and selection. The next logical step in crop improvement, therefore, is genetic modifications geared toward [increasing] yields even further through minimizing or eliminating losses to pests and diseases. But now all that progress seems to be in jeopardy, due to misinformation about GM crop plants, which has almost resulted in their ban from European markets. Acts of vandalism at the University of California have destroyed more experiments with plants obtained through conventional breeding than those supposedly with the "GM" label. Greenpeace has been doing good work with some of the more laudable causes, like saving the rainforests, whales, or the coral reefs. But its blanket opposition to biotechnology is puzzling.Ardeshir B. Damania, Ph.D.Genetic Resources Conservation ProgramUniversity of CaliforniaDavis, CA 95616-8602abdamania@ucdavis.eduwww.grcp.ucdavis.edu/index.htm ... With all due respect, I find both the Perspective1 and the article2 on GM crops to be lacking in objectivity. It seems to me a bit disingenuous to besmirch J. Losey's research on monarch butterflies as a "one-page report" in the prestigious and highly respected journal Nature. And who really cares that Barry Palevitz is resigning from Greenpeace? Personally I am not on either "side," but I do become a bit concerned when the "industry" side knows all the answers without doing the long-term or lifetime exposure research. The article by Henry I. Miller3 is similarly biased in favor of GM, without giving due consideration to peoples' deeply felt concerns. Fortunately, the Commentary by George N. Davatelis4 is straightforward on what should be done in a "bipartisan" effort to get at the "real or perceived" health-associated problems of long-term ingestion of GM foods. James Huff, Ph.D.National Institute of Environmental Health SciencesResearch Triangle Park, NC 27709huff1@niehs.nih.gov dir.niehs.nih.gov/dirosd/huff.htm 1. B.A. Palevitz, R. Lewis, "Fears or facts? a viewpoint on GM crops," The Scientist, 13[20]:10, Oct. 11, 1999. 2. R. Lewis, B.A. Palevitz, "GM crops face heat of debate," The Scientist, 13[20]:1, Oct. 11, 1999. 3. H.I. Miller, "Biotech offers (baby) food for thought," The Scientist, 13[20]:13, Oct. 11, 1999. 4. G.N. Davatelis, "A DNA summit: let's do it right," The Scientist, 13[20]:12, Oct. 11, 1999.

GM Foods: Two Views

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of