1.'Conspiracy of complacency' over modified crops
2.Hugh Grant's fallacious logic
3.Charles's principled stand on GM crops
---
---
1.'Conspiracy of complacency' over modified crops
Yorkshire Post, 27 August 2008
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/letters-to-the-editor/Cancer-drug-policy-undervalues-human.4389691.jp

From: Dr Brian John, Cilgwyn, Newport, Pembrokeshire.

BERNARD Dineen said this in his column (Yorkshire Post, August 4): "The first major GM crop with direct consumer benefits, low-saturated fat soya beans has been on sale in the US for nearly 10 years... GM foods and crops have been grown and eaten for many
years without even a hint of health problems."

Bernard is welcome to his views on GM, but he should check his facts before simply trotting out whatever he is fed by the GM industry and
its apologists.

First, GM soya was never introduced as a low-saturated fat product or as a crop with consumer benefits it was developed in order to enhance sales of Roundup herbicide.

To quote from Monsanto: "Genetically-modified (GM) soya is indistinguishable from conventional beans in composition, nutrition and processing characteristics."

That's not true, but for the moment we'll let that pass. And second, there are abundant identified health problems and risks linked to GM in
the literature, most (but not all) coming to light as a result of animal feeding studies.

Toxic effects are seen in many GM foods and crops; they have an identifiable effect upon the immune system, and the organic changes that result have all the signs of pre-cancerous conditions.

For obvious reasons, governments have refused to undertake epidemiological studies into these effects. The documented evidence of harm is well known to the Government and the GM industry, but has been systematically swept under the carpet.

Bernard does all of us a disservice by becoming a part of this "conspiracy of complacency".
---
---
2.Hugh Grant's fallacious logic

Our listeners sound off
Marketplace, August 26 2008
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/08/26/letters

Kai Ryssdal reviews listener comments to our coverage of ... the Monsanto CEO's views on genetically modified crops.

Last Wednesday we aired an interview I did with Hugh Grant. He's the chairman and CEO of Monsanto. We talked a lot about the company's main moneymaker -- genetically modified seeds.

Hugh Grant: "Twelve years, a billion-plus acres of these crops being planted around the world, and absolutely no problems."

Chris Knight from Santa Clara, Calif., had a response to industries that claim that kind of record.

Chris Knight: "Twelve years and absolutely no problems? I wonder if they said the same about lead, asbestos or cigarettes. Unfortunately, the logic is fallacious. The lack of a problem doesn't indicate the product is safe."
---
---
3.Charles's principled stand on GM crops
Yorkshire Post, 27 August 2008
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/letters-to-the-editor/Prince-Charless-principled-stand-on.4425856.jp

IT is easy for people to snipe at Prince Charles. Indeed, among Left-wing commentators, it has become something of a national pastime (Yorkshire Post, August 13). One BBC commentator recently described Prince Charles' critique of genetically modified (GM) food as "verging on the extreme". BBC reporters ought to be impartial and not indulge in comments that "verge" on impudence and presumption.

I admire Prince Charles for his courage and convictions. He is passionate about conservation and has a deep knowledge and understanding of the natural world.

Prince Charles practices what he preaches: on his own estates, and through his active support for small, organic and free-range farms throughout the country. And all the profits from his Duchy Originals products go into the Prince's charitable trust, which does so much to help disadvantaged young people. His advocacy for natural food brings him into conflict with powerful pressure groups particularly in the agro-chemicals industry.

He is a braveheart to take on the political business and scientific establishments; all of which are keen to promote GM crops.

The GM food lobby suggests that it is motivated by an altruistic desire to alleviate suffering and starvation in the Third World. This is fallacious. The Third World is bedevilled by internecine conflicts: civil wars and tribalism. These are continents in which despotism and tyranny, greed and corruption are rife.

Zimbabwe provides a classic case history. Before Robert Mugabe came to power, Zimbabwe (or Rhodesia, as it was then known) had a thriving agricultural industry. It was called the "bread basket of Africa." But Mugabe's despotism drove out the white farmers and impoverished the nation. Only when such countries are truly democratic and free, will agriculture prosper.

But the most powerful argument against GM food is that it is a Pandora's box: who knows what horrors it might unleash on the natural world?

The natural world has evolved over millions of years. It is not for scientists, however clever they assume themselves to be, to interfere with the genesis of nature. Everything in nature is interwoven, interrelated and interconnected; if you stick your fingers in that intricate web and break up the pattern, it may be destroyed for ever and with potentially disastrous consequences.

Prince Charles is wise to warn us that we meddle with the very essence of nature at our peril.