New York Times | November 8, 1999
Aisha Ikramuddin of New York, a senior research associate at Mothers & Others for a Livable Planet, writes that a Nov. 3 front-page article highlights the inadequate regulation of genetically engineered crops and the environmental harm that may result.
In fact, some studies indicate that this damage could occur quite rapidly. In 1996, Danish researchers found that genetically engineered canola passes herbicide tolerance to its relatives in as little as two generations. Moreover, as you note, offspring of genetically engineered varieties and their wild cousins could become invasive pests. These heartier "superweeds" could also crowd out rare and vulnerable relatives, further eroding biodiversity. Unlike other products, transgenic plants, once unleashed into the wild, cannot be recalled. The Department of Agriculture should require stringent testing of genetically engineered crops.
Michael Zadorozny of Stamford, Conn., writes that whatever benefits genetically engineered foods may bring, there is one major flaw in their very nature: the surface hides the substance. If I eat a peach today, I know with great certainty the substance of what I am eating. But in a world of genetically altered foods uncertainty will reign. The peach I eat may inoculate me, produce plastics or polyester, generate its own pesticides, or contain animal or human cells.
Margaret Weber of Adrian, Mich., writes that it should be noted that as risks are assessed, the cost of the risks is usually experienced and paid for by the general population, not by the producers of the product. This is another reason some shareholders are expressing concern about genetically altered crops to the companies in which they hold stock.
