Globe and Mail | October 9, 1999
Michael Khooof the Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Campaign writes in this letter that the editorial (It's Not Easy Being Antigreen(peace) - Oct. 1) is riddled with misconceptions about the nature of public debate and the risks of genetically engineered foods. You suggest that only elected officials have the right to debate issues of public concern. It is precisely this exclusionary attitude that makes the Canadian public distrustful of genetically engineered food.
Greenpeace welcomes a healthy debate over genetically engineered foods and expects a national newspaper to do the same.
Despite scientific opinion to the contrary, you blindly accept biotechnology's public-relations line that genetic engineering is no different from traditional breeding.
Traditional breeding combines different elements of a narrow gene pool whose characteristics are similar and predictable. A potato can cross with a different strain of potato but, in 10,000 years of evolution, it has never crossed with a chicken. Genetic engineering shatters these natural species boundaries, with completely unpredictable results. As a result of these risks, the British Medical Association has recently called for an open-ended moratorium on GE planting.
Your editorial also ignores the science that shows that genetically engineered crops pose a clear threat to the environment. A groundbreaking study at the University of Wisconsin showed that herbicide use in GE soybean crops was two to five times greater than traditional crops. Scientists have also concluded that inserting the Bt toxin into potatoes accelerates pest resistance. Resistant bugs will lead to stronger pesticides, yet another environmentally harmful impact. And if weedy relatives pick up the herbicide resistance of genetically engineered crops, farmers will be faced with the spectre of powerful superweeds choking their harvests.
By resisting the labeling of GE foods, The Globe is denying one of the most basic market principles: choice. If consumers want to know what is going into their food, what are biotech companies afraid of telling them?
And why are international food producers so incensed when consumers, out of preference, reject the tampered food they offer?
Finally, you suggest that Greenpeace is funded by "food partisans," as you have crassly chosen to label organic farmers. As is well known, all of Greenpeace's work is funded by our 120,000 individual members across the country. By not accepting donations from lobby groups, corporations or governments, we maintain our role as independent advocates for the environment. We should also point out that, unlike the biotechnology industry, organic farmers do not have the resources to launch major public-relations initiatives. Nor do organic farmers receive the $600-million subsidies enjoyed by those promoting genetically engineered foods.
