Responses to: Biotechnology Food: From the Lab to a Debacle

Biotech Food: To Be Wary or Not?
Responses to Biotechnology Food: From the Lab to a Debacle
Paul Berg, Charles Margulis, S. Thomas Bond, Margaret Weber, Marsha Cohen
New York Times
January 26 and January 28, 2001

To the Editor:

Re "Biotechnology Food: From the Lab to a Debacle" (front page, Jan. 25):

I disagree with the view expressed in your article that "food biotech is dead." The ability to make specific changes and additions to crop genomes presents an enormous opportunity for improving the quality and nutritional value of the food we eat. For instance, "golden rice," which expresses the precursor of vitamin A, promises to reduce blindness in developing countries.

Moreover, because plants are capable of performing diverse chemical reactions, we anticipate that this technology will improve the production and availability of pharmaceuticals and will prevent environmental damage through cleaner, safer chemistry.

Genetic engineering has many advantages over traditional breeding: it is faster, more precise and can introduce genes tailored to confer beneficial properties.

PAUL BERG

Stanford, Calif., Jan. 26, 2001

The writer, a Nobel laureate in chemistry, is professor emeritus at Stanford University.

To the Editor:
Genetically engineered crops are just the first altered foods that the biotech industry has pushed through the compromised United States regulatory apparatus (front page, Jan. 25). The industry is awaiting approval to bring genetically engineered salmon to our dinner plates.
Marine scientists have warned that these fish could wreak ecological havoc when they escape into open seas, yet United States regulations are wholly inadequate to assess this risk. The Food and Drug Administration, the federal agency with the least expertise in environmental protection, has assumed oversight of these salmon, leaving more competent scientists out of the loop. Consumers and environmentalists are right to question the government's approach, which seems to put political considerations ahead of scientific precaution.
CHARLES MARGULIS
Baltimore, Jan. 26, 2001
The writer is a specialist at the Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Campaign.

To the Editor:
Re "Biotechnology Food: From the Lab to a Debacle" (front page, Jan. 25): The opposition to genetically modified food involves the same mentality — emotional and ill informed, antiscientific and anticorporate — as the opposition to nuclear power. Will we have to wait until people begin to starve in the United States before the benefits of technology will be recognized by the majority?
S. THOMAS BOND
Jane Lew, W.Va., Jan. 26, 2001

To the Editor:
You illustrate well why many citizens are deeply skeptical of the oversight of biotech foods and ingredients (front page, Jan. 25). But the controversy over genetically engineered food is not just a question of good or poor strategy on the part of industry. It is a question of substance: there are still no long-term studies of the environmental or health effects, and without labeling, health studies will be difficult, if not impossible.
MARGARET WEBER
Adrian, Mich., Jan. 26, 2001
The writer is coordinator of corporate responsibility, portfolio advisory board, Adrian Dominican Sisters.

To the Editor:
Your Jan. 25 front-page article about biotech food confirmed my experiences as a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee member who was part of the deliberations on Calgene's Flavr Savr tomato and Monsanto's bovine growth hormone.
As a consumer representative on both committees, I had to be convinced that the sponsors had done their scientific homework, and considered it my duty to express the concerns that the public would surely voice. The Calgene team brought a respectful, scientific attitude, explaining what it knew and how it knew it, and admitting what it didn't know. Monsanto greeted expressions of consumer concern about milk produced with its product with disdain.
The question is whether industry observers of Monsanto's fortunes in this context will learn the obvious lesson: the concerns and questions of the public, even when not informed by the highest level of scientific knowledge, deserve respect and response.
MARSHA N. COHEN
San Francisco, Jan. 28, 2001
The writer is a professor at Hastings College of the Law, University of California.
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **

Last Updated on 2/7/01
Email: information@biotech-info.net