THE EDITOR, Madam:
I REFER to Dr. Bryon Sleugh's communication which was given great prominence letter of the day status, actually in the issue of The Gleaner of June 8. From his address, it is probably fair to conclude that he is a staff member of the Department of Agriculture of Western Kentucky University, USA.
Dr. Sleugh confessed to being amused (sic) and concerned at our local requests for genetically modified food items to be labelled as such in supermarkets so that consumers can avoid them if they so desire. There is nothing novel about this; it is in fact being done in many countries already, especially in Europe.
I am told it is also being done in California, although Dr. Sleugh has assured us there is no legal requirement for it in the United States.
But what is the point of such labelling really, as there is no such thing as non-genetically modified food anywhere, so what is all the fuss about according to Dr. Sleugh! He would have us believe that the vastly improved food crop varieties that exist today thanks to plant breeders worldwide over several decades, are nothing more than genetically modified entities. This is as neat a bit of fiction as I have encountered in quite a while.
There is an enormous difference between traditional plant breeding and genetic engineering they are the proverbial poles apart. One is an entirely natural process and the other decidedly not so.
Plant breeding is a long-standing discipline in which plants possessing certain desirable attributes are cross-pollinated, progeny raised and selections made, and the whole process repeated in different ways and combinations until varieties are obtained combining the qualities aimed for at the outset, namely, disease resistance, higher yields, shorter stature, whatever.
The methodology used is nature's methodology. All the plant breeder does is control and direct the process towards a predetermined objective. To describe the end product as genetically modified in the accepted meaning of this term is gross misinformation that can only serve to confuse the public.
Genetic engineering has no counterpart in nature. It is my understanding that a gene or genes can be taken from a bacterium, for example, and incorporated into the genetic systems of plants and animals including humans and vice versa presumably. This is a totally new technology and, frankly, I find it mind-boggling.
Foods from genetically engineered plants might look quite normal but they clearly are not so.
They could contain 'alien' genes and no one knows the long-term consequences of this in terms of human and environmental health.
To quote Dr. Sleugh: "The United States Department of Agriculture, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration have all said that there is no evidence to prove (my emphasis) that these (GM) foods are not safe."
Perhaps Dr. Sleugh would like to remind us as to what these watchdog agencies said when DDT and the other chlorinated hydrocarbons were introduced. Were they not going to revolutionise agricultural production through the elimination of pests and are they not banned substances today?
The organophosphates were introduced to replace them. What did the watchdog agencies say about Malathion, for example, when it was introduced? The pesticide dictionary data indicated a produce with a high level of safety, so much so in fact that you could spray and harvest some crops on the same day! After spraying, it broke down very rapidly under tropical conditions and so was, and still is, very well liked in Jamaica. Today, however, we are getting a different perspective on the product.
Malathion was never formulated as a pesticide, it was a nerve gas produced during World War 2!
The breakdown products referred to above are more dangerous than Malathion itself.
A whole variety of neurological problems have been connected to it, including permanent nerve damage! Also, repeated cases of leukaemia and respiratory and cardiac problems as well.
The New York City authorities are being sued as a consequence of health problems generated from the aerial spraying of Malathion across the city in the Fall of 1999.
It is now a banned substance in Japan.
Watchdog agencies can only do the best they can with the information available to them at any given time. With products of a totally new technology they are in the dark like the rest of us. So we have to protect ourselves and we can do this if GM products are clearly labelled in the supermarket.
In closing, I would like to refer to another letter on GM foods submitted by Dr. Audia Barnett.
Dr. Barnett assures us that rigorous testing and risk assessment procedures are required" for GM foods and that "they have been and are being conducted." But are these procedures working or are they full of holes?
GM corn is being grown in the United States despite the fact that its pollen has been demonstrated to kill the Monarch Butterfly.
Dr. Barnett mentions the negative impact these corn varieties are having on the population of the Monarch but does not seem alarmed. The Monarch represents no threat to the corn crop!
If the GM pollen can kill the Monarch it is reasonable to assume that it will kill other butterflies as well and it could be quite lethal to a host of much smaller insects most of them harmless if not actually beneficial to man and the environment.
Pollen is wind-blown far beyond the actual crop area. This whole scenario could be far worse than pesticide spraying in environmental terms. Are we trying to wipe out our warblers and other insect eating birds, many already endangered?
I am, etc.,
D. STUART LACY
PO Box 905
Kingston 8
